[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Thank You, Donald Thank You, Donald JAN 18, 2016 | By WILLIAM KRISTOL Writing in mid-June, a couple of days after Donald Trump announced his candidacy, we offered the judgment that he should not be our next president: “We're not Trump enthusiasts. We're not even Trump fellow travelers. We're closer to Trump deriders." And so we unapologetically remain. It would be ungracious not to acknowledge Trump's remarkable standing in the polls six months later. But we see no reason to alter our conclusion that Donald Trump shouldn't be president of the United States. Indeed, Trump's behavior over this period has confirmed our judgment. If back in June we wrote that the rest of the presidential field could use "A Little Touch of Trump," it's fair to say that we've gotten more Trump than we bargained for. Yet we continue to trust Republican primary voters will not select Donald Trump as the GOP nominee for president. And we continue to believe, as we said at the outset, that more conventional politicians could learn something from Trump. We suggested then that "politics is about dreams as much as it is about deliverables, about pride as much as it's about pocketbooks. Trump understands that. It's not clear most of the rest of the field does." We pointed out then that "Trump understands that many Americans believe winning isn't everything, but it's a good thing. A very good thing. It's not clear most of the rest of the field does." We observed then that "Trump understands that Americans have deep doubts about the competence and probity of our political class. It's not clear most of the rest of the field does." And we wrote then that "Trump understands that it's okay to say something the media elite will shake their collective head at. It's not clear most of the rest of the field does." It does seem that the rest of the field, under the pressure of Trump, has moved up the learning curve in understanding these points, and more broadly in grasping the mood of the body politic. And so, six months later, while we will continue to believe Donald Trump should not be the nominee, we also offer a suggestion that will perhaps invite ridicule: The Republican party has not been hurt by Trump's candidacy. Indeed the GOP may well have benefited from it. How can we reach so shocking a conclusion? For one thing, there's simply no evidence the Trumpian interlude has hurt the GOP. The Republican party's overall favorable rating hasn't changed in these last six months. The percentage of Americans identifying as Republicans hasn't declined. Obama's approval rating hasn't gone up. The Pew Research Center regularly asks which party would do a better job on the economy. In July, Democrats held a three-point edge; in December, Pew found Republicans leading by five. In the same Pew polls, Republicans improved from -2 to +2 on handling immigration and from +12 to +14 on handling terrorism. So there's no evidence of damage to the Republican "brand" from Trump. Nor is there evidence of damage to Republican chances in 2016. Indeed, there is compelling evidence, in poll after poll, that the percentage of Americans intending to vote in November for Hillary Clinton has declined since Trump appeared on the scene. When Trump launched his candidacy in mid-June, Hillary Clinton had a comfortable lead over every GOP candidate in general election polls. Now she's basically tied with the leading non-Trump candidates. The fact that Hillary Clinton, with all of her advantages, does not hold a lead at the beginning of 2016 is a promising indicator for Republican prospects in November. Obviously correlation isn't causation. Clinton might have sunk if Trump had decided not to run. But we should also point out that Trump recently seems to have done real damage to Hillary Clinton's ability to play the woman card—surely her trump card—by calling out her complicity in covering up Bill Clinton's behavior towards . . . women. Thus Kirsten Powers, who served in Bill Clinton's administration, recently remarked on the force of "Donald Trump's recent broadside against Clinton, in which he chided her for her husband's 'terrible record of women abuse.' " Powers continued, "Whatever Trump's failings, he understands cultural shifts. We are a society that has a blessedly lower tolerance for sexual assault and harassment than in prior years. This is good news for America, but bad news for the Clintons. History has caught up with them at the worst possible moment." History might have caught up with the Clintons without Trump's help. But perhaps not. Perhaps History—or at least the admonitions of commentators—would in any case have led the GOP to focus in 2016 on appealing to middle America, and on speaking to and for the Silent Majority. But are we confident those admonitions would have had much effect without the urgent spur of the need to compete with Trump? As to whether Republicans should be unhappy about receiving inadvertent assistance from Trump, given how disagreeable he is and how distasteful some of his comments have been, perhaps they can take comfort from Winston Churchill's admonition that "the Muse of History must not be fastidious." Now all Republicans have to do is make sure the Muse of History does not mischievously produce a Trump victory. Home Magazine Writers Advertise About Us Contact Us Subscribe © Copyright 2016 The Weekly Standard LLC - A Weekly Conservative Magazine & Blog. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
We can take comfort from Winston Churchill's admonition that "the Muse of History must not be fastidious." Now all Republicans have to do is make sure the Muse of History DOES indeed mischievously produce a Trump victory.
Now all Republicans have to do is make sure the Muse of History does not mischievously produce a Kristol victory. He, and others like him, have been asleep at the switch for years.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|