Posted: 20 Jul 2016 01:01 PM PDT
THE INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATIVE
Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard, introduced as his thesis the dire observation that “Hillary Clinton may or may not be the all-around worst presidential nominee in the history of the Democratic party.” But after nearly 188 years of providing the electorate “some pretty unappealing characters”
— candidates like James Buchanan and Jimmy Carter, George McClellan and
George McGovern, whose policies might have or actually caused “great harm to the nation” —
it is not untrue to acknowledge how the GOP has been stained
by candidates like Warren G. Harding, Richard Nixon and now Donald
Trump, for whom no historically conscious Republican would wisely ignore
how many times “it was perhaps as well that the Republican nominee did not prevail in the general election.”
Matt Bai yesterday observed that Trump “doesn’t represent the majority of Republican voters,” nor has he “exposed the true nature of the Republican Party as liberals always portrayed it to be.” However, Trump “does represent the party’s most aggrieved and motivated supporters right now.”
And because of these indisputable facts, because he has stifled the
better judgment of the majority by applying the traditional
Alinsky-esque tactic of mobilizing those marginalized along the Alt
Right periphery straddling both parties, Bai is correct: “he’s actually taken the party over and made it reflect his own persona.”
My
conservative and Christian values are my rock; my principles that guide
me which are forever grounded by the best intentions. And because of
this, I may well vote now for Hillary Clinton. Not because she is the
lesser of two evils, but due to her being the most conservative
candidate of the two remaining. I do not need a messiah; I already have
Jesus in my life.
.
From my angle, Mrs. Clinton has already met the criteria for what traditionally is described by conservatives as “The Buckley Rule” – that is, Republicans should always support the most conservative candidate possible. A general rule I adopted last year which Margaret Thatcher wrote in her last autobiography is the understanding that I am ideologically married to my principles; I vote based on my convictions, never the consensus even in the face of death threats, physical coercion or intimidation. But Mrs. Thatcher was far more succinct in her explanation as I segue into explaining my opposition to a Trump presidency at any cost so long as the republic is conserved.
.
Hillary Clinton is indisputably the most conservative candidate remaining. Because Trump has openly refused to be my knight as a true conservative repudiating seven devastating years of the Obama presidency, Hillary Clinton will now become my pawn. She can be controlled easily by her donor class handlers on the merits of her possessing absolutely no ethical or moral principle. Show Hillary Clinton the money, and she will do anything: she can engage in just enough or nothing at all to maintain the status quo if nothing else. And while true how Trump also possesses neither ethical or moral standards, he is now a politician who for years funded the elitists in American politics. He cannot be controlled by either party, much less constrained by our own Constitution any more so than Barack Obama. And unlike Hillary Clinton, Trump will force through legal and physical coercion both parties to pass any bill he demands, if not entirely bypass Congress altogether.
.
David French today published in National Review the observations that conservatism “is invested in the long game — our own “long march” through American cultural institutions.” We would therefore be loathe to discard “years of influence for the sake of four months of intraparty peace.” And make no mistake that Trump will crash and burn while either campaigning or if we are so unfortunate in trusting our countrymen’s stupidity, in the Oval Office — and the American people will not soon look to his partisans and defenders to “rebuild from the wreckage.” This is why for the sake of the nation, “those other voices” who are conservative and untainted by alliance or association with the “newly minted Republican nominee” must place their egos and thirst for absolute power aside if for no other reason than to salvage what little opposition to the rise of left-wing socialism remains by not supporting its nationalist Alt Right cousin..
.
.
From my angle, Mrs. Clinton has already met the criteria for what traditionally is described by conservatives as “The Buckley Rule” – that is, Republicans should always support the most conservative candidate possible. A general rule I adopted last year which Margaret Thatcher wrote in her last autobiography is the understanding that I am ideologically married to my principles; I vote based on my convictions, never the consensus even in the face of death threats, physical coercion or intimidation. But Mrs. Thatcher was far more succinct in her explanation as I segue into explaining my opposition to a Trump presidency at any cost so long as the republic is conserved.
My principles are my bedrock, my impenetrable fortress in solitude; they are my foundation grounded in steel. But I will not stand by and allow them to erode by permitting them to deter my ability to protect them at any cost. While I am an arch-conservative, I am also a pragmatist in protecting mine and my family’s safety and interests. Donald Trump represents the greatest existential threat to the life of the conservative rubric.“For my part, I favour an approach to statecraft that embraces principles, as long as it is not stifled by them; and I prefer such principles to be accompanied by steel along with good intentions.”
— Excerpt from Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World. p. xxii
.
Hillary Clinton is indisputably the most conservative candidate remaining. Because Trump has openly refused to be my knight as a true conservative repudiating seven devastating years of the Obama presidency, Hillary Clinton will now become my pawn. She can be controlled easily by her donor class handlers on the merits of her possessing absolutely no ethical or moral principle. Show Hillary Clinton the money, and she will do anything: she can engage in just enough or nothing at all to maintain the status quo if nothing else. And while true how Trump also possesses neither ethical or moral standards, he is now a politician who for years funded the elitists in American politics. He cannot be controlled by either party, much less constrained by our own Constitution any more so than Barack Obama. And unlike Hillary Clinton, Trump will force through legal and physical coercion both parties to pass any bill he demands, if not entirely bypass Congress altogether.
.
David French today published in National Review the observations that conservatism “is invested in the long game — our own “long march” through American cultural institutions.” We would therefore be loathe to discard “years of influence for the sake of four months of intraparty peace.” And make no mistake that Trump will crash and burn while either campaigning or if we are so unfortunate in trusting our countrymen’s stupidity, in the Oval Office — and the American people will not soon look to his partisans and defenders to “rebuild from the wreckage.” This is why for the sake of the nation, “those other voices” who are conservative and untainted by alliance or association with the “newly minted Republican nominee” must place their egos and thirst for absolute power aside if for no other reason than to salvage what little opposition to the rise of left-wing socialism remains by not supporting its nationalist Alt Right cousin..
.
This
is why Hillary Clinton is now a marginal threat by all objective, moral
assessments. It is therefore Donald Trump who must lose as he is the
least conservative of the two candidates. This is why I may break with
my first decision to vote for neither candidate if in fact, Trump
surpasses Hillary in the polls late in the race. And, as French
assessed, it is true that Trump represents the dirth in integrity the
American people need in their leaders, not to mention a woman “of low morals”
in Mrs. Clinton. But to those too blind to avoid not approaching this
election as a choice between the lesser of two evils, I can find a more
pragmatic approach to achieving stability by dragging out the cancer
represented by Hillary Clinton as opposed to an instant death by way of
the massive Trump heart attack.
.
Now,
more than ever, the #NeverTrump movement must rise to the occasion one
last time during our nation’s darkest hour now that Trump is officially
the nominee. The Republican Party is now a direct reflection of Donald Trump.
If elected, he will become synonymous with Louis XIV — the most
consequential monarch in French history — by declaring himself “the state”, and we will be told to simply “eat cake”. Only
in Trump’s case, there will be no Cardinal Jules Mazarin to either
train him, temper or constrain his ambitions — and a matter of time
before the far left-wing extremists finally topple his American
Bastille.
No comments:
Post a Comment