Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenfield: Trump, Dictatorship and Competing With An Illiberal Left
The Sultan Knish blog ^ | Thursday, December 24, 2015 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 12/26/2015 10:59:30 AM PST by Louis Foxwell

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Trump, Dictatorship and Competing With An Illiberal Left

Posted by Daniel Greenfield

A number of editorials have appeared in center-right outlets accusing Trump supporters of wanting a dictator.

Well obviously.

Politics is a competition. Everyone wants to win the game based on the rules of the game. And the current rules of the game are not Constitutional. The left wanted a dictator. Obama gave them one. He implemented laws, started wars and took on powers which were not only beyond his authority, but which were opposed by the majority of Americans and elected legislators in Congress.

And he won. He got away with it. And that made his way of doing things the new game.

The media and some Republicans sputter that Trump's proposals couldn't be carried out. Well of course they could be. If Trump were to run things the way that Obama has.

There are two responses to this.

The left deems this unacceptable because it has a double standard. There's always some reason why its rulebreaking is okay, but why the rules must be applied to the right. Mocking the kids of presidential candidates is off limits... unless they're Republicans. Ruling by Executive Order is tyranny... unless a progressive does it. Starting wars based on lies is wrong unless... etc.

Now that kind of hypocrisy is only to be expected from politicians. The trouble is that the left encompasses the media, much of the legal system, academia and a raft of other key network institutions that make it impossible to have any kind of honest discourse about the rule of law.

That means the game is rigged. There are two sets of rules. So why play by them?

The conservative establishment has all sorts of replies, but none of them amount to much. Yes, the rule of law is important. But when the other side is breaking the law to destroy the law, the contention that it should be allowed to destroy the Constitution rather than violate the Constitution becomes idealistic absurdity. And it's not as if the conservative establishment is comfortable even doing what it can within the existing rules. It talks a good game and then explains why it can't do anything.

It's not hard to see why this state of affairs is intensely frustrating to activists and voters.

The support for Trump without regard to his qualifications, statements, integrity, credibility, knowledge, consistency, etc is the end result of this state of affairs. The claims that Trump is a Republican Obama are not completely wrong. Obama has shown that his way of doing things works. Not in the sense that he has fixed any problems. Instead he has made them worse. But he has delivered major policy wins for his base of supporters by flagrantly violating the law.

The Republican establishment understands the problem which is why their responses to Trump and his supporters are so much sputtering. Trump is running on his ability to get things done. This ability and his actual commitment to doing anything are dubious. But that doesn't matter when his opponents have no credibility at all when it comes to achieving any actual policy goals.

Worse still, in the Obama era, the idea that they will get anything done has little credibility.

Congressional Republicans laboriously explain their limitations. And then they pass a spending bill that offers all sorts of goodies to special interest groups while having no ideological victories to show their base. They're not completely incompetent. Instead they appear quite capable of self-seeking. It's just when it comes to delivering something for conservatives, they have come up completely empty after six years.

Is Trump's rise really supposed to be a surprise? Sure he has little credibility. But conservatives have been sold three bags of goods, they have spent a whole lot of money, and seen it go into the pockets of political consultants and their allied direct marketing firms. They're not in the mood for an idealistic speech from Marco Rubio about achievement. The base is bitter and burned out.

This isn't just the situation in the United States. It's also going on in the UK, in France and Israel, to name a few examples. It's the larger problem of competing with an illiberal left.

How do you uphold a liberal open system while fighting an illiberal left for control of it?

There are no easy answers. And most of the easy ones come down to messaging. But simply making a better argument isn't enough when the left flagrantly abuses power.

It's not simply a question of getting a Republican in the White House. Reagan and Bush II were both in the White House. How much did they really get done? Bush II had a Republican congress. But the left simply shifts power and legitimacy to whatever institutions it controls, elected or unelected, and then governs from there.

If the Republicans control the White House, the left proclaims that Congress is the true voice of the people and must be heeded while the guy in the White House is the next Hitler. If Democrats control the White House and Republicans control Congress, then we must all support "our president" and Congress is a bunch of obstructionist bigots fighting to bring back the Middle Ages.

If Democrats lose both, then the Supreme Court suddenly becomes the most legitimate institution. If they lose all three, then it's the heroic regulators, watchdogs and activist non-profits who matter.

The Senate was the House of the Lords, when it lacked a Democratic majority, but when Democrats held the Senate, but lost the House, suddenly the Senate was the voice of reason.

All of this amounts to the illiberal idea that an institution controlled by the left should be able to wield absolute power while institutions controlled by conservatives should not be allowed to wield any power at all. This illiberal contention is echoed by the entire opinion-shaping network of the left in the media and academia. And it is a shape-shifting tyranny in which the left is always in power.

Can you defeat that by winning elections and better messaging? Maybe. But so far Republicans haven't done it. They rarely even name the problem directly. And so it's unsurprising that they have lost the confidence of much of their own base. Or that confronting illiberalism with illiberalism is increasingly appealing to conservatives tired of empty promises and no results.

The GOP has failed to confront this basic problem and so it has no ability to fight off Trump.

Feeble efforts such as "Jeb can fix it" or claiming that Rubio killed ObamaCare don't impress anyone. Outsider candidates are thriving because they have more credibility when it comes to confronting that Gordian Knot even if, like Trump, they have no real idea that it exists or understand the left's threat.

The fundamental question of this race is, "How do you plan to defeat an illiberal leftist opposition?"

Few candidates in this race can answer it. Trump probably couldn't, but he doesn't need to. He answers it implicitly with his attitude. He's running on absolute confidence. No one else is.

This leaves the GOP with a major problem. It has lost to the left. Now it's losing to its own base.

Cameron faced that problem in the UK from UKIP. He managed to consolidate his position. In Israel, Netanyahu and Bennett, facing a similar revolt from a base that has heard some great speeches, but seen too many surrenders to the left, have backed the left's purge of the right, beginning with Yinon Magal and moving on the Duma hoax to smear the right as extremists and terrorists.

It's the same cynical gambit, albeit bloodier, that the GOP is running against Trump, Cruz and their supporters.

If you can't beat the left, you can always ally with the left to beat your own base. This preserves the status quo. A status quo in which an illiberal left is always in power and a right that plays by the rules always lets them win, in or out of office. Conservatives win elections, but lose policies. 

The conservative establishment reinvents itself as the centrists standing between right-wing extremists and the left. In their deluded minds it's win-win, when it's really lose-lose.

Eventually the contention that anyone to the right of a mild-mannered establishment that talks tough during elections and surrenders between them is a fascist, an extremist, a Nazi or even worse leads to  the real thing. The actual extremists, the ones who want to smash everything and impose some sort of glorious totalitarian state, start getting a hearing and picking up members. Their goal is to splinter the right. That's also the goal of the establishment which would like nothing better than to be the only conservative alternative to actual crazies and so they feed off each other. And the left wins again.

The Tea Party revolt was launched to fight an illiberal left by restoring the Constitution. The trouble lay in the details. It still does.

Restoring the Constitution is going to mean prying an illiberal left from power across a wide network of institutions. There are plenty of activists, but few politicians, with the stomach for that fight.

And that fight will be tremendously ugly. Trump, by sheer force of personality, appears to offer a convenient shortcut. He'll Make America Great Again and hopeful activists read all sorts of implications into that slogan. The biggest one is that he'll fix everything so that they won't have to.

It's not dictatorship. It's anti-dictatorship. It's Cincinnatus temporarily becoming a dictator to stop a populist plot by a radical to seize absolute power by handing out free stuff to the masses, killing him, semi-legally at best, in a ruthless fashion. How America was Cincinnatus? Aside from Cincinnati, the Society of the Cincinnati was presided over by George Washington, who was often compared to the old Roman, along with two dozen signers of the Declaration of Independence, and quite a few officers. (The Society's message to Aaron Burr and fellow radicals was quite explicit.)

Trump isn't Washington. And Burr and his fellow radicals were eventually put down by Jefferson and cooler heads. The Republic survived Burr's various treasons and conspiracies. We did not go the way of the French Revolution. But the question of how to defeat an illiberal left remains.

If the Republican establishment really wants to defeat Trump, it needs to find a credible answer to this question. Instead of thinking about how to defeat Trump, it really needs to answer how it will defeat Obama and the forces that gave rise to him. If it can't figure out how to defeat illiberalism, it will be defeated by it.


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: 2016election; dictator; dubiouscommitments; election2016; elections; greenfield; ideologicallysuspect; illiberal; immigration; littlecredibility; newyork; republicanobama; sultanknish; tds; trump; trumpiswrong; trumpwasright; wronginsomanyways
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: Louis Foxwell
This is how you neutralize the leftist Supreme Court, by adopting the tactics of the marxists:

Outgoing Venezuelan legislature names 34 new judges

Caracas (AFP) - Venezuela's ruling socialist party used the final days of its legislative majority to name 34 new judges Wednesday to the country's highest court, drawing outrage from the opposition.

In an 11th-hour ceremony boycotted by the opposition, National Assembly speaker Diosdado Cabello swore in 13 judges and 21 substitute judges to the Supreme Court of Justice, after the ruling party voted them through in an extraordinary session.

Once the court is packed with the hard right wing, everything the CPUSA has achieved since 1918 can be undone.

We can disenfranchise the parasites on welfare, end homosexual marriage and gays in the military, deport all illegal aliens and reverse the demographic warfare that has resulted in a path to white minority status, prosecute and incarcerate the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the current Administration for high crimes and misdemeanors, bitch slap the leftist press, and set things up so that it's impossible for the left wing to ever win another national election ever again.

This is all possible and Constitutional.

21 posted on 12/26/2015 12:32:44 PM PST by Rome2000 (SMASH THE CPUSA-SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS-CLOSE ALL MOSQUES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
Don't forget his wife was on the CFR...

Don't you mean tbe NSC (National Security Council)?

22 posted on 12/26/2015 12:37:51 PM PST by Albion Wilde ("Look, the establishment doesn't want me, because I don't need the establishment." --Donald Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Better yet, they should nut up and explain how they will deal with those of us who continue to resist and demand constitutional government.

After all, the numbers will inevitably grow and they can’t allow that.


23 posted on 12/26/2015 12:42:31 PM PST by cripplecreek (Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Not nothing. Nothing from enough Cruz supporters may mean we get Hillary. I did this when Romney was offered. I deeply regret it now.

We must vote united against Hillary or there will be no country left.

I will vote for whomever can defeat Hillary this time. It is the only choice to save this country. Hillary has stated she will shut down the NRA and after that there is no doubt she plans to round up our guns a la Australia style.

Please reconsider. We must not get Hillary and bookies all over the world are predicting her win now.


24 posted on 12/26/2015 12:53:14 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

I’m not selling my principles out for a progressive and I don’t accept responsibility for a choice between 2 progressives. (Trump/Clinton)

There is no debate about it.


25 posted on 12/26/2015 12:55:36 PM PST by cripplecreek (Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: erkelly

My husband and I also spoke of this the other evening.
We had a wonderful life in a great country, and now when it seems lost, at least we are glad for what we had.


26 posted on 12/26/2015 1:02:40 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

I like reading Greenfield, but even he couldn’t resist tossing a Turd into the Punchbowl.

>>>”The support for Trump without regard to his qualifications, statements, integrity, credibility, knowledge, consistency, etc is the end result of this state of affairs. The claims that Trump is a Republican Obama are not completely wrong”<<<

Trump may be many things, but an America hating Empty Suit isn’t one of them. BTW - I’m a Cruz guy with Trump second.


27 posted on 12/26/2015 1:07:38 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (Obama, unable to call a Spade a Spade...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chajin

Trump is not going to win. Hillary is probably going to win. The split here between Cruz and Trump supporters will seal it.
There are more liberals in this country now than conservatives.
If we don’t unite, and even if we do we may have no chance, but without it we are lost.


28 posted on 12/26/2015 1:10:45 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

Yeah. I agree with you. Trump is by no means an empty suit. In fact he probably fills out his clothing better than most people and certainly better than any politician.


29 posted on 12/26/2015 1:29:23 PM PST by Louis Foxwell (Stop Islam and save the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

I heard Trump lost 15 Pounds since he started Campaigning.

Heck, he is seven years older than me and I only have as much energy as Jeb(!) or Hillary (->).

Trump must be keeping his Tailor as busy as his Pilots.


30 posted on 12/26/2015 1:35:27 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (Obama, unable to call a Spade a Spade...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wita

No, my fault. I put a link to how I used ‘conceit’ above.

As it is it kinda reads like a Monty Python parody of academia-ese LOL!


31 posted on 12/26/2015 1:37:53 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Without the constitution there is nothing left so I’ll be voting for a constitutional conservative or nothing.

Same here.

32 posted on 12/26/2015 1:37:54 PM PST by TADSLOS (A Ted Cruz Happy Warrior! GO TED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

There is no debate about it.

In your mind anyway. There are enough of us who have lived long enough to know that principle as you understand it is not applicable in the general election. If Obama himself doesn’t convince you I am not going to try either. I am sure we could argue the point till the cows come home and longer, but Obama stands out like a bad dream as does Billy Bob Clinton. The only lessons you might be teaching fall on those of us who suffer under bad leadership unlike the folks in Congress who go merrily on their way deliriously happy at those who just can’t bring themselves to vote in the general for the only candidate that can insure that the worst candidate doesn’t get into office.


33 posted on 12/26/2015 2:23:29 PM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wita

Keep talking, I’ve been hearing the same BS here at FR for some 13 years.

Maybe you’ll get through to me. LOL


34 posted on 12/26/2015 2:41:21 PM PST by cripplecreek (Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Nope, I mean the CFR. Do your research.


35 posted on 12/26/2015 2:46:28 PM PST by Catsrus (I callz 'em as I seez 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

Mrs Clinton is not the worst thing that can happen. The scenario you present is the only line in the sand that most Americans will not allow to be crossed, we argue and fret over all other possible ones to the point that we do nothing.

The people who wish for the destruction of this country were very shrewd in pushing our current President over her, because they knew that the woman or womyn voting block was not monolithic enough to ignore her politics should it be judged necessary to remove her through any means whatsoever (the gamut running from Johnson to Nixson to Kennedy). As it is, he has done more damage to our rule of law, infrastructure, military, industry... than any deposed president ever dreamed of, but the merest peep against him threatens to divide the nation on grounds other than ideology.
We have been paralyzed by the fear of the destruction that would ensue by either choosing to allow him to push his agenda, or choosing to stop it - a much worse outcome than the “Stop Hillary Express” or “Operation Chaos” folks contemplated. For my additional two cents worth, lawfully removing him at this point is probably less destruction than allowing him to remain, if it is not too late.

Romney would have merely moved (and assisted) the start date of an inevitable conflict to the next generation, which would be less likely to succeed than ours, if it even noticed something was wrong.

Shocked as I have been in some ways at the rapidity of change in the last seven years, I still stand behind my not voting for him. Doing so would have been kicking the can down the road to my children, while allowing their every chance of defense to be destroyed along the way.


36 posted on 12/26/2015 2:58:24 PM PST by Apogee (Just when I thought I was All done with sleepless contemplation of jus ad bellum and jus in bello,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wita

Principle is always applicable.

If some party sees we mean that, we may have a chance. If not, we never will.

Instead, we will allow, indeed be a part of, the steady dissolution of our rights and ability to defend them, to the point that we will not be able to do so.

Look where allowing the enemy to grow in numbers, finances, weaponry, and propaganda has gotten us with ISIS. Why do that with “progressives” when the sooner the issue is forced, the better our position is likely to be?


37 posted on 12/26/2015 3:05:47 PM PST by Apogee (Just when I thought I was All done with sleepless contemplation of jus ad bellum and jus in bello,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

Well, aren’t you special.


38 posted on 12/26/2015 4:16:50 PM PST by Albion Wilde ("Look, the establishment doesn't want me, because I don't need the establishment." --Donald Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Apogee; cripplecreek

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3376875/posts?page=7#7


39 posted on 12/26/2015 4:24:43 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

13 years here and betraying my principles one more time won’t change a thing.

Its Cruz or nuthin for me.


40 posted on 12/26/2015 4:31:17 PM PST by cripplecreek (Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson