Posted on 01/23/2016 7:26:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Donald Trump is no conservative. Now, That's not a crime, it's just a reason to vote against him.
Many fine people are not conservatives. But the reason Trump's candidacy should worry conservatives runs much deeper than that: He poses a direct challenge to conservatism, because he embodies the empty promise of managerial leadership outside of politics.
Trump's diagnoses of our key problems -- first and foremost, that America's elites are weak and unwilling to put the interests of Americans first -- have gained him a hearing from many on the right. But when he gestures toward prescriptions, Trump reveals that even his diagnoses are not as sound as they might seem.
Conservatives incline to take the weakness of our elite institutions as an argument for recovering constitutional principles -- and so for limiting the power of those institutions, reversing their centralization of authority, and recovering a vision of American life in which the chief purpose of the federal government is protective and not managerial.
Trump, on the contrary, offers himself as the alternative to our weak and foolish leaders, the guarantee of American superiority, and the cure for all that ails our society; and when pressed about how he will succeed in these ways, his answer pretty much amounts to: "great management."
The appeal of Trump's diagnoses should be instructive to conservatives. But the shallow narcissism of his prescriptions is a warning. American conservatism is an inherently skeptical political outlook. It assumes that no one can be fully trusted with public power and that self-government in a free society demands that we reject the siren song of politics-as-management.
A shortage of such skepticism is how we ended up with the problems Trump so bluntly laments. Repeating that mistake is no way to solve these problems. To address them, we need to begin by rejecting what Trump stands for, as much as what he stands against.
-- Yuval Levin, a contributing editor of National Review, is the editor of National Affairs.
So, a ‘limited government’ should have no management?
How do you get limited government without great management?
You think it just happens?
Donald Trump is no conservative
************************************
Enough already.
I never thought he was a conservative.
The people who do call themselves “conservative” all seem to be in favor of abandoning the rule of law and surrendering the country to fraudulently documented foreigners.
If that is what “conservative “ means, then I do not want to be one.
I sure hope that TRUMP (WE LIFT UP OUR HEARTS TO HIM) doesn’t turn out to be a MANAGE THE DECLINE type of guy with BIGGER & BETTER SUBSIDIES & MANDATES.
It’s gonna be YUUUGE!
Translation: “They will do what I want because I will be lining their pockets with your tax dollars.”
Can you explain how limited the government was during WWII?
We now face a war against an insidious, crafty, stealthy, and heretofore successful enemy in the Muslim Brotherhood/ISIS/AQ etc...’
The “limited government” argument just doesn’t carry the weight it once did. We are at war and LOSING.
We need to win the war before we get back to debating the finer points of political theory.
Truly idiotic arguments these people put out. Totally open borders and a State Department run by our enemies. And these ‘conservatives’ are worried about the Dept. of Agriculture.
Childish and out of touch.
The people who do call themselves “conservative” all seem to be in favor of abandoning the rule of law and surrendering the country to fraudulently documented foreigners.
**********************************************************************************
Really? Is THAT what your Messiah has led you to believe?
RE: So, a ‘limited government’ should have no management?
I don’t think the author is saying that, he’s saying that Trump is not promising limited government, only better management of a large and ever growing government.
Great management means you do the things you must do efficiently and that you stop doing things that are not necessary.
RE: How do you get limited government without great management?
I think we can also turn the question around — is it possible to have great management with an ever growing government?
We’re going to need some management to clear away the rubbish Obama created. Management does not necessarily mean more government. Parsing every word out of his mouth is getting really tiring. I now skip over at least half of these silly posts.
The Teddy Bears are a clue.
Is every National Review article going to be posted 5 times?
Their arguments don’t even make sense.
Tag teams working all over the place. The establishment is now unhinged and flailing. They rightfully fear their special interest lobbyist pocket change transitions are about to end. They have no idea what to do to get a real job and know the truth of the fraudulent unemployment and inflation rates.
The GOPe didn't do a THING to limit government during Obama's first 7 years; except to subject him to the indignity of being asked to wait a minute while they lubed up.
Great management IMPLIES limited government.
So, a ‘limited government’ should have no management?
Did you read the article?
“Conservatives” for amnesty (national suicide)
Yeb!
Grahamnesty
Kasuck
Rubio
Christie
Huckabee
Fiorina
Pataki
Walker
Carson
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.