Posted on 02/16/2016 4:59:00 PM PST by conservativejoy
It's easy to underestimate Donald Trump. The other Republican candidates in the race continue to do so, writing him off as a clown, a charlatan, a fool. Today, David French of National Review writes him off as a conventional Democrat:
Trump doesn't threaten the Republican establishment because he's too conservative or too populist. He threatens the Republican establishment because he belongs in the other party.
There's truth to this - there's a reason that Code Pink essentially endorsed Trump over the weekend, after Trump veered into Iraq trutherism and blamed George W. Bush for 9/11. And Trump, as I've written before, resembles Bernie Sanders on policy far more than he resembles Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the most conservative person in the field.
But there's more to the Trump challenge than merely Republicans embracing Democratic ideas. There's the appeal of the strong man.
Worship of the strong man has never been foreign to Democrats. As the American branch of the international left, the Democratic Party has always worshipped at the altar of the strong man. Woodrow Wilson said in 1906, "The president is at liberty both in law and conscience to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit." Wilson said that if the president could garner the support of the public, "no single force can withstand him, no combination of forces will easily overpower him." In 1911, Wilson stated, "The whole country, since it cannot decipher the methods of its legislation, is clamoring for leadership; and a new role, which, to many persons, seems little less than unconstitutional, is thrust upon our executives."
From FDR to LBJ to Barack Obama, the Democratic legacy has wavered little from this vision of government.
But the strong man has always made conservatives uncomfortable, just as it made the founders uncomfortable enough to rebel against a King. The Federalist Papers repeatedly explain that the presidency is not an unchecked monarchy; the anti-federalists argued that even the specific delegated powers of the Constitution gave too much control to the executive branch. The Republican Party represented an extension of that idea: discomfort with a strong man with unbridled power to "get things done."
Trump, by contrast, recognizes no limits to presidential power. It’s not merely that Trump mirrors Democratic views of the world - he represents Democrats' caudillo-like view of executive power. When Trump speaks, he routinely talks about singlehandedly imposing his view of the world from the Oval Office. He talks about "winning" for particular constituencies. He will "get things done." He won't be all talk. He'll use the power of the government for you.
In 2010, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez - a man universally reviled by his enemies as a clown and a boor - campaigned again on the basis of his unique brand of power. "I demand absolute loyalty to my leadership…anything else is betrayal," said the socialist. “I am not an individual, I am the people. It's my duty to demand respect for the people." He added, "If you cherish the fatherland, join Chavez." Chavez never had to use violence in outsized measures to consolidate his rule - his populist shtick worked just fine.
It has worked fine for Barack Obama. It's working fine for Bernie Sanders. And it's working well for Donald Trump, too. Before writing Trump off as "just another Democrat," we should recognize that his policies aren't the worst aspect of his Democrat-lite routine. It's his embrace of Democratic notions of the role of the executive and the role of government. Should Republicans choose Trump, they'll be buying into the Democratic century-long project of subverting Constitutional checks and balances in favor of a Wilsonian "big man." The last thing America needs is two parties stumping for alternative "big men."
Ok, but the end result will be that they are deported. Eisenhower did during the 50s, Trump can do it now.
Yeah, getting them to leave voluntarily is really the only way a mass exodus can occur.
- Abraham Lincoln
I think we have too many here now for military removal method to work. Some other way of driving them out would be better, such as freezing them out of the economy as was mentioned in one of the other recent posts. I think a lot leave after just being served a deportation order without going through the hearing, but they probably come right back.
One doesn’t use the army to deport anyone.
One enforces the existing laws, strengthen ice, force employers to follow the law, end sanctuary cities, transfer immigrants convicted of crimes to a more remote detention facility, cut off “the bird feeders” aka benefits, voting rights, and rights to buy and rent property and secure the borders.
In addition I would tax the heck out of money transfers out of the country, crack down on NAFTA, and hire new officials to handle the outflow as illegal streamed out.
After enacting all of that, we could consider rounding up the illegals
Have you ever been to the Texas border?????? Easy to say build a wall....not feasible to do it. He’s all talk...ain’t gonna happen.
Very interesting, disturbing analogy.
“These anti Trump clowns need to get a life.
They lost.”
Could not the same thing be said about the Trumpetts!
I think that if the Chinese, God knows how many years ago can build the Great Wall, we ought to be able to manage just fine.
The constitution...
What on Earth is that???
Obama tore it up and flushed it seven years ago.
The Oil Painter - as in brushes, oil paint and a canvas.
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.