Post by Old Badger on Feb 16, 2017 11:48:08 GMT -5
Below is a letter I wrote last month to Michael Gerson, conservative op-ed writer at the WP and former speech writer for Bush II, in which capacity he invented the phrase "compassionate conservatism". (No, he's never responded, nor did I expect him to do so.) I was reminded of this in another exchange.
Dear Mr. Gerson,
I always have enjoyed your op-ed columns, which are thoughtful and express obviously deeply-felt views. Over the past year or so I have sympathized with your growing alarm over the direction of the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and American Christianity. While I belong to none of these, I recognize their importance in our diverse society, and the need for them to be healthy contributors of ideas and policy proposals to our national debate.
That said, however, your view of these institutions has seemed to me increasingly romantic and divorced from current reality, which may explain why you have a hard time reconciling it with the emergence of Donald Trump. True, Trump is not the lineal descendent of Burke, Lincoln, or even Goldwater. But he does seem to be the end product of a process begun during the 1968 election in which Republican strategists made the calculated decision to go after southern whites and other “populist” voters disaffected with the Democrats over civil rights policies.
Similarly, the “compassionate conservatism” you long have espoused has been little in evidence for a long time as conservatives at every level of government have pushed policies such as limiting aid to the poor--including health care, housing, and food assistance--and restricting immigration of non-whites, including refugees of war. And while there are many Christians who are like those you described in a column last week, surely anyone who listened to some “Christian” broadcasters must have known for a long time that there also is an ugly strain of Christianity that promotes hatred of non-Christians and other out-groups.
Last year, many Republicans, conservatives, and Christians, including you, expressed horror at the possibility that Donald Trump could become our President. Your own columns were eloquent on the dangers he posed. But when the time came to take a stand, virtually all of you either joined with him or simply punted, as you did.
By contrast, in 2003, when the Trump-like Jean-Marie Le Pen made it into the final round of the French presidential election against the conservative Jacques Chirac, the politicians, columnists, and activists of the Left did not declare a pox on both candidates. They recognized that one was someone with whom they disagreed, often profoundly, while the other was an existential threat to their democracy and the stability of Europe. So, they joined hands with the Center-Right, and supported Chirac to defeat Le Pen. Country before party was the theme.
Imagine if John McCain, Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and others, including conservative columnists, had had the courage to do what Lionel Jospin and his fellow-Socialists did. Certainly, all of you were appalled by Trump’s campaign and what it portended. But McCain, a man who stood up to eight years of imprisonment and torture, apparently lacked the backbone to do it. Romney attacked Trump, but offered no viable alternative. Hints from the Bush family that they might vote for the Democratic candidate ultimately were denied. And a bevy of conservative columnists and opinion-leaders, including you, announced plans to write-in a non-candidate or simply not vote at all.
If they, and you, really had put country ahead of party or personal preference you would have followed Jospin’s example and endorsed the only viable alternative to Trump, Hillary Clinton. Whatever your views of her and her politics, at a minimum you would have known that she would not be risking our international alliances, re-writing our history of assimilation, and threatening everyone’s civil liberties with little or no check from Congress. It is hard to remain sympathetic with those who saw clearly the danger Trump posed to the country, indeed the world, yet could not bring themselves to do the only thing that could have stopped him, for whatever reason.
Dear Mr. Gerson,
I always have enjoyed your op-ed columns, which are thoughtful and express obviously deeply-felt views. Over the past year or so I have sympathized with your growing alarm over the direction of the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and American Christianity. While I belong to none of these, I recognize their importance in our diverse society, and the need for them to be healthy contributors of ideas and policy proposals to our national debate.
That said, however, your view of these institutions has seemed to me increasingly romantic and divorced from current reality, which may explain why you have a hard time reconciling it with the emergence of Donald Trump. True, Trump is not the lineal descendent of Burke, Lincoln, or even Goldwater. But he does seem to be the end product of a process begun during the 1968 election in which Republican strategists made the calculated decision to go after southern whites and other “populist” voters disaffected with the Democrats over civil rights policies.
Similarly, the “compassionate conservatism” you long have espoused has been little in evidence for a long time as conservatives at every level of government have pushed policies such as limiting aid to the poor--including health care, housing, and food assistance--and restricting immigration of non-whites, including refugees of war. And while there are many Christians who are like those you described in a column last week, surely anyone who listened to some “Christian” broadcasters must have known for a long time that there also is an ugly strain of Christianity that promotes hatred of non-Christians and other out-groups.
Last year, many Republicans, conservatives, and Christians, including you, expressed horror at the possibility that Donald Trump could become our President. Your own columns were eloquent on the dangers he posed. But when the time came to take a stand, virtually all of you either joined with him or simply punted, as you did.
By contrast, in 2003, when the Trump-like Jean-Marie Le Pen made it into the final round of the French presidential election against the conservative Jacques Chirac, the politicians, columnists, and activists of the Left did not declare a pox on both candidates. They recognized that one was someone with whom they disagreed, often profoundly, while the other was an existential threat to their democracy and the stability of Europe. So, they joined hands with the Center-Right, and supported Chirac to defeat Le Pen. Country before party was the theme.
Imagine if John McCain, Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and others, including conservative columnists, had had the courage to do what Lionel Jospin and his fellow-Socialists did. Certainly, all of you were appalled by Trump’s campaign and what it portended. But McCain, a man who stood up to eight years of imprisonment and torture, apparently lacked the backbone to do it. Romney attacked Trump, but offered no viable alternative. Hints from the Bush family that they might vote for the Democratic candidate ultimately were denied. And a bevy of conservative columnists and opinion-leaders, including you, announced plans to write-in a non-candidate or simply not vote at all.
If they, and you, really had put country ahead of party or personal preference you would have followed Jospin’s example and endorsed the only viable alternative to Trump, Hillary Clinton. Whatever your views of her and her politics, at a minimum you would have known that she would not be risking our international alliances, re-writing our history of assimilation, and threatening everyone’s civil liberties with little or no check from Congress. It is hard to remain sympathetic with those who saw clearly the danger Trump posed to the country, indeed the world, yet could not bring themselves to do the only thing that could have stopped him, for whatever reason.
