Wall Street Journal (Opinion)
By Kimberley Strassel
September 11, 2015
Donald
Trump has his go-to words, among them “great,” “terrific,” “rich” and
“I.” But the Trumpian word that best sums up his candidacy—and the
current mood of his supporters—is
simply this: “Whatever.”
“Whatever”
is The Donald’s response whenever or wherever he confronts something
that he doesn’t like or understand. It’s a way out of taking a position:
Does he support
D.C. statehood? He’ll do “whatever is good for the District of
Columbia.” (Whatever that is.)
It’s
a way of ending discussion on a topic he can’t remember, or never knew
in the first place. (“I stand by whatever I read.” Next.)
It’s
a stand-alone, irritated dismissal. (Mr. Trump, what say you to the
argument that most of your proposals are legally or politically or
geophysically impossible? Whatever.)
Imagine
a Marco Rubio or a Jeb Bush explaining that his position on Iran is to
do whatever is terrific. It’s not simply that they couldn’t get away
with it. It’s that
it wouldn’t occur to them to try. And that’s the great disconnect of
this current race. The conservative electorate is thrilling to a
“whatever” moment just as it is finally getting the quality candidates
and substantive debate it has spent years demanding.
That
electorate threw its heart into GOP primaries that cleared out dead
wood and sent new blood to Washington. It threw its soul into delivering
a new crop of young reformers
to state houses and governors’ mansions. It fumed as the party blew two
presidential elections, and it made clear it expected far better.
Slowly,
the effort paid off. This Republican field is teeming with serious
candidates (many elected in response to Mr. Obama) who’ve collectively
beaten public unions,
reformed pensions, cut spending and taxes, overhauled education, and
embraced the energy boom. It’s a talent pool that contains a
neurosurgeon, a businesswoman, a Rhodes scholar, a prosecutor, and
several state executives—not one of whom looks remotely like
Mitt Romney or John McCain. And not one of whom teamed up with a state
casino authority to try to seize a woman’s property, to make way for a
Trump hotel limousine parking lot. But, whatever.
Mr.
Bush this week released a pro-growth tax plan, one that offered
specific details on everything from deduction caps to expensing rules.
It’s the product of decades
of accumulated tax-reform wisdom, and it joins at least two separate
proposals for a flat tax (Rand Paul, Ben Carson) and two more that would
flatten the code (Mr. Rubio, Chris Christie). Mr. Trump’s own tax plan
consists of a vague promise to raise taxes
on Wall Street “paper pushers,” a position that won him rave reviews
from liberals like Elizabeth Warren. But, whatever.
Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Mr. Rubio have
offered comprehensive health-care proposals. All accomplish the burning
conservative goal of
killing ObamaCare, though they take different approaches to instituting
a free-market system. This is a great debate—if we will have it.
Instead, as much as 44% of the conservative electorate is now open to
the single-payer system that Bernie Sanders advocates
because Mr. Trump says it “works incredibly well in Scotland.” It
doesn’t work, of course. In Scotland. Or anywhere. In the universe. But.
What. Ever.
Despite
claims otherwise, GOP candidates have responded to the base’s
frustration on immigration. Nearly every candidate has now put a
priority on securing the border
and tackling sanctuary cities. They’ve supplemented this with an array
of thoughtful ideas, on how to deal with current illegals, whom in the
future to let in, and how to track them. These proposals are the makings
of a highly sophisticated immigration renovation.
Mr. Trump’s solution is to build a wall. An idea the Chinese were onto
more than 2,000 years ago. But, whatever.
Lindsey
Graham and Mr. Rubio and Rand Paul are jump-starting the first real GOP
foreign-policy debate in a decade, deliberating the contours of
intervention and ways to
renew American global power. Mr. Trump suggests seizing Iraqi oil
fields, much in the behavior of ISIS. The proceeds Mr. Trump would give
to our “wounded warriors,” presumably via the Veterans Administration,
which has been accused by its own inspector general
of allowing 307,000 soldiers to die while waiting for the agency to
notice them. And for which Mr. Trump has no reform plan, unlike some of
his rivals. But, really, people. Whatever.
None
of this is to dismiss the rage so many Americans feel over government.
Or to overlook that this is Mr. Trump’s appeal. Conservatives have
become so demoralized by
the Obama state, so frustrated by the inability to check it, so tired
of overpromising Republicans, that they just want someone to blow up
everything. Mr. Trump says he will, and so they’re good with “whatever.”
Yet
this frustration has peaked right as the base is finally getting a real
choice—finally getting candidates with ideas, and finally getting the
potential for a nominee
who could have the smarts and experience and mandate to set the federal
government on an entirely new course. Conservatives have worked hard to
get to this moment. They deserve better than a “whatever.”
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment