Tampa Bay Times (Opinion-Florida)
By George LeMieux
March 2, 2016
Houston, we have a problem.
If
you are a Republican who supported candidates like Ronald Reagan,
George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney, this
presidential election is a bit
shocking. Donald Trump has won 10 of the first 15 contests. He has won
in the Northeast, South and West, and he is now the prohibitive
frontrunner to win the nomination. Recent polls show him leading in
Florida by 20 points over Sen. Marco Rubio.
On
first blush, Trump's campaign appears without historical precedent.
While we have had protest candidates before — Huey Long, George Wallace —
they were ideologically
driven and ran from positions inside the government. Ross Perot ran as
an outsider, but his campaign was focused on two issues, NAFTA and the
federal debt.
Trump
is different. His collection of positions, some newly manufactured, are
ideologically scattered. He supports Planned Parenthood, seemingly
favors universal health
care, and has supported in the past the legality of late-term abortions
and the desirability of massive tax increases. At the same time, he
wants to prohibit Muslims from entering the country, build a "beautiful"
thousand-mile wall on the border to keep Mexicans
out, and fight trade wars with countries like China. This odd
collection of positions puts him off the political grid. He is neither a
conservative nor a liberal when his positions are viewed as a whole.
Trump's
campaign is not based on ideology; it is based on attitude. He is the
chutzpah candidate. Americans, frustrated with a broken federal
government, like Trump's
brashness. They like that he is a politically incorrect truth teller,
someone who will "say it like it is" and someone they believe will beat
up the politicians they blame for a diminished America.
Of
course, Trump has no real plans or prospects of changing Washington.
Divided government with power resting in Congress, the courts and the
states would prevent Trump
from making radical change. The institutional problems that plague our
government — career politicians from gerrymandered districts, a bloated
federal bureaucracy — would remain. So would the 24-hour news cycle,
never-ending campaigns and special interest
cash — these would all be present the day after Donald Trump, or any
other candidate, is sworn into office. And Trump has no experience in
government. Running a business as a CEO is a far different skill set
than working the levers of government to effectuate
change. His chances for success are slim to none.
Trump's
campaign of platitudes ("Let's make America great again") will greatly
disappoint if put to the test, and it is here where we find our
historical parallel. Which
candidate for president ran on an ideologically diverse spectrum of
issues ("post-partisanship"), promised to work with everyone and be
transformative? Which same candidate, due to a lack of experience or
perhaps even interest in governing, greatly disappointed
many of those who voted for him? Who rallied the crowds like no other
but failed to live up to his self-created hype?
You
know the answer. Trump in some ways is the nasty version of Barack
Obama. Instead of lofty rhetoric about "hope and change," Trump is the
schoolyard bully insulting
his way to the White House. Both are media-created candidates, and both
are more celebrity than statesman.
What
are Republicans to do? If the Republican Party still exists, and that
is in doubt, its leaders must rise up against Trump. Paul Ryan, Mitch
McConnell and other congressional
leaders must uniformly denounce him and his campaign. Advocacy groups
that care about conservative principles need to expose Trump's hypocrisy
and use their financial resources to do so. Republican governors need
to barnstorm their states to rally grassroots
supporters against Trump and for another candidate. These efforts need
to start immediately.
If
Trump wins Florida, he will likely be unstoppable. At that point we
will be ready to measure the Republican Party for the coffin. What is a
political party without
a common set of principles shared by its candidates and supporters? A
party whose leaders take no role or have no say in who becomes their
candidate for the highest office in the land? The party of Lincoln,
Reagan and Trump?
I don't think so.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment