In this new video Bill Whittle points out the danger we face as a country. He doesn’t say so, but it is the same problem many other Western countries face: we have a deep incompetence of leaders across the political spectrum.
This is the first example I’ve seen of a commentator who refused to sink into the mud of invective and name-calling. Thank God there is one remaining.
Otherwise, the utterances of soi-disant “Conservative” talking heads regarding Donald Trump are sickening. Literally so. Diana West published an abecedary of samples of invective that these self-important luminaries have used in their frantic attempt to push back against the rising tide of Trump supporters.
Diana’s list gets about half-way through the alphabet, but she terms it “a work in progress”. Had I the stomach for the job, I’d help dig up some of the letters further down the alphabet, but it’s too dispiriting to watch them move to the dark side once again, as they did with Diana, in their efforts to bring down someone who scares them. Her list so far makes all too clear the sad fact that they’ve again abandoned a fundamental principle of conservatism, i.e., no matter what the provocation, vile invective has no has a place in Conservative rhetoric:
The Big Conservative Dictionary of Donald Trump
The fun part about The Big Conservative Dictionary of Donald Trump is that it is brought to you by those erudite conservatives who, some even between birthing the stink bombs below, endlessly deplore crudeness and “tone” in simply scads of elevating sermons and television lecture-bytes. (See “Rudeness Is not a Conservative Value,” “Against Trump,” etc.)
Here we go — so far.
Then comes the first clod of dirt, this one in a Tweet by one Rick Wilson, a GOP consultant and erstwhile talking head on cable news. He is directing this odious call-out to Anne Coulter. The whole of the Tweet reads:
@Anne Coulter Does Trump pay you more for anal?
Erudite fellow, eh? That scatological insult — sans a whit of real criticism — was right at the level of emails we used to get from Swedish professors during the Breivik aftermath. I never thought to ever see this level of crudity displayed by a purported Conservative in this country.
[Because it works so well in American language usage, from now on let’s just call each of these lads who betray their principles in support of a good cause — because they’ve accepted the Marxist rule about what is justified by ends — let’s say each is a “purported Conservative”, or pC for short.]
Wait. They’re not done with ‘A’ yet:
A is for Ape
“Witless Ape Rides Escalator”
— This is the headline for National Review’s very first report by Kevin Williamson on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential run — almost brings a tear to the eye. ([for more Williamson] See also “P is for Plastic-Surgery-Nightmare Wife,” etc.)
“Turning to Donald Trump to solve the problems in Washington is like turning to an ape to fix a broken refrigerator.”
— Stephen Hayes, Fox News & Weekly Standard, August 8, 2015
A is for Appalling
“If by now you don’t find Donald Trump appalling, you’re appalling.”
— Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 31, 2015
In other words, jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon if you want to remain a pC in good standing with these boys.
Diana has more of the same on her post. But it’s so mean-spirited and much of it so scatological, that I can’t bring myself to show you what will live on in history as the shame of those pC fright boys.
Diana doesn’t say so, but it’s the exact strategy those pC pokeys used in their (failed) attempt to bring her down for daring to fault their hero, FDR. Among many other things she was called “a right-wing loopy” who had not yet been “house-trained”.
The message was clear: don’t color outside the lines they’ve drawn or they’ll do everything in their power to befoul you and your message.
That’s the moral low ground now claimed by people whose first allegiance is no longer to their principles but to their “heroes”. What used to be the first principle of American Conservatism has been so thoroughly traduced they’ve passed any hope of return. This point of honor among the pC has been broken off at the hilt as they continue their stabbing of Donald Trump. Now we know the real deal: when they are threatened the gloves come off; their barroom brawl tactics come into play against those they presume to be their inferiors. These inferiors are anyone outside the Beltway Establishment. And once again that implied inferiority of those who don’t agree is also a violation of pC rules.
In sum, the bedrock of Conservatism is/was a firm belief in rules about speech and conduct, and a presumption that all of us are equal. That even when we differed on content, we all agreed on process, and that process was of necessity a civil, courteous one. This foundation is being jack-hammered with a vengeance — so much so that I’ve stopped reading many of these people whose opinion I formerly respected. They no longer keep Reason at the forefront of their rhetoric. Instead they seem to have been reduced to a scrambling anxiety, attempting to one-up (or one-down) each other as they fling mud balls at Donald Trump. That’s how scared they are; they’ve been reduced to sounding like Leftists in their rush to Trample Trump.
This election cycle is beyond sad. No matter who wins, the body on the stage in Act Five is American Conservatism. The cause of death? Suicide by foul-mouthed invective. Come to think of it, that’s how American Liberalism began to die, too.
American Conservatism as espoused by the beltway class is a toxic mix of Neo-Con foreign policy while supporting globalism and free trade at home and has been since GHB Bush was in office.
In short it has nothing to do with Conservatism.
Tucker Carlson has done excellent write up on it:
The Beltway class is flipping out because they fear Trump will destroy their cozy sinecures and rackets that depend on globalization and open borders.
Not to mention that Trump is exposing the utter and complete corruption of the political class. That they no longer represent the American people or country, only their own interests that mostly run counter to the country’s interests.
I think Conservatism is now “Strictly Ballroom” with no new steps allowed. That is, no new faces and certainly no new ideas. On the assumption that the halls of Conservatism were penetrated by agents of influence at the same time as the lidos of Liberalism, then those agents are now at the top, their influence is profound, and their objective is to keep the status quo, to keep the railroad of State careening blindly down the track ready to jump the switch at the pre-planned time and place.
“The cause of death? Suicide by foul-mouthed invective.”
Have to disagree. This is but a minor point. Their invective is but the screams of a wounded, cornered animal fighting for its life. Donald Trump has exposed their cronyism and lies for all to see. He has finally given American patriots the much-needed movement of the Overton Window we have all been waiting for for so long.
The true cause of death is the continued betrayal of the American Conservative principle]s by the RINO elites since the Goldwater revolution. The true cause is the awakening of the long-abused silent majority to the “American Betrayal” of true Republican values and bedrock beliefs that made this country the most exceptional, powerful and greatest in the history of the planet.
I suggest this site to stay abreast of what happening with this groundswell. Sundance is a keen, shrewd and knowledgeable host (and not just on Trump. He was on top of the Travon debacle and attempted lynching of Zimmerman, the mess in Ferguson and the racist BLM movement, Baltimore and many, many others).
Very true, and I would add that conservatism has been turned on its head or co-opted, in the same way that liberalism has changed over the years. Once upon a time, being a liberal meant very different things than its current totalitarian iteration.
W Kathleen: “Once upon a time, being liberal meant very different things….”
Indeed. Which is why I now identify myself as a Classic Liberal (note the capitalization). Although I admire(d) Sen. Goldwater and his forthright manner of speaking, there were some basic principles on which I disagreed with him, so calling myself a “Goldwater conservative” or similar wouldn’t be accurate.
The gulf between Classic Liberals and current leftists (aka “progressives”) is even wider. Current leftists favor totalitarian strategies *and* tactics to an appalling extent, which is why I have been known to post here at GoV that “liberals and leftists are *not* the same thing.”
True conservatives and true Classic Liberals would be able to agree on many aspects of governance, it seems to me. But the “toxic mix of Neo-Con foreign policy while supporting globalism and free trade at home” and totalitarian leftists cannot agree even on a time to serve coffee. 🙁
It is truly sad that Conservatives (by my usage meaning “Constitutionalists”) have besmirched themselves so gratuitously, and, in fact, unnecessarily. There’s plenty to object to about The Donald that can be shared in a decorous exchange. Sadly, it seems Saul Alinsky was onto something, and that the Progressives proved its value. But there’s always a way to become even more vile and obnoxious step by step. It generally fits with the way the country is going.
“There’s plenty to object to about The Donald that can be shared in a decorous exchange. ”
I hope I misunderstand you. Because if you want a “pure” candidate and criticize Trump, with no matter what decorum, we are likely to get a Democrat elected.
He may be the best that can actually win!
I prefer Cruz myself, although I will vote for Trump without reservation over either of the two Socialists (at least Sanders is honest about it).
The fact is that Trump is not all that conservative. What all the talking heads on the right seem to miss (except arguably Rush, Ann Coulter and in NYC, Mark Simone) is that this is far more an indictment of the Democrats than it is of the Republicans.
The fact that a man that nobody would ever say is a social conservative can so galvanize support on the right is an indication of how far LEFT the Democrats are now. The support for Sanders shows that they are an OPENLY SOCIALIST party now, one that embraces multi-culti extremism and hates Judeo-Christian culture, and yes, hates white people. And that like most leftist parties, does not believe in dissent or in democracy.
As far as invective goes, conservatives do in fact need to be nasty – against the left, which fights with no holds barred.
you descend to their level and it becomes a brawl. Every.single.time…Using Reason and a well-honed sense of discernment is always and in all situations the better choice. Just because the Left is without principles doesn’t mean we,too, are forced by their behavior to sink to their level. See Whittle’s quote from Lincoln’s inaugural address.
“Nasty” is the sign of a limited mind and a poor argument.
I love Gates of Vienna and all you write. I, like you, want to use reason and persuasion, but we are in a war it seems with a marriage of the left and Islam in much of the western world. They are colluding to crush us like a bug. Some like you and me are more inclined to fight with our brains.
There may come a time when that is not enough. I expect that will be coming though I hope it never does. It just may be inevitable.
There may well come a time when that is not enough. But I guarantee you, when that time comes all the obscenities in the world won’t help a bit!
Agree Baron. Perhaps that time will require more than a few, LORD HAVE MERCY.s
Agreed. Just an in the American Revolution there was a time and place for words, there was also a recognition of the limit of the power of words to move tyrants. “Give me liberty or give me death” – every American school child used to know who said that and where,
When words are no longer enough, those in charge will have decided, on the contrary, that words are too much and they will shut down places like Gates of Vienna. But by then much larger places will have been shuttered.
But the real danger lies with internecine attempts to shut down dissenting individuals. Diana West was one such target with soi-disant conservative individuals and groups. West’s book and her character were pilloried in essays by individuals at National Review, Pajamas Media, Front Page, and American Thinker, to name a few. One place even published a colloqium on her book, “Betrayal” which she was not invited to attend, much less given the space to respond. At the others she wasn’t allowed to answer the charges, either. Gatestone Institute even fired one of their own Fellows for mentioning Diana’s book en passant in an essay. They published that essay before someone noticed the forbidden material and quickly deleting the post from their site. Gatestone followed up this cowardice by cutting her out entirely. This was all done without the writer in question, Claire Lopez, being notified or having any idea that she’d violated some rule by praising West’s book. “Stalinist” comes close to describing those long, strange months stretching out to well over a year at one point. And every once in a while some new outraged burp will bubble up from the depths with the usual character assassination. Yes, it *is* character assassination to propose as an argument of ideas that Diana West is a “right wing loopy”, or that she’s “not house-trained”.
Now National Review has seen fit to come out with a whole issue devoted to the defeat of Trump and no doubt the rationale in those pages (I haven’t read any of it) is as uncouth as was their attack on Diana West…
There are a lot of things I don’t like about Mr. Trump but the rest of that gang, on both sides, are all cut-and-paste results of Focus Groups. Sundance, at The Conservative Treehouse, has argued convincingly that the fix is in: Hillary vs. Jeb Bush. He has outlined in detail, over and over again, how what he calls the GOP(e) -establishment or elite will do – will work to prevent Trump from being the Republican contender. The National Review’s Trump issue is merely proof of his contention that the me, too Party wants to stay in Washington: it’s no longer about winning.
While we can we will continue to argue with words. When that is no longer permitted, we’ll find some other way to continue on. But while we’re here…we’ll continue to give voice to our opinion.
The value of candidate Trump:
In the old joke about the mule-trainer, the man walks up to the stubborn mule and smashes it over the head with a 2X4.
The farmer exclaims “WHY do THAT?”
The trainer responds “when training the mule, one must first get his attention”.
Thus with our Trump.
So, when considering just ONE issue (of many)–where would we be on the illegal immigration issue WITHOUT him?
Do you see my point?
So true, Dymphna
It’s not just how far left the Democrats are — it’s how far left the Republicans are. Until Trump came along, there was no prominent GOP contender willing to swim against the amnesty-‘n’-open-borders tide.
Republican presidents have added how many new departments to the federal government in the past 40 years? I forget, but I’ll bet it’s more than the Democrats have added. Wasn’t the EPA one of Nixon’s brilliant ideas? And the Department of Education was one of Reagan’s, if I recall correctly. And the Department of Multiple Unaccountable Armored Federal Police Forces was a gift of the “conservative” George W. Bush.
The only major difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former want to raise taxes to pay for increased government spending, while the latter want to borrow more money to pay for increased government spending.
Department of Education was signed into being by Jimmy Carter, in 1979.
My mistake! Thanks for the correction.
I know Reagan did add a department, though. Can you remember which one it was?
I’m not aware of any federal agency created under Reagan, but I’m willing to be enlightened by those who do know for certain. I loved Reagan, but he did increase the budget and the scope of the federal government.
Reagan created the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. That’s what I was trying to remember.
Eric is right. In time of emergency break glass. The Marine Corps is likely the most ethical service, yet is designed for periods of high intensity conflict. During these periods decorum is dropped and the mission is our only focus. Only after this evil counter culture is defeated can we safely replace the glass and return to normalcy.
Yep, the Marines are the best. They’re for when the talking is over. Having spent a few formative years as a Marine Corps wife I heard my share of non-decorous language. I can now curse quite inventively and creatively. For example, I could tell you several different things I might do with your head after having removed it from your neck. And you, Jeff, would already have heard all of them in whatever barracks or battlefield you found yourself.
Battle environments – and preparing for them – are perfectly appropriate spaces for that; it lets off tension. But “the mission” for us is not military so the language here won’t be either; this isn’t a barracks. Those first colonist to preach sedition in their state assemblies did so using decorum…loud decorum. Their opponents, the Loyalists, were no less civil. That used to be a rule for public society, but military ‘society’ was held to a different standard.
[The Marines used to be known for the way they treated women and children. My brother, an Army medic and paratrooper, was dumb-founded when he came to visit us that wives and teenage girls could walk around the base in perfect safety. I never needed to be “accompanied” when walking to the PX (we lived on base) or to the chapel. But since our culture has degraded everywhere else, I guess those places are no exception now.]
When you have nothing really to say, the only way to pretend to be witty is to be dirty.
The content of people’s ideas have ceased to be of concern to most, and it is only a matter of who can generate the greatest emotional response.
Donald Trump has promised to end the importation of Muslims into America, and to close our border with Mexico. If he actually does either of these things, then I’ll overlook his schoolyard bully rhetoric. At least for a while. The man is really tiresome, but the last President I liked while he was in office was Eisenhower, so what do I know?
At 8:24, Bill Whittle says, “the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from owning land, and it needs to be returned to the people or the states.”
What is the justification for this first assertion? Who should own the land on which Fort Hood sits? And for land to be *returned* to the people or the states, it needs to have been acquired from those sources, not from France (Louisiana Purchase), Mexico (Mexican War, Gadsden Purchase), or Russia (Alaska).
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings[.]”
Fort Hood is legitimately federal by this clause and was acquired from Texas for the express purpose “of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,” etc. Except for the District of Corrupt . . . er, Columbia, all of the specific usages mentioned in this clause relate to the “common Defence.”
All the lands you mentioned were initially territories before states were formed thereof and were to be admitted into the Union as equals to the original and existing States. When these new States were formed all the land therein should have been under the auspices of each State to govern as they saw fit, i.e. admitted equally. It is debatable whether it can be said they “consented” to the federal government owning, say, 84.9% of Nevada, and so this land should be “returned” to the States.
Aside from any ostensible “consent,” the argument is fundamentally about Clause 17 and what the federal government can constitutional own. It is clear that the federalization of land was specifically for the “common Defence,” as the initial clause of Section 8 states and from enumerated usages in Clause 17 (so, in this regard, it would be quite the semantic stretch to consider a huge federal wildlife refuge as a “needful Building,” as it certainly is not the others).
I don’t see the federal government returning the lands on their own accord. The lands will have to be taken from them by the States and the people of those States.
The dissolution of our federation will come first. Or maybe they will arise from the same deep discontent. The ‘management’ of federal lands is a disgrace, causing many destructive forest fires. Bureaucracies do not make good stewards.
So far TRUMP is the only man or woman who tells us exactly he feels about the issues.
This is REFRESHING after all these years since IKE was in office and we experienced his honesty and HONOR. OK, not agreeing with ALL he believes, but by golly I never agree with ALL any candidate says. WHO DOES???? NOT many!
I REALLY want honesty in comments and in actions. So I think he is a very brave fellow and those who hold his honest feelings and statements against him MUST love to always be lied to by politicians.
Another honest politician was Hubert Humphry and he was a Democrat. And he loved this country. Scoop Jackson was a great man and patriot and so was Everett Dirksen. THESE people are no more. Their honesty is sorely missed. AND no I did not agree to their every word. BUT THEY HAD CLASS AND HONOR.
Like so many supposed conservatives be they writers or politicians: Beck is just a Mormon with a patriarch( POWER MAD MEN) complex, Medved is jealous of Trump in all things, Bush just another sweetheart fan of the Saudis, Cruz an opportunist CANADIAN, Rubio is owned by the same NWO creeps who own Obama, that woman CARLY just another HATE RUSSIA complainer like songbird McCain, Christy is simply an ANGRY PUSHY fat/white Obama and all the others just standing by for handouts from the winner ( either party) or their big money guys.
HATE if you want to this old grey head… I really do NOT give a mole’s claw.
NEVERTHELESS , ANYTHING to defeat Hillary and the Commie Bern is a MUST.
TRUMP scares the two of them to distraction. GOOD!
The likely election choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is history repeating as farce before a great tragedy. Given that choice, I’ll vote for Trump, but with no illusions about our republic returning to an even keel.
My sentiments exactly.
The fact that Obama was elected (twice) is a symptom of a severe illness in our republic. The fact that Donald Trump can be seen as the country’s savior is another symptom of the same malady.
The malady that got us Obama was the left chip on their shoulder, “WE’LL SHOW YOU, America”.
The malady that gives Trump high ratings is: the public saying we are so derned tired of all you “selfish, self-serving politicians and bureaucrats who never worked hard , earned or created anything USEFUL in your lives.
YOU who always eat out of the public-payroll slop-trough” …. WE WILL NOW SHOW YOU , WHAT WE THE PEOPLE CAN DO!
We will push a guy who tells us the truth, knows how to make a buck and knows that AMERICA is all about CAPITALISM, not about the “socialisms”: neither communism or fascism.
Obama was elected after GHWB’s oldest son ignited a raging catastrophe across the globe. George Washington himself could not have been elected after that dunce. Had the GOPe chosen Newt over Mittens in 2012 Obama could’ve been defeated. And I’ll remind you all that we (GoVers) would be depressed over our chances to defeat Marxism in 2016 were it not for Trump. I’ll take half a loaf with Trump over nothing.
I didn’t say I wouldn’t vote for him. My only contention is that the fact that millions of Americans regard him as the savior of the republic is evidence of how deeply this country has fallen into a stinking sump of political insanity.
To me Trump is a lot like Schwarzenegger- a swaggering showman who is just a macho democrat. I voted for that fool just because I didn’t want my car tag tax to explode. We now know how Schwarzenegger ended his reckless career, but at least my tags were cheaper for a while.
Obama was elected after GHWB’s oldest son ignited a raging catastrophe across the globe.
That conflagration was inevitable. If Al Gore, Senior’s son had been elected instead the war might have been even worse. Democrats don’t ‘do’ war well, and the aftermath of 9/11 was uncharted territory.
Had the GOPe chosen Newt over Mittens in 2012 Obama could’ve been defeated.
George Washington himself couldn’t have defeated Obama. He was elected on ZERO accomplishments and a sealed past. It was time for a black president and he was it. He could have been defeated for re-election but the RNC cut the Tea Party off at the knees. As soon as I heard that at the convention, I knew we were toast. The Dems have a HUGE built-in grass roots machine in the cities plus all the ACORN workers. They energize the vote.
The GOP(e) will NEVER win another election until they accept the reality of their need for grass roots’ support. That was proven to them in Wisconsin when the Tea Party defeated the thuggish SIEU and permitted Scott Walker to actually govern. It was proven again in Virginia when the Tea Party defeated the second most powerful Republican in the House, Eric Cantor. He quit listening to his constituents in VA District 7 regarding immigration; thought he could rule from D.C. w/o ever making the less-than-two-hour visit home for town meetings. Wrong. The Tea Party replaced him with a neophyte. Cantor’s rage still burns: he’s planning the destruction of the GOP in Virginia. Which is why I think our incumbent in this district has suddenly decided to retire at the end of his term.He knows what’s being planned.
As I’ve said before, it would be helpful to find the parallels in history to see how politics works. The GOP has lost the white middle class and mostly they don’t care because they have their sinecure in D.C. They don’t mind being #2 at all.
The closest parallel is Andy Jackson’s victory when he went up against the entrenched aristocracy of the Adams dynasty. Washington society was furiously aghast when Adams lost. The dire predictions about what would happen to the country sound just like the hysterics by the agony sisters re Trump.
Marxism is so deeply entrenched in our institutions that rooting it out is beyond the ability of one man. If elected, he will be hounded and harried at every turn. The defeat of the Marxists – who rule the West – will take a generation…the only bright spot is that many of these folks are not reproducing. When people like Ben Carson stick to what they do well – rescuing kids from illiteracy – then we’ll have a chance.
Trump’s success will depend on his ability to shape-shift enough to begin to be able to find good advisors…he’s going to need them.
I spent 15 years inside the “hive of scum and villainy” and noticed Clark Clifford’s brood entrenched in the administrations of RR, GHWB, and WJC. RR didn’t like him one bit but did business with him – so it doesn’t matter who is in the WH until the K Street bottom feeders are eliminated.
If I were a Trump advisor – first order of battle would be halving the sizing of our military ground and support forces. Second order of battle – reducing federal government by 75% back and return to 1950’s scope. Third order of battle – invalidate ALL commercial FCC licenses and have a reapplication processed through the over burdened federal employees I hadn’t fired.
Personally, I think of him less as “savior” than Hail Mary pass (a la Doug Flutie).
Yes, I agree. But what you and I think of him is not what his millions of his fans think of him — the tone is one of reverential awe. In fact, it’s too close for my comfort to the way Obama was revered as the “Light Bringer” in 2008. Admittedly, a different subset of the electorate is involved this time, but it’s a similar process. The nation is hungry for a Messiah of one sort or another, that much is clear.
Sulla righted the republic but that did not prevent its dissolution. One man cannot save us. If a large portion of the population is both corrupt and stupid, the deck is stacked against having a republic with clearly defined and limited powers in which people are secure from abuses of government.
It will be really interesting to see who wins.
Until now, The Donald is playing his game, using the media for all it is worth. Who is using who?
Like a father, he gives them
his hair to play with, anytime, and they are happy! And, while they are occupied for some time doing that, he moves on to the next, focusing on his goal, “Make America Great Again”.
Not being as impeccably brushed and groomed as money can buy, likely wins him far more voters!
I agree 100% with this, but particularly this quote, “I’ve stopped reading many of these people whose opinion I formerly respected. They no longer keep Reason at the forefront of their rhetoric. Instead they seem to have been reduced to a scrambling anxiety, attempting to one-up (or one-down) each other as they fling mud balls at Donald Trump. That’s how scared they are; they’ve been reduced to sounding like Leftists in their rush to Trample Trump.”
I wrote about this myself, its a short piece but I think its along the lines of exactly what this article is talking about as we sit back and observe the current civil war happening within the Republican party, pundits, thinkers, writers, and radio hosts who I once admired, have now lost credibility as they have bestowed upon themselves the bastion of what is and isn’t “true conservatism”. Yet, while the civil war wages within the party, the party itself does a disservice to this nation for fighting the wrong battle at the wrong time as the war for the heart of this country wages on.
To myself, this has always been the main issue in regards to the Republicans. For far too long they’ve fought for the soul of conservatism as they’d like it to be, but not for the soul of the nation as it truly is. http://politicallyshort.com/2016/01/24/americas-ruling-class-vs-all/
I read your piece. Very apt, though I’m not familiar with the author you cite. WIll check further. If you want to look at the ‘father’ of modern American conservatism see Russell Kirk.
You’ll see that there aren’t many authentic conservatives left. Trump isn’t one, but everyone hopes he’s a fast learner…there is a whole lot of stuff he’ll have to walk back.
Which author Dymphna? And I know he isn’t. If Republicans had fought to win the culture, as the left has, I believe Trump would not exist today. But herein is the problem, they haven’t and not only that, they haven’t even fought to defend the institutions we see eroding before us.
But to me what this election basically comes down to is not Republican vs Democrat or Liberal vs Conservative, its Capitalism vs Socialism.