Why Trump

Sad reasons why we prefer The Donald.

The fondest hopes and dreams of the left and their media have been realized: There is now an open civil war in the Republican party.

It is an objective fact that, at the moment, Donald Trump holds a commanding lead and seems highly likely to capture the Republican nomination.  You might think that the Republican leadership and conservative media would be trying to help the likely nominee, or at least keeping their mouths shut, but no.

The most recent edition of conservatism's most respected magazine, the National Review, dedicated an entire issue to the proposition of being "Against Trump."  They didn't express support for anyone else; all that matters to them, apparently, is Anyone But Trump.

The National Review's action clearly reflects the feelings of the Republican party establishment: they'd rather the whole party went down in flames than to have to pretend to follow President Trump for four years.

Why?  Doesn't America have enough schisms?  Doesn't conservatism have enough internal conflicts?  Don't we lose very effectively all the time without actually trying to lose on purpose?

The National Review is not the cause of the conflagration; it's been raging for some time, yes, even among the principals at Scragged.  Is Donald Trump really the best conservative candidate?  Could he really be more trustworthy than Ted Cruz, more unstoppable than Scott Walker, more morally upright than Ben Carson?

We respect all these men.  Any of them would make a fine president in normal times.  Some of them, particularly Ted Cruz, would make an excellent president in the future and we fervently hope he gets the chance.

Which he won't, unless Donald Trump is both the nominee and the president in 2016.

Our recent history convinces us that going to war against Donald Trump would doom the Republican party, the conservative movement, and as a direct result, doom the United States of America

Demography is Destiny

Eight long years ago, when presented with the choice between Barack Hussein Obama and John McCain, Scragged could not endorse either and plumped for Mickey Mouse.  Our reasoning at the time was that there are only three things which can destroy America - unlimited immigration, collapsing education, and overgrown bureaucracy - but neither of these candidates had any intention of doing anything to stop or even reduce any of these destructive forces.

Eight years later, these problems have only grown worse, as expected.  Our education system is just as awful, just as suffused with politically correct dogma and anti-Americanism, just as controlled by leftists through and through, just as expensive, and just as ineffective as it was before.  Our bureaucracy has continued to reach new heights of unaccountability and tyranny.

Yet none of these problems is really new, and both could be fixed with some willpower at the helm.

Immigration is different.

For all that we have been unable to fix our public education system overall, effective improvements are being accomplished on a small scale through experiments with charter schools and the like.  We know the way forward.  We lack the political will to implement the known solutions, but this can change in any election.

Similarly, cutting the bureaucracy off at the knees is a matter of finding a leader, or a Congress, with the intestinal fortitude to simply say "No!", weathering the resulting shutdown and inevitable pillorying at the hands of the liberal media.  After they haven't received their paychecks for two, three, four, five, six months, how many bureaucrats will still be waiting around for one?  Problem solved!

With our current overload of immigration, however, both legal and illegal, there is no going back.  Once a person has been naturalized, the Constitution and decades of international law make it plain that they cannot be expelled without the most serious of reasons, generally involving fraud on their application which is usually difficult to prove.

Millions of anchor babies add to the problem.  For all that "birthright citizenship" has no basis in the Constitution and our courts never suggested the idea until the 1980s, we've become accustomed to it, and it's hard to imagine the American people throwing out children who hold genuine U.S. birth certificates and passports.  It's just not going to happen.

But that doesn't mean that illegal immigrants can't be expelled - as Donald Trump has promised.  For that matter, international law gives total control of legal aliens to the host country; we have every right to expel some or all of them too, or simply to let their visas expire without renewing them.

Why is this so essential, of such overriding importance that it dwarfs all other considerations for us?  Because people of Latin American culture, in particular, are steeped in socialism.  Look at the history of Mexico, the very definition of the Third World - a place where the rich are rich, the poor are poor, there is next to no middle class, and crime and corruption are more powerful than we can imagine.

Yet the same political party keeps getting elected and re-elected - for seventy straight years in Mexico, for instance.  How much positive change can you expect from a party whose very name is an oxymoron - the Institutional Revolutionary Party!? - and is a full member of the Socialist International?  This party had no problem winning, and winning, and winning for an entire lifetime, even as Mexico failed, and failed, and failed again in every imaginable way.

Long ago, a freer America could successfully assimilate people of Latin American political backgrounds.  There are a great many Hispanics in the United States who have been here for generations, and a fair number of them are politically conservative and traditionally American in their views.  They may be ethnically Hispanic, but they are every whit as American as anyone else and they are perfectly welcome here.

Not so those who have arrived in the last half-century or more.  When we say that "immigrants may be poor and foreign, but their kids will be successful Americans" we are thinking of 1915 not 2015.

What is the reality?

The longer immigrant children live in this country, the worse, on average, their health, their attitude, and their school performance. What's more, with each subsequent generation, immigrant children do worse and worse.

There are many possible explanations, but the result is plain: poor, uneducated, socialist Hispanic immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats which is why Democrats welcome them regardless of the destruction they wreak.  Simple math indicates that importing tens of millions of people who are almost all on one of our two political sides will give that side power for years to come. A study of illegal immigrants - who can't vote anyway and have little incentive to be involved in politics at all - discovered that 31% nevertheless identify as Democrat vs. only 4% as Republican.

Hey, aren't Hispanics Catholic, which means anti-abortion, pro-family, anti-homosexual, and thus conservative?  Nope: Catholic Hispanics voted even more monolithically for Obama than did non-Catholic Hispanics, at a staggering 83%.

But - don't people of immigrant background grow more conservative as the old country gets farther away?  This used to be true, but it hasn't been for a long time.  For one thing, the "old country" isn't very far away at all - it's only a phone call, a brief plane ride, or in the case of Mexico, a quick wade away.

And the result is:

The Pew Research surveys also find that second-generation Hispanics and Asian Americans ... are more inclined to call themselves liberal and less likely to identify as Republicans [than their first-generation parents].

Case closed: the problem doesn't lessen as time goes on, it gets worse.

Going Under for the Last Time...

So let's sum up where we are:

If we continue on our current path of unlimited immigration, legal and illegal, the traditional American values conservatives know and love are as dead as the dodo.  Liberal media are already trumpting that white Americans will be in the minority by 2040, less than a quarter century from now, and it's clear that the coming demographic is overwhelmingly liberal Democrat.  When firebrands like Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn say that Americans will soon be an oppressed, derided minority in their own country, they are absolutely correct unless the wave of socialist immigration is not stopped in its tracks and thrown back with all possible vigor as Donald Trump has sworn to do.

Electing Republicans has made absolutely no difference.  George W. Bush presided over a Republican House and Senate.  Far from taking the opportunity to save his country and party by closing the border and expelling interlopers, he attempted to cram an amnesty down America's throat.  The current Republican House and Senate majorities have supported a Democrat-style spending blowout with barely a peep, Ted Cruz again being the notable and honorable exception.

There are more Republicans in state houses all across the country than there have been since the 1920s, for all the good it has(n't) done us.

The simple fact is, our Republican mandarins, elites, establishment, and officeholders have utterly betrayed the principles most of their base hold dear.  They aren't even smart enough to save their own positions; who could be so stupid as to let his enemy import unlimited reinforcements?  Yet that's what pro-immigration Republicans are doing, and when it comes to taking action, that includes nearly all Republicans in any office.

The American people have figured this out and are demanding outsiders on both sides.  Truly, an outsider is our only hope.

Donald Trump has held just about every possible political view over the course of his life, and even now his policy pronouncements are half-incoherent at best.  We recognize we are taking an enormous risk in supporting Donald Trump, and that it could go very wrong.

Suppose that happens? In what way are we worse off than we already are?  Not a whit - America is still on the road to perdition just as it's been for many years, with no additional harm done.

It doesn't have to end like that, though.  If Donald Trump is one thing, he's a fighter.  When you are surrounded by enemies on all sides, that's the time to deploy the berserker, which is what the desperate conservative Republican base is attempting to do.

Ted Cruz is a good man.  He's even a fighter!  But he can't take the fight to the media half so effectively as Mr. Trump can, which is a critical, killer handicap.  We'd like to see him in a powerful position in a Trump administration, learning how to emulate the master manipulator so he can be a great president later on down the line.  But he's not there today.

As for the rest of the Republican candidates, what's to say?  They've all supported amnesty, except the admirable Dr. Ben Carson who unfortunately has dropped into no-hoper status at this late date.

Jeb Bush?  Marco Rubio?  Dare we say John Kasich?  Please, just give us Hillary and get it over with!

...Is When You Grasp At A Straw

We freely admit that our hopes for a President Trump are unjustifiably optimistic, possibly ludicrously so.  Any sane conservative has to admit, though, that there is at least some possibility that Donald Trump will keep his promises.  He loves to fight, and if he fights everybody in Washington he can't help hurting leftists since that's mostly what's there.  Unlike anybody else, he has mastered the black arts of media manipulation and can turn the tables on the left like nobody we've ever seen.

With anybody else, there's not even that much hope.  At best, we have a slightly less corrupt administrator of the welfare state tyranny we are fast becoming, who'll smoothly usher us into the Third World with as few jostles as possible.

By all means, vote your conscience; the current crop of Republican candidates is spectacular overall.  We simply have a hard time imagining any candidate other than Mr. Trump actually accomplishing much in the way of turning the tide.  Even the sainted Reagan only slowed government growth without reversing it.

And if you're fatalistic, if you're persuaded that America is doomed regardless - then vote for Mr. Trump anyway.  At least that way we'll all be entertained on our trip down the crapper.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other Scragged.com articles by Petrarch or other articles on Immigration.
Reader Comments

Whether it's immigration or terrorism or economics, it's pure Confirmation Bias to promote Trump as the strongest on these issues.

Conservatives have chosen Trump for an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT reason than what he believes in. Whether he does what he says when in office is irrelevant. How much Trump really cares about immigration is unimportant.

Tea Party conservatives have lined up behind Trump because, as Norman Lear stated, Trump is the middle finger of the right. They don't really care what he believes. What they care about is that he is cussing and spitting at the press and party establishment (for now).

The right knows that they've lost the future. Their beliefs are no longer winning elections. When they do win, their leaders shift to the middle or right once in office. The country has evolved past their views on virtually every social issue other than gun control. Immigration and economic issues, likewise. Small Government is long gone - not even really taught or understood anymore from a constitutional standpoint.

Conservatives feel this deep down. So instead of pick a real candidate with a real understanding of the issues, coupled with decades of commitment, they've opted for the fun middle finger.

They're living vicariously through Trump, watching from their living rooms as he punches and insults in the same crass way they themselves would love to do.

January 25, 2016 9:46 AM

Here's an example of what I mean, links below.

Glenn Beck endorsed Cruz for all the normal reasons - actual conservative, fighting the establishment, etc - and then proceeded to mention that sincerity and honesty are things he values, which he also sees in Bernie Sanders.

If you read/watch his actual words, no where did he endorse Sanders or say that he prefers Sanders over Trump. He was saying that he gets Sanders' position of wanting to be socialist like Denmark and respects that he's held that, and fought for that, for decades. Sanders is honest and committed if nothing else. Beck says he'd like to see a debate between an actual constitutionalist and socialist. Wouldn't we all.

Gateway Pundit and other bloggers immediately stated that Beck prefers Sanders over Trump. While that may indeed be the case, Beck never said that, according to the coverage by The Hill. The blog commenters are even more absurd.

This is the type of Confirmation Bias that conservatives have entered into, all for the sake of clutching to a middle-finger candidate who is as much progressive or Democrat as he is conservative.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/266814-glenn-beck-cruz-sanders-over-trump

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wow-glenn-beck-i-prefer-bernie-sanders-over-donald-trump/

January 25, 2016 1:11 PM

@Ifon - I hope you are not correct in saying,

The right knows that they've lost the future. Their beliefs are no longer winning elections.

That is important because the left's views will destroy our society as they've destroyed all societies in which they've been tried. In the meantime the left's views sound much more attractive.

Given that the right's views don't win, and they know it, they might as well give up on governance and go for the candidate who will provide the most entertainment. We all have to buy a ticket; we might as well enjoy the action!

January 25, 2016 1:24 PM

Nate, I think it's pretty obvious. The groundswell around both of Obama's elections, particularly the first one, showed that when everyone votes - especially the poor, lower-middle and minority groups - the right doesn't have a chance. The largest turnouts in history (by percentage of voters) and the right got beaten by wide margins. We lost **every** swing state. Then again in 2012 when Obama and the ACA were both viewed very unfavorably.

Rush's theory was that it happened because the GOP doesn't run real conservatives. I see no reason to believe that. During early polling, the 2nd choice for likely-Democrat voters was not far-right conservatives. It was McCain or Romney at best. While they sat on their hands for McCain in 2008, the far right came out in mega numbers in 2012.

The simplest explanation from polling to elections to a basic glance at social media is that conservatism has lost the future. For good or bad, conservatism is obsolete.

That, by the way, is another small reason Trump has done well. Democrats rightly realize that he's not really conservative so he has appeal on that side too.

January 25, 2016 3:34 PM

Its the Candidates stupid (play off its the economy stupid)

McCain lost'08 by not defending his party, and being all touchy feely wishy washy. Bush also lost it for McCain, by allowing the media to run rough-shod all over his administration, and not calling them out for it, nor shedding light on what Congress was doing. I remember watching those last final years of GWB swearing at him thru the TV "Why won't you defend yourself FFS"

Then Romney...The minute that Romney was the GOP candidate, BHO's 2nd term was all but assured. Romney backed off BHO, did not take him to task.

Look, by now...it should be of absolutely no secret (to anyone with 2 neuron's flickering in their skull) that there exists no level of depravity which the left will stoop to to win...either directly or proxy (official or unoffical)

As of right now...I see only 2 candidates who could stand any chance of Rodeo Clowning the left and their ilk...by not just beating them at their own game...but jui-jitsuing (forgive the spelling) it, by DARING them to do it.
And that is Trump and...Christie.

Trump is quickly turning out to be a master at it...but Christie also did it when he first was elected to the Gov of NJ.

Conservatives, Libertarians...folks the time to play nice...was quite literally LAST millennium.
There is no honor among thieves...WHY do we insist upon pretending that our candidates act as if there is?

January 27, 2016 6:01 PM

ildraz, couple questions...

How does Cruz "play nice"? He was kicked out of the Bush administration for being too much of a constitution agitator.

Trump doesn't play nice. We agree. Do you have any evidence that Trump was ever a conservative in his life? Is there even any evidence he's backed or cared about Republican Party things?

Have any old friends of Trump surfaced, attesting to his true positions?

You want a fighter. We all do. But there should be something demonstrating what the candidate actually believes before he's pushed into office on nothing but blind faith.

Faith without works is dead.

January 27, 2016 7:54 PM

There is a huge difference between not playing nice and being an agitator.
Agitators rarely finish what they start.
Not playing nice...implies intent to finish.
...and where did I ever say anything about cruz? Never seen any fire in cruz belly (yet) it's almost canned (at least me me)

I mentioned Trump and Christie. And I was talking about the g.o.p.s complete limp wristed choice of nominated candidates....who do not fight back...but rather sit there and take it.

I said nothing of any candidates political pedigree. Nor endorsed any specific candidate over another.

January 28, 2016 9:54 AM

You said:

"As of right now...I see only 2 candidates ... that is Trump and...Christie"

That's why I asked about Cruz.

Your point about agitators not finishing what they start is exactly my point. Has Trump ever finished what he's started re: politcs? Even in the business world, does he stick to his guns or make deals and negotiate?

Listen to your own words.

January 28, 2016 10:58 AM

Ok this is getting ridiculous.

When you quote, best to include the whole quote...as to not obscure.

/quote
"As of right now...I see only 2 candidates who could stand any chance of Rodeo Clowning the left and their ilk...by not just beating them at their own game...but jui-jitsuing (forgive the spelling) it, by DARING them to do it.
And that is Trump and...Christie."
//quote

I don't see Cruz doing convincingly, if at all.

If you think Cruz getting kicked out of GWB's admin is akin to dealing with the left and their spin machine...is that what you are equating? All Cruz did was stand up...and GET REMOVED. Getting removed does no good to any cause, does it? So yes, Agitator.


Re: Trump's businesses...uh how much is he worth? I mean, we are not exactly talking about some schlep who owns a hot dog card on broadway. I think he passes that muster.

It's clear I've offended a sacred cow of your's by not including Cruz in My "Who would BEST be able to deal with the attacks of the left".

...I live in a liberal state...I am sure there is some rehab course somewhere which I can take to make me more sensitive of that in the future.


January 28, 2016 5:30 PM

You didn't offend any sacred cow of mine. Cruz isn't my man any more than Carson or Paul are (all three of which are axiomatically better candidates than Trump).

I simply find the Trump apologetics amusing from people like you.

You're utterly unable to do anything other than pound your chest and use the same "make America great" jingos that Trump popularized.

Small government conservatives are now supposed to bow to the "leadership ability" of a big government Democrat. Ok, sure.

You do realize that Trump - your fighter and finisher - is the same Trump who ridiculed Romney as being "too hard on immigration" just a few years ago, right? Romney! The pro-amnesty guy from Massachusetts was "too hard on immigration" for Trump, the guy who now want to build a wall and put 11 million people on the other side in "less than one year". Right.

So do you want him to be a finisher on the wall or a finisher on amnesty? Which one will it be?

You do realize that Trump - your guy who gets the job done - is the same Trump who believed in universal healthcare and "something that mirrors Canada's government-run system" only a few short years ago, right?

So do you want him to get the job done on that - universal health care?

January 28, 2016 6:10 PM

Where did I ever say I was pro-trump? IF anything- you're the one with knee-jerk obsession. You had to rely on misquotes, and insinuating that Trump has not finished anything (and by that I will assume you mean "unsuccessful")

Would you please stop putting words into my mouth?

I said nothing of their policies. NOTHING.
Show me 1 thing I said. I dare ya.


Good grief, "walk around with a hammer -and everything looks like a nail", more will ya?

January 28, 2016 6:58 PM

ildraz, which quotes are misquoted?

January 30, 2016 11:40 AM

Here are some helpful links for any Trump enthusiasts who don't believe that he flip-flo--- er, "rebranded" himself that much on immigration.

Summary of his criticisms of the GOP and Romney in general about being too hard on immigration in 2012:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-2012-trump-criticized-gop-for-being-mean-spirited-on-immigration/

In Fox News interview:

"For people that have been here for years that have been hard-workers, have good jobs, they're supporting their family -- it's very, very tough to just say, 'By the way, 22 years, you have to leave. Get out"

(This from a man who now wants to physically round them up and toss them out by force, where Romney only wanted them to self-deport)

http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/06/trump-open-to-letting-some-long-term.html

Then again to Newsmax:

"The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren't mean-spirited about it."

Other mentions:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/donald-trump-mitt-romney-immigration_n_2193252.html

January 30, 2016 11:49 AM

The evidence that he's a big government Democrat is even stronger when it comes to stuff like healthcare.

Even now, mid race, he's talking single-payer system. Obamacare "is a disaster" he says. Why? Well, nobody asked that in the debates, but it's easy enough to find out.

Just a few months ago:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/

From his own mouth, he's full Bernie Sanders on healthcare.

I'm not sure what I even bother. As I've said a bunch of times, conservative aren't voting for principles/values/doctrines/standards anymore. The middle finger is the whole point, regardless of outcomes.

January 30, 2016 11:53 AM

Given that, as you say, conservatives have lost the future and cannot win by conventional means with conventional politicians - then yes, the biggest possible middle finger is the only rational course. And you never know, sometimes you surprise yourself by winning a fight you expect to lose. It is not unheard of for leaders to rise to the occasion, and Donald Trump, at least, is steeped in a more traditional America - yes, probably Rockefeller Republicanism, not rock-ribbed constitutionalism, but that's still a big improvement over the total deceit and unaccountable totalism we have now.

If Trump defrauds us on the illegals - well, that's the exact same risk we run with every other candidate since every other elected official who has railed against illegal immigration has turned coat immediately after the votes are counted. But Trump has made such a "uuuuge" thing of it, I do think it would be hard for him to flip a flop that enormous, if only because of his own "uuuuge" ego.

January 30, 2016 11:58 AM

Patience, that's simply not true. You're brushing over candidates that do not fit that description.

You said:

"that's the exact same risk we run with every other candidate since every other elected official who has railed against illegal immigration has turned coat immediately after the votes are counted"

I repeat - Carson, Cruz and Paul.

They have stood by their principles at every turn, even when the entire rest of the party opposed them. As the moderator pointed out in the last debate, Cruz could not even get his own party in the Senate to follow routine parliamentary proceedings because he was so consistent in speaking out against them. That takes balls far beyond just angry name-calling. That requires a real principled stand against even your own friends.

Why is the loud angry vitriol of a big government Democrat less risky than the proven track record and constitutional beliefs of these three men?

I should mention... Personally, I don't really care who wins and don't plan on voting for any of them because I believe the ship can no longer be turned. The current is too strong for the rudder. Trump won't be able to do anything in DC any more than Cruz or Hillary or Sanders. I'm just baffled at how much the conservative base has allowed itself to be conned, based on bitterness.

January 30, 2016 12:06 PM

Jimmy Carter said he picks Trump over Cruz because "Trump is completely malleable".

By contrast, Mr. Carter said, "Ted Cruz is not malleable. He has far right-wing policies, in my opinion, that would be pursued aggressively if and when he would become president."

You can tell a lot about a person by who their friends and enemies are.

Read those words by Carter again.

February 4, 2016 9:31 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...