WASHINGTON, May 13, 2016 – The Washington Post’s bowtie-festooned resident dork, George F. Will, wrote that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump is “the most anti-conservative presidential aspirant” in GOP history. He also said that “Republican quislings” rallying to the GOP’s best chance to defeat Hillary Clinton this November “will render themselves ineligible to participate in the party’s reconstruction.”
Will can be counted among the GOP elite who think the Republican Party is their personal plaything. As an opinion molder, Will is shocked that Republican voters have ignored his pleas to reject Trump. This has put Will and fellow “conservative” pundits in the same camp as the Washington Post’s editorial board, which, as you might surmise, are not Republicans in good standing:
“Mr. Trump is not a typical candidate. He is a unique threat to the Republican Party and to the country,” said a Post editorial.
The Post went on to give Republican voters three alternatives: They can vote for Mrs. Clinton, run a third-party conservative candidate or refuse to vote at all.
Notice that all three anti-Trump alternatives puts another sleazy Clinton in the White House to continue President Obama’s program of accelerating America’s decline.
That is, if she isn’t standing trial for her illegal handling of government secrets when she served as secretary of state.
Back in the 1970s, Will was less than enthusiastic about the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. “His hair is still remarkably free of gray, but around the mouth and neck he looks like an old man. He’s never demonstrated substantial national appeal, his hard-core support today consists primarily of kamikaze conservatives who thought the 1964 Goldwater campaign was jolly fun.”
He even urged Reagan to run as a third-party presidential candidate. “It would cost the [Republican] party some support,” said Will, “but it would make the party seem cleansed.”
Over at the Federalist, under the headline “Why Hillary Clinton Would be Better for Conservatives than Trump,” John Davidson observes, “The disheartening conclusion is that conservatives would be better off spending the next four or eight years in principled opposition to Clinton than in collusion with Trump.”
Based on recent history, it’s more likely we’ll see a Republican Senate and House continue the slavish devotion shown the Obama administration to a freshly inaugurated President Hillary Clinton, an unprincipled “collusion” by the GOP’s “conservative” posers.
Back in 2008, the token “conservative” at the New York Times, David Brooks, noted:
“Driven by a need to engage elite opinion, conservatives tried to build an intellectual counterestablishment with think tanks and magazines. They disdained the idea of the liberal professoriate, but they did not disdain the idea of a cultivated mind… Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all – men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.”
By “common,” Brooks means stupid, a theme picked up today by the mainstream media to portray Trump supporters as “those who do not have a college degree… Now, Trump’s support with any group can’t accurately be described as weak. But this is where he’s strongest,” said the Post.
The uneducated and unwashed masses, it appears, are rejecting the advice of their conservative, university-educated, “intellectual counterestalishment” betters.
This has George Will and his fellow upper-crust Republican highbrows devolving into the thin-skinned university students of today, with their need for “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” when confronting words and ideas not their own.
“As the certainty of Mr. Trump’s nomination sinks in throughout the conservative movement and the Republican Party, one of the most shocking stories between today and the Republican convention, and between the Republican convention and the general election, will be the number of prominent conservatives and Republicans who refuse to endorse Mr. Trump and let it be known, in various ways, that they will be voting for Mrs. Clinton,” says Brent Budowsky of the Observer.
It proves what most Republican voters already knew – those that have rejected the cookie-cutter GOP presidential candidates of 2016: The term “conservative” is nothing but a word, an empty label in today’s Republican Party, a label that is dragged out ahead of elections and quickly shelved once in office.
A label that can be applied to John McCain, Mitt Romney and even Hillary Clinton.
Thanks for clearing that up, George.