The Necessity of The Donald
I like Marco Rubio, but can’t repress a degree of skepticism. Why was he absent during congressional negotiations funding Obama’s $1.1 trillion spending bill subsidizing the president’s refugee resettlement program, sanctuary cities and the resettlement of illegal aliens? This was a resounding defeat for the Republican Party, as well as a sordid betrayal of principle. I appreciate Rubio’s passionate support of Israel and many believe, rightly or wrongly, that he has the best chance of success against the Hillary juggernaut (should it materialize), but, at bottom, I don’t quite trust him.
Ted Cruz seems to me a worthy candidate. Likewise Roger Kimball who, while praising Trump for having “raised some issues that the high and mighty dispensers of conventional wisdom would do well to ponder” and for being “an effective ice breaker,” believes it will be Cruz who leads “the troops ashore to plant the flag of America’s new aspiration.” I have no prophetic afflatus, but if Tom Cruise can carry out Mission Impossible, I suppose Ted Cruz might do so as well—thanks in large measure to his swashbuckling rival who has made the Mission more than possible.
Were I an American, I would have no choice but to vote for one of these three, but which one would receive my ballot is a decision I’m glad I don’t need to make. Each of them is infinitely better than the canailles the Democrats have to offer. Nonetheless, Trump occupies a category of his own, a unique political actor mistaken on some things, sound on others, but unafraid to speak unambiguously, to take on a corrupt and debased media establishment, and to flout the mind-stunting rules of political correctness—an aspect of temperament that renders him exceptional, as America was once exceptional, pre-Obama. Overall, it can be said that, unlike the majority of his colleagues and competitors, his brashness has been justly earned, is even refreshing. He may or may not be suitable for the presidency; it’s a Schrödinger’s Cat dilemma. But there’s no question that he is the protagonist of the hour.
Moreover, whatever one may think of him, he does not subscribe to the craven assumption that the so-called “new normal” is an admissible and dignified way to live. Trump would have no sympathy with the attitude of France’s leading anti-terrorism judge Marc Trévidic, who said that “the French had to get used to the idea that terrorism was here to stay and could not be eradicated”—a sentiment all too common among the acquiescent left.
What the emergence of Donald Trump has brought into sharp perspective is the unprecedented plight into which the U.S. has fallen, to the point at which it is now a moot question whether the nation can bootstrap itself back to its former prosperity, dignity and importance. A major shakeup is plainly called for. America desperately needs people who know how to make things work, who can bargain with the best or, for that matter, out-bargain them (cf. Iran), who are not afraid of a show of strength, and who can speak the unvarnished truth in a climate of pious and hypocritical repression. If anyone can do it, there’s at least a decent chance that the man who wrote Crippled America can—presuming he has learned from some of his former gaffes and is true to his written word. The jury is still out on this one.
As The Hill explains, Trump has caused a paradigm shift in the way the dreary electoral game is played. He has introduced something new, or at least something not seen since the time of Reagan: direct speech, articulating what he thinks and what people think, not what the polls, the handlers, the party apparatchiks and the media tell him to say. Whatever the sequel turns out to be and whether or not he is electable, if Trump had not existed, he would have had to be invented, if only for America’s political benefit.
(Artwork created using multiple Shutterstock.com elements.)