David Brooks: It's Not Too Late!

[John F]

In case anyone has forgotten, David Brooks is the NY Times's senior conservative op-ed writer. He's advocating a brokered convention.

It’s Not Too Late!
David Brooks
MARCH 8, 2016

It’s 2 a.m. The bar is closing. Republicans have had a series of strong and nasty Trump cocktails. Suddenly Ted Cruz is beginning to look kind of attractive. At least he’s sort of predictable, and he doesn’t talk about his sexual organs in presidential debates!

Well, Republicans, have your standards really fallen so low so fast? Are you really that desperate? Can you remember your 8 p.m. selves, and all the hope you had about entering a campaign with such a deep bench of talented candidates?

Back in the early evening, before the current panic set in, Republicans understood that Ted Cruz would be a terrible general election candidate, at least as unelectable as Donald Trump and maybe more so. He is the single most conservative Republican in Congress, far adrift from the American mainstream. He’s been doing well in primaries because of the support of “extremely conservative” voters in very conservative states, and he really hasn’t broken out of that lane. His political profile is a slightly enlarged Rick Santorum but without the heart.

On policy grounds, he would be unacceptable to a large majority in this country. But his policy disadvantages are overshadowed by his public image ones. His rhetorical style will come across to young and independent voters as smarmy and oleaginous. In Congress, he had two accomplishments: the disastrous government shutdown and persuading all his colleagues to dislike him.

There is another path, one that doesn’t leave you self-loathing in the morning. It’s a long shot, but given the alternatives, it’s worth trying. First, hit the pause button on the rush to Cruz. Second, continue the Romneyesque assault on Trump. The results on Saturday, when late voters swung sharply against the Donald, suggest it may be working. Third, work for a Marco Rubio miracle in Florida on March 15. Fourth, clear the field for John Kasich in Ohio. If Rubio and Kasich win their home states, Trump will need to take nearly 70 percent of the remaining delegates to secure a majority. That would be unlikely; he’s only winning 44 percent of the delegates now.

The party would go to the convention without a clear nominee. It would be bedlam for a few days, but a broadly acceptable new option might emerge. It would be better than going into the fall with Trump, which would be a moral error, or Cruz, who in November would manage to win several important counties in Mississippi.

This isn’t about winning the presidency in 2016 anymore. This is about something much bigger. Every 50 or 60 years, parties undergo a transformation. The G.O.P. is undergoing one right now. What happens this year will set the party’s trajectory for decades.

Since Goldwater/Reagan, the G.O.P. has been governed by a free-market, anti-government philosophy. But over the ensuing decades new problems have emerged. First, the economy has gotten crueler. Technology is displacing workers and globalization is dampening wages. Second, the social structure has atomized and frayed, especially among the less educated. Third, demography is shifting.

Orthodox Republicans, seeing no positive role for government, have had no affirmative agenda to help people deal with these new problems. Occasionally some conservative policy mavens have proposed such an agenda — anti-poverty programs, human capital policies, wage subsidies and the like — but the proposals were killed, usually in the House, by the anti-government crowd. The 1980s anti-government orthodoxy still has many followers; Ted Cruz is the extreme embodiment of this tendency. But it has grown increasingly rigid, unresponsive and obsolete.

Along comes Donald Trump offering to replace it and change the nature of the G.O.P. He tramples all over the anti-government ideology of modern Republicanism. He would replace the free-market orthodoxy with authoritarian nationalism. He offers to use government on behalf of the American working class, but in negative and defensive ways: to build walls, to close trade, to ban outside groups, to smash enemies. According to him, America’s problems aren’t caused by deep structural shifts. They’re caused by morons and parasites. The Great Leader will take them down.

If the G.O.P. is going to survive as a decent and viable national party, it can’t cling to the fading orthodoxy Cruz represents. But it can’t shift to ugly Trumpian nationalism either. It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity. That is what Kasich, Rubio, Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward.

Amid all the vulgarity and pettiness, that is what is being fought over this month: going back to the past, veering into an ugly future, or finding a third way. This is something worth fighting for, worth burning the boats behind you for.

The hour is late and the odds may be long. But there is still hope. It’s a moment for audacity, not settling for Ted Cruz simply because he’s the Titanic you know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opini ... -late.html

[John F]

Trump will need to take nearly 70 percent of the remaining delegates to secure a majority. That would be unlikely; he’s only winning 44 percent of the delegates now.

But many of the remaining Republican primaries, including those in most of the big states, are winner-take-all or winner-take-most. With four candidates splitting the votes, a 44% victory may well be enough to win all or most of the state's delegates.

[rwetmore]

It may not be too late, but Cruz is the only one with a real chance to get enough delegates to win on the first ballot. But the establishment, I suspect, doesn't want Cruz anymore than Trump, so I don't expect them to make a push for Cruz (by getting Kasich and Rubio to drop out). They are likely eyeing a brokered convention and something like a Romney/Kasich ticket.

[rwetmore]

BTW, I do not agree that Cruz has no chance in the general election. It will be tough, but I do think it's feasible he could win despite his faults and perceived negatives. His extraordinarily high intelligence and articulation skills give him a legit chance.

[jbuck919]

Bring on Trump! Ra ra ra! Rubio, Kasich, and Ryan are nightmares of their own sort, and the last thing we need is an electable Republican nightmare. Brooks contradicts himself in seeing in them some sort of salvation when he himself says that the Republicans need to offer a plan instead of just seeing no positive role for government. (Actually, they see a positive role, which is to continue to draw all the wealth to the top at the expense of everyone else, if you can call that positive.)

Brooks is desperate to save the party to which he has devoted himself all his life. There is no need to assume that the survival of the Republicans is a good thing. If they vanished like the Whigs or the British Liberal Party, the world would probably be a better place. There will always be a Right and a Left, but there doesn't always have to be an extreme Right populated by ignoramuses and crazies that is a force to be reckoned with in US politics.

[John F]

Bring on Trump! Ra ra ra! Rubio, Kasich, and Ryan are nightmares of their own sort, and the last thing we need is an electable Republican nightmare.

That's how I feel, and how I felt last year. But this was before Trump began his successful campaign of dumbing down the Republican primaries and winning with the support of independent and even some Democratic voters. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton hasn't been winning the Democratic primaries as decisively as I and many expected. She should still get the nomination, but the presidential campaign looks rather less predictable than it did last year. Trump may have become an electable Republican nightmare too.

It now looks to me that the best match-up for the Democrats this fall would be Ted Cruz. A right-wing extremist, his appeal even within the Republican party is limited, and he would appear very unlikely to attract many independent voters. Hillary Clinton is disliked by many Democratic voters, I don't know why, and that could hold down the Democratic turnout on election day. Cruz is by far the most disliked of the Republican contenders, which could have a similar effect on the other side, the dislikes canceling each other out. So now I've changed sides and am rooting for Ted Cruz instead of Donald Trump.

There is no contradiction anywhere in the Brooks piece. He has never been a Tea Party Republican or a Libertarian, he has never approved the Republican stone wall in Congress, and it is entirely in character not only to want to save the Republican Party from itself but also to want its presidential nominee to offer a positive plan, as was usual before the Tea Party. As a regular conservative voice on the PBS NewsHour, he has consistently been a thoughtful, moderate conservative. You aren't responding to hs views but lumping him together with the ideologues and just-say-no politicians whom he deplores.

The notion that the Republican Party might cease to exist, and that this could put paid to the extreme right wing, is sheer fantasy. Ever since the 1820s there always has been and always will be a second party in opposition to the Democrats, and there's no reason why it shouldn't continue to be called the Republican Party. What's needed is for its extremist candidates to stop winning elections, which they do not because of the Republican brand name but because of the voters and the moneybags who buy the elections. If their presidential candidate is Trump, then when/if he loses it will be easy for the right wing to make excuses. If their man Cruz runs and loses, there can be no excuses.

[rwetmore]

Bring on Trump!

Well, if Trump wins Florida and Ohio you'll likely get your wish. But be careful what you wish for. The core issues Trump's campaigning on have widespread appeal plenty large enough to win a national election. It's his loose cannon personality and antics that seems to be his biggest weakness among voters, but he has time to turn this image around and win enough people over. He also seems to be able to fend off attacks against him, especially from the media, remarkably well. He's quite feisty in that regard, and this will be necessary because the media -- if he becomes the nominee -- is going to hit him with a huge barrage of things to tarnish his character. They are just waiting to unleash on him, and probably have teams of people working overtime to dig up as much dirt on him as possible.

Frankly, I'm uncertain he can do what's necessary to win the general election, but everyone has underestimated him greatly so who knows. One thing I'm nearly sure of, and that's the same tactics and antics he used in the primary will not work in the general election. The core issues are perfectly fine, but he needs to find a softer, significantly more measured way to express and communicate them to voters, as well as cast his message as a positive and hopeful one. I am not sure he can do this, or do it well enough to win. But if he gets the nomination, we'll have to see what happens.

[John F]

Far from waiting, "the media" - favorite whipping boy of the right wing - has already shot its bolt at Trump, to little effect. Right-wingers have been conditioned to view and read only what they agree with, present company included. What is lying in wait for him, according to a news story I quoted in the "More Primary Results" thread, is an onslaught of attack ads in Florida and Illinois from Republican anti-Trump PACs supporting no other candidate in particular. And if he does get the nomination, expect an even more furious barrage of attack ads, 3 months' worth, from the Democrats. Trump won't be able to blame those on "the media," though it's the media, especially TV, that makes it possible. There'll be no free ride such as he got early on in the primaries. How effective negative advertising might be, remains to be seen.

[rwetmore]

Far from waiting, "the media" - favorite whipping boy of the right wing - has already shot its bolt at Trump, to little effect.

Actually, they haven't really (at least that I've seen or noticed). Largely, presumably, because he's boosting their ratings so high and they're making so much money off of him that they don't want to see him go (yet). Trust me, if he is the nominee they are going to unleash on him like you've never seen before, especially in the last 2 months leading up to the election. They view it as their duty to do everything in their power to prevent a Trump presidency and get Hillary elected. They will hire massive teams, as will the DNC, working 24/7 whose sole purpose will be to find stuff they can use to assault him in any and everyway possible way. Now some of it may even be legit -- I'm not claiming none of it will be, but a massive tidal wave of it is coming if he becomes the nominee. Trump better be ready for it.

[Chalkperson]

Far from waiting, "the media" - favorite whipping boy of the right wing - has already shot its bolt at Trump, to little effect.

Actually, they haven't really (at least that I've seen or noticed). Largely, presumably, because he's boosting their ratings so high and they're making so much money off of him that they don't want to see him go (yet). Trust me, if he is the nominee they are going to unleash on him like you've never seen before, especially in the last 2 months leading up to the election. They view it as their duty to do everything in their power to prevent a Trump presidency and get Hillary elected. They will hire massive teams, as will the DNC, working 24/7 whose sole purpose will be to find stuff they can use to assault him in any and everyway possible way. Now some of it may even be legit -- I'm not claiming none of it will be, but a massive tidal wave of it is coming if he becomes the nominee. Trump better be ready for it.

i made this very point some time ago, its the attack ad's that will get hilary the white house.

trump has made a mockery of the very idea of the presidency, way worse than clinton's oral office offense.

whilst he may have shaken up the political process, i see nothing that justified his methods and rhetoric

the man is a buffon

[jbuck919]

There is no contradiction anywhere in the Brooks piece. He has never been a Tea Party Republican or a Libertarian, he has never approved the Republican stone wall in Congress, and it is entirely in character not only to want to save the Republican Party from itself but also to want its presidential nominee to offer a positive plan, as was usual before the Tea Party."

I was going by this: "Since Goldwater/Reagan, the G.O.P. has been governed by a free-market, anti-government philosophy." Sure sounds like he's saying that the party has been anti-government since long before the Tea Party. The period of time he is spanning is a cool half century. It is true that Reagan had a plan, though a very bad one, so this does look on the surface of it anyway like a contradiction.

The notion that the Republican Party might cease to exist, and that this could put paid to the extreme right wing, is sheer fantasy.

[/quote]

It is highly unlikely, I agree, but I can envision, without feeling that I am engaging in fantasy, a reconfiguration such as a middle party popping up out of nowhere (as apparently the Tea Party did) and snarfing up the so-called moderates among the Republicans, possibly along with some blue-dog Democrats, becoming the new viable "conservative" party, and leaving the extreme Right out in the cold.

[rwetmore]

i made this very point some time ago, its the attack ad's that will get hilary the white house.

Don't forget that Hillary's negatives are almost as high as Trump's. There will be attacks going her way as well.

trump has made a mockery of the very idea of the presidency, way worse than clinton's oral office offense.

I don't agree he's made a mockery, but he will need to convince a majority that he takes the office and its immense responsibility absolutely seriously and that it won't primarily be a means for satisfying his inflated ego.

whilst he may have shaken up the political process, i see nothing that justified his methods and rhetoric

Well, whatever you think don't forget the X factor for Trump: The normally non-participants, which will nearly entirely go his way and might not show up or be properly reflected in polls of 'likely' voters.

the man is a buffon

He's a hilarious character, IMO. One of the funniest and most ridiculous candidates I think this country has ever had. I mean the man is just freakin hilarious. And it's not so much the actual words he says that are funny in and of themselves -- it's the idea of a character doing and saying the things he does the way he does -- that's so funny.

[Chalkperson]

i made this very point some time ago, its the attack ad's that will get hilary the white house.

Don't forget that Hillary's negatives are almost as high as Trump's. There will be attacks going her way as well.

trump has made a mockery of the very idea of the presidency, way worse than clinton's oral office offense.

I don't agree he's made a mockery, but he will need to convince a majority that he takes the office and its immense responsibility absolutely seriously and that it won't primarily be a means for satisfying his inflated ego.

whilst he may have shaken up the political process, i see nothing that justified his methods and rhetoric

Well, whatever you think don't forget the X factor for Trump: The normally non-participants, which will nearly entirely go his way and might not show up or be properly reflected in polls of 'likely' voters.

the man is a buffon

He's a hilarious character, IMO. One of the funniest and most ridiculous candidates I think this country has ever had. I mean the man is just freakin hilarious. And it's not so much the actual words he says that are funny in and of themselves -- it's the idea of a character doing and saying the things he does the way he does -- that's so funny.

My god, we both agree on something. The last paragraph.

But should this really be the way the (once) most powerful nation on earth ejects it's leader.

[rwetmore]

The normally non-participants.....might not show up or be properly reflected in polls of 'likely' voters.

And BTW, all the way until and through the election. Believe me this is a very, very big X factor and one nearly impossible to accurately measure before the actual vote.

[John F]

I was going by this: "Since Goldwater/Reagan, the G.O.P. has been governed by a free-market, anti-government philosophy." Sure sounds like he's saying that the party has been anti-government since long before the Tea Party. The period of time he is spanning is a cool half century. It is true that Reagan had a plan, though a very bad one, so this does look on the surface of it anyway like a contradiction.

I guess Brooks was a little careless with words there; "anti-government" is an overstatement for "limited government." The Republicans have certainly long since been against the involvement of the federal government in the economy and has favored state-by-state rather than nation-wide action on social issues. But that's not libertarianism, it's what used to be the American mainstream until FDR and the New Deal. Reagan wasn't so anti-government that he would refrain from sending the Army to invade Granada.

The notion that the Republican Party might cease to exist, and that this could put paid to the extreme right wing, is sheer fantasy.

It is highly unlikely, I agree, but I can envision, without feeling that I am engaging in fantasy, a reconfiguration such as a middle party popping up out of nowhere (as apparently the Tea Party did) and snarfing up the so-called moderates among the Republicans, possibly along with some blue-dog Democrats, becoming the new viable "conservative" party, and leaving the extreme Right out in the cold.

That could only happen if the "so-called moderates" exist in significant numbers. In this election cycle, they have been too few to make a difference. Even with only one truly moderate Republican still running, John Kasich, Marco Rubio having gone over to the Dark Side, he has attracted little support. Anyway, the leading candidate, Donald Trump, is by no stretch of the imagination a Tea Party Republican - indeed, he's hardly a Republican at all. So maybe Republican moderates are part of his support, faut de mieux.

The Tea Party does indeed seem to have begun as a grass roots movement of a libertarian kind, though accounts of its origin in the Wikipedia article are diverse and confusing. Support from the Koch brothers and others came later when its protests began actually to amount to something. What you'd like to see happen is something quite different: a return to traditional Republicanism. That doesn't seem to me the kind of cause that angry voters can rally around - except in the wake of a crushing electoral defeat of Tea Party politicians at all levels. That's what happened in 1968: after Goldwater's disastrous defeat in 1964, they turned to Eisenhower's vice president, as mainstream as then possible. Unless that happens, or at least until Tea Party incumbents start to be defeated by challengers to their left, I'm afraid we're stuck with them.