Ah, yes, remembering Phyllis Schlafly. I'd like to begin by reminding everyone here that Phyllis was the biggest fucking quisling of this election. Let's take a (guided) walk down memory lane as we readtogetherexactly what Phyllis had to say after the convention.
Donald Trumps acceptance speech proved that his vision, not Ted Cruzs, is the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Trump hit the right notes in his talk in putting America first, while Cruzs presentation to the convention the night before was thin on conservative substance.
This is objectively false. Ted Cruz was the last conservative standing in a race left with a moderate pizza slobbering governor and a say-whatever's-on-your-mind former Democrat, and it actually showed in Trump's acceptance speech. There is simply no reasonable definition of conservatism that would make Trump more conservative than Cruz at all. And to charge that Cruz's speech, one whose essential message was NO MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR, REMEMBER TO BE A CONSERVATIVE AND VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE, was less conservative than Trump's is quintessential absurdity.
Cruz did not disqualify himself from being a future standard-bearer merely by failing to endorse Trump, but also by failing to embrace the conservative policies that are necessary to make America great again. It was Trump, not Cruz, who succeeded in fulfilling Ronald Reagans goal of raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people.
This is ironic considering people widely consider Cruz to be the most steadfast conservative in all of government, whose positions are eminently clear and unchanging. Meanwhile, Trump cannot decide on a given day whether he is pro-choice or pro-life. Has Phyllis actually been reading the news?
Trump repeatedly and passionately demonstrated in his acceptance speech that he would stand up for Americans and do everything in his power to end the exploitation of the United States by the rest of the world. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo! Trump declared, adding that the American people will come first once again.
Since Phyllis is prone to quoting Reagan, I will follow her example. Here is Reagan in 1983's State of the Union:
As the leader of the West and as a country that has become great and rich because of economic freedom, America must be an unrelenting advocate of free trade.
This is Ronald Reagan during a national address in 1987.
The way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition.
And a year prior:
High trade barriers, what is often called protectionism, undermines economic growth and destroys jobs.
So in other words, Trump is the anti-Reagan.
As Trump did throughout the campaign, he led on the fundamental issues of immigration and trade. While his rivals eventually followed his lead, it was Trump who framed the issues and forced the media to pay attention to them.
This is actually wrong, too. Trumps' most popular opponents (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz, we are not going to include Ben Carson in this one) had been steadfast in their principles and always accentuated their differences from Donald Trump on a majority of issues, like immigration, trade, and foreign policy. Until the very end, Cruz was a conservative, and Rubio and Bush held on to their establishment positions.
On jobs, the Republican Party since the 1990s supported free trade deals that have cost American workers dearly. Trump has single-handedly converted our Party into one that is now pro-American-worker.
She gets this wrong, too. The Republican party has supported free trade deals since the 80s, when Reagan was president. In 1996 she admitted as much and
had this to say:
Wasn't Ronald Reagan, the model conservative, for free trade?
Ronald Reagan's free trade was an aberration in traditional Republican and conservative trade policy.
However, Ronald Reagan's purpose was not to pursue free trade as an end in itself -- it was part of his national grand strategy to win the Cold War and bring down the Evil Empire. He unilaterally opened our rich market to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and others in order that their economic success and independence would keep them out of the Soviet orbit. We won the Cold War, and that objective is now obsolete.
The stench of revisionism is a smell only Schlafly could love.
An astounding 12 million non-Republicans crossed party lines to vote for Trump in the Republican primaries. The Democrats did not vote for Trump because they prefer supporting a billionaire, but because they like his positions on immigration and trade.
Trump did not get 12 million Democrats to vote for him in the primaries, as some crazy envelope math by fringe right might claim.
Trump has done practically nothing for the Republican party in terms of participation.
Trump extolled the dignity of work and the dignity of working people. He brings back to the Republican Party the bricklayers, carpenters, and electricians whom he said his father was most comfortable being with.
I am not sure in what universe working class whites have not supported the Republican party. Trump is not bringing anyone new, or back, into the party.
Trump observed that America has lost nearly one-third of its manufacturing jobs since 1997, and that NAFTA was one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country. Never again, Trump added.
Yes! And tis a pity that we lost 90% of our agricultural jobs to the combine.
In contrast, Ted Cruzs speech at the convention made only passing references to immigration and trade, without the substance or the passion that Trump expressed. Instead Cruz repeated freedom over and over, some 23 times, declaring that America is an ideal, and that the ideal is merely that freedom matters.
Cruzs speech reflected the views of his mega-donors, who tend to be more libertarian than the conservative views of the average American. Leaving people alone to do whatever they like is not enough to restore the United States to military superiority or economic independence, or to achieve the many other goals set forth in the Republican Party platform.
What is a leitmotif?
Ah, but maybe Phyllis is right. Ted Cruz's speech should have looked something more like, I dunno, this:
People are fed up with politicians who dont listen to them, fed up with a corrupt system that benefits the elites, instead of working men and women.
We deserve an immigration system that puts America first. And yes, builds a wall to keep Americans safe.
A government that stops admitting ISIS terrorists as refugees.
We deserve trade policies that put the interests of American farmers and manufacturing jobs over the global interests that are funding the lobbyists.
And if we stand together and choose freedom, our future will be brighter.
Freedom will bring back jobs, and raise wages.
Freedom will lift people out of dependency, to the dignity of work.
Wait. Hold on.
That was Ted's speech.
Cruzs vision is not that of Ronald Reagan, who made the United States stronger and more prosperous as Trump vows to do. Trump emphasized in his speech his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he said will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to the rulings of foreign governments.
To wit, Reagan made America stronger and more prosperous, but Trump is good and holy because he will do the exact opposite of what Reagan did.
Wait. What?
Trump even pledged to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Cruz made no such pledge and failed to mention the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Cruz does not need to pledge to not sign any trade agreement because he is not the nominee and is incapable of signing anything.
But this doesn't matter because Cruz
has always opposed the TPP and even said so in debates.
Trump obviously meant every word in his electrifying speech, as when he expressed his genuine outrage at how big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of [Hillary Clinton] because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. Cruzs speech had no such criticism of Hillary, and relied on superficial rhetorical devices like devoting much of his speech to a story about a sympathetic victim with whom Cruz had no personal connection.
That's wrong. He did call out the elites.
Ted Cruz said:
Voters are overwhelmingly rejecting the political establishment and overwhelmingly rejecting big government. Thats a profound victory, and it is one earned by each and every one of you.
People are fed up with politicians who dont listen to them, fed up with a corrupt system that benefits the elites, instead of working men and women.
If that seems like less than what Donald Trump said, then maybe that's because Ted Cruz's speech was 20 minutes and Donald's was a full hour and 20. That could possibly contribute to a content disparity in speeches. Just maybe. It might.
The shortcoming of Ted Cruz is not only his failure to endorse the Republican Party nominee. The greater flaw is that, like Mitt Romney and others in the Republican Establishment, Cruz has failed to embrace the conservative vision that Donald Trump stands for.
Donald Trump has a conservative vision like a blind kid has regular vision. And Phyllis is a conservative hero, about as much as my bleached asshole is.
Good riddance to the wart of the right.
