By Ramesh Ponnuru
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Recriminations began unusually early for Republicans this
year. Usually political parties wait until they have lost general elections
before their members start blaming one another for the defeats. Sometimes the
finger-pointing begins a few weeks ahead of schedule, as the polls foretell
doom. This year, many Republicans saw doom for their party foretold in the
polls half a year before the election, thanks to Donald Trump.
Trump’s supporters have responded by doubting the polls’
accuracy, or denying their predictive power, or calling attention to the minority
of favorable or close polls — which became more numerous in the immediate
aftermath of his clinching the nomination. A few Republicans have, however,
already devised a preemptive explanation for why neither Trump nor his
supporters in the primary will be responsible if he should lose in November.
According to this theory, it will be anti-Trump Republicans who have caused a
Trump defeat. They will be to blame for not voting for him, or for validating
some of Hillary Clinton’s criticisms of him, or for refusing to give him their
wholehearted backing.
This theory may turn out to be right — if Clinton defeats
Trump narrowly, and especially if a third-party campaign by anti-Trump
conservatives exceeds the margin between them. If, on the other hand, Clinton
beats Trump by a mile, as some polls suggest she will, then the theory will not
explain the result. It will instead be clear, at least for those with eyes to
see, that Trump supporters gave an extremely weak general-election candidate
the nomination.
How that happened is the subject of another category of
precriminations, this time dividing his opponents. The question these
precriminations seek to answer is who, besides Trump himself and his supporters,
paved the way for his nomination. Four groups are in the dock: Trump’s primary
rivals, Republican officials, the media, and conservatives.
Trump’s primary rivals are all at fault, in a sense, for
not winning more votes than he did. But Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich
have attracted particular blame for supposedly staying in the race after it
became clear they could not win. Bush should probably have never entered in the
first place. For all the talk about 2016 “not being his year” because of the
Republican electorate’s sour mood, it is hard to picture a candidate so
diffident and introverted winning in any year. He also served as a useful foil
for Trump at the start of the campaign, letting him win credit from
conservatives who consider themselves hostile to the “Republican
establishment.”
But the dynamics of the campaign were too unpredictable
to make these indictments stick. If Bush had dropped out after coming in fourth
in New Hampshire, Rubio might have won South Carolina and altered the course of
the race. But then again, he might not have: Adding all of Bush’s votes to his
would have gotten him to second place. And it was hard to make the case that
the fourth-place finisher in New Hampshire should step aside for the guy who
took fifth. An earlier departure from the race by Rubio, meanwhile, would not
have solved Ted Cruz’s ultimately fatal weakness among the “somewhat
conservative” voters in the middle of the party.
Some of Kasich’s behavior, on the other hand, is harder
to explain, let alone defend. Cruz offered to debate Kasich even if Trump
refused to participate, allowing the two to make a point of the front-runner’s
cowardice. In declining this, Kasich also turned down an opportunity to make
himself and his views better known nationally.
Most of Trump’s rivals collectively refused to take him
on — and devote ad money to attacking him — in the early stages of the race.
Early ads would have had to persuade Republican voters not to choose Trump.
They might not have worked; but later ads had the harder task of persuading
Republicans to stop someone already on the path to the nomination.
Elected Republicans, meanwhile, mostly decided not to get
involved in the presidential race. A very few of them, generally the most
opportunistic, endorsed Trump. But few of them were moved by Trump’s character,
or his principles, or even his poll numbers, to endorse someone else. Rubio won
a lot of endorsements relatively late in the game — only after putting Bush and
Christie away. After he lost Florida, most of them did not endorse either of
Trump’s remaining rivals.
And a lot of them stayed neutral all the way through. If
Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona, or Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, or most of
their colleagues, are alarmed by the prospect of Trump as the Republican
nominee, you wouldn’t know it from anything they did.
Along with the party’s donors, most Republican officials
moved in the blink of an eye from thinking that it was unnecessary to act
against Trump because it was too early in the primaries to thinking it was
futile to act against him because it was too late. A lot of anti-Trump
commentary at the start of the race proceeded from the assumption that such an
obviously flawed nominee would be unacceptable to the party. But the party’s
leaders gave its voters no signal that Trump was unacceptable.
Some of them did worse. Some anti-Trump conservatives
have been angry at Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus for
urging Republicans to back Trump. But that’s the chairman’s job; if he can’t
say that in good conscience about the party’s presidential nominee, he should
resign. What he didn’t have to do was get all the presidential candidates to
take a pledge to support the nominee. That pledge was not intended to help
Trump, but rather to make it harder for him to run as a third-party candidate
if he lost. Its effect was to handicap Trump’s rivals, since the strongest
arguments against him concern his unfitness for office. The RNC also did what
it could to make the primaries more friendly to front-runners; these efforts,
too, ended up helping a candidate it didn’t expect.
The media, from the start of the campaign, gave Trump far
more coverage than any of the other candidates. (Actually, the media did that
from before the start, since they had already made him a celebrity.) He has
been good for ratings. But it’s the conservative end of the media, from Fox
News to many radio talk-show hosts, that really helped him. They did more than
give him a hearing: They made endless excuses for him, and they ignored stories
that might hurt him.
You could watch many Sean Hannity interviews with Trump
(and there have been many) without learning that Trump is an extremely
unpopular figure. Nor would you have any sense of the fraud controversies surrounding
his “university.” Hannity protests that he is not a journalist — and if by that
he means that he is not someone who tries to keep his audience informed, he is
certainly right.
Many commentators have suggested that Trump’s rise is
evidence of a deep pathology among movement conservatives. The critique comes
in several versions. An implausible version faults conservatives for having
been too hostile to President Obama and his agenda. Obstructionism led to
nihilism and then to Trump. The defects of this theory are that Senator Cruz
was a much more convincing obstructionist than Trump, who boasts regularly of
his willingness to cut deals with Democrats and has donated to many of them;
and that Trump has done worse with the very conservative voters who have been
most hostile to deal-cutting than he has with more moderate voters.
A related argument comes from conservative and
libertarian supporters of relatively open immigration policies. They say that
restrictionists created Trump by getting conservative voters worked up about
immigration. But a better case can be made that the immigration liberalizers
tried to create a consensus in the party that was a poor fit for its voters.
That attempt succeeded for a while — before Trump, it appeared that almost all the
presidential candidates would favor increased immigration and the granting of
legal status to illegal immigrants — but eventually backfired by giving Trump
an opening.
Some of the connections between organized conservatism
and the Trump phenomenon are, however, real. We have come to reward the
expression of resentment and anger more than the mastery of public policy. Our
attacks on the “political class” have gotten less discriminating over time.
Skepticism of the press and of technocratic experts has made conservatives more
prone to falling for lies when they’re told by people who are, or claim to be,
on our side. It has made us more credulous rather than less.
If the conventional wisdom is right, we conservatives
will all have a lot of time out of power to think about these matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment