By David Harsanyi
Thursday, January 09, 2020
One of the most irritating things about being a
professional pundit is having random strangers hold you accountable for every
column, tweet, and post you’ve ever written. Needless to say, I’ve accumulated
plenty of bad takes over the past 20 years. An industrious critic with lots of
time on his hands could, no doubt, rifle through millions of my words and
unearth a number of contradictions.
These days, a popular way that Trump critics try to
embarrass former “Never Trumpers” such as I is to point out that we’ve failed
to embrace an appropriately adversarial attitude toward the presidency of
Donald Trump. There’s an expectation — often, a demand — that “movement conservatives”
be all in or all out on the Donald Trump presidency. Why aren’t we “against
Trump” anymore, they wonder?
With the 2020 election season approaching, I figured it
was time to revisit the numerous critical pieces I penned about Trump during
his first campaign and take inventory of my alleged moral failings. As it turns
out, I’ve remained consistent in my basic political beliefs. I wish I could say
the same of my critics.
At the time, I harbored three major trepidations about a
Trump presidency:
The first concerned Trump’s political malleability —
perhaps a better way to put it would be that I feared he lacked political
convictions. I was convinced that Trump wouldn’t govern like a conservative,
either ideologically or temperamentally. I was skeptical that he would uphold
his promises to appoint originalist judges, exit the Iran deal, cut
regulations, defend religious liberty, and overturn his predecessor’s
unconstitutional executive decisions — and that he would do much of anything I
regarded as useful.
I was convinced that the billionaire would govern like a
latter-day FDR, which, let’s face it, might well be what many Republican voters
were really looking for all along.
On this question, I was largely, although not completely,
wrong. Trump, certainly a big spender, has failed conservatism in much
the same way that Republican presidents typically fail conservatism, with a
complete disregard for debt. Though in some surprising ways — his steadfast
support of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh even in the face of massive
media pressure, or his insistence on moving the American embassy to Jerusalem
in the face of foreign-policy groupthink — Trump’s obstinacy seems to have made
him less susceptible to the pressures that traditionally induce GOP presidents
to capitulate.
Through much chaos and incompetence and numerous
self-inflicted wounds, Trump’s policy record is turning out to be a mixed bag:
more moderate than his opponents contend, less effectual than his supporters
imagine, and definitely more traditionally conservative than I predicted. I’m
happy to have been wrong.
Granted, for me, a less energetic Washington is a
blessing. Contemporary American political life features a series of
unbridgeable divisions. Gridlock on a national level is a reflection of our
intractable political differences. Frustrating as it may be, the system is
working as it should. The nation is too big, too diverse, and too divided for
the kind of centralized and efficient federal governance that many seek.
Whether we like to admit it or not, many of the most
significant political victories of modern conservatism have been achieved by
simply getting in the way. Trump, certainly, has been an obnoxiously effective
impediment to an increasingly radicalized Democratic party. In the meantime, he
has also taken a cultural rearguard action by helping fill the courts with
constitutionalists.
Trump antagonists will dismiss this as a “but Gorsuch”
argument. But ensuring that the judicial branch serves its purpose as a bulwark
against government overreach — rather than being an unaccountable enabler of it
— is nothing to sneer at. It’s a strategy that conservatives have long
supported, and I don’t see why Trump should lead them to abandon that position.
“Aha!” critics will also say, “you’re willing to overlook
all of Trump’s behavior in exchange for long-term ideological victory.”
Absolutely! There are limits to everything, of course, but if the choice, as
many voters rightly see it, is between a group that wants a nationalized
health-care system to pay for abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy and one that
doesn’t, it’s not a difficult one to make.
My second concern about Trump revolved around fears that
his administration would mainstream protectionist trade policy and anti-market
populism, already a staple of the progressive Left. This change, sadly, has
happened.
Perhaps Trump’s rhetoric on trade is merely a reflection
of the growing grievances of many voters. Either way, trade wars are still
raging, and high-profile conservatives such as Marco Rubio and Tucker Carlson
feel perfectly comfortable railing against the market economy. The debate over
capitalism within the conservative movement has only just started.
My third big fear was that Trump’s boorish and impulsive
behavior would undermine his presidency. On this, the president hasn’t failed
me, acting with all the grace, civility, and humility I expected.
While civility is an imperative in a decent society, we
can’t ignore that Trump’s coarseness has also helped reveal the liberal
establishment’s incivility and disdain for anyone who refuses to adopt its
cultural mores. I’m sorry, I have a hard time taking etiquette lessons from
people who can’t raise any ire over the Virginia governor’s casual description
of euthanizing infants but act as if every Trump tweet should trigger his
removal from office through the 25th Amendment.
So while I don’t like Trump any better today than I did
when writing those critical pieces, I do live in the world that exists, not the
one I wish existed. And that world has changed. What I didn’t foresee when
writing about Trump’s candidacy was the American Left’s extraordinary four-year
descent into insanity.
My own political disposition during the past four years
has hardened into something approaching universal contempt. When I defend the
president — as far as I do — it is typically in reaction to some toxic hysteria
or the attacks on constitutional order that Democrats now regularly make in
their efforts to supposedly save the nation from Donald Trump — whether they’re
calling for the end of the Electoral College or for packing the Supreme Court,
or they’re embracing shifting “norms” that are wholly tethered to a single
overriding principle: get Trump.
Recently, for example, New Yorker editor David
Remnick, the kind of high-minded, sane person we’re expected to take seriously,
argued that removing President Trump from office was not merely a political
imperative but a necessity for the “future of the Earth.” Four years ago, we
might have found such a panic-stricken warning absurd. Today, such apocalyptic
rhetoric is the norm in media and academia.
As the Democrats’ allies in the media stumble from one
frenzy to the next, it has become increasingly difficult to believe any of it
is really precipitated by genuine concern over Russian interference or improper
calls with a Ukrainian president or dishonesty or rudeness. The president has
become a convenient straw man for all the political anxieties on the left,
which have manifested in an unhealthy obsession and antagonism toward the
constitutional system that allowed Trump to win.
Many of us would prefer a more articulate and chaste
classical liberal as our president. I don’t have any special fondness for
Trump, either, but I also don’t hold any special antagonism for him. Political
support is a transactional arrangement, not a religious oath, and Trump has
done much to like. I support policies, not people. If Trump protects the
constitutional order, he deserves to be praised for it. If not, he doesn’t. But
the notion of some Trump critics that conservatives have a moral duty to
uniformly oppose the president for the sake of principle or patriotism — or
because they once opposed him during a GOP primary — is plainly silly.
No comments:
Post a Comment