Armchair generals

I've never been a Rush Limbaugh listener. Back when he was a contributor to NRO, I'd read some of Mark Levin's stuff. During this campaign cycle, I've been reading or watching some of Ben Shapiro's stuff. 

Over the years, rightwing talk show hosts have done a lot of yeoman work for the conservative cause. In addition, they are notoriously critical of many Republican politicians and candidates. Sometimes this is richly deserved, and serves a useful purpose.

There is, however, a basic limitation to their critique. These men are armchair generals. Armchair strategists.

They haven't run for public office. They haven't demonstrated by example how a candidate can win elections by running on their message.

By the same token, they haven't been big-city mayors, senators, governors, or Congressmen. They haven't demonstrated by example how a candidate with their agenda and their strategies can successfully enact his policy initiatives into law.

I often appreciate what people like Shapiro say. But these are self-appointed generals with no combat experience. They don't lead by example. They are quick to give advice on how to defeat the enemy, but it's like simulated war games. They haven't actually shown how to get it done their way. They don't put themselves in that position. They don't put their "winning" strategies to the test. Just because they think they could do a better job if only candidates would heed their sage advice doesn't mean their alternatives are politically feasible. 

(In fairness to Shapiro, I appreciate how he's going straight into the lair of the baest these days by speaking on college campuses.)

The Republicans' Self-Inflicted Wounds

Steve has linked some of Mark Levin's comments on the New York values controversy. I agree with the general thrust of Levin's comments, and I think they were worth linking. I want to add the following, though.

Rush Limbaugh Gets Some Much-Deserved Criticism

See here. The article makes a lot of good points about Trump and his supporters, including the ones on talk radio, like Limbaugh. I also recommend listening to the audio clip he links featuring Mark Levin's comments on Trump in 2011. Notice how negative Levin was about Trump at that point. And notice that what he criticizes Trump for then is applicable today as well (his history of liberalism, his self-contradictions, his opportunism, etc.). Levin's comments about Rubio in that 2011 clip are ironic, given that Trump is now running against Rubio in this 2016 cycle.

I want to add a qualifier to Guy Benson's analysis, though. Limbaugh often hedges his bets, and he often does it in a dubious way. His approach toward Trump is an example of that. Limbaugh does sometimes acknowledge that Trump isn't a conservative, that some of Trump's opponents have better reasons for opposing him than the Trump critics Limbaugh usually focuses on, etc. So, Limbaugh could highlight his comments like the ones I just described in response to somebody like Benson. But Benson is right about how Limbaugh usually covers Trump. He has the general thrust right, even though Limbaugh can cite some occasional bet hedging to defend himself against that sort of criticism. He'll occasionally provide a more reasonable assessment of Trump, but he spends the large majority of his time doing what Benson rightly criticizes.

What Sort Of Judges Would Trump Appoint?

See here. Even if his comments cited by Ponnuru aren't representative of what Trump would do in office, why trust him? Why take the risk when such better presidential candidates are available?

Trump supporters often cite illegal immigration as a major, primary, or sole reason to vote for Trump. But think of all the steps needed to get to the point where Trump's position on illegal immigration would be implemented. You have to:

1.) Think he'll get elected, despite his big electability problems.

2.) Think Trump will do what he says he'll do, despite his character problems and long record of inconsistencies.

3.) Think the Republican Congress, who Trump supporters keep denouncing, will pass his immigration plan.

4.) Think the judiciary, including judges appointed by Trump in the future, will refrain from significantly altering his immigration plan once it's enacted.

Let's see if people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity give prominent attention to the issue Ponnuru has raised, putting it at the top of their radio programs and denouncing Trump in strong terms, as they would if Ponnuru's post were about somebody like Jeb Bush or John Kasich instead. And let's see if Evangelicals and other people supporting Trump do enough research, and have enough discernment, to find information like what Ponnuru writes about and react appropriately to it. Or will they just keep following the lead of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. so uncritically?

The Bad Influence Of Limbaugh, Hannity, Et Al.

There are a lot of bad reasons people have for supporting Donald Trump's presidential campaign. A lot of his supporters name Jeb Bush as their second choice. Since Trump and Bush have the best name recognition among the candidates, it's likely that much of Trump's support at this stage is a result of name recognition. And he's a protest candidate for some people. But a moderate protesting conservatism is supporting Trump for reasons inconsistent with those of a conservative who's supporting Trump in protest of moderation. Then there are the people who are supporting Trump out of anger. But different people are angry for different reasons, sometimes for inconsistent reasons. Even among those with more similar motivations for supporting Trump, such as concern about illegal immigration, they have no reason to think that supporting Trump will accomplish anything significant on that issue. I often see Trump supporters refer to how their critics "don't get it", as if there's one reason or one universal set of reasons people have for supporting Trump, and any critic who doesn't recognize it is guilty of criticizing a movement he doesn't understand. But the fact is that the Trump movement is diverse, and a lot of his supporters don't get that fact. They're the ones who don't get it.

One of the reasons why the Trump movement has been so successful is a reason I haven't seen discussed much. That's what I want to focus on in this post.