The divide on our side, and which view merits aligning with

The impact of Squirrel-Hair manifests itself in the could-not-be-more-divergent conclusions of two columns that have been published today, one by Tucker Carlson at Politico and one by David Limbaugh at Townhall. (It was refreshing beyond description to see at least one Limbaugh brother be unequivocal in his conclusion about the current political juncture.)

For starters, consider the title of each. Carlson: "Donald Trump is Shocking, Vulgar and Right." Limbaugh: "Vote Cruz in Iowa As If The Republic Depends On It."

Carlson starts his piece with a vignette from his personal experience with S-H that amply demonstrates the shocking-and-vulgar part of his argument. He then goes on to outline the four big reasons he sees as arguments for S-H's superior effectiveness: He Exists BecauseYou [the GOP and, indeed, the conservative movement] Failed, Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It's Thrilling, Washington Really Is Corrupt, and He Could Win.

Read it. For one thing, it's great, cogent writing, and he makes points that are discomforting to concede, but that must be conceded. Also, he fleshes out his assertions with vivid examples of what he's talking about. With regard to righties failing, he asks a bracing question:

Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.

Pretty embarrassing. And yet they’re not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents “an existential threat to conservatism.”

He is less convincing when he employs the it's-time-for-s-to-embrace-some-cynicism tone that he uses to justify S-H's upfront acknowledgement that he has routinely bought people off:

Everyone beats up on Washington, but most of the people I know who live here love it. Of course they do. It’s beautiful, the people are friendly, we’ve got good restaurants, not to mention full employment and construction cranes on virtually every corner. If you work on Capitol Hill or downtown, it’s hard to walk back from lunch without seeing someone you know. It’s a warm bath. Nobody wants to leave.
But let’s pretend for a second this isn’t Washington. Let’s imagine it’s the capital of an African country, say Burkina Faso, and we are doing a study on corruption. Probably the first question we’d ask: How many government officials have close relatives who make a living by influencing government spending? A huge percentage of them? OK. Case closed. Ouagadougou is obviously a very corrupt city.
That’s how the rest of the country views D.C. Washington is probably the richest city in America because the people who live there have the closest proximity to power. That seems obvious to most voters. It’s less obvious to us, because everyone here is so cheerful and familiar, and we’re too close to it. Chairman so-and-so’s son-in-law lobbies the committee? That doesn’t seem corrupt. He’s such a good guy.
All of which explains why almost nobody in Washington caught the significance of Trump’s finest moment in the first debate. One of the moderators asked, in effect: if you’re so opposed to Hillary Clinton, why did she come to your last wedding? It seemed like a revealing, even devastating question.
Trump’s response, delivered without pause or embarrassment: Because I paid her to be there. As if she was the wedding singer, or in charge of the catering.
Even then, I’ll confess, I didn’t get it. (Why would you pay someone to come to your wedding?) But the audience did. Trump is the ideal candidate to fight Washington corruption not simply because he opposes it, but because he has personally participated in it. He’s not just a reformer; like most effective populists, he’s a whistleblower, a traitor to his class. Before he became the most ferocious enemy American business had ever known, Teddy Roosevelt was a rich guy. His privilege wasn't incidental; it was key to his appeal. Anyone can peer through the window in envy. It takes a real man to throw furniture through it from the inside.

The we-need-to-be-cynical-because-this-is-a-hard-rough-world tone gets awful thick in the paragraphs under the "He Could Win" heading.

Now, contrast that to what David Limbaugh has to say about ted Cruz:

There is nothing extreme about Ted Cruz except for his commitment to the American idea, to free enterprise, to ordered liberty, to limited government, to national solvency, to America's national security and sovereignty and to policies designed to unleash robust economic growth to benefit all sectors of society.
There is nothing extreme about Ted Cruz, because there is nothing extreme about Reagan conservatism other than a sincere commitment to reignite America's uniqueness and greatness.
As we've watched this GOP contest unfold, we've seen in Cruz a man under fire from all quarters who has maintained his cool, his dignity, his resolve, his faith, his integrity, his presidential demeanor and his unwavering dedication to restoring America -- the America that we know and love, the shining city on a hill that has been the most benevolent, decent and prosperous nation in history.

Finally, it's important for me to emphasize that I don't idolize Ted Cruz or support him as part of a cult of personality. I support him because I believe he is the best hope for America for the many reasons I've underscored and more. 

Whooee. I wish David's brother could be that forthright.

But the whole tone is different from the preceding argument. It's about championing what is good and true and right.

Sorry, Tucker, but your hard-bitten "realism" is gruel too thin to be settling for.