The Detroit debate

I've seen some takes by folks whose views I align with that were barely above "meh." These people say it probably didn't move the needle.

I'm more inclined to see it the way John Podhoretz does:

Well, it was nice being the greatest country in the history of the world.

We pulled it off for 240 years. Then came the Republican debate Thursday night in Michigan, in which the rattled front-runner of the party of Abraham Lincoln defended the size of his male member before 10 to 20 million of his fellow Americans.

By the way, Lincoln was sworn in as president 155 years ago yesterday. And so, on behalf of a horrified people, let me just say: I’m sorry, Abe, for what’s become of the union you sacrificed your life to save.

Since Donald Trump’s reference to the substantiality of his private part came at the beginning of an almost insanely raucous two hours, and cast a shadow over everything that followed, it’s hard to know whether one can properly judge the night’s proceedings as a debate and not a living civic nightmare.

The entire evening was what Trump would call a “disastuh.” Now, I know it makes no sense to bet against him, and that anyone who has written his political obituary thus far (me included, after the “ban all Muslims” moment in November) has had to eat crow. 

But the events in Detroit last night will have long-lasting effects even if they don’t affect his path to the nomination in the short term.

And Matthew Continetti:

The spectacle made me ill. On screen I watched decades of work by conservative institutions, activists, and elected officials being lit aflame not only by the New York demagogue but by his enablers who waited until the last possible moment to criticize and try to stop him. And even then it may be too late.

You may have heard about the open letter signed by 80 national-security experts who, in their opening paragraph, point out that they have by no means always agreed on everything but are now bound by a common alarm about Squirrel-Hair. One of its signatories, Max Boot, elaborates on his own alarm in a piece at Commentary:

Donald Trump woos voters with promises to safeguard and strengthen America. The reality is that he has neither the policies nor the principles nor the knowledge to do that. Far from strengthening America, he is emerging as the number one threat to American security.

Yes, that’s right — a bigger threat than ISIS, North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, or all the rest. That may sound like hyperbole, but I firmly believe it to be the case. The possibility of Trump — a man who knows no more about national security than Kim Kardashian does — taking control of the nuclear codes is simply terrifying.

As I argued in a COMMENTARY cover story in January, Trump appears intent on destroying the very foundations of American foreign policy. Unfortunately he has no better alternative–indeed, he can barely string together a coherent sentence on the subject.

That is why a group of more than eighty conservative national security experts have now issued a letter making clear that they will never support Trump, never work for him, and will do everything possible to defeat him. (The letter was organized by Eliot Cohen and Bryan McGrath; I was one of the signatories.) Even John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Republican presidential candidate in 2008 — as well as an American hero — has endorsed the statement.

The letter is short and well worth reading. A few of the points it makes regarding Trump: “He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence. His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world… His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world… His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.”

This sets the table for the latest example of what these experts are talking about :

A lot of people will be talking about this exchange, and with good reason:

BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?

TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.

BAIER: But they’re illegal.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding. A few moments later:

BAIER: But targeting terrorists’ families?

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.

BAIER: Even targeting terrorists’ families? 

And here's a glaring example of the inconsistency of which the experts speak:

He said America had to stay in Afghanistan, which he has opposed, and gave a reason no one else has ever given — we need to because it’s next to Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. So are we there to protect the nuclear weapons, or to steal the nuclear weapons, or what? 

Then there's the issue that the one-note-johnnies yammer about to the exclusion of everything else on Western civilization's plate: immigration. S-H just plain, once again, pretty much acknowledged that he's a chameleon rather than a consistent man of principle (that is to say, he basically said, "I'm a phony, okay?")

. . . people who follow immigration closely were stunned Thursday night when Trump, at the Fox News debate here in Detroit, announced that he has changed his position on one key element of the immigration debate -- the use of H-1B visas to bring skilled foreign workers into the United States.

In the distant past -- say, yesterday -- Trump focused on abuses in the system, in which some big companies have been caught using H-1Bs to bring in foreign workers, force American employees to train their own replacements, and then pay the foreign worker less than the American had made -- all to do mostly routine jobs in the tech industry.

At his recent rally in Alabama -- the one in which Trump received the endorsement of Sen. Jeff Sessions, Congress' strongest voice against expanding the troubled H-1B program -- Trump also won the endorsement of some American workers who were victims of H-1B abuse at Disney.
"The fact is that Americans are losing their jobs to foreigners," one of the laid-off workers told the crowd. "I believe Mr. Trump is for Americans first."
In Detroit, Fox's Megyn Kelly pointed out that Trump's campaign website has a strong statement against increasing the number of H-1Bs, saying it would "decimate American workers," and yet in one debate Trump spoke favorably of the program. "So, which is it?" Kelly asked.
"I'm changing," Trump said. "I'm changing. We need highly skilled people in this country, and if we can't do it, we'll get them in. But, and we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have."
"So, we do need highly skilled," Trump continued, "and one of the biggest problems we have is people go to the best colleges. They'll go to Harvard, they'll go to Stanford, they'll go to Wharton, as soon as they're finished they'll get shoved out. They want to stay in this country. They want to stay here desperately, they're not able to stay here. For that purpose, we absolutely have to be able to keep the brain power in this country.
"So you are abandoning the position on your website?" asked Kelly.
"I'm changing it," Trump said, "and I'm softening the position because we have to have talented people in this country."
Trump's turnaround sent a jolt through the group of policy wonks and activists who have opposed Gang of Eight-style comprehensive immigration reform. "I've heard from enough tech workers displaced by H-1Bs that Trump's apparent answer very dispiriting," tweeted the writer Mickey Kaus. "Clarification?"

With regard to the others, we can quickly summarize: Ted Cruz had an excellent night, choosing to aim his fire at S-H rather than Rubio. Rubio did likewise, and had an okay night but looked tired.

Then there's this year's poster boy for Reasonable Gentleman Syndrome, John Kasich, who took every available opportunity to position himself as the gosh-darn-it-let's-all-get-along-and-make-everything-wonderful candidate. David French at NRO points out why this stance is not innocuous but in fact rather insidious:

Regarding Kasich, his performance was cheap and cowardly. Anyone can look statesmanlike when they opt out of a necessary fight. By choosing to cast himself as above the fray, he created a false moral equivalence between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz, and he transparently curried favor with viewers weary of conflict. With every passing moment, he is staining his legacy and his reputation. At a crucial moment, Kasich chose to be — first and foremost – for Kasich. Shame on him.

It's becoming obvious that the way LITD sees it is now the only way to save the GOP, the conservative movement, and America: We must tirelessly work to make Ted Cruz the next president of the United States.