Can we please start with an all-around acknowledgement that this is an undesirable scenario?

Jonah Goldberg's G-File at NRO for this week is a must-read. It's lengthy and involved, but it is superb writing and he manages to make a few funny observations about our grim juncture.

I won't excerpt too much, because much of what he does with his piece is discuss a recent Charles Kesler's WaPo column on Squirrel-Hair , Victor Davis Hanson's NRO piece on the same subject, and what Stephen Moore has to say about it on the pages of The American Spectator (and how starkly Moore's current position is at odds with what he wrote about trade, protectionism and S-H in Investors Business Daily and NRO last year). Goldberg links to, and amply excerpts from, all of the above.

He starts out with a concept I'd not come across before: Burdian's Ass. Read it. It depicts where we are now.

But I will leave you with what I think is the essence of what he's saying:

Politically, conservatism at its core is about the importance of ideas and the importance of character. With the exception of his longstanding support for protectionism and the unalloyed importance of “strength,” Trump cares not a whit for policy or philosophy. His attachment to principles is, for the most part, a nearest-weapon-to-hand approach. As a matter of character he’s crude, boorish, dishonest, proudly promiscuous, and has launched countless businesses based on the idea that it’s morally acceptable to take advantage of people. He dodged the actual Vietnam War but claimed that avoiding the clap in the 1970s was his own personal Vietnam. 

And there is the policy level as well:

By waiving the standards we use to judge liberal politicians in order to defend an allegedly conservative one, we are waiving those standards for all time. I’m not talking about some allowances at the margins, politics should be flexible — strange bedfellows and all that. But there’s a difference between being flexible and willingly snapping your own spine to bend over for a politician who, almost certainly, has contempt for the standards you once held near and dear.

And then there is what we must do:

What I am saying is that just because we are facing a horrible choice, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t say it is horrible. That’s our job. As Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” 

I've actually been having a Facebook comment-thread conversation about the current stage of the S-H phenomenon with a blogger I've long respected, one whom I have quoted and linked to here many times. She has taken the "Our-choice-in-November-will-be-binary-so-we-will-have-to-prioritize-the-unpalatable-and-swallow-hard-and-vote-for-Trump" position. She's in honorable company. Dennis Prager and John Bolton (and Moore and Hanson) are in that camp as well. But lately she's been coming perilously close to saying there's nothing worthy of respect in the #NeverTrump position, going so far as to accompany her latest post about it with a photo of a whining baby. I'm not going to name her here or go into the details of the exchange, because I'm holding out the possibility that something - perhaps an utterance too far by S-H - will get her to change course.

There were actually several other pieces about this front-and-center matter I came across lately, but this G-File is the place to start.

 

Of pet terms and purity tests

Writing a post on the coining of strident terms and the danger of purity tests is going to be a bit tricky for this blogger. Late in the Day is clearly no outpost of moderation. You will find specialized lingo here aplenty, coined in the service of points I want to make with absolute clarity.

When I use the term Freedom-Hater for public figures known to be registered Democrats, it's because the factor unifying the disparate interests comprising one of the two major political parties in post-America is a fundamental hatred for basic human freedom. It manifests itself in everything from the zeal for taxing wealth, the minimum wage, EPA regulations, sensitivity training for Christian bakers, appeasement of Iran and transgendered restrooms in public schools to the requirement that citizens buy health insurance.

When I use the term Most Equal Comrade, it's to provide a constant reminder of Barack Obama's constellation of mentors and collaborators over the years: Frank Marshall Davis, Reverend Wright, Heather Booth, Greg Galluzzo, Harry Boyte, Robert Creamer, Bill Ayers, Andy Stern.

When I use the term Hillionaire, it's to point out Hillary Clinton's laughable attempts to obscure her wealth and her keen interest in maximizing it.

When I use the term post-America, it's because there is no hyperbole in the assertion that the society and culture of the United States have become utterly unrecognizable to anyone old enough to remember life as recently as 20 years ago, and certainly 50 years ago (although trends leading us to our current juncture were well underway a half-century ago).

When I use the term Reasonable Gentleman Syndrome, it's to convey the mindset of Beltway Republicans (and those found in statehouses and city halls throughout post-America) who routinely find some excuse to cave on core conservative principles. Think John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Linsey Graham, John Kasich, Susan Collins, Bob Dole. Think operatives like Karl Rove. Think pundits like Peter Wehner. Those afflicted with RGS are commonly called RINOs or squishes, both perfectly serviceable characterizations.

I've introduced these terms on this site with a great deal of forethought and self-examination. I put each of them through a fair amount of critical examination. Are there holes in my arguments for any of them? Is there another term that could convey the same point without being so jarring?

And Ive concluded that they all pass the test, thank you very much.

Would that those who have coined this term "GOPe" currently cropping up in comment threads across the pundit-sphere put it through such a rigorous viability test.

At present, there seems to be some elasticity to its meaning. In some applications, it seems to be confined to party operatives and big donors. Others include some opinion outlets - think National Review, the Weekly Standard and Hot Air - in the definition. Some are quick to classify presidential candidates thusly, based on particular past pronouncements or affiliations they deem questionable - no, make that unacceptable.

Which brings us to an obvious point to be made about this term. Its employment is a handy way of identifying a Trumpbot.  You can be certain that, at least implicitly (but usually quite explicitly),  any cluster of paragraphs in which it's found assumes the superiority of the real-estate mogul to any other candidate.

It's telling that non-Trumpbots are generally still looking over the entire field, deciding which candidates display an acceptable embrace of conservative principles, considering which signs of deviation therefrom constitute deal-breakers, sizing them up on personality traits, the way they carry themselves, how articulate they are.

Not so Trumpbots. Rubio, who was impressive Wednesday night by any set of standards not besotted with Kool-Aid, is out as far as they're concerned because of the Gang of Eight episode. It's true that, when I saw him live in 2013 at the Defending the American Dream Summit in Orlando, reception was tepid and he had trouble winning the benefit of the doubt from the crowd. At this year's Summit in Columbus, Ohio, he was better received. Why? Because he has spent the last two years articulating strong stands on a variety of issues that burnish his credentials as a true three-pillared conservative, the dismissals by the immigration one-note-johnnies notwithstanding. (And, no, he doesn't get a free pass from me on that score. He's rising in my array of favorites, but I want to hear more from him on that issue - and by more, I mean a vision that puts national sovereignty and the rule of law at the fore.)

Then there are the long knives that have come out for Carly in the last 36 hours. Her tenures at HP and Lucent were fraught with upheaval. She worked on McCain's campaign. She has Bush family ties.

She's rising real fast within my circle of viable candidates, and I'm aware of all the above facts about her life and career. I also consider myself a very good judge of character, and I've looked at her closely in numerous situations in which she's spoken (including live, in a small hotel conference room in October 2013) and I'm utterly convinced that this is a solid conservative woman with integrity and resolve in surplus.

But you won't find here - or in any conservative opinion outlet not infected with Trumpbot-ism - any all-caps "Go [insert name of candidate one is all in for]!" exhortations. It's way too early. Ted Cruz is still my overall favorite, but I haven't ordered any yard signs.

How completely consumed are Trumpbots? A while ago, I read some coverage of that recent economic-policy conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It particularly dealt with Heritage Foundation head Jim DeMint's address to that gathering. (Wish I could remember the venue and the writer, so I could link to it, although my point can be made all the same.) It was a thoughtful piece, and dealt with DeMint's remarks in detail. The first comment in the thread underneath? "DeMint and Heritage had better get with the Trump movement, because that is what this country needs!"

This is scary stuff. Reflexive adulation is about as shoddy a basis for deciding on a course forward for a gravely imperiled and sharply declining former guarantor of world order and spreading freedom as I can think of.

The plain fact, and I have yet to hear it made on talk radio, is that, at Wednesday's debate, Trump's shallowness, meanness, lack of understanding of America's true greatness, lack of actual, consistent policy positions, and plain goofiness were on full display. He was far and away the least prepared person on that stage.

Pet terms for people or phenomena that provide condensed references to large points, and strict scrutiny of the consistency of conservatism in public figures are important. But shorthand gets out of hand when we fail to take the full measure of anyone who may wind up being entrusted with the most important job in the world.

A case study in how FHer pointy-heads willfully ignore actual facts

I'm just going to link to this one, because the piece itself is so full of links and reprinted tweets that it's best for a reader to just peruse it in sequence for him- or herself.  But it's delicious.

Sean Davis at The Federalist demonstrates how Jonathan Gruber, Greg Sargent, Jonathan Kohn, Brian Beutler and Ezra Klein all want to believe that nothing like 36 states would ever opt out of setting up Freedom-Hater-care exchanges because  - well, because they're real smart guys.  I guess that means it didn't happen.

Whoops

Just deleted my latest post in the course of trying to put up a post with a YouTube video.

Sorry about that.