The GOP race for the presidential nomination is over, but not the controversy. Some powerful Republicans are not ready to accept Trump as the nominee. Those that don't accept him disagree on the reasons. Paul Ryan, the nation's most powerful Republican to not accept Trump, can't even agree with himself on the reasons.
Ryan acknowledges that Trump has successfully tapped into a deep vein of national discontent. Therefore, we should listen carefully and pay attention to those voters. In the next breath, he says that he cannot support Trump because Trump doesn't reliably support traditional "Republican principles."
Just a minute - didn't Ryan just say that the party should pay attention to concerns of the angry voters responsible for Trump's success? Then Ryan contradicts himself by insisting that Trump carefully follow the party line and "conservative principles." That is, those "principles" that did nothing for those people largely responsible for Trump's rise in the first place.
So Ryan incessantly repeats the shop-worn line that if only the Republican politicians had been more faithful to their conservative dogma, everything would be fine. If only the Republicans would have eliminated the Affordable Care Act and fought the president even harder on everything, those social conservatives who flocked to Trump would have been content, and we would have a Republican establishment-approved nominee, or so the line goes.
That's patent nonsense, reinforced by pundits incapable of thought deeper than the Platte River in dry season.
Sure, Trump checked off enough conservative boxes to be accepted as a Republican. But Sen. Ted Cruz was way off the deep end in labeling Trump "a liberal just like Hillary Clinton." That said, Trump does not march in lock step close enough to traditional dogma as required by Republicans to qualify as a "true conservative."
As I have previously stressed in these columns, it's the economy, particularly as it's not working for everyone, that explains Trump's success. If conservative social issues were as important as Ryan and those of his ilk insist, the hard line, doctrinaire Cruz would have swept the socially conservative Deep South. But he didn't - it's the economy and the failure of Republican "conservative principles" to do anything for low-income social conservatives that enabled Trump's success.
It's not that the Democrats have been so successful in this either. But President Barack Obama should get some credit for addressing a major issue for people left behind, namely lack of affordable health care. The old saw, "no good deed goes unpunished" applies here. Instead of being applauded and praised for his efforts, doing the right thing in addressing health care for the disadvantaged, the president gave the Republicans and their enablers in the media a stick to beat him with. It's ridiculous to imagine that if the Republicans would have eliminated the ACA and fought the president even harder, that those socially conservative voters fed up with the establishment would have gleefully flocked to Jeb Bush or any of the establishment-approved candidates.
But don't expect the out-of-touch mainstream media to acknowledge this. If Gov. John Kasich said anything on which all can agree, it was "God created pundits to make astrologers look wise."
In July 2015, liberal Minneapolis Congressman Keith Ellison appeared on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Ellison flatly stated that "We'd better be ready for the fact that he (Trump) might be leading the Republican ticket."
Was this statement taken seriously, as if delivered by a thoughtful observer? Of course not. Stephanopoulos and his gang burst out in raucous laughter. What could this liberal Democrat - besides, he's a Muslim - perceive that George and his clairvoyant geniuses couldn't?
Okay, maybe that's harsh. If the media nitwits were wrong, so was just about everybody else, not just about Trump, but about Sanders as well. Which brings us back to the squabbling within the GOP.
On a recent segment of "Meet the Press," host Chuck Todd pressed Cruz on whether he would support Trump if he were the nominee. Cruz refused to answer. Todd made a big show of asking him a total of nine times, without getting an answer.
It made for an interesting segment, but as we have come to expect, Todd blew it again. He just could have re-run the end of any of those Republican debates during which Cruz and others solemnly pledged fealty to the Republican Party and vowed to support its nominee, whoever it might be.
Jeb Bush already broke that pledge. Politicians who never made that pledge, including GOP stalwarts Mr. Romney and Sen. Lindsey Graham, are not yet on board.
Trump and Ryan are scheduled to meet Thursday. By Friday when this is published, we will know. But I suspect it will resemble the historic meeting between President Truman and Gen. MacArthur at Wake Island in October 1950 regarding the Korean War. Both came away proclaiming it a tremendously successful meeting at which much was settled. In reality, differences were glossed over, absolutely nothing was settled, and both came away believing what happened was what they wished to have happened. The rift developed into open conflict, resulting in MacArthur getting sacked a few months later.
As one pundit put it - a rare astute observation from this crowd - "this is not war between Trump and Ryan; it is war between the traditional Republican Party and the voters."
We can expect both Ryan and Trump to come away with the customary platitudes, "a constructive meeting, common goals, party unity," etc.
Both Ryan and Trump hold some cards. But it seems that Trump holds the stronger cards. It's unlikely that Ryan can keep "Trump from being Trump." And just as unlikely that Ryan will abandon his devotion to "conservative principles." Surely a "constructive meeting," even if it wasn't.
But by November, the Republicans will probably fall in line - they usually do.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
Ryan acknowledges that Trump has successfully tapped into a deep vein of national discontent. Therefore, we should listen carefully and pay attention to those voters. In the next breath, he says that he cannot support Trump because Trump doesn't reliably support traditional "Republican principles."
Just a minute - didn't Ryan just say that the party should pay attention to concerns of the angry voters responsible for Trump's success? Then Ryan contradicts himself by insisting that Trump carefully follow the party line and "conservative principles." That is, those "principles" that did nothing for those people largely responsible for Trump's rise in the first place.
So Ryan incessantly repeats the shop-worn line that if only the Republican politicians had been more faithful to their conservative dogma, everything would be fine. If only the Republicans would have eliminated the Affordable Care Act and fought the president even harder on everything, those social conservatives who flocked to Trump would have been content, and we would have a Republican establishment-approved nominee, or so the line goes.
That's patent nonsense, reinforced by pundits incapable of thought deeper than the Platte River in dry season.
Sure, Trump checked off enough conservative boxes to be accepted as a Republican. But Sen. Ted Cruz was way off the deep end in labeling Trump "a liberal just like Hillary Clinton." That said, Trump does not march in lock step close enough to traditional dogma as required by Republicans to qualify as a "true conservative."
As I have previously stressed in these columns, it's the economy, particularly as it's not working for everyone, that explains Trump's success. If conservative social issues were as important as Ryan and those of his ilk insist, the hard line, doctrinaire Cruz would have swept the socially conservative Deep South. But he didn't - it's the economy and the failure of Republican "conservative principles" to do anything for low-income social conservatives that enabled Trump's success.
It's not that the Democrats have been so successful in this either. But President Barack Obama should get some credit for addressing a major issue for people left behind, namely lack of affordable health care. The old saw, "no good deed goes unpunished" applies here. Instead of being applauded and praised for his efforts, doing the right thing in addressing health care for the disadvantaged, the president gave the Republicans and their enablers in the media a stick to beat him with. It's ridiculous to imagine that if the Republicans would have eliminated the ACA and fought the president even harder, that those socially conservative voters fed up with the establishment would have gleefully flocked to Jeb Bush or any of the establishment-approved candidates.
But don't expect the out-of-touch mainstream media to acknowledge this. If Gov. John Kasich said anything on which all can agree, it was "God created pundits to make astrologers look wise."
In July 2015, liberal Minneapolis Congressman Keith Ellison appeared on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Ellison flatly stated that "We'd better be ready for the fact that he (Trump) might be leading the Republican ticket."
Was this statement taken seriously, as if delivered by a thoughtful observer? Of course not. Stephanopoulos and his gang burst out in raucous laughter. What could this liberal Democrat - besides, he's a Muslim - perceive that George and his clairvoyant geniuses couldn't?
Okay, maybe that's harsh. If the media nitwits were wrong, so was just about everybody else, not just about Trump, but about Sanders as well. Which brings us back to the squabbling within the GOP.
On a recent segment of "Meet the Press," host Chuck Todd pressed Cruz on whether he would support Trump if he were the nominee. Cruz refused to answer. Todd made a big show of asking him a total of nine times, without getting an answer.
It made for an interesting segment, but as we have come to expect, Todd blew it again. He just could have re-run the end of any of those Republican debates during which Cruz and others solemnly pledged fealty to the Republican Party and vowed to support its nominee, whoever it might be.
Jeb Bush already broke that pledge. Politicians who never made that pledge, including GOP stalwarts Mr. Romney and Sen. Lindsey Graham, are not yet on board.
Trump and Ryan are scheduled to meet Thursday. By Friday when this is published, we will know. But I suspect it will resemble the historic meeting between President Truman and Gen. MacArthur at Wake Island in October 1950 regarding the Korean War. Both came away proclaiming it a tremendously successful meeting at which much was settled. In reality, differences were glossed over, absolutely nothing was settled, and both came away believing what happened was what they wished to have happened. The rift developed into open conflict, resulting in MacArthur getting sacked a few months later.
As one pundit put it - a rare astute observation from this crowd - "this is not war between Trump and Ryan; it is war between the traditional Republican Party and the voters."
We can expect both Ryan and Trump to come away with the customary platitudes, "a constructive meeting, common goals, party unity," etc.
Both Ryan and Trump hold some cards. But it seems that Trump holds the stronger cards. It's unlikely that Ryan can keep "Trump from being Trump." And just as unlikely that Ryan will abandon his devotion to "conservative principles." Surely a "constructive meeting," even if it wasn't.
But by November, the Republicans will probably fall in line - they usually do.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
