Part I – Talking Heads
Sonny, my Dachshund, was surprised during our Sunday morning walk. I bought three newspapers. He had not seen that much paper pulp since he was a puppy. I was girding myself for the morning political shows on the eve of the Republican National Convention. Devoted as I am to blogging about our nation, I am duty-bound at least to keep the TV on. If it really gets bad, I can turn off the sound, as I do for the Yankees games. In truth, both the television shows and the newspapers are necessary. TV gives you the Whats and newspapers (and books — Shh!) give you the Whys.
The talk shows are for talking points. For example, on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the eponymous host tossed out a question, such as, “Do you think Mike Pence, the GOP VP pick, will help capture the women’s vote, in view of his opposition to Planned Parenthood?” The guest, Reince Priebus, RNC National Chairman, responded with a pre-set statement he judged to be in the nearest vicinity to the topic, such as “Seventy percent of Americans are against federal funding for abortion.” And so on. After the show returned from a commercial break, the round-table convened. The round-table consists of political operatives from the two major parties – no reason to ask anyone else, right? They continued flinging non sequiturs in a heated manner. It’s probably the worst fifteen minutes in television, and I am including The Kardashians in my calculation.
The shows also give political camps the chance to send up trial balloons, back away from discredited positions and in many cases do both at once. For example, Paul Manafort, de facto Trump Campaign Manager, walked back his man’s infamous ban on all Muslims to a more selective approach. Manafort called this repudiation “a deeper articulation” of Trump’s position. Of course, there’s always time for shredding the outgoing administration, Manafort stating for example that crime in black communities has been worse under Obama’s failed leadership. There is also the humanizing of the candidates, in this year’s election a critical issue for both parties. Thus, Priebus and Manafort offered an “if only you knew him the way I do” pitch for Trump not being the foul-mouthed, hateful bully he plays on television. I’m thankful that Idi Amin is not running.
By far the most revealing comments took place in a Face the Nation roundtable, which fielded representatives of the Wall Street Journal, the Federalist and the American Conservative Union, three right-wing organizations. This group appeared to be a yawner but instead they threw off sparks and heat. In fact, their differences got straight to the heart of the Republican crisis. Ben Domenech, editor of the Federalist, spoke for old guard conservatives, who have rejected Trump as a race-baiting, exclusionary, anti-free trade R.I.N.O; for the camp that considers Pence inconsequential in light of Trump’s non-ideological positions. “The party has traded statesmanship for xenophobia,” and “the party is coming to Cleveland to die,” Domenech said. Matt Schlapp, the ACU Chairman and an enthusiastic Pence backer, smacked back, characterizing him as the kind of Washington elitist the Trump voters have rejected. Schlapp refused to believe that Trump voters are racist. Host John Dickerson asked Kim Strassel, the WSJ writer, to mediate these positions. Her call for party unity was a familiar refrain in the party’s melodrama. Big Tent Republican outlets, like the Wall Street Journal, have chosen not to choose in order to maintain the size of their audiences.
Here’s the thing: People who brand themselves Conservative are in open disagreement and are fighting for control, if not the soul, of the party. Domenech’s and Schlapp’s positions are irreconcilable. Trump is dismissive of the patrician Conservatism Domenech represents. Domenech opposes Trump, and Schlapp, perhaps warily, embraces him. Glenn Beck, who weighed in during a Meet the Press segment, stood closer to Domenech but cast a pox on the Party of Lincoln. He said that he is not voting for Trump; maybe he’ll vote for the Green Party. He added almost tearfully that Republicans who back Trump publicly but disown him privately are inauthentic in his book. Scary when Glenn Beck Starts Making Sense.
TV left these disagreements unexplained. I needed some self-flagellating intellectual to hold forth on how things got this way and how he despairs of the party recovering its Soul. I picked up the Times Week in Review and began to read.
Part 2 – Reading Lips
Sitting in the sunny, steaming park, I began sopping up the hand-wringing confessionals of two conservatives whose pieces led off the Times Sunday Review. In “A Cure for Trumpism,” by Ross Douthat and Rehim Salam, the authors ruminate on the possibility of saving the Republican Party through national solidarity and unity. “Stronger Together” has been spoken for. The authors, conservative columnists for the Times and the National Review, respectively, repeat the teachings of the GOP’s autopsy following Romney’s loss in 2012: become a party friendlier to women and people of color. The authors then point out the flaw in their argument.
“Some liberals believe that this kind of shift is basically impossible – that racism and right-wing politics are so deeply intertwined that any Republican populism will just end up defending welfare for white people, that any immigration ‘in the national interest’ will descend into ‘Mexican rapists’ one-liners on the campaign trail.”
They concede that Trump and his followers support the liberals’ view of their party. In order to shift, Trump would have to drop most of what he has been saying for the past year. The party would have to abandon a legislative agenda it has pursued for 50 years. They did not give any reason to hope this shift would happen.
Peter Wehner has been a Republican all his life. He served in the Reagan and both Bush administrations. He is now a senior fellow in a conservative think tank and an outspoken critic of Donald Trump. In in his op-ed piece, “Can We Find Our Way Back to Lincoln?” Wehner picks up the theme of Republicans lost in the wilderness. He has set himself a formidable challenge. Finding his way back to Reagan would be great start. He ponders that liberals might have been right all along about his party being a haven for racism and intolerance. Has he forgotten Nixon’s Southern Strategy, when former Democrats switched party affiliation in the Deep South in response to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts enacted by turncoat Lyndon Johnson? The Deep South has voted as a Republican bloc ever since, with slight fissures appearing as the demographics have changed or where a local guy, like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, has made good in national politics. Incredibly, Wehner has taken the “few bad apples” view of the party, which he describes as the “repulsive elements.” He admits that the party does have an ugly side, one which is showcased by Trump. He despairs of being able to reclaim the party or to bring it back to its once-noble roots.
Both authors, but Wehner especially, represent the economically conservative end of the party, aligned with Ben Domenech of the Federalist. They operate under the illusion that entitlement programs can be rolled back without alienating those who receive their benefit. They forget that their branch of the movement is supported by Fortune 500 America, not mom and pop businesses. They can’t end corporate welfare without inflicting pain upon their donors. The benefactors don’t need to pay for that treatment. They can walk across the street and cut a deal with the Democrats. These fiscal conservatives are in a box because their philosophy is unsuited to the country’s population and demographics. This strategy will not make the party a majority interest in the country. Wehner reaches back to Lord Charnwood, a Lincoln biographer of the early twentieth century, evoking Lincoln’s turn toward compassion for the defeated Confederacy. Charnwood saw Lincoln as one of those few “successful statesmen [who] have escaped the tendency of power to harden or at least to narrow their human sympathies.”
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Lincoln’s Second Inaugural eloquently gave voice to the spirit of reconciliation; in victory and strength, to help bind your enemy’s wounds. He understood that it was needed to heal the victors as well as the vanquished.
It is doubtful that the two branches of conservatism will find common ground. They reach their end through different means and motivations. Even if there were common ground, from what ground will a leader emerge with the wisdom and courage to begin the healing process? Certainly not Trump. He has shown no temperament for washing the feet of those he has vanquished. This vacuum of leadership and the absence of a path to reconciliation explain the firefight between Ben Domenech of the Federalist and Matt Schlappa of the American Conservative Union. It also explains why it will be so hard to put that fire out.
The party of Lincoln mounts its quadrennial tonight, but there is no peace in the house. Thoughtful conservatives question whether the house divided will stand.
Evan Sarzin is the author of Hard Bop Piano and Bud Powell published by Gerard & Sarzin Music Publishing. He writes and publishes Revolted Colonies (http://revoltedcolonies.com).