Every morning, I read three newspapers (or rather, their associated apps), just for starters. That is, I read the portions that interest me (mostly politics and opinion) in the three papers I subscribe to — The State, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Beyond that, I’ll check out individual items from other sources as they are brought to my attention by Twitter.
I know that makes me seem like the least sociable member of the Capital City Club, sitting there alone at my table with my nose in my iPad (someone remarked on it just today). But it’s the only way I can keep up. That’s my main reading time.
Anyway, yesterday I had on my mind several things I’d read in the Post. Today, the Journal made more of an impression.
For awhile there, you may recall, I was frequently praising the editorial board of the WSJ because they were trying so hard to get the GOP to wake up and back John Kasich.
Lately, since Kasich dropped out, I’ve been more and more disturbed by what I’ve read there. In keeping with the general partisan tendency toward acting like this is just another election in which it matters which party wins, I’ve actually seen the editors start offering Trump advice, saying such things as If he wants to improve his chances in November, he needs to do thus-and-so…
As though improving his chances were desirable. Which makes me want to retch, particularly because I know they know better.
There was even some of that today…
The polls show the economy is Mr. Trump’s chief advantage over Hillary Clinton, but he was too busy claiming Hispanics can’t be fair judges to showcase Friday’s dispiriting jobs report. He also allowed the State Department investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email practices to tumble down the memory hole, and he made little effort to counterpunch her speech on his temperament and foreign policy—aside from tweets about her appearance. Unanswered attacks usually succeed….
But what stood out to me, in that editorial and in a couple of other places, was the repeated mention of the possibility, however slim, of still stopping Trump at the convention. I was at first startled by it, then increasingly intrigued by the way they kept mentioning it.
What brought this on was the widespread consternation among Republicans about Trump’s unprovoked comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel. Personally, I’m still trying to figure out why this abomination is so much more shocking than all his previous ones. Maybe the GOP really had hypnotized itself into thinking there was a “new Trump,” as unlikely as that seems. Whatever.
From the above-referenced editorial, headlined “High Trump Anxiety,” ended with these words:
If Mr. Trump doesn’t start to act like a political leader, and his poll numbers collapse between now and the July convention, he may start to hear rumblings that delegates are looking for someone else to nominate. As traumatic as that would be, the Republican desire to avoid a landslide defeat that costs the House and Senate might be stronger.
Another editorial above it, which I enjoyed for the headline alone (“Saving Speaker Ryan“), ended with this:
The Trump ascendancy is a dangerous moment for Republicans and conservative ideas. But unless the convention delegates in Cleveland stage an uprising and nominate someone else (see below), Mr. Trump or Hillary Clinton will be the next President. Those who want to preserve space for a better conservative politics should support politicians who share those beliefs, not engage in Trump-like purges.
The “(see below)” referred to other editorial, “High Trump Anxiety.” Again, the possibility of stopping him at the convention was only mentioned at the very end, but it’s interesting that the editors chose to conclude two editorials that way, and to call our attention to the fact.
Then there was the column by Holman W. Jenkins Jr., which said in part:
Happily, there’s still time for Republicans, at their convention, to replace Mr. Trump with someone else, though this will require continued help from Mr. Trump. But he’s working on it. On Monday, he ordered his staff to double-down on vilifying Judge Curiel. He said on TV that a hypothetical Muslim judge might also be unfit to preside. And when and if the Trump U cases proceed to trial before a jury, whole voting blocs (women) will be on the edge of their seats to find out if they’re disqualified because Mr. Trump previously insulted them.
All this offers a second chance for those prominent Republicans who, from party loyalty, misborn hopes for Mr. Trump’s transformation or a mistaken idea of their own populist bona fides, clambered aboard the Trump express….
Echoing the two editorials, he returned to that theme at the very end:
The Trump ascendancy is a dangerous moment for Republicans and conservative ideas. But unless the convention delegates in Cleveland stage an uprising and nominate someone else (see below), Mr. Trump or Hillary Clinton will be the next President. Those who want to preserve space for a better conservative politics should support politicians who share those beliefs, not engage in Trump-like purges.
Note that the Journal isn’t going out on a limb and trying to predict that something so unlikely might actually happen. But they keep mentioning it, just in case there’s someone out there (actually, it would take quite a few someones) with the guts to take the idea and act upon it…
Related Posts
Take a good look at the screenshot above from the WSJ’s editorial section.
There are quite a few other items on the opinion pages today, but note that the three items promoted at the top (above the headline, below the nameplate) are the three I quoted from above — the two editorials and the Jenkins column.
Which is to say, the three items that mention the idea of stopping Trump at the convention.
Probably a coincidence, but I found it an interesting one…
To be more specific — there were 11 separate items on the Opinion pages of the Journal today, counting the three letters to the editor as one item.
And the items mentioning a convention ploy were the three promoted…
“Personally, I’m still trying to figure out why this abomination is so much more shocking than all his previous ones.” I’d suggest that it’s precisely because *he’s the candidate* now. When he was just a contenda, the inclination was to handle him with kid gloves, because you didn’t want to offend all those people who were voting for him. But now that he’s the candidate, he’s expected to take on the role of party leader, meaning organize a campaign, focus on The Enemy, and be a team player. But his attacks on Judge Curiel aren’t just racist; they also show that Trump still hasn’t learned that he’s supposed to be about the party, not himself. His primary schtick was to basically treat the contest as a series of personal vendettas that he had not only to win, but dominate. Now he’s the guy in charge, but he’s still waging personal vendettas–with a federal judge! And in the process, he’s tearing his own campaign to pieces, openly insulting his staff for trying to do damage control. But it’s not just his campaign; it’s the party’s that he’s trashing.
It’ll be interesting to see how his behavior polls, but I suspect it remains quite popular with the Republican electorate. He’s hitting all the right buttons–that white-guy grievance, the notion that it’s those other people who are the real racists and plotting to deny us our rightful due. Because it’s the Trump voters that define the party now, not the poobahs at the WSJ. It was all well and good to use dog whistles to mobilize the masses to support the WSJ’s top priority, more tax cuts for rich people; it’s another thing altogether when the dogs take over the kennel. And that, of course, is why denying Trump the nomination is a fantasy; the real power in the party is the base, and the base won’t stand for it.
Every time I read something about Trump, I feel like this.
Not a really good thing for a captain to say out loud.
Jack Aubrey would never say anything like that. He’d be all excited about getting alongside the Russians and mixing it up.
You probably know the terminology well enough now that you can recognize The Hunt for Red October as one big, really complicated cutting-out expedition. Jack Ryan plays the Stephen Maturin role, and Bart Mancuso is Jack.
I’m pretty sure Mancuso was made post for that triumph (he was a mere commander in the book). Everyone at the Admiralty would have wished him joy, and exclaimed that “It was the completest thing!”
Professor, that’s really not fair to the editors of the Journal.
I have HUGE problems with them, but not for the kinds of “dog whistles” that give us a Trump. You can point the finger at lots of people in the GOP on that score, but not the WSJ.
There is practically NO overlap between their priorities and the things that brought Trump to this pass. They don’t do xenophobia. They’re about as far on the opposite end of the immigration debate as you can get. Not necessarily out of nobility — the economic libertarians LIKE all that cheap labor, remember.
These are your Club for Growth Republicans. They are a near-perfect match for Mark Sanford (whom the Club for Growth has always adored), as opposed to the Nikki Haley, more populist, Tea Party crowd.
And that’s the problem I have with them, because I’m so far from being a libertarian.
But this business of dismissing someone by calling him a “Mexican” — that’s not anything the WSJ has any responsibility for…