worth observing even if you normally avoid their prose, because they indicate a depth of difficulty for Trump beyond what might necessarily be showing up YET in the polls.
I am focusing on two columns from the op ed section of today’s Washington Post. I had held off on writing about them in case they were featured in today’s Abbreviated Pundit Roundup. Since they were not, and since I think people should at least be aware of them, I decided I ought to take on the responsibility of posting.
George Will asks simply Who will follow Trump off the cliff? His column has lots to it, including his clear disgust with some of Trump’s rhetoric, including about Rafael Cruz.
Much of what he writes is data driven, and the column is filled with hyperlinks to the data Will cites, and to statements Trump has made. I am not going to include all the links in the sections I cite, but as an example, here is one paragraph:
Although Romney won 53 percent of married women, he received just 44 percent of the total female vote. Today, Trump trails Hillary Clinton among women by 19 points (35 percent to 54 percent), and most women probably do not yet know that he testifies to the excellence of his penis. (“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, has been well-documented, are various other parts of my body.”) Or that his idea of masculinity is to boast about conquests of women “often seemingly very happily married” and that “I have been able to date (screw).” Or that he says “it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”
Clearly Will is not merely citing data to demonstrate why Trump is such a weak general election candidate. He is also demonstrating his personal disgust at the man, his history, and his rhetoric.
The next, and penultimate paragraph, is this:
In receiving, so far, the support of 4.7 percent of America’s eligible voters, Trump has won a mere plurality of votes in a party approved by only 33 percent of the electorate. This electorate had about 5 percent more Democrats than Republicans even before Trump further tarnished the GOP brand. So, Republicans need to carry independents by more than Romney’s five points. Even in states that have voted Republican since 2000, Trump is viewed unfavorably by 62 percent and strongly unfavorably by 52 percent.
Despite winning outright majorities among Republican primary voters in a string of recent states, Will focuses on the totality of Trump’s performance and points out the obvious dangers. Note especially these words:
This electorate had about 5 percent more Democrats than Republicans even before Trump further tarnished the GOP brand.
And if Trump is also having problems with independents, that bespeaks a major danger for the GOP elsewhere on the ticket.
But it is this final paragraph that is key:
His metabolic urge to be scabrous guarantees that Republican candidates everywhere will be badgered by questions about what they think about what he says. What they say will determine how many of them lose with him, and how many deserve to.
This is pretty close to a call for Republican office-holders and candidates to distance themselves from Trump. Will apparently believes that signing on to Trump means accepting his rhetoric, which could well in even semi-competitive races, doom some Republicans. And yet, on the other hand, as we here well know, such distancing from the top of the ticket could mean that fervent Trump supporters will bullet vote — for him, and not the rest of the ticket — which could also doom them.
And then there is Kathleen Parker. Her piece today is titled Farewell, Grand Old Party. It begins thus:
It wasn’t precisely an act of moral courage, but House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s (Wis.) comment that he’s not ready to support presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump was at least . . . something.
Whether it’s a start or a finish remains to be revealed, but it would seem that we’re witnessing the beginning of the end.
She cites a call from a friend long active behind the scenes of the Republican party who is not going to continue in that role with Trump heading the ticket, whom she quotes:
“I feel sorry for you,” she said, “because you (given your job) can’t ignore the collapse of Western civilization.”
That Parker chooses to quote those words are important.
What is of greater importance is that she claims that the issues on which Trump is campaigning and how he does so are not the result of any core beliefs:
Both his platform and style were crafted to fit the findings of extensive polling he commissioned before announcing his run.
In other words, Trump didn’t write a book you loved; he wrote the book you said you’d love. If people were outraged about immigration, why then he’d build a wall. If they were upset about manufacturing jobs lost overseas, well fine, he’d kill the trade agreements.
Then comes a sentence which I think encapsulates what Trump is all about:
Trump was never about principle but about winning, the latter of which he kept no secret.
Which of course means those supporting him realistically have no idea of what they are getting.
She explores the meaning of the recent actions/words by Paul Ryan, who has said he wants to support Trump but is apparently seeking some kind of commitment to Republican principles, an outreach that so far Trump has somewhat rejected. But even were he willing to negotiate/discussion with Ryan, Parker sees a further problem for Trump:
The problem, as with all relationships, is that certain words, once expressed, can’t be taken back. No amount of backtracking can erase memories of what Trump really thought and said in a particular moment. It isn’t only that his wildly conceived and frequently revised positions are at odds with those of leveler heads, but also Trump has embarrassed those who can still be embarrassed.
She explores the notion of those seeking to find some way to support Trump, versus those who won’t. Consider her final two paragraphs (minus the hyperlinks, which you can read in the original):
Still other Republicans are expressing disapproval by vowing not to attend the party convention in July. These include the last two GOP presidential nominees, Mitt Romney and John McCain, though McCain is on record saying he’ll support Trump, which can be viewed as loyal or merely sad.
The “sads” have it.
Consider that. For Parker, the kind of support offered by McCain — and Kelly Ayotte with her support but not endorse statement, for example — is sad.
Why? Implied is that it represents an abandonment of any principle.
Neither Parker nor Will is a major voice to the vast majority of Republican voters. Both however are voices to which major players in The Village, in other media, among long-time political players, pay attention. Both have won Pulitzers for their commentary. That both seem totally opposed to Trump could be both an indicator of where some Republican elite opinion might go and a way of providing cover for those who decide not to support Trump.
Or then, maybe they are just flinging their words into the winds of a political tempest that has made them irrelevant?
In either case, or it is someplace in between, I thought it worthwhile that we be aware of what they offered.