Prominent Conservative Talk Show Host takes Aim at Republican Backers of Trump

Charlie Sykes, a well-regarded conservative radio talk show host in Milwaukee, has used an op-ed piece in the New York Times to take to task fellow members of the right for supporting Donald Trump’s candidacy in the general election.

Leave aside that the leftist Times is an odd podium from which to lecture fellow conservatives; Sykes’ main complaint is that they abandoned principles by supporting the GOP nominee.

It is accurate to say that most Republican conservatives in 2016 were not fans of the New York billionaire, notorious for his reality show and prior support for liberals, including Hillary Clinton, among many other ideological “sins”.

Yet there was a choice to be made.  Of course, the conservative voter or leader was not restricted to a binary selection between the leading party nominees.  One could have voted third party or refused to cast a ballot.  Hillary and Donald were such morally deficient candidates, it’s hard to criticize those who, in effect, chose to abstain.

But criticism of Mr. Sykes for choosing to stand aside does have merit.

 

A thoughtful conservative who wanted his vote to count very well could justify supporting Hillary Clinton based upon her apparent steadiness in foreign affairs in contrast to Donald Trump’s demonstrated lack thereof.  That voter would, indeed, put country over party in the face of Mrs. Clinton’s myriad failings and promises to extend President Obama’s disastrous legacy.

Likewise, a similarly motivated person could reasonably conclude that the course of both domestic and foreign policy under the current administration has been so wrong-headed and left-wing that change is paramount.  Ironically, Trump was the candidate this year who offered “hope and change”.

A banker friend of mine, moderate in both politics and manner, told me post-election that, although he strongly disapproved of Trump’s conduct as a candidate, “America needs change and he was the only change agent we had”.

Charlie Sykes ignores these not too subtle factors in castigating conservative Trump supporters for backing “their side”.  He believed they abandoned principles of “free trade, balanced budgets, character and respect for constitutional rights”.  The talk show host, who played a significant role in defeating Trump’s Wisconsin primary bid, told readers that the conservative abandonment, as he saw it, of such ideas was the result of polarization which caused “essential loyalties to shift from ideas to parties, to tribes, to individuals.  Nothing else ultimately matters”.

That analysis is both over-wrought and largely wrong.

Trump’s supporters constituted a disparate “tribe”.  According to exit polls, eight percent of blacks were in his column as were twenty-eight percent of Hispanics and fifty-eight percent of whites.  Voters for change chose different ideas than those offered by Hillary Clinton; they were not guided by group or tribal loyalty.

It’s unfortunate that Sykes’ castigation of fellow conservatives seems rooted in personal pique.

His article made clear that his feelings were hurt, and he was angered by the reaction of many of his show’s listeners to his Trump apostasy.  After all, his had been a popular voice on the right for many years.

Come on.

 

One doesn’t have to be an intellectual snob to note that the typical talk show listener is hardly sophisticated when it comes to policy and politics.  The audience wants confirmation of its views, not challenges.  Sykes is certainly correct when he reports that the hostility on the right to Hillary Clinton cannot be overstated as a factor in the election.  That such strong feelings generated uncivil conduct toward Sykes in Milwaukee is hardly shocking (plainly, socially coarse mores have invaded the “polite” Midwest as well).

One wishes Charlie Sykes well.  He will leave the airways at year’s end.  Fellow conservatives hope, also, that his fears do not come to pass.  President Trump is owed not loyalty, but vigilance.  Our task is not to show loyalty to Trump but to guide and encourage him to follow conservative principles.  Most importantly, we must insist that President Donald Trump serve and protect America.  

Why Have Liberals Largely Ignored the Anti-American Conduct of an NFL Star?

Several months ago, Colin Kaepernick, a sometimes starting quarterback for the lowly (this season) San Francisco 49ers, received widespread media attention for refusing to stand for the National Anthem.  Kaepernick, a black man raised by a white couple, explained his actions as a rebuke to what he considered American racism. 

The general media’s reaction to his conduct was that while it was disrespectful toward the national flag, it was protected speech.  Mild disapproval was expressed by some – ESPN commentator Stephen A Smith for one – but blunt condemnation from Liberals was non-existent.

Of late, several Democratic politicians have, according to news reports, acknowledged “off the record” that they have withheld criticism of Mr. Kaepernick whose disrespectful conduct has continued throughout the season.  The reason?  Their leftist base would take offense!

Is there anything that can better illustrate the sorry state of today’s Democratic Party?  Leaders are fearful of calling for the symbol of America – “the land of the free and the home of the brave” – to be respected and criticizing a football player who does not since doing so would antagonize fellow liberals.

 

Is it any wonder that a political party unwilling to stand up for Old Glory – the key physical symbol of our national unity – is held in ill repute by a broad swath of Americans?

Identity Politics Survives

One of the major criticisms of political correctness has been the fascination of the liberal media and the left with the race and gender of politicians and others in prominent positions in American society.

Alas, despite the recent election results – even some Democrats have conceded that a “woman” was not defeated; an unlikable, dishonest candidate named Hillary Clinton lost – most of the PC crowd has ignored the message. 

Thus, the reliably liberal Associated Press news service reported that the announced Trump cabinet selections were mostly white males with one black and a few females in the mix.  Obviously, for many, symbols (“diversity”) remain paramount over substance.  Not all Democratic leaders, however, were oblivious to the voters’ anti-pc verdict.  Tim Ryan, a Congressman from Ohio, announced shortly after the election that he would challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Minority leadership post, noting that the time had come for his party to stop “slicing and dicing” the American electorate into categories of blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, etc.

 

Although he lost the contest (the two to one margin emphasizes the extent to which the Democratic core is infected by the appeal of “diversity” politics), his point was well taken.

Why should differences on superficial matters among Americans be highlighted at the expense of our common interests and needs?

The right way for Americans to view their fellows is not as members of this or that group or category but, rather, as individuals with particular plusses and minuses, as is the case with all of us.

Of course, The Sensible Conservative recognizes that this is goal not fully shared by those on the Right as well as on the Left.  But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be.

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. said over fifty years ago – no less significant because of its “ancient” origin:  “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

That remains an aspiration worth pursuing for all Americans, Democrats and the Left included.