Self-Righteous Conservatives Attack GOP Leaders in Congress

George Will, a long-respected conservative intellectual and columnist, has called for Democrats to take over Congress in protest to the GOP leadership’s perceived unwillingness to confront Pres. Trump on his conduct.

In the view of The Sensible Conservative,  such conservatives (and he’s not alone) are being distinctly unfair and in fact are “self-righteous” as well.

There are, of course, plenty of reasons to criticize Donald Trump.  His off-the-cuff comments are frequently irresponsible and cause embarrassment for the White House and the country.  His conduct during the Helsinki press conference was worse; it was shameful.

So the condemnation expressed by George Will, for instance, is appropriate.  But what’s the purpose of Congressional leaders joining in the critical chorus?

They, unlike pundits, have positions of power and authority.  Their conduct should be guided by that which best serves their objective of shaping appropriate, conservative policies.

The president’s cooperation is essential to the attainment of such goals.  Yet, to put it mildly, Donald Trump does not take kindly to criticism.  His reaction is likely to be a counter-attack and a defiant opposition to his perceived foes’ wishes.  But he does love personal praise.  Those who provide it become presidential favorites.

Of course, one can say that the President shouldn’t act or think this way.  OK.  But Donald Trump is a known quantity and wishes by others that he were different are meaningless.

So Senate leader Mitch McConnell and his House counterpart Paul Ryan are faced with undesirable choices:  Follow Will’s current policy of lambasting the President for his conduct and earn Trump’s open hostility or   look for ways to minimize affronts and seek to commend the President when possible, giving him the benefit of any doubts as to intentions. 

The former course has its appeal.  Feeling self-righteous can be comforting.  But it is an irresponsible position for a policy maker to take.  It dooms any prospect of working with Donald Trump.

The latter choice has its drawbacks, too.  Who wants to be accused of being acquiescent to conduct which on a personal – and policy – level is deserving of strong condemnation?  What kind of an example is that to set for the country?  Not a good one.

Neither is attractive.  But in the real world, a choice must be made.

Choose to be totally ineffective from a policy accomplishment perspective, but morally upstanding or keep on the good side of Donald Trump and preserve the opportunity to make a positive difference.

It is regrettable that George Will, a seemingly sophisticated and worldly person, did not appreciate the Hobson’s choice presented to Republican leaders.

 

 

Another View of Conservatism

Recently, The Sensible Conservative recited various elements of what constitutes the political philosophy of Conservatism.  I emphasized the values that are essential to a healthy, free society…always have been, always will be.

Michael Gerson, a Washington Post columnist and former Bush (II) Administration official, recently focused on another aspect. 

He opined that the Donald Trump’s conservative constituency is anchored in cultural nostalgia.  He is not criticizing the President’s supporters but rather noting their wish to return to an earlier time.  Back then, the feeling is, America’s standing in the world was not seriously challenged and the society’s values were broadly respected by its inhabitants.

That assessment seems largely accurate but to term the Trump supporters’ attitudes as nostalgic is to miss an important component.  Nostalgia is a wistful look back to a time which will never return.  More is involved than a hopeful wish for what used to be.  Rather, there is a realization on the Right that values which long underpinned our society have been neglected, if not outright ignored.  Think of religion, traditional family structures, respect for human life and patriotism.

A conservative whose philosophy is grounded in history and possesses a skepticism toward the trumpeted virtues of change does not praise the past for what used to be.  But he does recognize that human nature does not change.  And that fact mandates a respect for policies, practices and traditions which sustain a healthy society.  Their survival over millennia is strong evidence of their continuing usefulness – not that they be replaced because modern thinkers view them as old fashioned and therefore outmoded.