A few years ago, The Federalist’s publisher, Ben Domenech, suggested that conservatives consider dumping the “Buckley Rule,” the late William F. Buckley’s admonition always to choose the most conservative candidate who can win. As Ben pointed out, things have changed since Buckley first issued this advice, including that the elite determination of “who can win” is often flawed. The Buckley Rule, for example, might have led to supporting Charlie Crist—you may shudder at will—instead of Marco Rubio in the 2010 Florida Senate race.
In its place, Ben raised the possibility of a “Hamilton Rule,” named after Alexander Hamilton. Although both were Federalists, Hamilton despised John Adams and his coterie among his own party to the point where he was willing to lose the election of 1800. “If we must have an enemy at the head of government,” Hamilton said in exasperation, “let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.”Read the entire editorial.
And now for the counter-point: Didn't conservatives do this 8 years ago (and ever since) with Obama? They have been obstructing him at every turn, and they have managed a few victories, but the presidency has been morphing into a brutal dictatorship, where Obama can rule by executive fiat. Frankly, we don't have much time until the president becomes an emperor. How long before we have a president appointing a horse to the senate?
Mind you, I am not proposing that Trump is a solution. Actually, I would say the problem is much more serious: If Trump wins the nomination, you may as well call the conservative movement dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment