Tags: 2018 Midterm Elections | Donald Trump | Hillary Clinton | dna | nader | warren

Trump's Genuine Inclusiveness Keeps Him a Winner

Trump's Genuine Inclusiveness Keeps Him a Winner

In the summer of 2016, then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made a campaign stop in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. At the time, countless former Democrats in Ohio's blue-collar Mahoning Valley supported Trump. (Gerald Herbert/AP)

By
Monday, 22 October 2018 04:58 PM Current | Bio | Archive

Hell hath no fury like a progressive scorned.

We are seeing that fury displayed in full panoply in the run-up to the 2018 midterms.

Donald Trump’s astonishing and unexpected win over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race put the lie to the claim, beloved of the Obama administration, that the "arc of history” was bending their way, and that the country would, of course, endorse their policies.

Members of that administration, including Mrs. Clinton, had become so confident in what they were doing, and the politically correct course on which they had embarked, that they are still reeling. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, she is completely unwilling or incapable of acknowledging political reality.

Hillary Clinton lost because Donald Trump offered a more attractive vision of what the country could be. Instead of a federal Leviathan regulating every aspect of national life, increasing taxes, and redistributing resources to favored cronies and causes, Trump offered deregulation, lowered taxes, and increased economic and social freedom for all.

To a remarkable degree, in two years, he has achieved what he promised, increasing the rate of economic growth and employment through dramatically decreased taxes on businesses and individuals. This president has also achieved ecomonic expansion through the scaling back of hobbling federal regulations.

Instead of encouraging a judiciary which altered the law to fit liberal desires, Trump has appointed justices and judges committed to the rule of law — and the preservation of traditional rights of property and person.

The liberals who thought the future belonged to them are understandably irked, baffled, and furious. Thus Mrs. Clinton’s absurd suggestion that there can be no civility toward Republicans until the Democrats win back the government, because they stand for something different from her party.

Prior to the 2016 election, of course, Mrs. Clinton expressed horror that Mr. Trump might not accept the results if she was victorious. Her hypocrisy is striking.

The basis of our continuing two-party system is that we agree to share power and occasionally shift control, but Mrs. Clinton, in her rage, appears to condone the vile protests currently employed by malcontents, thus affirming the GOP’s claim that this election the choice is between "jobs and mobs."

In a related development last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., whom the president had dismissed as "Pocahontas," scorning her then unproven claim of Native American heritage, released purported DNA results demonstrating that she had somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1024th the genetic heritage of people indigenous to either North or South America.

This lent a tiny bit of support to her earlier claim of being descended from persons of Cherokee ancestry, but the tribe appeared less than enthusiastic to embrace either DNA tests or Sen. Warren.

What the episode seemed to suggest, in addition to Ms. Warren’s hostility to President Trump and her eagerness to challenge him in 2020, was the insanity of the progressives’ identity politics that appears to mandate some sort of genetic connection with the formerly marginalized.

Elizabeth Warren, like Hillary Clinton, simply fails to grasp that the liberal politics of victimology have less appeal than the simple and traditional Donald Trump politics of inclusion.

A third example of misplaced ire was that displayed by Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who is running against Republican Congresswoman Martha McSally for the Arizona Senate now being vacated by Jeff Flake.

Ms. Sinema has lately been positioning herself as something of a moderate (in order to appeal in increasingly purple Arizona), but The New York Times recently reported that when she "began her rise in Arizona politics in the early 2000s, she was a Ralph Nader supporter and local spokeswoman for the Green Party who worked to repeal the death penalty and organized antiwar protests after the Sept. 11 attacks."

Her progressive credentials are thus impeccable, and some of her off-the-cuff statements have now come back to trouble her. Most disturbing, perhaps, is her baffling blast at stay-at-home moms, whom she bitterly condemned as wrongly claiming the feminist mantle. In that interview Sinema attacked "These women who act like staying at home, leeching off their husbands or boyfriends, and just cashing the checks is some sort of feminism because they’re choosing to live that life . . . "

Such a statement is not calculated to win the support of mothers who quite properly might seize the opportunity of being in a position closely to supervise, cherish, and further the well-being of their offspring.

What Mrs. Clinton, Senator Warren, and Representative Sinema seem to be telling us is that there is only one approved way of living our lives — theirs — and that a failure to conform to their values and to behave in the politically correct manner of progressives is deplorable. Mrs. Clinton tried that approach in 2016. It didn’t work.

Stephen B. Presser is the Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History Emeritus at Northwestern’s Pritzker School of Law, the Legal Affairs Editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, and a contributor to The University Bookman. He graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and has taught at Rutgers University, the University of Virginia, and University College, London. He has often testified on constitutional issues before committees of the United States Congress, and is the author of "Recapturing the Constitution: Race, Religion, and Abortion Reconsidered" (Regnery, 1994) and "Law Professsors: Three Centuries of Shaping American Law" (West Academic, 2017). Presser was recently appointed as a Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy at the University of Colorado's Boulder Campus for 2018-2019. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
StephenBPresser
Instead of a federal Leviathan regulating every aspect of national life, increasing taxes, and redistributing resources to favored cronies and causes, Trump offered deregulation, lowered taxes, and increased economic and social freedom for all.
dna, nader, warren
926
2018-58-22
Monday, 22 October 2018 04:58 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved