GOP Debate #2: Trump Stays Steady; Fiorina and Cruz Shine; Jeb Bush Gets Mad.

By John Zmirak Published on September 17, 2015

The Republican presidential field has been bubbling like a cauldron. Politically, the 2010s in America are starting to look like the late 1920s in Germany, as voices of cautious reform are drowned out on both left and right by clarion calls of radicalism. The U.S. hasn’t lost a catastrophic war, endured a Depression or been forced to pay reparations to all its enemies. But you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric used by Bernie Sanders on the left, or Donald Trump on the right.

Meanwhile the more mainstream candidates find themselves equated with the dull, depressing status quo of slow-motion national decline. Like the old German Social Democrats facing the Communists, Hillary Clinton finds that Saul Alinsky’s Marxist gradualism is less appealing to the idle, disgruntled masses than cries for “Revolution now!” Temperate patriots such as Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are painted as sell-outs by American ultranationalists, who are playing the “victim card” on behalf of our country as a whole.

Now, let’s not oversell the comparison. There are no storm troopers waiting in the wings, and neither extreme of American politics favors gulag camps or genocide. But the rise of class-based and nation-based collectivism at both political extremes ought to worry prudent conservatives and sane liberals alike. Sensationalism and “gut-think” are dominating our politics now, and 20th century history tells us that irrationalism rarely ends well.

Tonight’s debate was a chance for Republican candidates to reassert the control of conservative principles over personality — without falling into the trap of letting the well-funded candidate with the best Establishment connections (Jeb Bush) inherit the nomination and go on to lose against a Democrat willing to pander to class envy using taxpayers’ hard-earned money. Because that is precisely what happened in 1996, 2008 and 2012.

This debate provided Republicans with the chance to face down this dilemma, to see if other candidates can step forward and challenge Donald Trump’s blind charisma, and Jeb Bush’s institutional inertia. The debate also offered Trump the chance to show that he is more than an inchoate howl of anger, and Bush to dispute the perception that he is the “low-energy,” default choice of an unimaginative party elite addicted to dynasties.

With all of that said, here are the major challenges each candidate faces, and my take on how well each one surmounted them last night. I’ll address each one as if I were his adviser, debriefing him after the event.

Donald Trump

You have already proved to everyone that you’re tough. We’ve all enjoyed the guilty pleasure of watching you flout upper-middle class mores and political correctness. That schtick will get old soon, if you don’t give it a rest. Now it is time for you to prove that you have a commitment to core conservative principles — thus countering your critics, me included.

You were right to talk tough about immigration. But on the key points most of the candidates (except for Jeb) have come to agree with you. In fact, some of them, like Ted Cruz, were fighting this battle while you were still on the wrong side of the issue. So it’s time to switch your emphasis to include more traditional conservative concerns. You should have explained how large-scale, low-skill immigration grows big government, how it produces social problems that liberals step forward to fix. You mentioned the rule of law and sanctuary cities, but so did other candidates; that talking point isn’t just yours anymore. Instead of getting caught up in the mechanics of interpreting the 14th Amendment, you ought to tap into our legitimate sentiments about citizenship. Explain how “anchor babies” and birthright tourism cheapen its value and mock the sacrifices of patriots.

On foreign policy, you simply weren’t up to speed, and it’s going to start to hurt you. Your rivals have clear and cogent cases to make about the threats to America around the world, and the right approaches to answering the many dangers that Obama’s feckless inexperience has left us. Just saying that you’ll find the “best” or “smartest” people to advise you won’t cut it at this stage in the race. When you say that by the time you are president you will know all about foreign affairs, that doesn’t reassure us. It reminds us that you’ve shown a consistent, dangerous deficit of humility.

Ben Carson

Americans really like and respect you. That’s no mean feat for a politician. Your intellectual firepower and personal warmth propelled you to second place since the last debate. But you don’t have the money or the team to capture the nomination right now — and political insiders know it. If you’re really running for president—and not vice-president, surgeon general or a prime-time talk show spot, then you have to prove that you can address the country’s critical issues in detailed specifics. That didn’t happen last night. Instead, we heard you seem to waffle between some radically different alternatives, such as Gov. Huckabee’s “Fair Tax” on consumption, and the flat tax plans supported by several other candidates. Likewise, your statement about opposing the Iraq War, but also opposing our hasty withdrawal, came across more as confused than nuanced. To become more than a symbolic candidate, you need to hire advisers who will translate your decent, patriotic impulses into plausible policy initiatives that voters can weigh against the alternatives. You must show that you can play with the big boys, compete against successful governors and well-informed senators over the long haul.

Carly Fiorina

You’ve done a good job of exploiting Trump’s crass, misogynist attack. But it was wise of you to move on. Going into the debate, some thought you would become the attack-dog, savaging Trump to other candidates’ benefit. Instead, you were detailed, polite and firm. You traveled some distance last night toward becoming the sane, electable center-right alternative to Jeb Bush. Keep demonstrating your knowledge of key issues such as taxes, immigration and the growth of government, all issues that principled conservatives — who are afraid of Trump, but jaded by Bush — really care about. Your closing statement was especially eloquent, and genuinely moving.

Scott Walker

Of all the candidates this year, you have probably caught the worst breaks. You were the rightful insurgent, tough-talking “outsider” candidate — who happened to be running in the year of the Trump. Last night you did a good job of reminding people how tough and effective you really are. You need to keep up the drumbeat, and drive home to people the threat of public-service unions. I wish you had talked in more detail about SEIU and the NEA — how they suck up taxpayer money, force employees to fund them, work for radical candidates and favor mass low-skill immigration. Some campaign ads might be in order, highlighting their role in the radicalism of Occupy Wall Street, the story of the “John Doe” persecution, and how you beat the radical left in Wisconsin. Show that you’re the right person to go on and do that in Washington.

Ted Cruz

Your strategy of playing remora to Trump’s great white shark served you well up to now, but I’m glad that you transcended it at last night’s debate. You hit the immigration issue with more credibility than any other candidate deserves, while showing that you are the rational choice for people who actually want policy changed and the border secure. You also did a good job of addressing the question of shutting down the government, even gaining support from Chris Christie on the issue. Your attack on the Iran deal was more vivid and persuasive than any other candidate’s, and your tough, clear talk on social issues will solidify your base. Your best moment was when you exposed to voters how Bush presidents in the past have failed to fight for conservative nominees on the Supreme Court, leaving us stuck with Obamacare and court-imposed same-sex marriage. Soon, though, you will probably need to break your tactical alliance with Trump and start peeling off his supporters.

Jeb Bush

For too long, you have acted like the leader of the Monarchist Party, waiting in exile for the commoners to calm down and accept your claim to the throne. That’s over now. Your campaign is in danger of becoming a war chest in search of soldiers. That’s why it was smart for you to gamble last night and go after Trump almost as hard as you have in your ads — showing genuine anger at how he has (in your view) abandoned core conservative principles, and opened the door for another four disastrous years of a Democrat presidency. Americans need to see you get mad, and prove that you’re willing to fight for them. Your positions on immigration and Common Core, and the many unfortunate legacies of previous Bush administrations, will continue to weigh down your candidacy. However, you do have some real advantages. Your track record as Florida governor is genuinely impressive, and shows your conservative bona fides on issues where Donald Trump is a come-lately who can only answer accomplishments with grandiose promises.

Marco Rubio

Your performance was more impressive this time, though it is still unclear whether your message of economic growth at home and tough talk abroad can overcome the baggage of your past accommodations with Democrats on immigration. You have adopted a solid position on that issue now: conditioning any path to citizenship for illegals on the prior completion of border security, the tracking of those who overstay their visas, and mandatory e-Verify for employers. These are solid conservative positions, and you should stick by them, maybe even bang the drum for them. If Trump can claim a conversion on something as fundamental as abortion, why can’t you be a plausible convert on border security? If you can stay in the race long enough, there’s a chance that you’ll eat away at your old mentor Jeb’s constituency and become the center-right champion.

Mike Huckabee

You were strong throughout the debate, which is not a surprise. You have a winning and likeable manner, and clear, principled stances on the issues. You are smart to get out on the right of all the other candidates, by asserting that the 14th Amendment ought to extend legal protection to unborn children (instead of citizenship for birthright tourists). Your “Fair Tax” is an intriguing idea, which might well catch on. It has the merit of being both populist-sounding and pro-business. But it’s well-known that your fundraising is weak, and I fear that you won’t be in the race for the long haul. However, your strong positions on legal and constitutional issues ought to make you a strong choice for Attorney General in the next Republican administration.

Rand Paul

I am thankful that you’re in the race. You probably are the closest thing to a Reagan conservative running, and your willingness to flout the party’s hawks is an act of civic courage. Likewise your defense of the 10th Amendment, even when it applies to a “red-meat” issue like marijuana laws. I hope that you can stay in the game long enough to keep candidates honest on foreign policy. If not, please don’t risk losing your Kentucky senate seat. We need your voice to resonate across the nation.

Chris Christie

Last night you struck a better balance than you have before. Your tough-talking, rough-edged Northeastern bluntness is appealing to those of us from your region. You were right to burnish your credentials as an “outsider,” a Republican governor of a Democratic state, with a good track record on spending and trying to protect unborn life. Your 9/11 story about your wife is moving, but I’m not sure that it sustains your foreign policy views as well as you think it does. Millions of Americans now have stories about their relatives who went to Iraq and Afghanistan, and they know that our nation now has little to show for those conflicts. Your appeal is strongest in deep-blue states that no Republican will ever carry again in a presidential race. That alone makes your candidacy a very, very long shot. You might want to think about running for Senate.

John Kasich

Maybe “flinty” and “impatient” plays better in Ohio than it does everywhere else. You have a good story to tell — one of the original Reagan revolutionaries, who has turned around the economy and governance of a major Midwestern swing state. But you are outflanked on the right by many strong candidates, and it’s not clear what you offer that Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio don’t. Each of them is more affable and appealing, so what exactly is your natural constituency?

 

Updated 6:08 a.m.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Inspiration
The Scarcity Mindset
Robert Morris
More from The Stream
Connect with Us