I hesitate to take a break from the EU migrant crisis; certainly, the refugees never rest and another 3-5,000 new will arrive in Greece tomorrow. It never ends, nor will it as long as Merkel continues to get her way and Greece continues to surrender their border. More on that later in the week, but the EU is near the end. It will not and cannot survive its present form. The more I discover what values the EU represents, the more I believe Europe would be better off without the EU.
As a former US candidate for Congress in 1996 and 1998, I have a good instinct and feel for elections. Whoever I am against usually wins the election. My conservatism is of the "Old Right" and paleoconservative, best exemplified by my friend Pat Buchanan. He may not have won the election, but he has won the debate for the last twenty years. The issues he brought up long ago - immigration, multiculturalism, trade, globalism, the follies of invading Iraq, etc. are at the heart of the debate today. He was ahead of his time. To be frank, I am undecided and not one candidate energizes me as Buchanan did. In some ways, I believe ths allows me to analyze things from a rational and neutral point of view, although I know who I don't like.
Ted Cruz is a fighter and ran a great campaign in Iowa and it paid off. Iowa depends more on grassroots mobilization than grand speeches, which probably was to Cruz's advantage. Cruz is quite capable and he has to be taken seriously as an anti-establishment candidate. Donald Trump finished second and while this may have been disappointing for his supporters, he is here to stay. He has money, energy, and the passion on the issues that are popular for Middle America. A Trump nomination would more than likely set a record for cross-party voting in November for both political parties. Marco Rubio finished third, which energized his supporters. I have always thought it would come down to Trump vs. Rubio; Cruz was the surprise for me. It is a three-man race.
The establishment does not like Trump or Cruz; they prefer Marco Rubio. Who makes up the establishment? They are called the neoconservatives or neocons. They are led by Bill Kristol and offer plenty of Group Think via the various GOP media outlets they control. Watch Fox News and read the Wall Street Journal and one will find the neocon. The neocons are not the authentic conservatives that I grew up admiring, and while they are mere lightweights in my mind, they are big players within GOP circles. Neocons believe they need to shape the world around their beliefs and often advocate military action and a powerful executive branch to achieve their goals. However, they don't have a track record of success; in fact, one could easily argue they have been a disaster for America and the world. The invasion of Iraq was their trademark, their legacy. But they ignited the fire that began the breakdown of the Middle East which thus destabilized Syria and sent refugees flowing to Europe. Marco Rubio may be the their preferred candidate, but he is nothing more than a "mini-McCain".
Neocons prefer Turkey and Saudi Arabia as allies. They detest Putin and Iran and will oppose them, even if this means radical Islamic rebels and terrorists take over Syria. Their main antagonist is not ISIS, but Putin. If Merkel allows emotion to overtake critical thought, neocons allow pride and
ideology to trump foreign policy realism.
Rubio has been their man from the start and his foreign policy, where he is weak and easily influenced, would no doubt follow their course. One can see this by the influential neocons lining up behind his campaign. His third place finish in Iowa was good, but not as great as the neocons spin it. After all, he finished third. However, he did establish himself as the leading candidate of the neocon establishment. No matter how low his numbers or how easily confused he becomes on foreign policy, the neocon money supply will keep him in the race until the end. Rubio will be one of the two candidates left standing. Personally, I believe his foreign policy agenda would be a disaster, much like that of Dick Cheney. However, Rubio is a serious candidate, not by his credentials, but due to the power vested in those who support him.
Donald Trump is certainly the anti-establishment candidate. The neocons detest him partly because they cannot control him(as they would with Rubio). Trump is his own man and he resonates with Middle America, fed up with mass immigration, endless war, and unfair trade deals that sacrifice their jobs to the profits of multi-national corporations. Cruz and Trump will compete for the anti-
establishment vote. Only one can emerge; if both continue to the end they will split that vote and will have little chance to defeat Rubio.
My take as an undecided (only know that I will support whoever can defeat Rubio, who I believe would drive us into another Middle East quagmire): Either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will emerge to take on Rubio. My gut feeling points to Trump because he taps into people's emotions more. But I have seen the nasty work of the neocons, their venomous smears on candidates like Pat Buchanan in the past. They will be in full attack mode and I still think they control the media and dollars to propel Rubio to the nomination. The time is coming when the neocon will be overthrown and discredited, but I don't see that happening in 2016.
Rubio will then face a damaged and detested H. Clinton in the general. Although demographics favor the Democrats, I just cannot see America voting for Clinton. Rubio is clever enough to mask his neocon foreign policy; he will win. But his presidency will be flawed and he will last one term. This will serve as the beginning to the end of the neocon establishment in Washington.
The rebels and traditionalists may not get what they want in 2016 - but Trump or Cruz - even in defeat may open the door for real change in 2020. Patience I say. Let Rubio and the neocons blow themselves up again. The question: Who is waiting in the wings to take back true conservatism from the neocons in 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment