A Marquette University poll brings good news for Ron DeSantis. As reported by the Washington Examiner, DeSantis is tied with Biden in a prospective general election match-up, leads Trump by 20 percentage points among registered Republicans, and by 30 percentage points among registered voters nationally.
Great post, Bill. Agree with skyzyks's comments: The last three paragraphs are golden rules if republicans hope to prevail in 2024.
I am one of those who would prefer DeSantis, but am concerned about the growing cohort of party sycophants who are urging him to moderate or move to the muddling middle. Most republican voters do not want a return to globalist GOP. I do not think sycophants will be successful, because unlike most politicians I think DeSantis is a vertebrate animal who has his own compass and tacks to it.
In a contest between those who want to return America to a more nationalist, self-interested posture, re-affirm traditional values, return to constitutional governance and the nihilists who want to rip up the constitution, racialize everything, institutionalize gender fluidity and free meatball surgery, there is no muddling middle. There is a dire need for someone who can articulate our case, make the choice clear, and close the sale.
You are right about Trump's instincts, and his inability to articulate the case. What makes DeSantis attractive to us is that he would embrace the same governance that Trump did, but articulate the case more persuasively, and that he would not make the many tactical errors that Trump has (sloppy messaging, appointing wolves in sheep's clothing to his administration, etc.).
Early DeSantis supporters should also be keenly aware that should he run, DeSantis will quickly become Public Enemy #1 and he will be subject the same vitriol and methods of attack that Trump has been weathering for almost 6 years. No doubt DeSantis knows this. I'm not sure that enough republicans know, even after all the experience of the post-9/11 years, that country club republicanism is not going to win the day.
"Trump uniquely gave voice to the large and increasing distrust of, and contempt for, elites in this country..."; "At the time, he was nearly alone among political figures in his willingness to call them out."
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "at the time," which is why I take this as something of an insult, not quite from William Otis, but from Trump and his followers.
For eight years I stood by George W. Bush, mostly enthusiastically, as he, and by implication I, were attacked by elites. At first they treated him as a moron, then as a criminal mastermind. News media ran non-stop smears -- remember when the AP heralded proof that he had been warned about the possibility of New Orleans's levies breaking, when the video they offered showed no such thing? From the special counsel who persecuted Libby, to the inspector general who claimed that Cheney behaved improperly because he performed his own intelligence analysis rather than relying on the CIA, to the media and Democrats who treated Bush's firings of U.S. Attorneys as a scandal, to the worldwide attacks by artists and opinion leaders -- remember the dress designer who depicted Rice as a fire-breathing dragon? -- to the stabs in the back by establishment Republicans like James Comey and David Frum, to the deranged call for retreat by the Iraq Study Group composed of supposedly wise elder statesmen, George W. Bush stood outnumbered defending American values against an establishment with no regard for our heritage or values. One essayist -- possibly in the Weekly Standard -- dubbed him the "Rebel-in-Chief." I supported him -- including at one vastly outnumbered counterprotest -- due to my own stubbornness and admiration for his willingness to stand up against the establishment.
So imagine how I felt in 2015 when Donald Trump, the embodiment of the liberal Manhattan establishment, denounced Bush and the Democrats as members of a "globalist" cabal. Bush was the guy fighting the globalists. And what did Trump do in his term? He pursued almost all the policies of the Democrats, as real conservatives expected. Trump does not fight: The wimp just talks and tweets.
As for those voters who support Trump because he promised to stand against the establishment, where were they when we needed them? Many of those voters are the same ones who elected Democrats in 2006 and 2008, to say nothing of 2012. And they deserve respect BECAUSE they only just got inspired?
So spare me instruction on how Trump was the one guy latching onto an important unrepresented sentiment. I was fighting against globalists; they weren't.
"Harold Stassen’s ill-tempered step brother." Heh. Now that's just mean.
"And at the time, he was nearly alone among political figures in his willingness to call them out." If there was another one among GOP principals, I don't recall it. A forgettable performance then if it existed.
"DeSantis supporters and the Republican Party more broadly pooh-pooh this fact about Trump at their peril." Correct. In 2016, Trump attracted both Obama voters and a number of those who rarely if ever vote, critically in the Midwest. If the GOP thinks that it can win the presidency with a retread of yesterday's man, good luck.
The last three paragraphs of your essay are golden. My only quibble is semantic in your redlining of "nastiness." I can imagine why you would think that in the context of Trump. Let me put it this way: DeSantis should ignore advice to soften his message or tone, particularly in the general if he is the nominee. Trump's great failures on immigration and his signature claim to "drain the swamp" was in equal measure due to ignorance of the what and how and a _lack_ of sufficient ruthlessness, indeed nastiness. The next GOP nominee should highlight their knowledge of the what and how, ruthlessness, and will to follow through.
If the GOP national leadership thinks that it can win the presidency in 2024 by picking yet another venal careerist from a flock of venal careerist milquetoasts, "tacking to the center" to focus on the hypothetical moderate in the suburbs while running a con on the rubes in the hinterlands and signaling to them that they have no better choice, then that leadership will have proven that they are as incompetent as I have long thought them to be, and they will have the loss to prove it.
Great post, Bill. Agree with skyzyks's comments: The last three paragraphs are golden rules if republicans hope to prevail in 2024.
I am one of those who would prefer DeSantis, but am concerned about the growing cohort of party sycophants who are urging him to moderate or move to the muddling middle. Most republican voters do not want a return to globalist GOP. I do not think sycophants will be successful, because unlike most politicians I think DeSantis is a vertebrate animal who has his own compass and tacks to it.
In a contest between those who want to return America to a more nationalist, self-interested posture, re-affirm traditional values, return to constitutional governance and the nihilists who want to rip up the constitution, racialize everything, institutionalize gender fluidity and free meatball surgery, there is no muddling middle. There is a dire need for someone who can articulate our case, make the choice clear, and close the sale.
You are right about Trump's instincts, and his inability to articulate the case. What makes DeSantis attractive to us is that he would embrace the same governance that Trump did, but articulate the case more persuasively, and that he would not make the many tactical errors that Trump has (sloppy messaging, appointing wolves in sheep's clothing to his administration, etc.).
Early DeSantis supporters should also be keenly aware that should he run, DeSantis will quickly become Public Enemy #1 and he will be subject the same vitriol and methods of attack that Trump has been weathering for almost 6 years. No doubt DeSantis knows this. I'm not sure that enough republicans know, even after all the experience of the post-9/11 years, that country club republicanism is not going to win the day.
"Trump uniquely gave voice to the large and increasing distrust of, and contempt for, elites in this country..."; "At the time, he was nearly alone among political figures in his willingness to call them out."
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "at the time," which is why I take this as something of an insult, not quite from William Otis, but from Trump and his followers.
For eight years I stood by George W. Bush, mostly enthusiastically, as he, and by implication I, were attacked by elites. At first they treated him as a moron, then as a criminal mastermind. News media ran non-stop smears -- remember when the AP heralded proof that he had been warned about the possibility of New Orleans's levies breaking, when the video they offered showed no such thing? From the special counsel who persecuted Libby, to the inspector general who claimed that Cheney behaved improperly because he performed his own intelligence analysis rather than relying on the CIA, to the media and Democrats who treated Bush's firings of U.S. Attorneys as a scandal, to the worldwide attacks by artists and opinion leaders -- remember the dress designer who depicted Rice as a fire-breathing dragon? -- to the stabs in the back by establishment Republicans like James Comey and David Frum, to the deranged call for retreat by the Iraq Study Group composed of supposedly wise elder statesmen, George W. Bush stood outnumbered defending American values against an establishment with no regard for our heritage or values. One essayist -- possibly in the Weekly Standard -- dubbed him the "Rebel-in-Chief." I supported him -- including at one vastly outnumbered counterprotest -- due to my own stubbornness and admiration for his willingness to stand up against the establishment.
So imagine how I felt in 2015 when Donald Trump, the embodiment of the liberal Manhattan establishment, denounced Bush and the Democrats as members of a "globalist" cabal. Bush was the guy fighting the globalists. And what did Trump do in his term? He pursued almost all the policies of the Democrats, as real conservatives expected. Trump does not fight: The wimp just talks and tweets.
As for those voters who support Trump because he promised to stand against the establishment, where were they when we needed them? Many of those voters are the same ones who elected Democrats in 2006 and 2008, to say nothing of 2012. And they deserve respect BECAUSE they only just got inspired?
So spare me instruction on how Trump was the one guy latching onto an important unrepresented sentiment. I was fighting against globalists; they weren't.
"Harold Stassen’s ill-tempered step brother." Heh. Now that's just mean.
"And at the time, he was nearly alone among political figures in his willingness to call them out." If there was another one among GOP principals, I don't recall it. A forgettable performance then if it existed.
"DeSantis supporters and the Republican Party more broadly pooh-pooh this fact about Trump at their peril." Correct. In 2016, Trump attracted both Obama voters and a number of those who rarely if ever vote, critically in the Midwest. If the GOP thinks that it can win the presidency with a retread of yesterday's man, good luck.
The last three paragraphs of your essay are golden. My only quibble is semantic in your redlining of "nastiness." I can imagine why you would think that in the context of Trump. Let me put it this way: DeSantis should ignore advice to soften his message or tone, particularly in the general if he is the nominee. Trump's great failures on immigration and his signature claim to "drain the swamp" was in equal measure due to ignorance of the what and how and a _lack_ of sufficient ruthlessness, indeed nastiness. The next GOP nominee should highlight their knowledge of the what and how, ruthlessness, and will to follow through.
If the GOP national leadership thinks that it can win the presidency in 2024 by picking yet another venal careerist from a flock of venal careerist milquetoasts, "tacking to the center" to focus on the hypothetical moderate in the suburbs while running a con on the rubes in the hinterlands and signaling to them that they have no better choice, then that leadership will have proven that they are as incompetent as I have long thought them to be, and they will have the loss to prove it.