The Republican establishment, which has always distrusted and discounted Donald Trump, is getting increasingly nervous.
So nervous, in fact, that some of its media voices
are starting to denounce their party’s front-runner in the strongest
possible terms.
As in, refusing to vote for the man if he’s the nominee. As in, loudly proclaiming that he will destroy the GOP.
Viewed from one perspective, this has the smell of
panic. Viewed from another, it’s a case of party stalwarts speaking out
based on principle.
For decades now, there has been primary-season
sniping between the establishment wing and the insurgent/hard-line/Tea
Party wing. Commentators rough up their least favorite candidate, even
declare them unqualified for the White House.
But if that person prevails—think Mitt Romney in
2012—the sharpest Republican critics find a way to walk it back. Well,
he wasn’t my first choice, but he would be better than Barack Obama.
He’s evolved on immigration/tax cuts/ObamaCare. He would pull this
country out of its left-wing tailspin.
These days, the rhetoric is getting so hot that there
will be no scrambling back on board. Bill Kristol has been openly
musing about a third party if Trump wins the nomination.
Does the conservative media elite hope to throw some
tacks under the Trump steamroller with such sharp rhetoric? Or are its
members just speaking out to clear their consciences?
If it’s the former, I think it might actually help
Trump to have the Beltway types arrayed against him. These are the folks
he is running against, and he’s never positioned himself as a
doctrinaire conservative.
Michael Gerson, a Bush White House official who writes for the Washington Post, uses
sweeping language:
“Trump’s nomination would not be the temporary
victory of one of the GOP’s ideological factions. It would involve the
replacement of the humane ideal at the center of the party and its
history. If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be.”
Cease to be. That’s pretty historic stuff.
Gerson calls Trump a “demagogue” who “has followed
some of America’s worst instincts wherever they have led, and fed ethnic
and religious prejudice in the process. All presidential nominees, to
some extent, shape their parties into their own image. Trump would
deface the GOP beyond recognition.”
In case you missed the point, Gerson says: “Trump is
disqualified for the presidency by his erratic temperament, his
ignorance about public affairs and his scary sympathy for
authoritarianism. But for me, and I suspect for many, the largest
problem is that Trump would make the GOP the party of racial and
religious exclusion.”
 |
| Doug Heye |
Doug Heye has been communications chief of the RNC, a
top deputy to Eric Cantor and a Bush administration official. He makes a
personal declaration in the
Independent Journal:
“Because of Trump’s perversion of conservatism, along
with the devastating impact he would have if nominated, I cannot
support Donald Trump were he to win the Republican nomination.”
Heye says Trump would be “dangerous to the United
States and the world at a time when the world is at risk.” His
nomination, says Heye, “would be catastrophic for Republican hopes to
win the White House and maintain control of the Senate and would damage
the party and the conservative cause for years to come. His having the
legitimacy that comes with the nomination of a major political party
would cause greater instability throughout the world at a time when the
world looks to America for leadership that is serious and sober.”
This is the New York Times’
latest version of the same story, calling it a “people’s coup”:
At family dinners and New Year’s parties, in
conference calls and at private lunches, longtime Republicans are
expressing a growing fear that the coming election could be shattering
for the party, or reshape it in ways that leave it unrecognizable.
But a
very different tack from Peggy Noonan, who worked for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who turns the question back on the establishment:
“I do not understand the inability or refusal of
Republican leaders to take Mr. Trump seriously. They take his numbers
seriously—they can read a poll—but they think, as Mr. Bush said, that
his support is all about anger, angst and theatrics. That’s part of the
story, but the other, more consequential part has to do with real policy
issues. The establishment refuses to see that, because to admit it is
to implicate themselves and their leadership. Political consultants
can’t see it because they don’t think issues matter—not to them and
certainly not to the dumb voters.
“But issues do matter, and Mr. Trump has functioned
this year not as a great communicator or great compromiser but as the
great disruptor. He brags that he has brought up great questions and
forced other candidates to face them and sometimes change their
stands—and he has.”
There really isn’t much of an establishment left. It
consists of some megabuck donors, elected officials, seasoned operatives
and media pundits. They don’t have the power to stop Trump, and they
know it.
The best they can hope for is to influence the debate. Their problem is that most of them don’t like Ted Cruz, either.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.