You could definitely see why Trump would be drawn to a figure like this, it's basically doubling down on his potential advantage over Hillary Clinton in the general election as the candidate who can make Americans feel safer. What's more, it's an effective counter to the Clinton camp attack line that Trump is unstable and likely to push the US into a disastrous military conflict.
Given the Clintons' own predilection for disastrous overseas ventures then juxtaposed with a respected, former Democrat General who was appointed head of the Defense Intelligence Agency by Barack Obama himself, Flynn would be an effective political foil to much of the Clinton strategy.
And that background is basically all you need to understand why Republican and Democrat establishment figures are highly opposed to the eventuality of Flynn being named VP.
The Democrat case, always easily explained by reading a Vox.com article "explaining" Gen. Flynn, makes a Hillary case for why he'd be awful on Trump's ticket by pointing and shrieking at the following facts:
1. Flynn is an "alarmist" in describing radical Islam as America's main enemy!
Of course, most Americans would probably at least sympathize with that view if they don't buy it whole sale. Multiple terrorist attacks on American soil in the span of a few years combined with the rise of radical Islam worldwide will tend to have that effect.
2. Flynn is sympathetic to Russia!
The establishment on either sides' repeated attempts to cast Russia as America's ultimate foe in these times always makes me chuckle. As though the memory of the Cold War was still so strong that Americans were more likely to view white Christians as the main enemy rather than Muslim middle easterners. We'll get back to that identity issue in a moment but suffice to say that Americans are much more worried about being blown up by radical Islamists than they are anything that Putin might get up to.
3. Flynn butted heads with Obama and the Pentagon establishment!
Flynn felt alone in ascribing the threat level to terrorism that is now probably taken for granted amongst Americans if not the White House. Obama and the Pentagon didn't like that...I think the more Americans learn about Flynn's battle with the military establishment and commander-in-chief the more they'll come to respect him and the angrier they'll grow with the latter. Especially if he's given a platform as a VP to broadcast how his concerns over America's strategy for combating terrorism were overruled.
4. Flynn believes in sending troops into the Middle East!
This one is actually somewhat alarming to me as well. I'm glad one of the presidential candidates is looking at listening to someone who understands that the West's conflict with radical Islam is a serious one but I favor more of a defensive, Byzantine approach to this problem then a Templar crusade strategy.
The Republican establishment is also furious about Trump potentially ignoring the "need for party unity" and choosing a(nother) lifelong Democrat to run by his side.
Consequently they (and many liberal pundits as well) are making a big case out of Flynn's pro-choice positions and ambivalence towards protecting traditional marriage.
Here are the two big factors conservative pundits are missing here.
1. Social conservatives don't really have much of a choice in this election.
Hillary Clinton will make several liberal appointments to the Supreme Court and push through any socially liberal legislation that gets through congress if she's elected president. There are no doubts here, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster for the conservative cause and likely lead to a long-standing super majority of liberals on the Supreme Court.
Libertarian Gary Johnson would likely be a disaster for social conservatives here as well, besides the consideration that he has a zero percent chance of winning an election.
Trump has at least promised to make conservative judicial appointments and even released a list of names he was considering to help give evangelicals some peace about electing him. Could he betray them? Possibly. Is the selection of socially moderate/liberal/ambivalent General Flynn an indication he would betray social conservatives? Probably not, Flynn's focus on the ticket would be military and defense reform and honestly I don't think Flynn cares about much else.
There aren't any real options here for social conservatives other than to make some kind of hopeless protest vote or else ride with Trump and hope for the best. Staying home or switching their vote to Hillary would be to deal themselves a defeat in the culture wars that would take at least a decade to overcome.
2. The 2016 election is about tribal identity and identity is much stronger than any other issue on the table.
Trump's play overall has been about nationalism and the conservation of Western civilization itself. The Orlando attacks and the way he sought to rally the LGBT community with the evangelicals already in his fold was indicative of how Trump is looking to move beyond the "conservative vs liberal" battle for supremacy over American politics and instead assert the need for first maintaining America as a traditional Western nation.
Conservative pundits think that conservative voters care first and foremost about being told what they want to hear on social issues because that's been the tactic of most every major Republican candidate for the last several elections. In fact, tribal identity as Americans in a Western nation is a much, much stronger motivator and the major reason why Trump won the primary despite being shaky on several traditional Republican issues.
Many typical American voters are concerned that their country is going away. There's no point in squabbling with liberals over everyday politics if globalization turns America into a true multicultural state that isn't primarily defined by Anglo-American values. In that event, ultimate victory in the culture wars is completely hopeless. What's more, if conservative leaders aren't going to protect them from seeing their communities flooded by potentially radicalized immigrants as they've seen happen in Europe then self-preservation kicks in.
In terms of politics and building an appealing "America first" identity brand for the election, I think Flynn would be a remarkably effective VP choice for Trump. The GOP establishment knows it and are desperate that Trump not be successful in rebuilding the party into something where they are marginalized. His victory in the 2016 election would be the worst kind of disaster for Paul Ryan and the establishment wing, worse than Clinton winning. The Democrats know Flynn would be effective as well for his ability to elucidate their failures in combating radical Islam and are just as desperate to see this stopped.
Meanwhile the Doomsday scenario is becoming increasingly likely with every emerging national trend.
No comments:
Post a Comment