The Scariest Reason Trump Won

From:,  by Dennis Prager,  on May 10, 2016,  see the article HERE.

Trump with finger gun to his head

Pull the trigger, Donald – PLEASE pull the trigger.

There are many reasons Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. The four most often cited reasons are the frustrations of white working-class Americans, a widespread revulsion against political correctness, disenchantment with the Republican “establishment,” and the unprecedented and unrivaled amount of time the media afforded Trump.

They are all valid.

But the biggest reason is this: The majority of Republicans are not conservative.

Conservatives who opposed Trump kept arguing — indeed provided unassailable proof – that Donald Trump is not a conservative and has never been one. But the argument meant little or nothing to two types of Republicans: the majority of Trump voters who don’t care whether he is a conservative, and the smaller number of Trump voters who are conservative but care about illegal immigration more than all other issues, including Trump’s many and obvious failings.

So, then, what happened to the majority of Republicans? Why aren’t they conservative?

The answer lies in America’s biggest – and scariest – problem: Most Americans no longer know what America stands for. For them, America has become just another country, a place located between Canada and Mexico.

But America was founded to be an idea, not another country. As Margaret Thatcher put it: “Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.”

Why haven’t Americans over the past three generations known what America stands for? Probably the biggest reason is the influence of left-wing ideas. Since its inception, the Left has opposed the American idea, and for good reason. Everything the American idea represents undermines leftist ideas. And the Left, unlike most Americans, has always understood that either the Left is right or America is right.

America stands for small government, a free economy (and therefore capitalism), liberty (and it therefore allows for liberty’s inevitable consequence, inequality), the “melting pot” ideal, and a God-centered population rooted in Judeo-Christian values (so that a moral society is created by citizens exercising self-control rather than relying on the state to impose controls).

Only America was founded on the idea of small government. But the Left is based on big government.

America was founded on the principle that human rights come from the Creator. For the Left, rights come from the state.

America was founded on the belief that in order to maintain a small government, a God-fearing people is necessary. The Left opposes God-based religions, particularly Judeo-Christian religions. Secularism is at the core of Leftism every bit as much as egalitarianism is.

The American Revolution, unlike the French Revolution, placed liberty above equality. For the Left, equality is more important than all else. That’s why so many American and European leftists have celebrated left-wing regimes, no matter how much they squelched individual liberty, from Stalin to Mao to Che and Castro to Hugo Chávez. They all preached equality.

It took generations, but the Left has succeeded (primarily through the schools, but also through the media) in substituting its values for America’s.

While the Left has been the primary cause, there have been others.

The most significant is success.

American values were so successful that Americans came to take America’s success for granted. They forgot what made America uniquely free and affluent. And now, it’s not even accurate to say “forgot,” because, in the case of the current generation, they never knew. While the schools, starting with the universities, were being transformed into institutions for left-wing indoctrination, American parents, too, ceased teaching their children American values (beginning with not reading to their children the most popular book in American history, the Bible).

Schools even stopped teaching American history. When American history is taught today, it is taught as a history of oppression, imperialism, and racism. Likewise, there is essentially no civics education, once a staple of the public-school system. Young Americans are not taught either the Constitution or how American government works. I doubt many college students even know what “separation of powers” means, let alone why it is so significant.

So, then, thanks to leftism and America’s taken-for-granted success, most Americans no longer understand what it means to be an American. Those who do are called “conservatives” because they wish to conserve the unique American idea. But conservatives now constitute not only a minority of Americans, but a minority of Republicans. That is the primary reason Donald Trump — a nationalist but not a conservative — is the presumptive Republican nominee.

As I noted from the outset, I will vote for him if he wins the nomination — because there is no choice. But the biggest reason he won is also the scariest. — Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist.


Prager is right, Americans as a group have taken our success for granted. Shame on us. And we have allowed leftist thoughts and concepts to supplant those things that made America great and that we once held so dear. It didn’t happen overnight, it came in a slow, drip-by-drip fashion, a little at a time, until we now find ourselves awakening to a nation that no longer recognizes its identity and what made it great.

The disinterest shown by many in Ted Cruz’s agenda was a good indication of our currently warped concept of what America is. Cruz was promoting those things that conservatives value: a return to Constitutional governance, smaller government, lower taxes, more individual freedom and responsibility, a return to Judeo-Christian values and a strong defense, yet he was defeated by a faux conservative who talked long and loudly about the wonderful things that would come to pass IF he was elected. Ted lost to a man who couldn’t even define conservative and even though he’s not even formally the nominee yet, he’s already moving to the left to appeal to more democrats.

That illustrates how far we’ve fallen.

How do we “get it back”? Damn good question. We thought that we had a chance, with a Cruz election, to reestablish those things that did make America great, but it was not to be. Maybe we try again in 2020? We’d better, because without some redirection in the path we’re on, the United States that so many of us knew and loved … will die.





Categories: Political


23 replies

  1. Well, of course this brings the Tytler Cycle to mind.

    It starts with the observation that throughout history democracies have had a typical life span of about 200 years. This is the cycle of stages:

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

    “From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

    “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

    “From bondage to spiritual faith;
    from spiritual faith to great courage;
    from courage to liberty;
    from liberty to abundance;
    from abundance to selfishness;
    from selfishness to apathy;
    from apathy to dependence;
    from dependency back again into bondage.”

    It looks to me like we’re in the penultimate stage of the cycle, and we’re doomed unless something radically changes. The same cycle is reflected in the history of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, another historical example I’ve used several times in my own scribblings.


    • I wish I could argue against your summation Brian, but I cannot. Many of us are genuinely concerned that we are indeed in the “apathy to dependence” stage and see troubled times ahead. Just last evening I was commiserating with another of our old TH crowd as she was dejected at the Godless and Constitution-less trajectory that we’re on and we agreed that this election signals the continuation of a disturbing trend. Just look at who “we” elected in 2008 and who we’ve got to choose from in 2016. Slim pickings doesn’t do it justice – it’s more like a choice between arsenic and strychnine.

      I know that we’ve discussed this issue before and until now, I’ve been of the opinion that we should try to reform the Republican Party rather than attempt to create a new collective and prepare it to do political battle in 2020. The Republican Party has committed political suicide and damaged the brand for decades – stick a fork in it.

      I don’t really see another alternative now. It won’t be easy and the key will be a charismatic leader who can bring the conservatives (the real ones) together and educate new converts on the benefits of conservative governance. A conservative president is our only (and perhaps final) hope.


      • Agreed, Garnet, and I actually thought that person may have arrived in the form of Ted Cruz.

        But of course, just like as happened here in Commiefornia when Gray Davis was recalled, a genuine conservative, Cruz (Tom McClintock) was overshadowed by a spoiled elitist dilettante, Trump (Schwarzenegger), and the one chance for real reform went down the drain.

        I have absolutely no idea what happens now. This Titanic just may have struck the iceberg, and it’s time for the band to tune up for its swan song.


      • The Trumpbots learned nothing from the Ahnold ordeal, and again they went for the glam instead of the solid rock. It seems this nation never learns from history and I worry that this might have been our last chance at getting it right. How much more can we stretch that 200 year window?


      • I did too Brian and if he had had a little more Marco Rubio in his personality and gab while retaining his inner conservative compass, we might have had something. Ted is great and still may have a shot at the hoop, but his warts did him in and prevented many from considering how he might govern.


    • Well, I must admit that I didn’t have a clue what toxoplasma gondii was, so thanks for the link. I expect that comment was tongue-in-cheek, right? For those of us who have not been committed “cat people,” it’s a parasite found in most cats and transferred to humans via fecal matter. I don’t know if The Donald kept a cat as his companion while young, so that’s a stretch.

      While schizophrenia is a possible result, he’s most likely suffering (or rather WE are suffering) from HIS narcissistic personality disorder. A number of qualified experts have offered that off-the-cuff diagnosis and Trump fits the criteria to a tee.


      • It’s actually a theory to explain the support that Trump is getting. It’s not entirely tongue-in-cheek. It seems far-fetched, even to me, but I haven’t come up with any alternative theories to explain the current collective insanity.

        I think, quite literally, those Trump supporters are nuts. So the question is: why are they nuts?

        Maybe it’s toxoplasma gondii. Can you think of another explanation?

        All the world is daft
        except thee and me…
        and sometimes I worry
        about thee.

        [possibly a Quaker proverb]


      • Now that I understand your hypothesis, it’s as good as any we’ve come up with. If you’ve been visiting Pesky Truth over the last couple of months, you’d recognize that we’ve been lamenting that we haven’t been able to pin down the WHY of the metamorphosis from ordinary, functioning citizen to NUT Trumpanzee.

        I’ve seen countless stabs at the reasons or causes, but none are (frankly) any better than toxoplasma gondii. The symptoms of those we’ve come in contact with closely parallel religious fanatics – they have a strong (but misguided) faith and are drawn to Trump who has the kavorka. That one is also a favorite of mine.

        BTW, thanx for visiting PT and commenting!


      • Thanks for expanding my vocabulary!

        I don’t think he has the kavorka, but he sure has chutzpah, when he calls other people liars!


      • BTW, garnet92, did you notice that I still have a comment languishing “in moderation,” below?


      • Dave, sometimes when comments have more than one link, the Word Press filter holds them in limbo pending approval, because it thinks you’re a bot, spam, etc.


      • Kathy must be right, Dave – I never saw that comment??? Kathy is the site’s Editor and she must have finally released it.


      • Thank you, Kathy & garnet92. (And sorry I botched the </i> tag.)


      • Not a problem, Dave – we’re glad you’re here.


  2. >>”The majority of Republicans are not conservative.”

    True enough, and I take no satisfaction in the fact that I have been saying this for a very long time, though many of my friends have disagreed with me. The proof is plain as day. Conservative candidates can’t get any traction in a national election and only a few get by in state and local elections. It’s all about name recognition and appeal to the pompom crowd (or as Garnet puts it, the groupies). The more politics becomes a team sport and people become addicted to socialism, the more conservatism gets kicked to the side of the road.

    Although I agree with Prager, I find that his explanation still does not account for the betrayal by the conservative bloggers I once knew, which still continues to mystify me. They spent the last TEN years or more pining EVERY DAY for a conservative and when they finally got one they abandoned him for Donald Trump. It’s not as if they’ve been fooled into believing Trump’s a conservative. They admit that he’s not. They don’t put any effort into making the case for Trump, except to say that he’ll “build the wall.” Instead they put their energy into demonizing Cruz and his supporters with shameful ferocity. I don’t think I’ll ever understand it.


    • I won’t either, CW. We had a front row seat over at that other site where we used to congregate. Practically everyone there were (supposedly) conservatives and Cruz was popular there at first, but gradually many fell under the voodoo that Trump do and succumbed to Trump’s spell. Now, they’re in the tank for Trump and followed his lead in calling Ted, “lyin’ Ted.”

      Here’s a thought. Many have said, and I agree, that a sizable number of Republicans have an aversion to anything called “conservative,” somehow believing that to mean that we conservatives don’t want progress of any kind – that we yearn for a return to segregation and welcome war, etc. Of course, they’re wrong, but conservatives have been rhetorically tarred and feathered for years. Perhaps we need a new banner under which we band together, something like Americanism or such. Ted would be a good guy to lead the new movement and ramp it up to prepare for a run at the 2020 elections. Just a thought.


    • Bingo, CW, you nailed it. A betrayal is exactly how I saw it too and it’s expected from a few, but for it to be so massive was surprising. When you combine that with the failure to educate several generations of students on government, there’s really no other way it could have turned out.

      Over the years conservatives have gotten a bad reputation based on inaccurate information. We’re really preservers, trying to hang on to a shred of the old ways of smaller government, but somehow preservatives just doesn’t quite have that ring to it.


    • You’re right, as usual, except…
      “When they finally got one [conservative] — don’t you mean when they finally got more than a half dozen conservatives? Rubio, Jindal, Walker, Perry, Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee — they are all true conservatives.

      (Carson is conservative, too, but his endorsement of Trump is an inexcusable lapse, even though I fully understand why he’s so peeved with Cruz.)

      In fact, compared to Trump, Bush and Kasich are both solid conservatives, too.

      To say Trump is no conservative is like saying that the Pope is no Methodist. It’s a pretty impressive understatement.

      Trump is a scam artist who ran a notorious real estate education scam (Trump University), a telephone services pyramid scheme (ACN Inc.), and a “naturopathic” weight loss & vitamin pyramid scam (Ideal Health, Inc., née The Trump Network). He’s a foul-mouthed bully, and habitual liar. He’s a casino, bar & strip club mogul. He’s built his fortune on the promotion and exploitation of vice.

      Here’s an article is about Trump’s new Atlantic City strip club. Note the date on this article: less than three years ago:

      People who supported that guy over the many excellent, conservative alternatives in the primaries might be registered Republican, but they are nothing like real Republicans. They are all one or more of the following:
      * not conservative
      * not Christian
      * inexcusably ignorant (or senile)
      * crazy


      • You had me up until the word “except,” Dave. Just kidding!

        If only there were a legal definition of what it means to be a conservative (boy, what a fight THAT would entail!); but alas we all define conservatism differently. The kind of conservative I’m looking for is one who is focused on restoring the Constitutional limits on the federal government, restoring states’ rights and protecting the country from our dangerous neighbors and illegal invaders. Most of the candidates you mentioned, particularly Kasich, Bush and Huckabee, are NOT conservatives of that stripe. They spend most of their time telling us that they know how to govern, as if all we need is someone experienced in managing the socialism (which is basically what state governors do). No thank you. I want someone to fight for my right AGAINST socialism. Cruz, though not perfect by any means, was just about the only one consistently talking about the Constitution. Rubio might have been tolerable had it not been for his softness on illegal immigration. Carson was soft in a lot of areas too. True conservatives focused on the preservation of liberty, which ought to be government’s number one job, are rare.

        I would take an ill-mannered, non-religious staunch defender of the Constitution and our borders over a well-mannered, religious defender of the socialist status quo any day of the week if those were my only choices. But Trump, in addition to being a jackass, is more liberal than he is conservative, which means he offers us nothing except that he’s not Hillary (btw, that should be a lesson to those touting an “Anybody but Hillary” strategy. Trump is what you get when “anybody” will do).


      • I agree with CW relative to placing a “conservative” label on that many of the candidates. In my opinion, one would have to assign a percentage value to each of them to properly identify them as any sort of conservative – and even that is subjective depending on one’s own definition of conservative.

        Even “scam artist” is too kind for Trump’s activities. I’ve done a lot of digging into his history and the only thing that he’s been consistently successful at is the licensing of the family name to others. Without the influence and assistance from his dad, he couldn’t have even started in the real estate business. Pretty much every entity that he has operated or managed has had difficulty and most are kaput. He’s not a miracle-worker as he would have us believe.

        If your last paragraph was a multiple choice question, I choose “crazy,” but I’d prefer an “all of the above” option.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: