Right, there's something about extremism that feeds extremism... // Lennart
Sent from my phone. > On Jul 26, 2016, at 21:30, Centroids <[email protected]> wrote: > > Harsh but fair. If Trump wins, I bet we will get someone equally horrific on > the Left in the next cycle. > > > > "Whatever happens in November, conservatives and Republicans will have > brought a catastrophe upon themselves, in violation of their own stated > principles and best judgment. It’s often said that a good con is based upon > the victim’s weaknesses. Why were conservatives and Republicans so > vulnerable? Are these vulnerabilities not specific to one side of the > political spectrum—are they more broadly present in American culture? Could > it happen to liberals and Democrats next time? Where were the guardrails?" > > > > The Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy > http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-seven-broken-guardrails-of-democracy/484829/ > (via Instapaper) > > A long time ago, more than 20 years in fact, the Wall Street Journal > published a powerful, eloquent editorial, simply headlined: “No Guardrails.” > > In our time, the United States suffers every day of the week because there > are now so many marginalized people among us who don't understand the rules, > who don't think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them, who > have no notion of self-control. > > Twenty years later, that same newspaper is edging toward open advocacy in > favor of Donald Trump, the least self-controlled major-party candidate for > high office in the history of the republic. And as he forged his path to the > nomination, he snapped through seven different guardrails, revealing how > brittle the norms that safeguard the American republic had grown. > > Here’s the part of the 2016 story that will be hardest to explain after it’s > all over: Trump did not deceive anyone. Unlike, say, Sarah Palin in 2008, > Trump appeared before the electorate in his own clothes, speaking his own > words. When he issued a promise, he instantly contradicted it. If you chose > to accept the promise anyway, you did so with abundant notice of its > worthlessness. For all the times Trump said believe me and trust me in his > salesman patter, he communicated constantly and in every medium that there > was only thing you could believe and trust: If you voted for Donald Trump, > you’d get Donald Trump, in all his Trumpery and Trumpiness. > > The television networks that promoted Trump; the primary voters who elevated > him; the politicians who eventually surrendered to him; the intellectuals who > argued for him, and the donors who, however grudgingly, wrote checks to > him—all of them knew, by the time they made their decisions, that Trump lied > all the time, about everything. They knew that Trump was ignorant, and > coarse, and boastful, and cruel. They knew he habitually sympathized with > dictators and kleptocrats—and that his instinct when confronted with > criticism of himself was to attack, vilify, and suppress. They knew his > disrespect for women, the disabled, and ethnic and religious minorities. They > knew that he wished to unravel NATO and other U.S.-led alliances, and that he > speculated aloud about partial default on American financial obligations. > None of that dissuaded or deterred them. > > And the “them” is growing. When I wrote about the Trump candidacy last fall, > that candidacy was still backed only by one-third of Republicans, most > typically the party’s least-affluent, least-educated, and least-churched > supporters. Back then, I offered four guesses about the party’s response to > Trump: beat him, steal his issues, ignore him, or change the rules to > circumvent him. I under-estimated him—or possibly over-estimated them. Trump > steadily added to his support, moving up-market and up in the polls. In the > Oregon Republican primary of May 17, the first after his last rivals conceded > defeat, Trump won 66.6 percent of all votes cast. Polls in late May show 85 > percent of Republicans now supporting Trump. > > Those of us who live and socialize among conservatives every day discover > that another friend has—with greater or lesser reluctance—accepted the > leadership of the bombastic businessman and reality-television star. To those > of us who still cannot imagine Trump as either a nominee or a president, this > movement toward him among our friends, relatives, and colleagues is in > varying degrees baffling and sinister. Yet it is happening: an inescapable > and accelerating fact. > > Whatever happens in November, conservatives and Republicans will have brought > a catastrophe upon themselves, in violation of their own stated principles > and best judgment. It’s often said that a good con is based upon the victim’s > weaknesses. Why were conservatives and Republicans so vulnerable? Are these > vulnerabilities not specific to one side of the political spectrum—are they > more broadly present in American culture? Could it happen to liberals and > Democrats next time? Where were the guardrails? > > Let’s survey the breakage, from earliest to latest, and from least to most > alarming. > > The first guardrail to go missing was the old set of expectations about how a > candidate for president of the United States should speak and act. Here’s > Adlai Stevenson accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1952: > > That I have not sought this nomination, that I could not seek it in good > conscience, that I would not seek it in honest self-appraisal, is not to say > that I value it the less. > > There was a certain quantum of malarkey here—but it wasn’t all malarkey. From > the founding of the republic, Americans have looked to qualities of personal > restraint as one of the first checks on the power of office. "The aim of > every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, > men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common > good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual > precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their > public trust.” So argued James Madison in Federalist 57. In Federalist 68, > Alexander Hamilton promised more specifically: “Talents for low intrigue, and > the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the > first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a > different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the > whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to > make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of > the United States.” > > Through two-and-a-quarter centuries, conservative-minded Americans have > worried that one change or another would obliterate the old ideals: the rise > of parties in the 1800s, universal white-male suffrage in the 1830s, votes > for women, television, etc. We can argue about the character of the various > presidents elected along the way. Yet when Barack Obama sought the office in > 2007, he sounded the familiar refrain: “I know you didn't come here just for > me, you came here because you believe in what this country can be.” > > To put it mildly, that’s not the tone of the Donald Trump campaign. President > Nixon said in his 1969 eulogy of former President Eisenhower, “He exemplified > what millions of parents hoped that their sons would be: strong and > courageous and honest and compassionate. And with his own great qualities of > heart, he personified the best in America.” Donald Trump, by contrast, former > Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney lamented, exemplifies what > millions of parents would fear in their sons: “the bullying, the greed, the > showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics.” > > During the election of 1800, Hamilton warned his friend Harrison Gray Otis > that Aaron Burr “loves nothing but himself; thinks of nothing but his own > aggrandizement” and could not, consequently, be trusted to honor any > agreement with his political opponents. Trump’s political allies have said > the same and worse of him, while yet grudgingly pledging to support him in > the end. Something’s obviously changed in the American definition of > acceptable behavior in those who seek power. That guardrail is down. > > The second broken guardrail is the expectation of some measure of > trustworthiness in politicians. > > The dark arts of politics include dissimulation, evasion, and misdirection. > Days before the election of 1940, Franklin Roosevelt famously promised the > mothers and fathers of America, “Your boys are not going to be sent into any > foreign war.” He’d left himself a wide loophole, however, for as he explained > to his speechwriter Robert Sherwood, “If somebody attacks us, then it isn’t a > foreign war, is it?” > > Outright lying, however, happens more rarely than you think in politics, > especially in high and visible offices like the presidency. Political > scientists estimate that presidents keep about three-quarters of their > campaign promises. When presidents break their word, the reason is far more > likely to be congressional opposition than the president’s own flip-flopping. > If politicians really did lie all the time, voters would not be so outraged > on those occasions where a politician is indubitably caught in untruth—and > yet voters are outraged. Even where the politician did not intentionally lie, > as George W. Bush did not intentionally lie about weapons of mass destruction > in Iraq, important statements exposed as damagingly untrue inflict untold > political damage. > > Donald Trump’s dishonesty, however, is qualitatively different than anything > before seen from a major-party nominee. The stack of lies teeters so tall > that one obscures another: lies about New Jersey Muslims celebrating 9/11, > lies about his opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, lies about his > wealth, lies about the size of his crowds, lies about women he’s dated, lies > about his donations to charity, lies about self-funding his campaign. > “Whatever lie he’s telling, in that minute he believes it,” Senator Ted Cruz > said of Trump in May 2016. "But the man is utterly amoral. Morality does not > exist for him.” > > As late as March, 2016, more than half of Republicans and Republican leaders > described Trump as “dishonest” in a Washington Post survey. They voted for > him in the primaries all the same, and by rising pluralities even as the lies > accumulated. > > Trump’s lies weren’t overlooked—and they weren’t believed. They were condoned > by Republicans who had come to believe, “everybody does it.” MSNBC host Joe > Scarborough spoke for many: > > Conservatives that have been betrayed by the Washington establishment for 30 > years, by Republican candidates that run for office saying they're going to > balance the budget and lie. Republican candidates that run and say they're > going to overturn Obamacare and lie. Republican candidates who say vote for > me and I'm going to have a humble foreign policy and lie. > > But Scarborough’s list of betrayals weren’t “lies.” They were failures, > failures made inevitable by the impossibility of the Republican base’s own > demands. (How do you balance the budget while cutting taxes, without touching > either defense or Medicare?) As one unfriendly critic noted, the Republican > rank-and-file weren’t exactly innocent victims of elite deception. > > Republican voters … wanted everything, and, after all, GOP leaders promised > them that it was possible—even though those same leaders knew it was not. > > Place the blame for that failure where you will, however, the results were > glaring: radical Republican rejection of the trustworthiness of their > leaders—all their leaders. What, then, was one liar more—especially if that > liar were more exciting than the others, more willing to say at least some of > the things that Republicans wanted said? Cynicism leads to acceptance of the > previously unacceptable. Another guardrail down. > > A third broken guardrail is the expectation that a potential president should > possess deep—or at least adequate—knowledge of public affairs. > > Donald Trump is surely the most policy-ignorant major party nominee of modern > times, or perhaps of any time. As with the lies, it’s almost impossible to > keep track of the revelations of gaps in his knowledge. The most spectacular > may have been talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt’s exposure of the fact that Trump > lacked the most basic understanding of the structure and mission of the U.S. > nuclear arsenal. > > It’s a fair generalization that Republicans demand less policy expertise from > their national leaders than Democrats have usually expected from theirs. > Ronald Reagan was less well-informed than Jimmy Carter; George W. Bush had > mastered less detail than Al Gore. Yet both Reagan and Bush had at least > proven themselves successful governors of important states. Both men offered > clear and plausible presidential platforms, which both men implemented in > their first year in office more or less as advertised. > > What’s different now is the massive Republican and conservative rejection of > the idea that a candidate for president should know anything substantive > about governing at all. As of November, 2015, 62 percent of Republicans > insisted that “ordinary Americans” would do a better job solving the > country’s problems than professional politicians. While 80 percent of > Democrats wanted experience in government in the next president, according to > post-Super Tuesday 2016 exit polls, only 40 percent of Republicans did so. > The larger share, 50 percent, preferred an “outsider.” > > Over the past three cycles, Republicans have elevated a succession of > manifestly unqualified people to high places in their national politics. > Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann shot to stardom in the Tea Party era. For a > brief period in late 2015, Ben Carson led the Republican polls—Carson being > the only candidate who made even Donald Trump look knowledgeable by > comparison. Government is a complex science and a sophisticated art. Its > details matter, its trade-offs reverberate into four and five dimensions. > Although Republican voters in the aggregate are better informed than > Democratic voters in the aggregate, their votes are guided by two more urgent > and immediate feelings: bleak pessimism (79 percent of Republicans say they > are on the “losing side” of most political debates, versus 52 percent of > Democrats) and unyielding refusal to compromise with opponents (while 63 > percent of Democrats favor a president who’ll compromise with the other > party, only 35 percent of Republicans do so). Despairing yet obdurate, > Republicans have come to value willpower over intellect, combativeness over > expertise. Donald Trump’s nomination culminates that evolution. A third > guardrail down. > > One guardrail that Trump’s opponents all assumed would hold fast was the > fourth: the guardrail of ideology. Hardline conservatives would surely reject > a candidate who barely understood what a principle was! Anti-compromise > Republicans would certainly recoil from a candidate who advertised himself as > a deal-maker! Wrong and wrong. > > Trump bungled tests of orthodoxy on abortion, taxes, Obamacare, and national > security. He survived unscathed. Attacks on Trump as a false conservative > signally failed, whether launched by fellow-candidates or outside super PACs. > As Ross Douthat of The New York Times nicely phrased it, “A party whose > leading factions often seemed incapable of budging from 1980s-era dogma > suddenly caved completely to a candidate who regards much of the conservative > vision with indifference bordering on contempt.” > > The ideology guardrail snapped because so much of the ideology itself had > long since ceased to be relevant to the lives of so many Republican primary > voters. Instead of a political program, conservatism had become an individual > identity. What this meant, for politicians, was that the measure of your > “conservatism” stopped being the measures you passed in office—and became > much more a matter of style, affect, and manner. John McCain might have a > perfect pro-life voting record. Mitch McConnell may have proven himself > President Obama’s most effective opponent. Jeb Bush may have cut state taxes > every year. But compared to Sarah Palin’s folksy attacks on big city elites … > or Ron Paul’s dark allegations of conspiracy at the Federal Reserve … or Ted > Cruz’s government filibusters and shutdowns–none of those real-world > achievements weighed much in the balance. > > The party’s once mighty social conservatives collapsed like sodden newsprint > before a candidate who treated them with flagrant disrespect. The ardently > pro-life Pat Buchanan belittled Trump’s mangling of the movement’s core > principles: “New to elective politics, Trump is less familiar with the > ideological and issues terrain than those who live there.” Trump urged > evangelical leaders to “trust him” on traditional marriage. Days later, he > told a reporter that he’d “move forward” on gay rights. He then resolved the > contradiction by refusing to answer more questions about the issue. > > John Boehner and Eric Cantor had been chased out of Congress for much smaller > deviations from orthodoxy. How did Trump get away with so much more? Trump > may not be much of a conservative by conviction. But he functions as a > conservative in silhouette, defined by the animosity of all the groups that > revile him. “SJWs will elect Trump,” warned the anti-Trump writer Rod Dreher > in The American Conservative after protesters shut down a Trump rally in > Chicago in March. “I am not a Trump supporter, and I reject much of his > rhetoric. But he has a right to give a speech, even an obnoxious speech, > without it being interrupted by demonstrators. … What those protesters have > done tonight is create a lot more Trump voters out of people who are sick and > tired of privileged leftists using thug tactics to silence their opponents.” > > “We love him most for the enemies he made,” said supporters of the > anti-Tammany Democrat Grover Cleveland. The sentiment applies pretty > generally in politics. As conservatism’s positive program has fallen ever > more badly out of date, as it has delivered ever fewer benefits to its > supporters and constituents, those supporters have increasingly defined their > conservatism not by their beliefs, but by their adversaries. And those > adversaries Donald Trump has made abundantly his own. > > Donald Trump would have been hemmed in a generation ago by a fifth guardrail: > the primacy of national security concerns. Trump has no relevant experience, > no military record, scant interest in the topic—and a long history of casual > expressions of sympathy for authoritarian rulers. He famously explained that > he gets his military advice from TV talk shows. The most recent Republican > secretary of defense, Bob Gates, told Yahoo’s Katie Couric that he would not, > at present, feel comfortable with Donald Trump’s finger on the nuclear button. > > Trump has slighted NATO as “obsolete.” “If it breaks up NATO,” he has said of > his plans to withdraw American protection from allies who don’t spend more, > “it breaks up NATO.” He’s also proposed withdrawing U.S. protection from > Japan and South Korea, and spoken favorably of those two countries providing > for their own security by obtaining nuclear weapons, apparently unaware of > the tensions between those two U.S. allies. Trump also mused open-mindedly > about Saudi Arabia acquiring nuclear weapons. > > There’s something more going on here than an Iraq War hangover. Trump’s > foreign policy is predicated upon an apocalyptic vision of the United States > as a weak and fading country, no longer able to shoulder the costs and > burdens of world leadership. That view aligns with the deeply pessimistic > mood of today’s Republican voters. Sixty-six percent of them say that life > has gotten worse for people like them as compared to 50 years ago. (Trump > voters are the most pessimistic: 75 percent of them say things are worse for > people like themselves.) Half of Trump Republicans describe economic > conditions in the United States as poor; almost 40 percent of them assess > that American involvement usually makes global problems worse. > > Trump’s foreign-policy statements are so careless and so seemingly poorly > considered that it’s tempting to dismiss them. If he did become president, > wouldn’t he be surrounded by steadier hands, who would draw him back toward > the historic norms of American policy? Perhaps. But also very likely … not. > Trump’s ramshackle statements do present a coherent point of view. His > instinct is always to abandon friends and allies, to smash up alliances that > have kept the peace, to leave the world to fend for itself against aggressors > and predators. > > Trump’s one significant foreign-policy address was delivered to an audience > that included the Russian ambassador but no representatives of any U.S. > allies. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, worked for seven years for > the kleptocratic ruler of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. Trump’s online presence > is strongly reinforced by pro-Putin trolls and bots. > > Republicans still care that their candidate be “strong.” They thrill to > Trump’s rhetoric of massive violence against ISIS. What they seem no longer > to care about is the larger architecture of security built since 1941 to keep > America and its friends safe, prosperous, and free. > > Despairing and demoralized, they lack the “energy and conviction”—in the > phrase of the French Cold War writer Jean-Francois Revel—to sustain American > leadership or to defend American interests in the larger world. The guardrail > of conservative commitment to U.S. global leadership has smashed, ripping > open a danger to the world, and a sinister opportunity to global > mischief-makers. > > A deep belief in tolerance and non-discrimination for Americans of all > faiths, creeds, and origins also once functioned as a guardrail against > destructive politics. In the words of the 1980 Republican platform: “The > truths we hold and the values we share affirm that no individual should be > victimized by unfair discrimination because of race, sex, advanced age, > physical handicap, difference of national origin or religion, or economic > circumstance.” > > Disrespect for targeted groups—including the very biggest of them all, > women—has been the recurring theme of the Trump candidacy. Even many > Republicans who have accepted Trump are left uneasy by the candidate’s tone > and associations. Trump himself is trying to retrace some ground, tweeting an > image of himself eating a taco bowl and explaining to Fox’s Greta van Sustern > that he’d wish to “back off” a ban on Muslim entry into the United States “as > soon as possible.” > > Trump has appealed to white identity more explicitly than any national > political figure since George Wallace. But whereas Wallace was marginalized > first within the Democratic Party, and then within national politics, Trump > has increasingly been accommodated. Yes, Trump was often fiercely denounced > by rivals and insiders in the earlier part of the campaign. But since > effectively securing the nomination by winning the Indiana primary on May 3, > that criticism has quieted—when it has not ceased altogether. One-time Trump > opponents like former Bush White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer now dismiss > criticism of Trump’s slurs and insults as “a Northeastern look down your nose > at other people who are different …. That [criticism] is disdain for the > voters.” > > America in 2016 is vastly more racially diverse society than the America of > Goldwater’s and Wallace’s time. At that time, an overwhelming white majority > was presented with demands for equality by a long subordinated African > American minority. At least as a matter of formal law, the white majority of > the 1960s and 1970s acceded to that demand. Everett Dirksen, the Republican > leader in the U.S. Senate, spoke for that majority when he led the fight to > end the filibuster of what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “The > time has come for equal of opportunity in … government, in education, and in > employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here.” > > The country’s different now, and the change has brought unexpected political > consequences. > > Whites exposed to the racial demographic shift information preferred > interactions/settings with their own ethnic group over minority ethnic > groups; expressed more negative attitudes toward Latinos, Blacks, and Asian > Americans; and expressed more automatic pro-White/anti-minority bias. … These > results suggest that rather than ushering in a more tolerant future, the > increasing diversity of the nation may instead yield intergroup hostility. > > That’s the summary of a set of experiments by psychologists at Northwestern > University. Their work is supported by abundant evidence across the social > sciences, including perhaps most famously a 2007 paper by Robert Putnam > showing that increases in ethnic diversity lead to collapses in civic health. > Trust among neighbors declines, as does voting, charitable giving, and > volunteering. > > As community cohesion weakens, moral norms change. What would have been > unacceptable behavior in a more homogenous national community becomes > tolerable when a formerly ascendant group sees itself at risk from aggressive > new claims by new competitors. Trump is running not to be president of all > Americans, but to be the clan leader of white Americans. Those white > Americans who respond to his message hear his abusive comments, not as > evidence of his unfitness for office, but as proof of his commitment to their > tribe. > > And so breaks another guardrail. > > Which brings us to the last and perhaps very most ominous of the broken > guardrails. > > The generation that bore arms in World War II returned home with a > strong—arguably unprecedentedly strong—loyalty to the nation as a whole. > Never before or after did so many civilians move across state lines as in the > decade of the 1940s. Then followed the great migrations from city to suburbs, > of black farmworkers to northern cities, and of northern officeworkers to the > booming Sunbelt. > > Once fierce religious rivalries blurred into the broad categories— > Protestant, Catholic, Jew–which in turn discovered new affinities for each > other in a common creed of “Americanism.” > > In a way unknown before, and unfamiliar since, the veterans of World War II > routinely voted one way for presidents and governors, and the opposite way > for members of Congress or state legislatures. Democrats won majorities of > both houses of Congress in nearly every election from 1954 through 1992, with > Republicans only holding the Senate for a brief stretch from 1981 to 1987. > Yet voters delivered pendulum-swing-style landslide presidential victories, > sometimes to Democrats (1964), sometimes to Republicans (1972, 1984). > > In 1972, more than 37 million Americans cast a vote for a Democratic member > of the House of Representatives: something over 52 percent of all House votes > cast. Only about 29 million Americans voted for Democrat George McGovern for > president that year. Ticket splitting in 1984 was only a little less > dramatic: House Democrats won a combined 4.25 million more votes than House > Republicans, even as Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale by some 17 million > votes. > > Partisan identities have hardened since then. “Today, far larger proportions > of Democratic and Republican voters hold strongly negative views of the > opposing party than in the past,” observe Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster > in their paper, “All Politics is National: The Rise of Negative > Partisanship.” Negative partisanship is the argument deployed to reconcile > anti-Trump Republicans to their party’s nominee. > > Thus, defeated Senator Marco Rubio told the Today program on May 11 that, > without retracting a word of criticism of Donald Trump, “I'm even more scared > about her [Clinton] being in control of the U.S. government.” > > Negative partisanship has softened the Wall Street Journal too. The day after > Trump released a list of selections for the Supreme Court, the Journal’s > editors reassured readers: “Nothing is certain with Mr. Trump, but that’s far > preferable to the certainty that Hillary Clinton would nominate a > down-the-line liberal.” > > Even more arrestingly, National Review editor Jonah Goldberg—one of the most > forceful of the conservative “Never Trump” voices—explained on May 21 that > while he would continue to speak against Trump as a danger to the > conservative movement: > > If the election were a perfect tie, and the vote fell to me and me alone, I’d > probably vote for none other than Donald Trump because (endorsing a view > presented to him by a National Review supporter) we know Hillary will be > terrible, while we can only suspect Trump will be. Trump will probably do > some things conservatives will like—Supreme Court appointments, etc.—while we > know for a fact Hillary will not. > > Once you’ve convinced yourself that a president of the other party is the > very worst possible thing that could befall America, then any nominee of your > party—literally no matter who—becomes a lesser evil. And with that, the last > of the guardrails is smashed. > > Many conservatives and Republicans recognize Trump as a disaster for their > institutions and their ideals. Yet they have found it impossible to protect > things they hold dear—in large part because they have continued to fix all > blame outward and elsewhere. “President Obama created Donald Trump,” charged > Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in a March 3, 2016, op-ed. > > To the extent that Donald Trump has policies, I’m probably more sympathetic > to them than Jindal is. Much of the traditional conservative ideology was > obsolete. Migration should be reduced. Americans reasonably depend on > Medicare and Social Security. It’s time to move past culture wars on private > sexual behavior. Policy, however, is not the first or second or third impetus > of the Trump campaign. It’s driven by something else—and the source of that > something is found inside the conservative and Republican world, not outside. > The Trump phenomenon is the effect of many causes. Yet overhanging all the > causes is the central question: Why did Republicans and conservatives react > to those causes as they did? There were alternatives. Of all the alternatives > for their post-Obama future, Republicans and conservatives selected the most > self-destructive of the options before them. Why? What went wrong? That will > be the excruciating mystery to ponder during the long and difficult work of > reconstruction ahead. > > This article originally stated that Democrats won both houses of the U.S. > Congress in every election from 1954 to 1992. We regret the error. > > Related Video > > In this Atlantic interview, senior editor David Frum explains that Trump’s > success can be traced to his unorthodox views on immigration, social > security, and healthcare. > > > Sent from my iPhone > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
