Brooks is right- only let's make that conservative third party PERMANENT

I mostly agree with David Brooks about the importance of sane, traditional Republicans running a "temporary third party" in the presidential elections if Il Duce is nominated. But I do disagree with him about two things.

First, it's not beyond question that such a third party could win the presidency. I grant that it's extremely unlikely.But remember, Hillary Clinton may very well be running under indictment for endangering national security through mere carelessness and a lack of common sense. And Donald Trump is Donald Trump- a man who (although the media have paid remarkably little attention to this point) is immensely unpopular among the general electon electorate. He has a 60% unpopularity rating among them, and 27% of Republicans say that they would vote for Hillary against him in a two-candidate race!

Against two heavily compromised major party opponents, who knows what might happen?

The second point is that I'm not so sure that the third party should be temporary. If this year has taught me anything it's that life is too short to deal with the ultimately irrelevant but bothersome fringe groups in the American electorate who exercise such a dominant role in the Republican party. Let the libertarians and the Tea Party crowd have the carcass of the elephant. Maybe it's time to form a permanement third party for responsible, serious conservatives.

We're too important an element in the national discourse to have to fight the crazies every four years for the right to simply get a hearing in November. Enough of Ron Pauls and Ted Cruzes and Donald Trumps. The whole idea is to elect a president, not a comedian.


Popular Posts