2016 is the first time since I cast my first vote that I’m 0% excited for Election Day, Save Jerseyans.
I’m one of those unapologetically stubborn conservatives who’d like to see someone actually run on (and win with) conservatism in my lifetime.
A guy can dream.
It is what it is. This year’s choice boils down to ‘free’ college (Hillary Clinton) versus mandatory paid maternity leave (Donald Trump).
Yes, the GOP nominee wants to expand the federal government’s role in the workplace. Standing with his daughter Ivanka in a battleground state gymnasium on Tuesday night, the Donald announced a comprehensive proposal to offer cradle to grave aid for Americans.
It allows parents (earning less than $250,000 or, if married and filing jointly, $500,000) to deduct their child care expenses from income taxes capped at the average cost of care in each particular state.
Low income families will be able to claim “spending rebates” of up to $1,200 a year through the Earned Income Tax Credit program. He’d also allow dependent care savings accounts and six weeks of paid maternity leave. Current federal law provides only 12 weeks of unpaid leave.
Trump and his allies explain away the child care component by pointing out that it’d be “deficit neutral,” financed by unemployment benefits reductions in waste and abuse. Our contributor Alyssa LaFage and plenty of other reasonable people aren’t convinced. That’s a discussion for another time.
This post endeavors to focus on the political side of the equation.
As I see it, there are three ways to interpret Trump’s very-unReaganesque proposal:
(1) Candidate Trump is a liberal in Republican clothing who can’t be trusted to advocate for conservatism.
(2) Candidate Trump is an ideological agnostic who’s doing what he thinks gets him to 50% +1 in November.
(3) Candidate Trump is a conservative who is doing what he thinks will allow him to win and incrementally advance the cause.
#1 can’t be proven solely on the basis of old photos of Trump and Bill Clinton yucking it up. Taking every side of every issue as a mature adult (it’s not as if he believed one thing at 30 but has been consistent for decades) is the hallmark of a cutthroat businessman who’s devoted to winning, not a politico who’s devoted to advancing an ideology.
#3 seems equally unlikely given Trump’s very recent (like, up until the moment he declared for the presidency last year) history of espousing very liberal ideas. I do believe some well-intentions folks are backing him for this very reason, but logically, there’s no evidence Trump shares this motive.
#2, therefore, may ultimately prove to be closest to the truth. Process of elimination?
There’s a reasonable argument to be made that the Republican Party’s rightward lurch hasn’t been accompanied by a rhetorical adjustment, the consequence being that swing voters in battleground states who share Trump’s lack of a strong political orientation can’t relate to an ideological firebrand like Ted Cruz or a wonky capitalist like Mitt Romney.
The challenge few Republicans backing Trump, happily or reluctantly, are willing to tackle:
Bush tried “compassionate” conservatism in the 2000’s, got elected twice, and helped solidify GOP control of Congress in 2004.
By 2008? Disaster.
Is winning by co-opting the other side’s flawed premises the way to go?
Or inevitably Pyrrhic in nature?
Does winning the election then the argument ever work?
Food for thought as Trump’s polling moves him into a legitimately competitive position.
______
