In defense of Trumpism
© Getty

Liberal “Full Frontal” host Samantha Bee and conservative radio commentator Glenn Beck would typically have little in common politically. But the two have become “strange bedfellows” of late, united against one thing: the fight against so-called “Trumpism.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The two never really define “Trumpism” in that cutesy Christmas sweater video they did together, but both seem to agree that it’s a bad thing. When Bee said, “It’s not just individual people against Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpWatergate prosecutor says that Sondland testimony was 'tipping point' for Trump In private moment with Trump, Justice Kennedy pushed for Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination: book Obama: 'Everybody needs to chill out' about differences between 2020 candidates MORE, it’s all of us against Trumpism,” Beck wholeheartedly agreed.

 

Indeed, it’s become somewhat fashionable to criticize “Trumpism” these days, particularly if you’re a weak-kneed, establishment-type Republican or “conservative” desperate to curry favor with liberals.

Many, including Beck, spent months working tirelessly as a fifth column within the Republican Party trying to derail Trump even after he became the GOP nominee. Right along with liberals, they spent months “warning” us about what a “demagogue” Trump is, trying to label him with whatever “ism” they felt would stick. 

None of it did, of course — not with the people who really mattered in the end.

But the issues that carried Trump to victory, the issues that define “Trumpism,” are still repudiated by many on the right who refuse to learn from history, common sense, or the observable world around them, even though those positions, and those positions alone, won them an election they had absolutely no business winning.

The fact of the matter is, the tired positions of Republican dinosaurs like John McCainJohn Sidney McCainFormer McCain adviser warns Democrats of going left: A 'sociopath' will always 'beat a socialist' Budowsky: Trump destroying GOP in 2018, '19, '20 Conservative group cuts ties with Michelle Malkin MORE, Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamFBI official under investigation for allegedly altering document in Russia probe: report Trump steps up GOP charm offensive as impeachment looms Graham requests State Department documents on Bidens, Ukraine MORE and George Will are not only unwinnable in a general election today, they actually helped cost George W. Bush his congressional majorities even before Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaObama: 'Everybody needs to chill out' about differences between 2020 candidates Hill says Soros conspiracy theories are 'new Protocols of the Elders of Zion' So long as Iran dominates the Middle East, a new Baghdadi will rise MORE swept into two terms of office.

Under the old banner, the situation had become so dire for Republicans that even a candidate unburdened by the NeverTrump nonsense coming from his or her own “side” would have never stood a chance in the general election. Such was the strength of the Democratic “blue wall,” a wall that now includes Virginia and thus a seemingly insurmountable electoral majority.

Indeed, Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzSenate approves stopgap bill to prevent shutdown DNC raises million in October in best monthly haul of the year Supreme Court weighs lawsuit pitting climate scientist against skeptics MORE may very well have won “red” states by tremendous margins and even possibly the popular vote, yet still would have likely lost the presidency.

No, in order to win, the electoral map had to be turned, and that’s exactly what Donald Trump did. And it wasn’t because he used the same tired old arguments, but because of the positions that have come to define his candidacy — those of so-called “Trumpism.”

Consider one key component of Trump’s platform: the issue of fair versus free trade. For all the accusations of flip-flopping, this is one issue Donald Trump has been remarkably consistent on for decades. 

Truly, does anyone think a Republican candidate with a “globalist” mindset on the issue of trade could have carried working-class voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin? Michigan primary exit polling showed trade opposed by a majority of Republicans and Democrats alike. In fact, 53 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Democrats said trade “takes away U.S. jobs.”

According to CNN, the portion of Michigan's electorate that feels trade takes away jobs “supported Trump by a 57% to 36% split.”

CNN’s analysis of results in Pennsylvania is also spot-on. “And in Pennsylvania, 53% of the electorate agree that trade is bad for jobs. Some 62% supported Trump, while 34% backed Clinton. Among the 35% who feel trade is a job creator, Clinton was the favored candidate by more than a 2-to-1 margin.”

Several months later, in what Politico called a “stunning reversal,” Republicans nationwide have completely repudiated the establishment, globalist position on trade. A Politico-Harvard poll conducted before the September presidential debate showed 85 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of Democrats nationwide believe that free trade has cost the U.S. more jobs than it has created.

UC-Irvine economist and Trump senior policy adviser Peter Navarro summed the issue up nicely when he told Politico, “There’s been a schism for a long time between registered Republicans and the party leadership. That was the essence of the primary election. You had a group of insider politicians singing the same old globalization song. And one candidate saying the emperor has no clothes.” 

In a just world, Trump would look at these gaping turncoats and deliver a hearty “You’re welcome!”

For he is the one who captured the will of the people, what with his crazy insistence on actually putting Americans first for a change. As a result, he won the seemingly unwinnable “blue wall” states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

The other issues of “Trumpism,” particularly border control and a more restrained foreign policy, are also issues upon which traditional Republicans have found themselves on the wrong side of in recent years. George W. Bush’s “endless wars” and his push for “amnesty” may very well have cost him his congressional majorities.

And yet, many Republicans refuse to learn from their own mistakes or even the successes of the person who, like it or not, now leads their party. In the end, these Republicans were perfectly willing to die on the hills of those issues and allow Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonDemocratic strategist laments 'low bar' for Biden debate performance Wasserman Schultz makes bid for House Appropriations Committee gavel Trump to hold campaign rally in Pennsylvania next month MORE the presidency rather than stomach the idea of Donald Trump in the Oval Office. 

Thanks to the American people, their Pyrrhic victory was denied.

 

Scott Morefield is a news and opinion columnist for BizPac Reviewand the editor of Raising Godly Children. In addition to his work on The Hill, Scott's commentary can also be found on TheBlaze, WND, Breitbart, and many other sites, including A Morefield Life, where he and his wife, Kim, share their marriage and parenting journey. Follow him on Twitter @SKMorefield


The views of Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.