Bill Mauldin was a celebrated cartoonist whose memorable figures of Willie and Joe chronicled World War Two in the pages of Stars and Stripes. After the war, Mauldin was a cartoonist for the Chicago SunTimes, and in 1963 he marked the assassination of President Kennedy by a poignant drawing of the figure at the Lincoln Memorial slumped in grief. So too, we believe, the nomination of Donald Trump could only have brought a profound sense of grief to the founder of our party.
We are about to leave on a trip overseas and, with holiday and travel preparations, there has been no time to write anything adequate to the 4th of July in 2016. Rather than letting the day pass without comment, however, we looked for some relevant observations by wiser and more eloquent figures. Some of our favorites appear below: many were written in times that were also challenging, but they all express sentiments that we share.
We will, perhaps mercifully, be away during the Republican Convention but we are confident that the Republic will survive that event. If the election in November is another matter, we will turn to that when we return, and we expect that RINOcracy.com will reappear in late July or early August.
Best wishes to all for a joyous 4th and as relaxing a summer as possible. Continue reading
For purposes of this blog, we are assuming that most RINOs are among the growing number of Republicans who find the nomination, or worse yet the election, of Donald Trump to be categorically unacceptable. There are, of course, many others in the #NeverTrump movement and our comments are for them as well. Continue reading
Blog No. 102, “Brexit: Arguments, Consequences and the Trump Factor,” expressed our view that, while the burdens on Britain of membership in the EU were genuine, they were far less than the costs and risks of leaving. Our tone, however, was cautionary rather than alarmist:
The Brexit proposal will be put to the voters in a referendum on June 23, and to the questions “What will happen?” and “What will it mean?” there is clearly only one answer: no one really knows. Without attempting predictions, our view is that if the vote is to leave the EU, the risks to Britain, the EU, and ultimately the United States, could be significant.
Well, we now know what happened, and to some extent why, but what it will mean—for Britain, the EU, global markets and the United States–is something that still no one really knows. Continue reading
It was unsurprising, perhaps inevitable, that much of the commentary about the tragedy in Orlando would pass through a prism of preexisting political positions. Republicans tended to view it as a result of the ineffectiveness of the Administration’s responses to ISIS, while Democrats associated it with Republican unwillingness to support any form of gun control legislation. Having our own distinctive prism, we are inclined to believe that there is something to the assertions of each, but perhaps not as much as either appears to claim. Continue reading
Even readers who have been preoccupied with the agonies of the Republican and Democratic primary campaigns are probably aware of the political battle being waged across the Atlantic over Brexit. That term, of course, refers to the proposal that Britain (with Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom) exit from the European Union. In more shorthand, the opposing sides are tersely referred to simply as Leave and Remain. The Brexit proposal will be put to the voters in a referendum on June 23, and to the questions “What will happen?” and “What will it mean?” there is clearly only one answer: no one really knows. Without attempting predictions, our view is that if the vote is to leave the EU, the risks to Britain, the EU, and ultimately the United States, could be significant. Continue reading
Occasionally we believe that a column or editorial in the media is so cogent and compelling that it deserves reprinting in full for the benefit of readers who may not have seen it. The column below by Robert Kagan from The Washington Post is such a writing.
Robert Kagan is a historian, author and foreign policy expert of broad experience who has served several administrations in varying capacities. Although Kagan is best known for neoconservative views of foreign policy, the column below does not deal with foreign policy. Rather it concerns the candidacy of Donald Trump and its implications for not only the Republican Party but the country. According to Wikipedia, Kagan was a Republican until this year and is now an Independent.
The meeting last week between Donald Trump and Paul Ryan was something of a milestone in Donald Trump’s march to the nomination and perhaps the White House. While the meeting did not yield an endorsement by the Speaker, it produced a widespread expectation that one would be forthcoming in due course. Despite the media attention the meeting drew, the indication of a detente between Trump and Ryan was a relatively minor development, disappointing but not surprising. There are, of course, abundant grounds on which Ryan could withhold his support from Trump. Apart from issues of character and temperament, Trump’s expressed positions are at odds with Ryan’s on a variety of issues—immigration, free trade, banning of Muslims, entitlement reform, to name a few. But while we would have applauded a Ryan rejection of Trump and his candidacy, any hope for Ryan’s doing so was unrealistic. Such an action would have seriously jeopardized Ryan’s own position as Speaker with little or no likelihood of its having a serious impact on the Trump bandwagon. Continue reading
History may record various casualties of the 2016 presidential campaign and, indeed, the very existence of the Republican Party may prove to be the most important. A lesser but still highly significant casualty may be our policy favoring free trade agreements in general and, specifically, approval of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. Continue reading