The Biggest Loser of the Debate was Conservatism

With all of the understandable analysis of who “won” (Hillary Clinton did) or “lost” the big first presidential debate, the biggest and most unquestionable loser has been mostly overlooked. In my view, that is clearly the concept of conservatism.

In about one hundred minutes of discussion, I can recall only one principle that was fairly well outlined and which also resembled anything close to traditional conservative political theory. That was when Donald Trump claimed that under his presidency taxes would go down significantly for businesses and that jobs would be created through a version of what liberals have often (wrongly) derided as “trickle-down” economics.

But even in the realm of taxes Trump mocked real conservatism by forcing his Republican supporters to pretend that it is isn’t extremely troublesome that he has not released his own taxes (after promising to do so and lying about why he supposedly can’t), or that it seems that he admitted that he pays very little, if any, income tax. Trump may think that supposedly being a multi-billionaire while not paying taxes makes him “smart,” and “conservative” in an Ebenezer Scrooge sort of way. But the reality is that a real conservative of his alleged wealth (at least one with even a modicum of class) would never push the law so perversely as to be audited on yearly basis, in what he obviously sees as a yearly negotiation process.

For the rest of the debate, there was basically nothing that was discussed which would closely resemble what Ronald Reagan, for instance, might have said on any other topic. Now, to be fair, this was partly because moderator Lester Holt decided that this debate would be fought on mostly on non-philosophical turf and almost exclusively on subjects to the liking of Hillary Clinton. However, much of the blame for this can and should be pointed at Trump who, as I and others have been saying for over a year, is not remotely conservative.

Perhaps the most astonishing proof of this came in the realm of, as Trump referred to it, “law and order.” Forgetting for a moment that Republicans used to at least pretend to be protectors of liberty and freedom, Trump completely betrayed conservatism even on one of the three core issues where he is currently still pretending to be a believer (four if you laughably count Supreme Court picks, which Trump tellingly barely even mentioned on Monday night).

Trump has continually claimed, in addition to being a border hawk on immigration and supposedly being “pro-life”, that he is a great defender of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. And yet, on two major occasions during the debate, Trump actually staked out positions which, if Hillary alone had voiced them, would have had the NRA and the “conservative” media up in “arms.”

Trump supported taking away the gun rights of American citizens put on the “terror watch list,” which is a designation with which one can be labeled with almost no due process and often in complete error. Even more bizarrely, Trump kind of came down to the left of Hillary on the issue of police engaging in so-called “stop-and-frisk,” saying that it is a good idea to “take the guns away” from “bad” guys in inner-cities.

Not only would implementing this policy be way outside his dominion as president (at least under the Constitution, assuming that still matters) and include no realistic due-process protections, but, given the locations where Trump is proposing this procedure be instituted, it also seems tinged with racism. However, despite all of this, the NRA was silent, refusing to even lightly criticize their chosen candidate, even as he created two very slippery slopes by which gun rights could be easily eviscerated.

Trump also declared that as president he would not “allow” American companies to move elsewhere, and it sure felt as if he didn’t mean by simply offering incentives/penalties to make sure they didn’t. Meanwhile, his delusional view that he can magically restore jobs lost from another economic era is based in an overly-optimistic view of the power of protectionism and an abandonment of the principle of free trade.

Even worse than Trump not articulating any cogent argument for conservatism, however, is the abundantly obvious reality that not only does Trump not really believe in it, but that he simply doesn’t possess ANY political philosophy. Trump sees everything and everyone only through the prism of what is good for Trump on THAT day.

The travesties of all of this are many. I believe that a legitimate conservative with no real baggage like Marco Rubio would have crushed Hillary in that debate and would be headed to the White House with the goal of preserving  Antonin Scalia’s Supreme Court seat. Possibly just as sad as that reality is that, these principles will now go at least eight years between opportunities to educate the non-political public about them, on a grand stage, with little filtering by the mostly liberal news media.

In a very real sense, it is like “conservatism” is a country which, through no fault of its own (but rather by the cowardice of the frauds who claim to wave its banner, but who sell out for a few pieces of silver) has been banned from an Olympic Games. This obviously would have a devastating impact not just on the present, but also its future. That’s because losing an entire “generation” is a blow from which recovery is nearly impossible.

The only question now is whether conservatism, assuming it isn’t already dead, would die sooner if Trump loses, or if he somehow wins. It is my belief that it is far more likely be the latter.

— —

John Ziegler is a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host and documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at johnz@mediaite.com

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.