But from that simple conservative premise—that the law is paramount—comes the most radical policy offered by any Presidential candidate in either party this year: the involuntary removal of some three per cent of the American population. (One estimate is that it would cost about thirteen thousand dollars per immigrant to implement a Trump-like mass-deportation plan.)
.. Which of these responses is “conservative”? The father of modern conservatism is Edmund Burke, the eighteenth-century British political philosopher who was deeply suspicious of radicals of any stripe. Burke generally viewed prudence and stability as the guiding lights of conservatism. “A statesman, never losing sight of principles, is to be guided by circumstances,” he wrote, in an oft-quoted passage, “and judging contrary to the exigencies of the moment he may ruin his country for ever.”
.. Trump, who would have the federal government spend billions on mass deportation and fundamentally transform America, is a revolutionary conservative on immigration. Bush, with his emphasis on “practical plans,” and Kasich, who insisted Trump’s proposal “will not work,” spoke as Burkean conservatives.
.. The Burkeans have been losing ground in the Republican Party for a while now. Too often their old conception of conservatism strikes others in the G.O.P. as a form of surrender or, at the very least, an acceptance of the liberal status quo. When a successful Democrat has been in power for two terms, the Burkeans can appear too ready to accept the other party’s legislative victories. It is the political equivalent of stare decisis, the principle by which judges generally respect precedents, or things already decided, to maintain stability and social order.
.. Two of the big stories of the Republican primaries so far are how the Party’s grass roots have rejected Kasich and Bush’s Burkean approach to immigration and how the Party’s foreign-policy establishment has rejected Trump and Paul’s Burkean approach to the Middle East. The two candidates on the rise, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, seem to have a better chance at navigating this terrain.
..
On foreign policy, Rubio is in the revolutionary camp, often arguing, along with Bush, that America can and should enthusiastically intervene around the world to shape outcomes in our favor, though he is also careful to downplay the cost of such proposals in terms of troops sent aboard or dollars spent. Meanwhile, Cruz, though at times quite hawkish, has emphasized the limits of American power in the world.
In Republican Debate, Candidates Battle Sharply on Immigration
Mr. Cruz suggested donors were tone-deaf on the issue because they did not appreciate the economic impact of what he said was illegal immigrants’ pushing down American wages. “The politics of it would be very, very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the Rio Grande,” he said, adding that the news coverage would also differ if undocumented immigrants were seeking journalism jobs.
.. Mr. Cruz also argued repeatedly for big government changes, but stumbled notably when he pledged to eliminate five major federal agencies and then struggled to name them — a moment that recalled another Texan, then-Gov. Rick Perry, in a debate during the 2012 presidential race.
Rubio and Cruz atop the GOP
.. Ben Carson, whose occupation (neurosurgeon) and melanin level (high) assuage certain Republican insecurities, continues to be excellent and modest and in no way prepared to be president. As others have pointed out, he might have made an excellent mayor of Baltimore or governor of Maryland, if it weren’t for the fact that for certain men the presidency seems to be the only job in politics worth having.
.. Like Carson, Trump might have made a good mayor or governor, but neither is grand enough for him.
.. Senator Cruz, like Rick Perry and (in my very limited experience) George W. Bush seems like an entirely different man off-camera. Maybe that’s cynical calculation; maybe it’s just that he is, after all, still sort of new at this.
.. Nobody ever accuses Senator Rubio of Elmer Gantry-ism. Why? Because if he is a cynical, calculating performer, he’s a brilliant one. I like to think that I am immune to political oratory, but one does have to admire the way that Senator Rubio can turn on that American-dream stuff like flipping a switch. Shortly after the Gang of Eight immigration fiasco, I saw Senator Rubio face a very, very skeptical audience — with Senator Cruz also on the stage — of conservatives who were practically ready to bear him out of the venue on their shoulders when he was done. He is, as Jeb Bush put it icily, “a gifted politician.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426321/rubio-cruz-gop-debate-kevin-d-williamson
Ted Cruz Shows How He Became a Collegiate Debate Champ, and Other CNBC Results
What usually rings phony about Cruz’s manner, in my “according to me” personal view, is that he is so transparently talking down. He is posturing about things he obviously knows aren’t really true: that Chuck Hagel might be an agent of the North Koreans, that it makes sense to shut down the government, whatever else he is saying now. In this latest debate, he came out for the gold standard! The chance that a Princeton/Harvard graduate in his 40s, whose spouse is a managing partner at Goldman Sachs (on leave), actually believes in a (ruinous) return to the gold standard, is zero.