As readers of my column may
remember, in the spring I was pretty much in the Never Trump camp. More recently, I have converted to the Never
Hillary faction. Nonetheless, I remain
nostalgic for Marco Rubio. I thought he
was the best candidate—and I still do.
So let me get something off my chest.
What brings this up is the
evolution of Donald Trump’s position on immigration. Many of his supporters assumed that he was
for rounding up every illegal immigrant and physically deporting them. His critics, however, described this as
draconian. It would entail the obvious horror
of snatching mothers away from their babies.
Even many of Trump’s most
ardent supporters had doubts about whether this was feasible. They worried about the costs and legalities. They were especially concerned that this
might alienate too many Hispanic voters.
And so Trump “softened” his
position. Although now and then, he
reiterates his pledge to build a wall—and make Mexico pay for it—he also
insists he will be compassionate. If
illegals want citizenship, they still have to go home and get in line. It is just the criminals that he will immediately
deport.
Nowadays Trump’s position is
“first things first.” First build the
wall and enforce the existing laws.
Don’t do catch and release. Don’t
allow sanctuary cities. Do use
e-verify. As to what to do with the bulk
of the illegals, he wants to postpone this decision until after we gain control
over the border.
But isn’t this what Rubio
proposed? And wasn’t he crucified for
it? Didn’t his detractors reject him
because his policies were not sufficiently pure? Wasn’t his pragmatism deemed
wishy-washy? In Trump’s hands, however,
it has become practical.
Yet Rubio was always
practical. Whether the issue was foreign
or domestic, his proposals were well researched and realistic. He studied what was possible and time and
again sought the most doable conservative approach.
Nonetheless, the partisans
wanted more. They were looking for red
meat. Trump gave it to them. Hence what did they get? They got a candidate who might make a decent
president, but clearly has a great deal to learn. Either that, or our future holds the
profoundly corrupt Hillary Clinton.
Consider the other knocks
against Rubio. It was said that he did
not spend enough time taking care of senate business. Really?
He was running for president.
What else was he to do? If this
counts as a valid criticism, no sitting senator ought ever run for president.
Then there was the business
of his buying a fishing boat with profits from his book and losing money in a
real estate investment. This was
supposedly evidence that he did not know enough about the economy to rescue us
from a lackluster recovery.
Yet I came to a very
different conclusion. For me, this was
proof that he is an honest man. Despite
years of being an elected official, he had not enriched himself at the public
trough. Why, it even took him years to
pay off his student loan.
Contrast this with other
officials. Hillary has converted herself
into a multi-multi-millionaire. Her
foundation is no more than a political slush fund. It is a means of laundering political
contributions so they don’t seem political; i.e., an attempt to disguise pay-for-play
bribes.
Harry Reid is also a
multi-millionaire. Obama is not yet in
this class, but he is working on it. And
while Trump made his money in the private sector, he cut more than a few corners
along the way.
Nor ought we forget that Rubio
was polite and truthful. The voters are
currently bellyaching about candidates who are not. So why did they consider one who was respectful
to be boring. Can it be that his
baby-face capsized his candidacy?
Or was it the fact that
everyone ganged up on him? Were his
virtues so glaring that if recognized, he would have been a shoo-in? In any event, we are now obliged to live with
the consequences of our own making.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment