titled Will the GOP repudiate Trump’s cruelty to a fallen soldier’s family? This by the way is the theme of comments by a number of those we normally associated with the right. Among those on the talk shows this morning who excoriated Trump and raised questions about those who would not disassociate themselves were both George Will and David Brooks.
But this is an expression of E. J. Dionne, who is a political liberal and I supposed could also be described as a Social Justice Catholic.
He begins like this:
Republican politicians face a choice. They can accept Hillary Clinton’s invitation to abandon Donald Trump and prevent a redefinition of their party as a haven for bigotry. Or they can prop Trump up, try to maximize his vote — and thereby tarnish themselves for a generation.
He then spends four paragraphs laying out the denoument of this particular incident, ending with Trump’s totally out of bounds remarks suggesting tha Mrs. Khan perhaps did not speak because she was not allowed to . Dionne then writes:
Every Republican politician and commentator who continues to say that Trump is a superior or even morally equivalent choice to Hillary Clinton will now own their temporary leader’s brutality for the rest of their political careers.
After a positive reference to the reaction of Ohio Governor John Kasich, Dionne continues:
This is a moment of truth for GOP leaders who passively accepted and sometimes encouraged an extremism that trafficked in religious and racial prejudice and painted President Obama as an illegitimate, power-hungry leader.
He reminds us of how Republican leaders have attempted to use White resentment for their own political gain, but failed to anticipate a Trump. He refers to Reagan’s phrase, borrowed I believe from Milton Friedman, about a time for choosing. He notes the weak response of Republican leaders, and the powerful response to that by Khizr Khan. He mentions the spoken and written words of Ghazala Khan.
Dionne notes that there are Republican and conservative intellectuals and former officials who have taken up the fight against Trump. He notes the apparent abandonment of conservative principles and contrasts that with the affirmative vision, clearly borrowing from Reagan’s 1984 message of “Morning in America,” that we experienced in much of the Democratic convention this past week, and the invitation it presents to those who would normally be on the other side of the political divide from Hillary Clinton.
And then he closes with this paragraph, which you should consider carefully:
Clinton Republicans and ex-Republicans could thus be this generation’s Reagan Democrats. In repudiating Trump for Clinton, they will not be abandoning their ideology. They will be making a moral statement that their movement will not tolerate an opportunist so corrupt and so vile that when given a choice, he pandered to religious intolerance rather than honoring the sacrifice of a brave young American.
Dionne’s is not a voice to which many conservatives will pay heed. But there are some in the pundit class who do, and some who are already coming to a similar conclusion.