STRAUBINICAL NEWS DIGEST Nine.

STRAUBINICAL NEWS DIGEST Nine.

  It's fascinating to watch conservative columnists George Will and Charles Krauthammer figure out their roles in the age of Trump. Both of them were outspoken, again and again, about Trump's lack of fitness for the job, and their clear opposition to his candidacy seemed evidence of integrity and bravery. I still think that, although lingering doubts creep in, for a few reasons.
  A friend of mine who's not especially savvy about politics made an interesting observation. He didn't even know who those guys were until I explained it to him, but when I said they were taking a risk with their anti-Trump drumbeat, he suggested that perhaps it wasn't really a risk given the likelihood that most of their readers were Jeb Bush Republicans. How many of the "Lock her up" witch-burning crowd read print media at all, much less the Washington Post?
  Beyond that, their post-election writing shows they object to Trump for reasons unlike mine, and their tone now could be described as cautiously haughty. It's like a movie scene where a snooty debutante dances with a pooular jock, while using body language to reassure us that she's not that kind of girl.

  Before Trump was elected, Will and Krauthammer had much to say about him. Only rarely did they feel the need to slip in their boilerplate condemnations of liberal thought and actions. They spoke as if the situation were desperate, with precious little time (or column inches) available  for snippy digs at the left.
  Although he hasn't put it this baldly, Will basically argues that Trump promised his fans a seductive combination of liberal and conservative traits. On the one hand, he'd  end the era of white people being told to feel bad about the woes of anyone who wasn't them. The end of political correctness! This magical Etch-a-Sketch maneuver would allow us all to breathe fresh air again, as if he had managed to wipe out smog. (Or, in a different context, Smaug.) But to shore that up, he would also bring back all their jobs, accomplishing this by liberal means. That is, the government would fix their problems with a showy public relations coup, buying off one company at a time rather than slowly changing the landscape so that all business runs more profitably.
  This is bad, in Will's view, because it's paternalistic and degrading (like welfare). Somehow, the salt of the earth have their dignity destroyed if the government helps them quickly and directly, but if corporate America is helped generally, and they then hire more people, dignity is restored.
  Maybe. While I'm not qualified to say whether the Will economic idea is more trustworthy and effective than a liberal one would be (and judging from my non-scientific observation of the pseudo-science practiced by economists, neither are they), I can't help but wonder if Will's take on it is no less paternalistic and insulting than Clinton's, or Obama's. It all smacks of divorced parents who hate each other arguing about what's best for their kid. But it does offer a useful look at an important distinction between conservative and liberal thinking. In Will's framing, the government should be there to make sure nobody gets in the way of business. Only in that environment will the small people be allowed to reach their potential. If government is perceived as working directly for the small people, that's treating them condescendingly.
  I'd argue that the greater problem with the Carrier deal as model is that it can't be sustained. Presumably that's the reason why liberals and conservatives alike have resisted that kind of seemingly obvious solution in the past, and why many of them question its wisdom now.