As predicted, Trump swept the Iowa caucuses on January 15th, winning 98 of the 99 counties. The victory has been touted by some conservatives as a sign that Trump will comfortably win the Republican nomination for president.
They may be right. Trump may indeed edge out his competition and become the GOP candidate in November. However, the Iowa victory was far from as decisive for Trump as it may look on paper. He may become the inevitable candidate, but he is not there yet. Conservative voters should take a hard look at all the remaining candidates before choosing who to vote for when their state caucus or primary comes up.
One of the most important, overlooked aspects of the Iowa victory is that it emerged from caucus votes. Unlike primaries, which are like general elections, caucuses are effectively meetings for party members where attendees listen to presentations from representatives for the candidates. After the presentations, the present party members—in effect registered Republicans—vote for their candidate of choice.
A candidate can win a caucus vote in a small county with only a handful of people present. This weakens the representativity of the vote, especially since supporters of some candidates may be more actively involved in the party than supporters of other candidates. In my own experience, Trump voters are more active than those who support other candidates, which means that they would probably be over-represented in caucuses.
I am not saying this is the case in Iowa, but it is also a point that should not be dismissed. It is important to remember the differences between caucuses and primaries, and what it means in terms of a candidate’s perceived vs. actual support. It would be prudent to await the results of the New Hampshire primary before we assess the real strength of Trump as a candidate.
In the meantime, conservatives should take a deep breath, step back from the campaign frenzy, and make a very well-considered choice among the remaining candidates. This is not an easy thing to do: as I explained last week, the field of candidates has been reduced long before the primary season even began, and it has happened in a way that, to the experienced eye, looks almost orchestrated. The unprecedented lead-up to the primary season reduced the number of Republican candidates from nine to four—before even one caucus goer or primary voter had been given a chance to choose among them.
One more candidate left the race after Iowa: Vivek Ramaswamy is now officially on Trump’s team. Not that Ramaswamy had much of a chance anyway, but his exit reinforces the need for conservatives to choose carefully among the three remaining candidates.
Generally speaking, three major issues tend to motivate conservatives as they go into elections: social values, patriotism, and money. Social values include practical aspects of everyday life, such as the presence or absence of a gender-mutilating ideology in our children’s classrooms. It spans more general value issues like gay marriage and abortion all the way to the integrity of our religious beliefs.
It is common among presidential candidates who want to court the conservative vote to pledge some sort of allegiance to Christianity. Many of them also profile themselves as pro-life, but even though they will vote accordingly when given the chance, few of them rush to the forefront of the values battle to take the lead in fighting for conservative social values.
Even less common is the candidate who has a record as a values warrior in politics. Ron DeSantis is a rare exception: as governor of Florida, he has fought the onslaught of progressive values, especially in schools. He has proven that he is willing to fight, and win, against the transgender movement and its efforts to sexualize school children.
Nikki Haley has no value record even closely comparable to that of DeSantis. Trump also falls short of the Florida governor, although, in fairness, it is difficult for a president to take the political lead on issues like the introduction of transgender pornography in schools. Not only does the issue generally fall under the jurisdiction of the states, but to the extent that the federal government could get involved, any meaningful initiative would have to come from Congress.
Since it is easier for a governor than for a former president to build social-value credentials, and since DeSantis has a strong record here, conservative voters cannotgo wrong with him. Trump is a good runner-up choice here; unlike Haley, he has never shown a tendency to wobble on social values, but he has also never proven to be a values leader.
Just as social values naturally favor a conservative governor, the issue of patriotism gives a natural edge to the former president. If there is one issue where Trump excelled in his first term as president, it is patriotism. No president since Reagan has put America first with such commitment as Trump did.
As governor, Ron DeSantis has had limited opportunities to build himself up on foreign policy. However, he has made a strong case for himself with a detailed, thoughtful strategy for national security. Furthermore, during his six years in Congress, prior to being elected governor, he served on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
For conservatives who rank patriotism as their top issue, Trump springs to the top of the list while DeSantis comes in as a close second. However, that is before we consider the wild card known as Nikki Haley. Having served as ambassador to the United Nations, she has built more experience in foreign policy than DeSantis has. She is also an outspoken neoconservative; in the words of Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky):
I don’t think any informed libertarian or conservative should support Nikki Haley. I’ve seen her attitude toward our [military] interventions overseas, I’ve seen her involvement in the military-industrial complex
There are many conservatives out there who support American military activism, and who agree with prominent neoconservatives like Liz Cheney that America’s global military activism is essential to keeping America safe. Given that Trump has been portrayed as somewhat of an American isolationist—an unfairly negative term—and that he opposed military globalism, his strong support among Republican voters could suggest that the electoral base for neocons is limited.
At the same time, it would be wrong to rule out that a large number of conservative voters sympathize with neocon foreign policy ideas. Those voters could be willing to compromise on this issue because they rank social values as more important in choosing a presidential candidate. Furthermore, since Trump kept America safe, it is reasonable from a conservative viewpoint to conclude that he can be trusted with doing so for another four years.
All in all, the issue of patriotism gives Trump an edge over DeSantis, but if the neocon bent on patriotic issues is strong enough, increased wars and tensions on the global stage during the Republican primaries could be a boost for Nikki Haley. It is also important to remember that her backers in the neoconservative ‘party within the Republican party’ have formidable resources to throw behind her.
The third major conservative issue has to do with money, specifically taxes and high government spending. In recent years, right-of-center voters have become increasingly uneasy about how much money government spends; worries about a federal fiscal meltdown contributed to giving Republicans the House majority in 2022. Not since the 1990s have fiscal conservatives held such a strong position in Congress as they do now.
On this issue, Trump does not hold an impressive record. He did nothing as president to even try to rein in government spending. He spoke of it from time to time, but neither he nor his administration moved a finger to end the growth of federal spending. While Trump did champion an important tax reform, the results he envisioned only partly came true. The reform stimulated economic growth, helped create more jobs, and encouraged businesses to repatriate large investments from abroad. However, in terms of the federal budget, the reform left it in no better shape than when he took office.
In this category, DeSantis holds an edge over Trump. On his watch, Florida has maintained its strong position as a fiscally restrained—but not conservative—state. As a key metric, consider the fact that the state of Florida spends $4,910 for each of its 22.6 million residents, while New York, a notoriously leftist state with 19.6 million people, spends $11,247 per capita.
While DeSantis did not originate this fiscal restraint on behalf of the state government in Florida, he has held the line and proven that he is willing to be prudent with the public purse. Trump has a lot of catching up to do here, but he also deserves credit for his tax reform.
All in all, the conservative money voter should give DeSantis the edge, though once again Trump comes in a close second.
Summing up the three angles of social values, patriotism, and money, DeSantis comes out as a moderately better candidate than Trump. The eventual choice depends, of course, on which of these angles the voter ranks the highest, but there is also another aspect to keep in mind.
Ever since the 2020 election, Trump has given countless speeches and in other ways expressed his opinion that his loss to Biden was not fair. He has shown considerable resentment over this, which is understandable if one truly believes that the election was manipulated in some way. At the same time, his attitude also makes him come across as a backward-looking candidate.
I am not going to go as far as to suggest that he is consumed with a desire for revenge, because that would portray him in stark colors he has not deserved. With that said, it is easy to see how a second term with Trump in the White House would be centered around his desire to correct what he is convinced was a monumental injustice.
America cannot afford a president whose eyes are in the rearview mirror. Trump is not the only candidate, presumptive or declared, who has this problem. I have raised questions about an often-mentioned third-party candidate, namely former Congresswoman Liz Cheney. She has dedicated the past three years to making sure that Trump is never elected again, her reasons being his claim about the 2020 election and her allegations that he led an insurrection on January 6th, 2021.
In other words, her eyes are in the same rearview mirror as Trump’s; conservatives are well advised to ask whether or not either of them could be a visionary leader.
If conservatives are drawn to neocon-style foreign policy ambitions, and if they place patriotism above other issues, then Nikki Haley is their obvious choice. If they lean more in the direction of Trump’s America First agenda, and social values and money are less important but not irrelevant, the choice stands between Trump and DeSantis. The more value one places on social issues, the stronger DeSantis looks; if money, i.e., fiscal conservatism, is important, the Florida governor may still hold a small edge.
At the end of the day, though, Trump’s biggest problem is to find his way back to the visionary candidate he was in 2016. If he fails to do that, conservatives are well advised to consider DeSantis as their candidate. However, if Trump can return to the optimism and bright outlook that flavored his first presidential campaign, he will be hard to beat.
Should Conservatives Vote for Trump?
Photo: Red Lemon / Shutterstock.com
As predicted, Trump swept the Iowa caucuses on January 15th, winning 98 of the 99 counties. The victory has been touted by some conservatives as a sign that Trump will comfortably win the Republican nomination for president.
They may be right. Trump may indeed edge out his competition and become the GOP candidate in November. However, the Iowa victory was far from as decisive for Trump as it may look on paper. He may become the inevitable candidate, but he is not there yet. Conservative voters should take a hard look at all the remaining candidates before choosing who to vote for when their state caucus or primary comes up.
One of the most important, overlooked aspects of the Iowa victory is that it emerged from caucus votes. Unlike primaries, which are like general elections, caucuses are effectively meetings for party members where attendees listen to presentations from representatives for the candidates. After the presentations, the present party members—in effect registered Republicans—vote for their candidate of choice.
A candidate can win a caucus vote in a small county with only a handful of people present. This weakens the representativity of the vote, especially since supporters of some candidates may be more actively involved in the party than supporters of other candidates. In my own experience, Trump voters are more active than those who support other candidates, which means that they would probably be over-represented in caucuses.
I am not saying this is the case in Iowa, but it is also a point that should not be dismissed. It is important to remember the differences between caucuses and primaries, and what it means in terms of a candidate’s perceived vs. actual support. It would be prudent to await the results of the New Hampshire primary before we assess the real strength of Trump as a candidate.
In the meantime, conservatives should take a deep breath, step back from the campaign frenzy, and make a very well-considered choice among the remaining candidates. This is not an easy thing to do: as I explained last week, the field of candidates has been reduced long before the primary season even began, and it has happened in a way that, to the experienced eye, looks almost orchestrated. The unprecedented lead-up to the primary season reduced the number of Republican candidates from nine to four—before even one caucus goer or primary voter had been given a chance to choose among them.
One more candidate left the race after Iowa: Vivek Ramaswamy is now officially on Trump’s team. Not that Ramaswamy had much of a chance anyway, but his exit reinforces the need for conservatives to choose carefully among the three remaining candidates.
Generally speaking, three major issues tend to motivate conservatives as they go into elections: social values, patriotism, and money. Social values include practical aspects of everyday life, such as the presence or absence of a gender-mutilating ideology in our children’s classrooms. It spans more general value issues like gay marriage and abortion all the way to the integrity of our religious beliefs.
It is common among presidential candidates who want to court the conservative vote to pledge some sort of allegiance to Christianity. Many of them also profile themselves as pro-life, but even though they will vote accordingly when given the chance, few of them rush to the forefront of the values battle to take the lead in fighting for conservative social values.
Even less common is the candidate who has a record as a values warrior in politics. Ron DeSantis is a rare exception: as governor of Florida, he has fought the onslaught of progressive values, especially in schools. He has proven that he is willing to fight, and win, against the transgender movement and its efforts to sexualize school children.
Nikki Haley has no value record even closely comparable to that of DeSantis. Trump also falls short of the Florida governor, although, in fairness, it is difficult for a president to take the political lead on issues like the introduction of transgender pornography in schools. Not only does the issue generally fall under the jurisdiction of the states, but to the extent that the federal government could get involved, any meaningful initiative would have to come from Congress.
Since it is easier for a governor than for a former president to build social-value credentials, and since DeSantis has a strong record here, conservative voters cannotgo wrong with him. Trump is a good runner-up choice here; unlike Haley, he has never shown a tendency to wobble on social values, but he has also never proven to be a values leader.
Just as social values naturally favor a conservative governor, the issue of patriotism gives a natural edge to the former president. If there is one issue where Trump excelled in his first term as president, it is patriotism. No president since Reagan has put America first with such commitment as Trump did.
As governor, Ron DeSantis has had limited opportunities to build himself up on foreign policy. However, he has made a strong case for himself with a detailed, thoughtful strategy for national security. Furthermore, during his six years in Congress, prior to being elected governor, he served on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
For conservatives who rank patriotism as their top issue, Trump springs to the top of the list while DeSantis comes in as a close second. However, that is before we consider the wild card known as Nikki Haley. Having served as ambassador to the United Nations, she has built more experience in foreign policy than DeSantis has. She is also an outspoken neoconservative; in the words of Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky):
There are many conservatives out there who support American military activism, and who agree with prominent neoconservatives like Liz Cheney that America’s global military activism is essential to keeping America safe. Given that Trump has been portrayed as somewhat of an American isolationist—an unfairly negative term—and that he opposed military globalism, his strong support among Republican voters could suggest that the electoral base for neocons is limited.
At the same time, it would be wrong to rule out that a large number of conservative voters sympathize with neocon foreign policy ideas. Those voters could be willing to compromise on this issue because they rank social values as more important in choosing a presidential candidate. Furthermore, since Trump kept America safe, it is reasonable from a conservative viewpoint to conclude that he can be trusted with doing so for another four years.
All in all, the issue of patriotism gives Trump an edge over DeSantis, but if the neocon bent on patriotic issues is strong enough, increased wars and tensions on the global stage during the Republican primaries could be a boost for Nikki Haley. It is also important to remember that her backers in the neoconservative ‘party within the Republican party’ have formidable resources to throw behind her.
The third major conservative issue has to do with money, specifically taxes and high government spending. In recent years, right-of-center voters have become increasingly uneasy about how much money government spends; worries about a federal fiscal meltdown contributed to giving Republicans the House majority in 2022. Not since the 1990s have fiscal conservatives held such a strong position in Congress as they do now.
On this issue, Trump does not hold an impressive record. He did nothing as president to even try to rein in government spending. He spoke of it from time to time, but neither he nor his administration moved a finger to end the growth of federal spending. While Trump did champion an important tax reform, the results he envisioned only partly came true. The reform stimulated economic growth, helped create more jobs, and encouraged businesses to repatriate large investments from abroad. However, in terms of the federal budget, the reform left it in no better shape than when he took office.
In this category, DeSantis holds an edge over Trump. On his watch, Florida has maintained its strong position as a fiscally restrained—but not conservative—state. As a key metric, consider the fact that the state of Florida spends $4,910 for each of its 22.6 million residents, while New York, a notoriously leftist state with 19.6 million people, spends $11,247 per capita.
While DeSantis did not originate this fiscal restraint on behalf of the state government in Florida, he has held the line and proven that he is willing to be prudent with the public purse. Trump has a lot of catching up to do here, but he also deserves credit for his tax reform.
All in all, the conservative money voter should give DeSantis the edge, though once again Trump comes in a close second.
Summing up the three angles of social values, patriotism, and money, DeSantis comes out as a moderately better candidate than Trump. The eventual choice depends, of course, on which of these angles the voter ranks the highest, but there is also another aspect to keep in mind.
Ever since the 2020 election, Trump has given countless speeches and in other ways expressed his opinion that his loss to Biden was not fair. He has shown considerable resentment over this, which is understandable if one truly believes that the election was manipulated in some way. At the same time, his attitude also makes him come across as a backward-looking candidate.
I am not going to go as far as to suggest that he is consumed with a desire for revenge, because that would portray him in stark colors he has not deserved. With that said, it is easy to see how a second term with Trump in the White House would be centered around his desire to correct what he is convinced was a monumental injustice.
America cannot afford a president whose eyes are in the rearview mirror. Trump is not the only candidate, presumptive or declared, who has this problem. I have raised questions about an often-mentioned third-party candidate, namely former Congresswoman Liz Cheney. She has dedicated the past three years to making sure that Trump is never elected again, her reasons being his claim about the 2020 election and her allegations that he led an insurrection on January 6th, 2021.
In other words, her eyes are in the same rearview mirror as Trump’s; conservatives are well advised to ask whether or not either of them could be a visionary leader.
If conservatives are drawn to neocon-style foreign policy ambitions, and if they place patriotism above other issues, then Nikki Haley is their obvious choice. If they lean more in the direction of Trump’s America First agenda, and social values and money are less important but not irrelevant, the choice stands between Trump and DeSantis. The more value one places on social issues, the stronger DeSantis looks; if money, i.e., fiscal conservatism, is important, the Florida governor may still hold a small edge.
At the end of the day, though, Trump’s biggest problem is to find his way back to the visionary candidate he was in 2016. If he fails to do that, conservatives are well advised to consider DeSantis as their candidate. However, if Trump can return to the optimism and bright outlook that flavored his first presidential campaign, he will be hard to beat.
READ NEXT
Trump’s Triumph—a Turning Point for Europe?
Pan-Conservativi: A New Global Conservative Reality
Islamo-Nazis: I’m Applying for a Foreign Passport