"although NeverTrumpers talk a lot about morality and principles, their actual beef seems to be a combination of aesthetic dislike of Trump’s messaging style, and resentment that he’s not hiring them, and never will hire them."

Glenn Reynolds writes in Instapundit,

...although NeverTrumpers talk a lot about morality and principles, their actual beef seems to be a combination of aesthetic dislike of Trump’s messaging style, and resentment that he’s not hiring them, and never will hire them. I suppose a lot of people confuse their own social standing and economic prospects with morality, but color me unpersuaded.

Perhaps in 2016 you could imagine that Trump would be such an awful President that you had a moral duty to oppose him. But in 2019, it’s obvious that that’s not the case. In fact, he’s pretty darn successful. Instead of gay concentration camps, he’s trying to end discrimination against gays worldwide. Instead of being a warmonger he’s now ending wars — and getting grief about it from NeverTrumpers. The Russia-collusion thing was always twaddle, but nobody is even pretending otherwise anymore. And Trump’s background and personal life certainly don’t stand out as compared to many other occupants of the Oval Office whom the establishment deemed entirely acceptable.

So, again, what exactly is the moral foundation of your very very moral, Solzhenitsyn-like stance?

Read more here.

Acting on our principles

Seth Godin writes,

"I agree in principle..."
"But in practice, I'll need to be more hard-hearted, practical, selfish, mass-oriented, short-term, callous..." Principles, it seems, are for other people.

Because business is business.

Because my boss won't let me.

Because he'll never get elected.

Because we've never done it that way.

Because the buyer will never take it for the store.

Because it's too risky.

Because I'm under a lot of pressure.

Because I'm afraid.

Principle, of course, is for us, not only for other people. One of the great privileges of not living on the edge of disaster is that we have the ability to act on our principles.

The hard part is realizing that it's never the edge of disaster, and that the long run is always shorter than we imagine.

Can Republicans win minority votes and still stand on principles?

Daniel Greenfield writes at Front Page Magazine,

Republicans court the minority vote by making two major mistakes.

The first mistake is assuming that a minority group is a single collective whose members all think the same. Yes, they may vote the same way, but that’s the outcome of a process combining everything from community organizing to media control which created a Democratic political identity for that group.

The second mistake is then aiming outreach at the organizations that form that political identity. That is like Coke trying to get Pepsi executives to drink Coke. It sounds stupid, but Republican outreach that involves the NAACP or Univision appearances are just as stupid. Those are arms of the Democratic Party. The only thing that outreach to them accomplishes is to reinforce their communal power while letting them set the narrative. The outreach ends with Republicans being told about the importance of embracing Democratic policies. And some Republicans are even stupid enough to fall for it.

Republicans are not going to win a majority of their votes any time soon, but they can win a minority of theirs votes without compromising their principles.

And they can do it while weakening the Democratic political identity within that group.

Democrats consistently lose the white vote, but combine high percentages of the minority vote with a minority of the white vote. The Republican model should focus on increasing its share of the white vote, increasing white voter turnout and adding enough minority votes to weaken the Democratic coalition.

Instead of imitating the Democratic Party’s broad spectrum targeting of minorities, Republicans should look at subgroups where they do better than the average within that group. For example, among Asian voters, Republicans perform better with Japanese and Vietnamese Americans than with Chinese or Indian voters. Among Jews, Republicans do better with religious Jews rather than secular Jews.

Bloomberg split the Latino vote in 2001. When he faced a Latino candidate in the New York City mayoral election four years later, he didn’t panic. His opponent was Puerto Rican and so his campaign aimed at the city’s growing Mexican population who felt overlooked and he won a third of Latino voters.

Instead of writing off an entire group as one collective whole, he drilled down to a subgroup.

... 60 percent of Jews who attend weekly religious services disapprove of Obama. 58 percent of Jews who rarely attend approve of him.

...Likewise, instead of pandering to #BlackLivesMatters, Republicans should address black voters worried about crime and gang violence. They’re not going to get the #BlackLivesMatter vote anyway, but they might make some inroads among black voters looking to clean up their neighborhoods.

... Instead of liberalizing their positions to appeal to minority voters, Republicans should target conservative issues within segments of minority groups concerned about those issues.

Instead of competing to be better Democrats, they should distinguish themselves as Republicans.

...The “inoffensive Republican” candidate is a failed legacy of another era that should not have survived the Reagan years.

Being inoffensive does not win elections. Engaging the base by focusing on the compelling issues that they care about does.

Republicans should not back amnesty. That’s stupid and suicidal. Neither should they completely write off the Hispanic vote. They should not endorse pro-crime policies, but neither should they completely write off the black vote. Those are false choices manufactured by the left to push the GOP against a wall.

...The first time, Giuliani won by increasing white voter turnout. The second time, he turned out a larger number of minority voters who were willing to support him while maintaining his existing white support.

...The Republicans can’t compete on pro-crime policies, amnesty or the welfare state with the left anyway. When they try, they lose their own base. But there are plenty of Asian voters angry about affirmative action, black voters angry about crack dealers in their neighborhoods and middle class Hispanic small business owners who are angry about the welfare state. Instead of chasing minority voters that the GOP can’t get, it should connect on traditional conservative issues with those it can get.

Read more here.

Do you really stand for liberty?

In my never-ending quest to catch up on what's happening in the world, I just listened to a vigorous debate on radio station KLZ in Denver. Two talk radio hosts whom I admire and respect, Kris Cook and Ken Clark, debated the decision by Colorado Christian University not to accept money from the Log Cabin Republicans to host a booth at this summer's Western Conservative Summit.

Since the debate was aired, a compromise has been reached. Steve House, the newly elected leader of the Republican Party in Colorado, approached John Andrews, the man who puts together the Western Conservative Summit for Colorado Christian University. House offered to have the Log Cabin Republicans exhibit at the Colorado Republican Party booth. His offer was accepted by Andrews.

Now the question in my mind is, will the leftist gay movement accept the compromise? I doubt it.

Kris was arguing another, related point: Does the government really have any right to have anything to do with defining marriage? Ken replied that government first got involved because of interracial marriage, and he agreed with Kris that government should have no involvement in defining marriage. Kris termed it using government to promote a theocratic, Biblical worldview, and that it is hypocritical to then say you are doing it because you stand for liberty!

Ken pointed out that Christians are being persecuted. They are actually being killed by jihadists, and persecuted here at home. He wants Christians to stand on their principles, and he admires John Andrews for doing just that.

Kris noted that the Conference is trying to get conservatives elected "so they can use the guns of government." She does not want the Republican Party to turn away allies, like the Log Cabin Republicans. Her point is that government needs to be rolled back, and we individual Americans need more, not less liberty! She further points out that gay Republicans have many allies, especially among Millennials and Generation Z citizens (That's the first time I have heard that term), and Republicans need every citizen they can get in order to promote liberty. She argued that the Republican Party needs to be inclusive, rather than exclusive.

Timeless principles

You can't forever spend more money than you take in.

You can't forever print money to cover debt.

You can't keep the policy that you said you were going to keep.

Sooner or later, reality intrudes.

We've weathered a lot worse!

For the joy set before Him, He could see a better day!

There is sovereign love above us.