Dear Editor,
In the previous Collegian, Garrison Grisedale tried to show that Trump is a good candidate, dedicating to conserving the American heritage. Grisedale is not even originally wrong, let alone thinking clearly.
Grisedale’s argument is a rehash of Peter O’Rourke’s argument from the Aug. 31 Collegian. Some cabal controls the US government, an incendiary leader is needed to fight for the clear interests of “the people,” and Trump is that leader. The only difference is that Grisedale calls that clear interest conservatism.
What led Grisedale to make this argument? Was it discourse and consideration of the facts? Unlikely. I refuted O’Rourke in my Sept. 8 letter to the editor. If there is some stable code by which Trump judges policy, why is his policy so inconsistent? Jennifer Matthes noted in her piece before Fall Break, Trump’s policy inconsistencies number at least 126.
Again, what led Grisedale to his counterfactual conclusion? His standards of evidence give troubling signs. Grisedale’s quotes proving Trump’s conservatism all reduce to Trump saying he favors “Americanism.” Every proof is mere cliché. Grisedale cites Trump’s position on scattered policies, but he can’t devote more than four words to any of them in particular.
Most telling is Grisedale’s enthusiastic statement that “Trump’s Supreme Court nominees have the opportunity to engrain conservative policy into our national fabric for decades to come.” Contrast that to Hamilton in Federalist 78, who espouses “reliance that nothing would be consulted by the Supreme Court but the Constitution and the laws.” The Supreme Court ought not engrain any policy into our national fabric. To anybody speaking from the American heritage, that should be obvious.
Does Grisedale even know what he wants to conserve? He invokes “that which defines America,” “what truly characterizes us as a country,” and “the defining aspects of our civilization,” but never with specifics. He tells us it includes “traditions” and “morals,” but he never lists one. He tells us the most fundamental role of government is “the protection of its citizens,” but that offers no meaningful distinction from progressives. Franklin Roosevelt, for example, cast his New Deal as protecting citizens in a metaphorical war. Grisedale lists policies that are supposed to be conservative but says nothing as to why. Nothing tells me what he thinks conservatism is, or if he even has a clear idea of it.
Grisedale can chant “Make America Great Again” all he wants. I’ll be content to see Americans like Grisedale think again.
Sincerely,
Jonathon Misiewicz