THE DEFINITION OF A NEW YORK TIMES “CONSERVATIVE VOICE”

From New York Times “conservative” Brett Stephens’ latest op-ed commentary, we have this.

Tax cuts. Deregulation. More for the military; less for the United Nations. The Islamic State crushed in its heartland. Assad hit with cruise missiles. Troops to Afghanistan. Arms for Ukraine. A tougher approach to North Korea. Jerusalem recognized as Israel’s capital. The Iran deal decertified. Title IX kangaroo courts on campus condemned. Yes to Keystone. No to Paris. Wall Street roaring and consumer confidence high.

And, of course, Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. What, for a conservative, is there to dislike about this policy record as the Trump administration rounds out its first year in office?

That’s the question I keep hearing from old friends on the right who voted with misgiving for Donald Trump last year and now find reasons to like him. I admit it gives me pause. I agree with every one of the policy decisions mentioned above. But I still wish Hillary Clinton were president.

The rest of Mr. Stephens’ piece consists entirely of a chapter-and-verse recitation of why he remains a “never-Trumper”.

That is the New York Times’ definition of an acceptable conservative.  Draw your own conclusions.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *