Trump’s Vision Transcends the Party

The greatest leaders of free societies transcended partisanship.

Not because they were absent of principle. To the contrary, they were driven by deep conviction in what they did, and they did so in relation to and in coordination with others. Rather, they were aware of the fundamental challenge of living in a polis — how to take a principled stand (whose rightness is not dependent on popular opinion, but because of the truth of the stand itself) united with others (without corrupting or compromising that stand).

It is no easy matter, and consequently, the well-known jibe that politics is the second-oldest profession. All too often, principles for politicians are just lipstick on a pig — a distraction from the slop and the stink.

As ever, one must look for the best examples to see what the possibilities are and to avoid cheap cynicism.

George Washington has been revered for setting the example of principled leadership in America. He was intensely aware that he was establishing the model for the future of the republic, that he had to show that the power concentrated by the Constitution in the hands of the Chief Executive would not lead necessarily to corruption.

He gathered the best and the brightest around him, even though they had very different approaches — Jefferson and Hamilton sat in the first rank in his cabinet and Adams was his vice-president, each of whose approaches to American politics would bring them into sharp conflict with each of the others, whether during Washington’s administration or later on.

Arguing for the Constitution, James Madison thought partisanship was inevitable: “The CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS” (Federalist 10).

But Washington felt it necessary to strive for a national unity beyond parties. We the people had to choose not to let political differences fracture the republic into parties.

Washington warned in his farewell address against all things that serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force — to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.

Those interested in real leadership rather than indulgence of their needy ego welcome debate and do not seek yes-men in their inner circle. Lincoln was an example of that. His Cabinet choices were a fairly contentious and voluble group who debated with each other and with Lincoln.

Lincoln picked a Democrat for about the most important position during his wartime administration — Secretary of War. Lincoln chose a Democrat for vice-president for his second term as well, intent on showing national unity as his overriding interest as the Civil War was coming to a close.

Franklin Roosevelt also had someone from the other party as Secretary of War during World War II, Henry Stimson, who had also been Secretary of War under William Howard Taft and Secretary of State under Herbert Hoover. Stimson had a powerful voice and Roosevelt listened to him and to the army Chief of Staff, George Marshall. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: The Face of Evil Is Masquerading as ‘Joy’)

Winston Churchill was most famous as war leader, when he ruled over an all-party government. His cabinet had men from all three major parties, with Laborite Clement Attlee as his Deputy Prime Minister and Ernest Bevin in charge of labor relations.

He also had famously argued with his own party, severely criticizing their policy of appeasement. When events proved Churchill right, he first served in their cabinet. But that all-Conservative government could not survive the cascade of defeat of Spring 1940, and Chamberlain asked Churchill to form the new all-party government.

Churchill kept Chamberlain in that government in a position of high responsibility. He wanted all the voices that could effectively speak for Britain together. He meant it. He listened.

As did all of these leaders. They all faced terrible crises. They sought the spirit of their whole country in their council of power. They did not pretend to have all the answers. They wanted the best there to lend their insight and expertise and dedication. Faced with existential threats — the difficult first days of a unique new nation, a great civil war, a world war of unprecedented ferocity and destruction — they actively joined with those from a different perspective and a different party to face the crisis with the best response of a united nation.

Reaching Beyond the Party

The events of this last week or so, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard endorsed Donald Trump’s candidacy and RFK Jr. joined Trump on stage show the growth of the Trump movement.

It does not contradict anything that came before. It is rather the dawning recognition that the country is facing an existential threat from within: a deep state grown so corrupt that it has not hesitated to use the nation’s intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice to initiate political prosecutions at the highest level and to institute censorship in order to forcibly control the national conversation.

The only divide that matters at this point is that of opposition or support to deep state thought control and political prosecution. The smaller debates over the proper role of government pale in comparison and can be set aside by all good citizens who still care for what the Constitution calls the “Republican Form of Government.”

About 1,700 years ago, there was a remarkable partnership leading the community of Jewish exiles in what is today’s Iraq.  Head of the scholarly leadership was Rabbi Yochanan. His indispensable colleague’s was name Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish had been a gang leader in his youth. Rabbi Yochanan had seen his powerful potential and inspired him to change his ways.

Reish Lakish became a superb scholar, brilliant and outspoken. The Talmud records many of the fierce debates between him and Rabbi Yochanan, through which the principles behind the law to which the people were devoted became clear.

Though a younger man, Reish Lakish died well before his master. Many of the lesser scholars vied to fill Reish Lakish’s shoes, but lacking both the courage and the insight of the departed man, they wound up just finding various ways to justify and bring scholarly support to Rabbi Yochanan’s opinions.

Finally, Rabbi Yochanan had had enough. He said to the aspiring young men, “None of you are equal to Reish Lakish, You all listen to my opinions and then bring me support from biblical verses and from rabbinic traditions that justify my thought. But I already knew those things! That is why I said what I said. But Reish Lakish — when I stated an opinion, he would bring me a dozen sources showing I was wrong! How I miss him!”

Those who love our country more than party, and who love truth more than anything do not shy away from critical opinion. They ally themselves with all who seek the good of the land where they live, and find a way to unite them all for the general good. (READ MORE: Churchill Knew the War Must Be Won)

We live in a time when that is essential. Trump has never been a party man. He has, rather, transformed the party to his vision. That vision is now resonating with important figures far beyond the Republican Party, whose support of what Trump is fighting for will be a potent factor in shaping a national recovery and a Trump victory.

The post Trump’s Vision Transcends the Party appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.