On the other hand, Gerson's description of Trump and Cruz isn't far off the mark.
Cruz represents the arrival of tea party ideology at the presidential level. He espouses a “constitutionalism” that would disqualify much of modern government, and a belief that Republican elites are badly, even mainly, at fault for accommodating cultural and economic liberalism. Trump has adopted an ethno-nationalism in which the constraints of “political correctness” are lifted to express frankly nativist sentiments: that many illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists who threaten American jobs, and that Muslims are foreign, suspicious and potentially dangerous.Ummmm, right. Aren't they both correct? COTTonLINE is inclined to think so. Gerson's stumbles in his reaction to modern Republicanism.
For Republicans, the only good outcome of Trump vs. Cruz is for both to lose. The future of the party as the carrier of a humane, inclusive conservatism now depends on some viable choice beyond them.Gerson's "humane, inclusive conservatism" sounds suspiciously like Bush's "compassionate conservatism." We all remember what a clusterf*ck that was.
Let's see if Gerson can somehow conclude that whoever - Trump or Cruz - wins the nomination is actually a lesser evil than Hillary Clinton. I hope Gerson chooses to "come out" as a Democrat instead of continuing as a tin-pot RINO.
If Gerson is Brooks-lite, rest assured David Brooks over at The New York Times is working the same compassionate conservative line of country.
