Well, there you have it. Trump’s Nevadan-acolytes have dropped the fate of the country into the hands of Ted Cruz.

Even if both Kasich and Carson dropped out of the Republican race, the margin between Trump and the rest of the field might be too big for anyone to close. But if either Rubio or Cruz dropped out (ideally, after the TX primary, in which their joint presence would suppress the Trump vote), the other would be a good bet to become the nominee and could lick his chops over the prospect of running against whichever Democrat was not yet in prison. If the nominee is Rubio, it appears that the outcome is a slam dunk for the Republicans; if the nominee is Cruz, all bets are off, because his general appeal is almost as limited as Trump’s.

So, here is the question for Senator Cruz: would you rather the country be led by Rubio or by Bernie Sanders? Are you all in for your country, or are you all in for Cruz?

It would be hard to improve upon the National Review’s recent set of essays on why a nomination of Donald Trump by the Republican Party would be a very bad thing for the country. Two reasons stand out. The first is that it would be a concession of the general election to Hillary Clinton, who has pledged, in so many words and barks, to complete the transformation of this country into a centrally-planned socialist state – to put the cherry on top of the Obama cake. The second is that the country, if it found it easier to hold its nose and elect Mr. Trump than to hold its nose and elect Mrs. Clinton, would be empowering a man who has built a campaign on promising to restore America to greatness, but whose plans and policies for doing so remain largely a secret – forcing one to deep-search his past record for clues as to his likely future behavior. That record suggests that he is, at heart, a progressive Democrat with autocratic tendencies.

How has it come to this? Why, after so many outrageous statements, insults, pettiness, acts of self-love, and other mistakes that would have ended anyone else’s campaign, is this man still in the running, indeed holding the lead?

Rush Limbaugh, though not widely regarded as a penetrating analyst, has provided the answer: Trump makes people feel good. His supporters do not care about his views regarding economic growth, negative interest-rates, free markets, tax policy, free trade, foreign policy, national defense, China, Iran, executive orders, ObamaCare, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, environmental issues – in short, with the single exception of immigration policy, they do not give a hoot about the stuff people usually spend an election year arguing about. What they care about is that, despite all the bragging, pouting, and other forms of childish behavior, the essence of Mr. Trump’s appeal is his non-stop promises to make America as strong and respected as it used to be, to kick sand in the faces of our enemies – foreign and domestic. He makes his acolytes feel good. He gives them hope that he will make their lives better. He is a snake oil salesman, and he is leading a cult. The best precedent in American politics for the Trump campaign might be the campaigns of the “Kingfish,” Huey Long, who was elected governor of Louisiana in the 1920s on a populist platform (“every man a king”) that was no more substantive than what Mr. Trump is putting forward.

It would be futile for Mr. Trump’s opponents to try to debate the issues with him, because his followers do not care about the issues – and he is smart enough to recognize this and to generally stay away from the issues. Calling him a liar, a hypocrite, a closet Democrat, a bankrupt, an eminent domain-abuser, etc., is equally futile, as he has provided the proof that over 30% of Republican voters would probably vote for an ax murderer who makes them feel good. Short of a competitive alternative, 30% will be enough.

The only way to beat Mr. Trump is for the Republicans to settle on a single alternative candidate who can attract a big enough chunk of the other 70% to snatch the nomination away from Mr. Trump. Most of these guys need to step up and take one for the team, promptly, before they and their country go down in infamy.

Short of that act of statesmanship, nothing can be done. The Trumpies, the 30%, cannot be deprogrammed or given exit counseling. The Trump movement cannot be stopped by rhetoric, debate performances, “ground game,” marketing and media management, etc., no matter how much better than Trump’s. Only Rubio can stop him, and even he cannot do it unless Cruz withdraws (fat chance) or both Kasich and Carson withdraw. Practically speaking, time is short – is it already too late?

It is no surprise that a nation willing to elect a Barack Obama might be willing to elect a Donald Trump. Anyone who claims to be appalled by President Obama’s government-by-executive-order should not be surprised if it turned out that Mr. Trump, who has spent his adult lifetime issuing executive orders imperiously in the private sector, cannot resist the temptation to do the same as President Obama.

Republicans should be paying attention to the fact that Mr. Trump is no fan of free trade, that his foreign-policy positions lean strongly toward the insular views of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, that he has often voiced support for single-payer, government-controlled healthcare systems (despite his nominal criticism of ObamaCare), and that his aversion to excessive regulation appears to be based more upon the ubiquity and poor quality of our regulations than upon any objection to the executive branch’s usurpation of the role of the legislative branch. We should notice that Mr. Trump’s energetic criticism of Chief Justice Roberts is based upon Mr. Trump’s disappointment over the outcomes of some of the Roberts opinions – the fact that the wrong side won. We should notice that Mr. Trump ignores – or maybe just fails to understand – the fact that the Roberts opinions were built upon bedrock conservative judicial principles: the original meaning of the Constitution, the separation-of-powers structure (we should seek ways to validate acts of Congress, not to overrule them), and the principle that cases must be decided on the basis of the facts and the law rather than the court’s feelings about the law or the parties.

There is much to like about Mr. Trump’s opposition to political correctness, his direct and forthright criticism of people and things he does not like or admire, his “tough guy” patriotism, his general iconoclasm, even his boastful and overbearing personality. His approach is unique, but not necessarily troublesome. His personal character and the substance of his views, are what is troubling. Any Republican, and not just conservatives, should be concerned about Mr. Trump’s track record of giving most of his political contributions – and his votes – to Democrats, about his willingness to abuse the process of eminent domain as a tool of real estate development, about his decidedly un-conservative views on free trade and free markets, about the risk that he would employ the Obama technique of by-passing Congress whenever it refused to give him what he wanted, and about whether he has the strength of character to act decisively and correctly in matters involving national defense and security. We should be concerned about whether his approach to foreign policy will be as wise as it is bombastic. We should be concerned about his blustery threats to retaliate against Mexico and China and others who might not do what he wants them to do. We should be concerned that, as my fellow Texans might say, he is all hat and no cattle. We should be concerned that going from Obama to Trump would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. An autocrat, regardless of personality, is still an autocrat.

Living in Texas, one learns that there is a form of conservatism that is more concerned with abortion, gun control, gay marriage, gender equality, and illegal-alien marauders than it is about the economy and national security. Texas conservatives tend to focus upon “values,” not principles; they may be fans of business but they have little interest in Milton Friedman or Hayek and will give you a blank stare if you mention “central planning.” The high end of Texas conservatism is the politics of the Bush dynasty, which are “compassionately” conservative (in an unenthusiastic way) and are pro-business (with such enthusiasm as to resemble crony capitalism), but are untroubled by the abuse of executive orders and federal regulations to sidestep the Congress in order to achieve economic objectives. In particular, the Bushes (especially Jeb) regularly come up with elaborate new programs to achieve conservative outcomes, while oblivious to the fact that this type of central planning and government regulation is anathema to those adhering to conservative principles of government. It is ironic that the conservatism of Mr. Trump, if he is conservative at all, is more like that of a Bush conservative than that of a Reagan or Buckley conservative.

Mr. Trump’s focus upon outcomes is hard to distinguish from the focus upon outcomes that drives his criticism of Chief Justice Roberts’s opinions: in each context, picking the preferred winners and losers is thought to be more important than following principles. Mr. Trump, like the Bushes and many other Republicans, seems oblivious to the principle that outcomes-based government is a form of corruption, an invitation to the practice of crony capitalism. Indeed, the focus upon outcomes has become ubiquitous: the simple-minded, outcomes-oriented approach of Mr. Trump is not just an indulgence of the hoi polloi, it is a strategy enthusiastically embraced by such well-known, self-described conservatives as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham.

From the perspective of the Trumpies, Trump is the obvious choice, based upon the famous William F. Buckley imperative: nominate the best conservative who can win. For others, Trump fails to meet that standard – not because he cannot win, but because he is not a conservative. A Trump election would be a defeat for conservatism, not a victory.

If you want to understand the essence of the Obama White House, its historical significance, you could hardly do better than to read “Cheer Up, Obama’s Legacy Can Be Erased,” by Phil Gramm and Michael Solon, in the 12/21/15 edition of the Wall Street Journal. The writers might have intended only to cheer us all up, by showing how easy it would be to un-do the damage of the latest seven years. But, in showing us that most of that damage (other than the original iteration of ObamaCare) has been accomplished by “executive orders,” rather than by actions of our legislative branch, and in observing that every single executive order can be rescinded by a subsequent executive order, Messrs. Gramm and Solon have accomplished a more significant task. By identifying the most significant Obama executive orders, they have not just given us an agenda for the reversal of the Obama “transformation,” they have provided an alarming demonstration of just how far this President has gone in neutering Congress and dismantling our tripartite system of government, checks and balances and all. Regardless of any substantive merit to the Obama orders, those orders undermine – and threaten – our unique form of constitutional government. And if you think that opinion is held solely on the right side of the aisle, check out the ongoing tirade against legislation-by-the-presidency by the very-liberal Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School. (Just Google “Jonathan Turley on Obama.”)

In an earlier post, this column defended the opinions of Chief Justice John Roberts, urging that he is misunderstood, that he does not pick winners and losers, that his loyalty is not to any political party or political cause, it is solely to our democracy. Specifically, this column believes that the chief, in his “pro-Obama” opinions on ObamaCare and other matters, was simply trying his best to find ways to support the acts of our legislature, regardless of whether those acts might have been unwise or ambiguous. He was honoring our democracy, our separation of powers, our treatment of Congress as the nation’s sole legislator. Would that our President shared that reverence for our system. The fact that nearly all of the President’s “accomplishments” could be so easily reversed, is the ultimate confirmation that he has grossly abused his executive powers.

Yes, there are precedents for presidential issuance of executive orders, but there is little to be gained from comparing those orders to the record of executive orders issued by FDR, Nixon, Clinton, and Bush the Younger (not to mention Lincoln), because no President before Obama gave orders that were as topically comprehensive, as abusive of authority, as dismissive of the functions of Congress, as devoid of the excuse that they were merely clarifications of statutes. Until Obama, no President had given us reason to compare his executive orders to the neutering of the Roman Senate by the emperor Augustus.