So thanks to Pete especially for keeping the fire going in a conservative yet postmodern way. I certainly agree that not only will Trump implode, he’s actually in the process of imploding. That’s partly the result of the whole Republican/conservative establishment deploying every rhetorical trick possible to take him out with such startling revelations as “He’s not really a Republican.” I can’t help but regard these efforts as, well, a little hysterical. The key fact is that Trump is his own worst enemy.

Meanwhile, Bill Galston (too conservative to be a Democrat, but dislikes oligarchic Republicans even more) has proclaimed that, at the end of the day, the Republican nominee will be one of the five competent candidates: Bush, Rubio, Walker, Cruz, or Kasich. The others, including Trump, will be gone right after Iowa, if not sooner. Five real candidates is a lot, and that raises the prospect, with all the early states allotting delegates proportionally, of a brokered convention. That would be a disaster, given that the convention as convention no longer has any legitimacy. But it’s still very unlikely to happen. The contest will probably be winnowed down to two or at most three by March 1. My tentative prediction is Rubio and one other.

My own opinion is that Fiorina will turn out to be more formidable than Kasich, and I’m not quite ready to count out either Paul or Christie.

A Bush–Kasich ticket would have the advantage of being a team apparently marked by prudence and executive competence that covers the two key swing states. It would also be a charisma-free zone and one that wouldn’t be able to promise credibly a lot of conservative reform. If it turns out that Bush, Kasich, and Cruz are the last candidates standing, Cruz will get the nomination. And go down (as they did at the Alamo) with flags flying and guns blazing in November.

A Rubio–Fiorina ticket actually does better in covering as many relevant bases as possible. Rubio and Fiorina certainly both sound very competent. There’s a lot of dispute over how competent Fiorina’s record of executive leadership actually was. And Rubio’s ability to lead and herd men remains a question.

What about Walker? I’ll talk to you when and if he wins in Iowa.

It goes without saying that Trump supporters want resolute executive competence — the kind that turns the other guys into losers. People, however, are equally attracted to the anti-Trump qualities of authentic decency and real accomplishment in improving the lives of others. That’s why Ben Carson seems to have actually benefited the most from the first debate through his last two very personal statements. It’s possible that Carson will have more staying power in Iowa than Trump, and that would be at the expense mainly of Walker and Cruz. I certainly don’t think Ben can or should be president, but, as the only presidential candidate I’ve had lunch with several times, he is, I can tell you, a singularly wonderful man, despite his relative cluelessness on many policy issues.

Meanwhile, it’s come to my attention that most schools comparable to my Berry have, over the last couple of years, reconfigured their general-education programs in terms of “competencies.” It appears that Berry will be next, given that we can’t afford, we think, to display deviant behavior on such an important educational issue. The best way to resist this trend is to have an educational mission devoted to kinds of excellence that can’t be reduced to competencies. I like to hear from anyone whose school has successfully engaged in such a dissident effort. I’ll say more about competencies later.