Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Are the Checks and Balances?
This election year makes a mockery of past complaints about the “lesser of two evils.” That cliché has been trotted out in every election of my lifetime. In every previous contest though, the choice was not between evils. It was often between flawed candidates (think George W. Bush), and bad candidates (e.g. Al Gore or John Kerry).
This year’s decision is different. Hillary Clinton would be a conventional bad candidate (in a substantive, not stylistic sense) were it not for the revelations about the email server. Her deception, her greed, her progressive views are all terrible (if dismayingly familiar), but the indifference to national security she demonstrated in the use of a private server (on which she did, despite denials, transmit classified information), places her on a plane that no national candidate has occupied before. She should be disqualified for commander-in-chief.
Donald Trump too should be debarred. Commentary magazine’s John Podhoretz likened the gradual acceptance of Trump on the right to the human response to putrid odors. “After about the first 45 seconds, disgust abates as the brain accustoms itself.” I cannot think of a more striking example of defining deviancy down.
In order to make their peace with Trump, some apologists argue that the “guardrails” of the American constitutional system are robust enough to withstand even the depredations of an unstable, mendacious, would-be autocrat.
I wouldn’t care to test that gamble under the best of conditions. If something is truly precious, you don’t want to risk its safety. You wouldn’t set fire to the White House secure in the knowledge that the sprinkler system is in working order.
And these are hardly the best of conditions. The Founders included the Electoral College in the Constitution to guard against demagogues, or in Alexander Hamilton’s words, men with “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” but lacking the requisite “ability and virtue.” The Electoral College, as originally envisioned, is a dead letter today. So much for that guardrail.
What checks and balances remain on an out-of-control president?
If Clinton is elected, assuming that it is not a landslide that sweeps in a Democratic House and Senate, the Congress will oppose her. She will not get her universal pre-K or tax increases or “free” college tuition or a “public option” in Obamacare or the Paycheck Fairness Act. She could still do damage through regulation. The abuse of executive discretion during the Obama years shows just how much latitude presidents now enjoy to impose their will through the executive agencies. The leeching of power out of Congress and to the executive has been ongoing for decades, but Obama was particularly flagrant in abusing power to impose policies – e.g., climate rules or health law changes — traditionally reserved for the legislative branch.
Would the courts be able to thwart Clinton? To a point. Even the Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court ruled against Obama on a number of executive power cases. Then again, what if the president flouts the courts as Andrew Jackson did?
Is the press a check on abuse of power? Will it cover a Hillary Clinton presidency the way it covered Bill Clinton’s (aggressively) or the way it covered Obama’s (pusillanimously)? I’d guess the former, but who knows? Also, the press is held in such low regard by the public that it may not even qualify as a guardrail.
What checks would there be on a President Trump? Presumably, he’d have a Congress of his (lately acquired) party. If he were to attempt to impose some of the left-of-center policies he favors — universal health care, for example — would the Republican Congress oppose him? What about on trade? Or raising the federal minimum wage? Punishing American companies that move plants overseas? Changing the libel laws? Some of the same people who excoriated the Republican Congress for supposedly “giving Obama everything he wanted” now attempt to reassure Trump opponents that Republicans in Congress would stand up to a president (nominally) of their own party. Almost all Republicans have failed to counter Trump now, before he’s invested with the vast powers of the presidency. It’s fantasy to imagine that they will find their voices later.
As for the press, they’d oppose Trump as hysterically as ever, but as to their influence, see above. Ditto the courts.
In foreign policy, through law and custom, presidents enjoy tremendous latitude. Always have.
So the institutional guardrails are quite rickety. In the end, the only true guardians of a liberal republic are the people themselves. They must prescribe minimal standards of decency. I will be voting for Evan McMullin, the only candidate (of 5) who doesn’t pose a threat to our national welfare.
Published in General
I always look forward to Mona’s column. Not because I think she ever think she has anything unique or interesting to say, mind you, but because so many of you are so damn good at pointing that out.
It would help if she’d engage her opponents in the comments once or twice a year, but our expertise are obviously beneath hers so I’m not counting on it.
In the meantime, the beltway experts so many of us think have no connection with everyday people have their very own mascot here on Ricochet.
I said nothing of “disqualification.” That’s the language of NeverTrumpers. Originally, NeverTrump was not about comparing Candidate A against Candidate B. It required a candidate to surpass a threshold of integrity. That is, saying that Trump is preferable to Hillary was invalid because neither candidate cleared the threshold.
But now, you’re literally comparing team McMullin to team Trump while ignoring the fact that McMullin’s candidacy is entirely dependent on a man whose crudity of rhetoric far exceeds anything coming out of the Trump camp. Fascinating.
Rick Wilson’s “crudity of rhetoric far exceeds anything coming out of the Trump camp”? Anything that’s ever come out of the Trump camp?
That’s ridiculous, but you are correct that the main reason for objecting to Trump and Clinton is that neither Trump nor Clinton has met the lowest bar in the character/integrity category for someone I would want to be a president of the US. Here I am not talking about campaign managers or surrogates. I am talking about the candidates.
Also, I am not voting for a candidate because he makes me feel good. I’m voting for a candidate who meets my basic standards for what I think is a decent human being as well as good leader.
Typically when someone calls someone else a “political mercenary” while highlighting a surrogate he doesn’t like, he is saying a candidate has gone too far and is not qualified, as I would say Clinton and Trump who have hired plenty of “political mercenaries” are not qualified.
But those weren’t the words you used, so I stand corrected.
Honestly, I don’t understand what’s difficult about my position. I definitely don’t understand the ire directed at a columnist’s opinion. But ok.
No ire here.
Please point me to crudity of rhetoric from the Trump camp since your candidate decided to challenge him that exceeds Wilson’s schoolyard rhetoric.
If McMullin is such a good candidate, why does his campaign rely so heavily on the likes of Rick Wilson and his awful behavior.
Please provide evidence that McMullin has presidential leadership skills.
Trump himself has directed personal attacks at many opponents as well as large swaths of the American electorate. These are well documented, and I’m sure you’re familiar with many of them.
On a playground, Rick Wilson might try to pull Ann Coulter’s pigtail, but she’d take his balls from him in a New York second, and you know it.
Looking closer at the campaign, Stephen Bannon told Sarah Posner at the convention that he had built a platform for the alt-right, sooooooo….
I’m sure you’re aware of the filth that is spewed by some over there at Breitbart on a daily basis, which is a billion times more crude and awful than anything Rick Wilson has ever thought of saying. Those guys are, actually, “the core” to which Wilson was referring in your clip, though he probably should have made the distinction between *them* and wider Trump support.
Oh! If you say all this alt stuff comes from “Never Trump Conspiracy Land” or minimize its impact, we can go to actual conspiracy land with the littler Trump minions like Alex Jones, et al.
As for leadership skills, I know what Evan McMullin did in the CIA. He inspires me to follow him whereas I wouldn’t trust the Donald’s directions to the bathroom. I won’t even “bow down” to a President Trump, whatever Omarosa says, if he wins. (I will hope I’m wrong about him.)
Hope that answers your questions. ;)
We both know that neither Trump nor his surrogates have any record of an attack equivalent to Rick Wilson’s rant that I linked to. But regardless of team Trump’s behavior, team McMullins’ behavior is (presumably) deplorable by Mona Charen’s standard of civility.
We both know that McMullin’s leadership experience is extremely thin.
The McMullin campaign’s heavy reliance on the likes of Rick Wilson and his awful behavior remains unexplained. The fact that McMullin’s leadership and influence cannot produce a more upstanding surrogate than the deplorable and ill-mannered Rick Wilson proves that McMullin is not ready for national office. His only purpose is to upend the candidacy of the Republican nominee. The fact that all of this is done in the name of conservatism is particularly shameful.
The fact that Mona Charen holds him up as an iconic Conservative and promotes his candidacy is pathetic. But, if you are inspired by this man, then by all means vote for him.
We conflate Trump’s words during the primaries with Hillary’s actual deeds over decades of public life. Many of the dumb things Trump said were from ignorance not evil or whatever it is that drives Hillary. Ignorance is bold but also curable.
Unfortunately, @lois-lane, you have taken an absolute position about the character of a candidate, and the position that those he chooses to associate with are intimately linked with that.
Therefore, by your standards, no comparison’s with other candidates are relevant; no “better than the other guy” arguments allowed. And you approve of all those your candidate chooses to associate with or accept support from. Again, by your standards.
By your standards, you are a Rick Wilson fan. And you sleep fine.
Right. Because Rick Wilson is talking about a core group of Trump supporters that I personally find vile. They are gross. They are racists. They are worse than anything Rick Wilson said. And the fact that so many Trump apologists want to ignore their existence–want to pretend that Rick Wilson was talking about a Trump voter in Michigan who is sickened by Benghazi and just wants to keep his job on the line–says a lot more about *them* than it says about Rick Wilson.
Anyway, I think Alan to whom I’ve linked outdoes Rick Wilson any day of the week, @rico, and you and I both know that Stephen Bannon has purposefully given the Alans of the world a place to hang out on a regular basis and spew eloquence such as this. Every day. All the time. Yee haw.
So either you know nothing, Jon Snow, or you embrace that darkness.
Even so, I wish you all well. I’m sure you have your reasons.
Some Trump supporters are enthusiastic about him. Most are not. We just recognize we have a practical choice. A crappy choice, but a practical one.
You are different. You will not stoop to making a practical choice. You have stated a standard by which you own the supporters of your candidate of choice. You may attempt to impose this standard on others, but it does not conform to their stated practical decision process. Your standard, however, speaks directly to your state of mind, whereby you own the vitriol and vile conduct of the likes of Rick Wilson. People are entitled to judge you and Rick Wilson as one.
On the other hand, by our stated decision process (i.e., Hillary vs. Trump and the best crappy choice) we are free to repudiate whatever Trump supporters or spokespeople we find unacceptable case-by-case, and we are committed to hold Trump’s feet to the fire as best we can should he win.
Your comparisons are void because you have voided them ab initio.
Who is Jon Snow?
I’m not trying to impose anything on anyone else. My standards are my own, and I live by my own principles. Nor are these principles voided in any way because I find Rick Wilson’s position on the alt-right acceptable.
It’s actually comical that in the face of this last year, you find what @rico described as a “playground rant” about the alt-right so disturbing.
But fair enough. I own Rick Wilson. Okay. Sure. I’ll take John Podhoretz, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, and… yes. Mona, too.
You can have Paul Manafort, Corey Lewindowski, Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Stephen Bannon with his army of Alans, and Donald Trump himself.
Whether your choice is pragmatic or not, those are all part of the Trump package, you see.
The fact that you don’t know Jon Snow makes me think you’re a bit older than I am. But it’s a pop culture reference.
I will respect your vote in November as your vote cast per your standards… however you define them. If your guy is elected, I hope he does a good job. If not, I hope something better is offered in 2020.
That’s about all I can say really. Have a good day.
(And just to head off another comment… I know that not all those people are necessarily voting for Evan McMullin. Podhoretz, for example, recognizes he’s a unicorn, and he’s not into unicorns. But as far as I know per their public writings, they’re off the Trump Train for reasons that are similar to my own.)
That’s delusional. Your entire argument is based on this. Immediately below this demurral you proceed to impose.
I probably have red coming out my… Cause I’m hysterical, too.
Thanks for so clearly demonstrating my point.
I don’t know who Alan is and I don’t know who Jon Snow is. Are either of them Republican consultants paid by Conservatives to undermine the Republican nominee?
Interesting that McMullin is raising the level of discourse by introducing Alan to Conservatives. Not sure most Conservatives would approve such a use of scarce financial resources, but clearly
McMullin was able to find backers who do.some anti-Republican financiers found a candidate to carry their banner.@rico and @arioironstar,
I don’t believe anyone in the McMullin campaign has ever been *arrested* for battery… not even that despicable Rick Wilson. But hey. I do have a job, so I might not have kept up?
Regardless, you are arguing that the Alans of the world don’t stick to you even though the latest campaign manager (who is, I believe, on the Trump payroll) has openly talked about fostering the sort of rhetoric Alan is spewing by giving the alt-right a platform, because you’re making a pragmatic choice. This isn’t about standards for you. Questions of character have nothing to do with it. You are never responsible for the principles lifted up by the man you support because your vote isn’t about principles.
This is in contrast to me who has said I reject Trump (and Clinton) because I find him (her) unfit for office. The Rick Wilsons of the world stick to me because I’m arguing that character matters in my decision making process.
Fine, but I’m okay with what Rick Wilson said. This is because I agree when he calls out the alt-right (i.e. the Alans) for being disgusting. The alt-right is disgusting. Like. Gross. Sick. Disturbing. Bad.
Evan McMullin is not introducing Alan to conservatives either. Alan introduced Alan to conservatives. Alan is why Trump pretends not to know David Duke.
As for Jon Snow… You guys should pay some attention to culture outside politics. ;)
So now you’re back to arguing that your guy is bad but Trump is worse. I thought the whole purpose of standing up McMuffin was a protest against Trumpism. It turns out that you’re claiming merely a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
I learned about him through the McMullin for President ad that you shared. Why would anyone take a nobody like Alan seriously?
No, let’s be honest about this. Rick Wilson is calling out Trump by trying to tie him to the Alt-Right. Trump is the subject of the interview. Nothing could be clearer.
Okay, I googled him. Are you saying that watching Game of Thrones in some way informs this discussion?
Can you hear me sigh @rico? I’m doing just that in my living room.
I’m not arguing equivalency. I’m saying flat out that Rick Wilson is better than Trump’s staff because I think he is justified in his positions. I applaud him for rejecting some of the people Trump has courted.
Wilson is highlighting a segment of people who flock to the Donald, but Trump tied himself to the alt-right when he hired Bannon.
Regardless, I wish you well, and I hope you’re happy with either President Trump or whatever is left of the Republican Party under a President Clinton.
You’re making a pragmatic decision. I understand! It’s a binary choice! If you were king of the world, you’d go in a different direction!
Cool. No problem. I can hold you in a separate space than I hold myself & without judgement.
As we both go to the polls in November, I’m sure we both love the country. I hope I’m wrong about the consequences of Trump’s run (a Clinton presidency) OR the consequences of a Trump presidency (not good).
Either way, we all must live with our own decisions.
And yeah. Though I’d read G.o.T. rather than watch a show, I do think allusions to literature create larger frameworks for big ideas that do inform discussions like this one.
You don’t know the books, so the allusion was lost. Nbd. (Shrugs on couch.)
You’re are on a roll. It’s honorable announce that one cannot vote for Trump – and make that known in a few columns. The uninterrupted spleen-venting in columns/podcasts that has the subconscious implication for readers/listners that anyone who does vote for Trump belongs in…in…..a basket of horribles.
@lois-lane, one last time: arguing this way concedes our point about the necessity of comparison. Nothing you say afterwards matters unless you admit that a comparison matters. But then you have to consider the comparison between Hillary and Trump, which you refuse to do. But then you go back to comparing.
It’s ridiculous, but you might grow out of it. Alas, Mona will not.
That is condescending as all get out.
But let me try to explain this in a different way for you, too.
One can engage in multiple lines of reasoning, you know. It’s not that hard to do. Comparison is important, and I compare people, campaigns, policy initiatives, records, character, statements, staffs, pluses, minuses, etc. all the time.
One thing which I can compare per Clinton and Trump is how far beyond the pale each is. Leaving the pale is like crossing a red line, you see. Once you’ve gone over it, you’ve gone over it. But I can still measure how far.
Where’s McMullen in this?
Imagine in your mind a Venn diagram with multiple circles. In the space where Hillary and Donald interlock, I’ve written “beyond the pale.”
I can still also see other things about them and compare them to my guy.
Now, “beyond the pale” is a deal breaker for me. Sure. But I can see where the D and R stack up with those circles that are locked over “in the pale.”
I think your problem is that you’ve decided there’s only a “binary choice,” so you’re unable to process information outside a T chart.
I’m not working with a T chart.
That’s the only difference between me and you.
That… and who we’re voting for. ;)
Take care.
@lois-lane, love your beyond the pale analysis. With your permission, I’ll probably employ in the future. One way I have expressed a similar view when asked why I voted for Dole, McCain, Romney, etc. but now have to draw the line at Trump is this.: if Reagan is like The bountiful goodness of whole milk, which I prefer, I could still persuade myself to drink the watered down version. Think skim or 2%. Not as good as the original, but good enough in a pinch. But I’ll be damned if I will drink rat poison (Trump) just because it comes in a paper carton and is approved by the American dairy Association. He’s beyond the pale (or beyond the pail-in keeping with my milk analogy). ;)
@mrconservative. Use away! Your addition of the dairy association is awesome though I was thinking about Irish history in which we find the origin of the phrase… Rat poison indeed.
Thank you, Mona.
Full disclosure: I grew up in the Soviet Union, I am too well versed in the concept of “Party Loyalty” – and the devastating enormity of its moral cost. Every evil committed in the name of that fetish was justified by “good” of some higher order. Scorched land and depravity are left in its wake. Russia will remain in ruins for the generations to come because of that.
What I have watched in numb disbelief in rise of Trump and eager servility of Republican leaders of all stripes to crawl on their knees in loyalty to him, including previously respected Mrs. Rubio, Cruz, ea., is that none of them were even remotely threatened by the adversity ever so slightly approximating NKVD mid-night nock on the door and Butirka and Gulag torture.
The ease with which these individuals completely abandoned their so-called principals is truly astounding.
Charles Krauthummer is once again correct when he says (I’m paraphrasing) that ‘when a politician says he “searched one’s conscience’ it means that he spend very little time in a very small space’.
What a travesty!
Many thanks to Mona, Jay, Jonah, Kevin, Charles, Rob and Ricochet and National Review for the oasis of sanity and decency. It would be a lot harder to bear.
And there is no reason to “get real”