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.
Contra Jonah II
On Dec. 27, Jonah Goldberg wrote a column at NR about President Donald Trump entitled Character is Destiny. I and many others responded to his piece when I wrote on Ricochet, Contra Jonah. My post generated 410 comments, more than any other post that I have written on Ricochet. I expected that Jonah would respond to his many critics. He chose a piece by Roger Kimball at American Greatness, Jonah Goldberg and Cardinal Newman, for his sample opponent. Jonah’s response piece is on NR, Obscuring the Issue of Trump’s Character. Below is a paragraph that occurs towards the end of Jonah’s piece.
Last, I should at least acknowledge that I have allowed Roger to move the goalposts. My argument was that Trump’s presidency will end poorly because character is destiny. Even if one were to credit Roger’s new, fairly Alinskyite definition of good character — the ends justify the means and therefore good character is defined by how well one achieves those ends — it wouldn’t nullify my point. Trump’s inability to hold onto cabinet secretaries of quality; his determination to shrink his political coalition; his refusal to do the minimum due diligence to understand and thereby explain his policy preferences; his incapacity to let insults, real or perceived, go unanswered; his relentless prevarication and insurmountable narcissism; his insistence on denigrating allies; his penchant for conspiracy theories and his unwavering pettiness: All of these things are reflections of his character, too. And they will have consequences for Trump, the GOP, the conservative movement, and the country. Roger can ignore or minimize these all he likes, but it will not persuade anyone who isn’t already a believer.
This summation paragraph gives us the heart of Jonah’s point of view, a list of the “crimes” that Jonah insists make Trump’s character unacceptable as President of the United States, and a final condemnation leaving no room for reevaluation.
- Trump’s inability to hold onto cabinet secretaries of quality
- Trump’s determination to shrink his political coalition
- Trump’s refusal to do the minimum due diligence to understand and thereby explain his policy preferences
- Trump’s incapacity to let insults, real or perceived, go unanswered
- Trump’s relentless prevarication and insurmountable narcissism
- Trump’s insistence on denigrating allies
- Trump’s penchant for conspiracy theories
- Trump’s unwavering pettiness
As Jonah says of Kimball:
Roger can ignore or minimize these all he likes, but it will not persuade anyone who isn’t already a believer.
First, I will attempt to address all of these one by one. Then, I hope I can shed some extra light on this whole debate.
(1) Trump’s inability to hold onto cabinet secretaries of quality
As I have mentioned before, it is fantastically unlikely that HRC would have put Nikki Haley at the UN Ambassador spot. Nor if HRC had put her there to allow her to directly challenge North Korea nor Iran nor demand that UN bias against Israel end. As it is fantastically unlikely that HRC would have put Mad Dog Mattis at Secretary of Defense. Nor if HRC put him there would she neither would have allowed Mattis to beat ISIS nor hit Syria nor reinforce the Baltics and Poland.
Trump didn’t run on this but that is what we got. I was thrilled by it. However, those who had been relentlessly attacking him didn’t for one minute lighten the drumbeat of their attack. We don’t know what motivated Trump in the first place because he didn’t consult us (luckily). He didn’t consult us when he fired these people either. This complaint is largely a garbled Republican Party foreign policy looking a gift horse in the mouth.
(2) Trump’s determination to shrink his political coalition
Trump was given by Gd a very thin political coalition that was just enough to win. Nobody in the Republican Party thought he could. The fantasy that by floating into the middle you can expand your coalition was disproven many times. Trump did poll higher with the black vote and Hispanic vote than others. The midterm loss had nothing to do with Trump. The upper echelon of the party had concentrated all of its effort on winning Senate seats, which it did. Unfortunately, it ignored the grassroots while doing this. The combination of no ground game and not confronting the growing threat of vote harvesting (the new Democratic machine ward healers) cost the Republicans the House. Trump can’t do everything. Too much of the rest of the party did nothing but complain about Trump. Jonah is doing exactly that here.
(3) Trump’s refusal to do the minimum due diligence to understand and thereby explain his policy preferences
This is an illusory problem that exists only for pundits like Jonah. Trump’s voters neither expected nor cared about wonkish policy statements. They knew viscerally that they had been dumped on by the elites and all they wanted was for someone to assure them that it would be different. Trump was very capable of sending this message. He has also been capable of delivering a good portion of that difference. This problem is not in Trump; this problem is in Jonah.
(4) Trump’s incapacity to let insults, real or perceived, go unanswered
The White House Press corps of 50 does not have a single registered Republican on it. Hollywood is so biased that conservatives have been blacklisted for years. Academia that used to have a small contingent of conservative professors of eminent reputation has been subject to a Stalin-like purge. If the conservatives are still there, they are afraid to speak. In this environment, Trump innovated an offense against the incredible relentlessly biased attack on him. He ignored them and then smacked them with a tweet whenever he felt he needed to. Just taking it and saying nothing would have allowed this coalition of media bias to perform the Goebbels “big lie” and go unchallenged. However crude his tweeting, it broke up the Pravda-on-the-Hudson gang’s whole act.
(5) Trump’s relentless prevarication and insurmountable narcissism
Trump’s voters aren’t used to high diplomatic demeanor nor sophisticated or sophistic discourse. They want it plain so they can feel the message too. That Trump understood this and was content to always convey on the level that his audience could understand wasn’t narcissism but the reverse, immense self-control. In fact, it is narcissism to believe that a major politician can deliver a speech only for the political, intellectual elite. Again the problem isn’t in Trump; the problem is in Jonah.
(6) Trump’s insistence on denigrating allies
My father had a saying, “With a friend like that you don’t need an enemy.” Some so-called allies are undercutting you at every opportunity. Trump learned the hard way in the business world that these people can wreck your deal. His instincts in this are not only not deplorable but they have an uncanny way of being spot on.
(7) Trump’s penchant for conspiracy theories
Jonah has confused many of Trump’s supporters for Trump. Obviously, Trump’s experience in the business world made him a rather hard-headed assessor of the guy across the table from him. I don’t think Trump spends much time worrying about conspiracy theories. As the present news media is possessed by a need to manufacture false motives and difficulties in his administration, again the problem doesn’t seem to be in Trump but in those who must find a way to stop him.
(8) Trump’s unwavering pettiness
If you look closely at this list I think you will agree with me that Jonah has demonstrated his own unwavering pettiness. Trump meanwhile has produced 3+ percent growth, 3+ percent real wage growth, an American credible presence in foreign policy around the world so much so that haters of American power have begged him not to withdraw from one of his commitments, the end of Obamacare, the end of the Paris Accords, the end of the Iran Deal, the nomination and confirmation of truly conservative justices for the courts. In fact, Trump seems to be unwavering in his concern for the most significant things on his plate. It is Jonah’s list that appears petty even trivial in comparison.
Now as for those who are “not already believers,” I think that such people (as I might actually be classified as one of them) reading my rebuttal will be convinced. Those that aren’t should check their own biases.
Having adequately rebutted Jonah’s major concerns, I would like now to discuss a subject that I’m quite sure has not been discussed. That subject is the difference between Morality and Ethics. I will present Immanuel Kant’s conception of this rather than the Aristotelian Virtue Ethics version which is so prevalent. I think it will shed some light on the present discussion which has been rendering more heat than light in its present form.
Kant presents two separate formulas for Morality and Ethics. Duties of Virtue are for Morality and Duties of Right are for Ethics. Duties of Virtue are strictly concerned with an individual’s internal self-governance. They are created by an imperative that is concerned with Ends. Humanity should never be treated as a means but always as an end in itself. This includes the humanity of one’s own person. Duties of Right are strictly concerned with the governance of behavior in relation to others external to oneself. They are created by an imperative that is concerned with Right. It is Right (only in this way and no other) to coerce a coercer in such a way as to maximize the Freedom of all. Although there is Private Right without the existence of a government this Private Right is considered only provisional. Someone else can easily trample your Right. Thus, the second form of Right is Public Right. Here the formation of a government is justified solely to ensure Private Right. If the government does this then Private Right is considered conclusive. (There are more fundamentals but this will do for the purposes of this discussion)
Again, Morality is concerned solely with internal self-governance and Ethics is concerned solely with external relations between actors in the world to the extent of constructing a government to ensure their Right. If you have followed this argument (complete acceptance of this argument would require you to become a Kantian. I don’t expect that.) then you can see its relevance. We might be very critical of Trump when we are considering his personal behavior and at the same time find his capacity to coerce coercers to maximize the Freedom of all quite good. Thus on the scale of Virtue, he is lacking but on the scale of Right, he is awesome.
Let’s take the issue of sexual behavior as it will come up repeatedly anyway. Let’s compare Trump’s behavior and Clinton’s behavior not in relation to Morality but in relation to Right. Trump as a private citizen procured what amounts to a sophisticated prostitute for a one night stand. Clinton as President of the United States, in the Oval Office, had sex with an intern under his command for the extended period of a relationship. The naive intern has finally admitted that Clinton took complete advantage of her and severely damaged her life. The sophisticated prostitute has profited immensely from the relationship (as was her profession’s goal). At this point, the prostitute may have been harmed by her ambulance chasing lawyer but not Trump. In any event, the importance to Right is that this misbehavior took place outside of Trump’s role in government. Clinton’s misbehavior took place specifically while he was performing his role in government with someone who was employed by the government who was under his control.
Clinton’s behavior suggests malfeasance in his ability to govern while Trump’s does not. In fact, Jack Kennedy’s behavior while in office which probably contributed to the suicide of Marilyn Monroe is far more problematic in terms of governance (Ethics, Right) than Trump’s with Stormy. Stormy may have found it strange to be paid to keep quiet about sex when she was used to being paid to have her sexual life presented in theaters across the nation but I don’t think this constitutes abuse. Clinton was highly abusive and there can be no argument about this. This does not excuse Trump for sins against Virtue. However, it is relevant to society’s response. The case against Clinton was serious. The case against Trump is absurd. Clinton’s abuse of another’s Right should be met with coercing a coercer in such a way as to maximize the Freedom of all. Trump’s abuse of his own Virtue can only be met by repentance and that would be between himself and Gd.
Perhaps this Kantian analysis will help some of us sort out their feeling about current issues. However, I suspect that some of us are so deeply invested in their position that they don’t want any sorting out. When they project their closed mindset outward they are convinced that “it will not persuade anyone who isn’t already a believer.” I don’t agree.
Published in General
As I said in the original post on this subject, I agree with pretty much everything Jonah writes about Trump’s character. But I’ll likely be voting for him again in 2020, absent some other seismic event or nominee.
It is useful to remember what HRC would be like and how Trump is better. However, that doesn’t mean our standard for measuring Trump as a “good” president should be HRC. We adhere to our timeless principles and compare his performance to that standard. Sometimes Trump meets the standard (a number of his policies) and sometimes (character, and some of his policies) he fails.
That seems to be precisely what he’s recognizing.
A seismic nominee?
No, no. You are sooooo on the wrong side of history.
Cthulhu for President and Overlord!
I can’t see anything wrong with this position.
I think Goldberg wouldn’t either. His problem is with people who reason from policies I like to great character!
How about they run together on an Eschatological Unity ticket?
‘He ignored them and then smacked them with a tweet whenever he felt he needed to. Just taking it and saying nothing would have allowed this coalition of media bias to perform the Goebbels “big lie” and go unchallenged. However crude his tweeting, it broke up the Pravda-on-the-Hudson gang’s whole act.’
What infuriated me about the Bush/Rove Fetal Crouch position is that it resulted in people born in the late 90’ s growing to adulthood without hearing a single word in defense of Republicans and Republican ideas or hearing the truth about media bias.
Jonah’s writings and podcats on Trump’s character have tended to focus on two areas — future elections and his reliability.
If you’re all-in on Trump now and are willing to look past his character flaws, especially if you’re a social conservative, it’s going to be hard to get the swing voters to listen to you a year from now if you’re voicing outrage over Kamala Harris using Willie Brown to mistress her way into political office. Post-Clinton, whether or not that can sway voters at all is questionable, but it’s definitely a weapon that’s been de-fanged on the right at the consensual affair level (non-consensual is another story).
The other thing Jonah’s harped on is Trump’s only a situational conservative, and landed on this side of the ideological divide only because that’s where he thought the angriest segment of the swing voters were in the latter part of the Obama Administration (i.e. — when those same voters were angry at George W. Bush in 2007, Trump was paling around with Hillary Clinton). The argument there is that if Trump sees the swing voters moving to the left, he’ll have no qualms about cutting deals with Nancy Pelosi. Which he might want to do. But the Democrats aren’t inclined to give him the chance to do it right now.
They’ve done no self-searching since 2016, still think the Tide of History is on their side, and if anything, believe Hillary lost because she wasn’t progressive enough (plus Russian bots, of course). Any attempt by Trump to do some Clintonesque triangulation is merely going to make him look weak, and he hates the idea of not being seen in control. So he may be stuck with conservatives at least through 2020 if for no other reason than to maintain his image (and Rush Limbaugh already hit Trump with the ‘wimp’ card before Christmas, when it looked as though he would sign the border deal into law).
It irked me that Bush let people say “No weapons of mass destruction” when he knew perfectly well about the two WMD and the 500–a number no doubt well under way to 5,000 before Bush left office.
I know Goldberg criticized Obama’s administration
But did he ever call Obama a man of low moral character for how his administration attacked citizens who supported the opposition party?
That same standard will be used in 2020 and I wonder of those “swing Trump voters” will decide the Dem candidate will be better that what we’ve had. Trump’s margin is razor thin. I don’t think its getting bigger
What do you mean by “attacked citizens”?
On the issue of Obama’s character, here’s an example from the first page of google results where Jonah slams Obama for being a cynical, egotistical, self-serving elitist.
Right
but not of low moral character to the point that he is unfit to hold the office. Just certain “flaws” in comparison to how he goes after Trump for pre-office behavior.
As for examples, the IRS denying conservative groups non-profit status. One can tell me it’s rogue operators all day, but lifelong bureaucrats aren’t screwing with their pension unless it comes from on high.
This is a rather short critique of a rather extensive post. The O/P deserves better.
Hillary took largely the identical platform of Obama and rode it to far lower approval rates and a humiliating loss, all because her character is far worse than Obama’s.
Therefore, its time for Trumpers to stop reliving 2016 glories and address what happens when Trump’s character is put against a less baggage laden Democrat in 2020. Based on 2018 results, it doesn’t look good. So, Jonah wins easily. Keep trying though. Its fun reading excuses if nothing else.
I would like to have a man who prays for God’s guidance in the White House. Ironically, Trump actually had a guy in the White House do just that for him, whom Trump had just gotten out of a Turkish jail!
My essential understanding of morality (especially morality as a set of duties which can reasonably divided between those of internal and of external obligation) is more along the lines the difference between the Biblical boy who said “I will, but went off and did not” and the boy who said “I will not, and then changed his mind and did it anyway.” The internal duty directed the external observance.
In other words, actions speak louder than words, and for all we know Trump my believe and live by more than we give him credit for. (And who are we to judge?)
I wonder: Who is Trump, really? And when was Trump’s last affair? (Hint: long before running for president.) And who are his friends?
Of course character always matters. What has Trump’s character been since descending the golden elevator? Oh! Trump said Cruz’s father assassinated JFK! Yes. Then won the election and campaigned on Cruz’s behalf, helping him win his next fight. With enemies like this who needs friends?
Exactly. As to the rest of the argument, I’m still sorting through what “moral” means in a national leader, one whose decisions or indecision can bring life or death, even disaster for the nation. Not disaster in the hyperventilating anti-Trump-and-his-Deplorables sense, but disaster in the sense of a nation militarily or economically devastated, defeated by forces outside and inside the nation.
To paraphrase a frequent Cold War observation: Trump may be an SOB, but at least he’s not their SOB, for more than one value of “their.” Not the socialists, not the Russians, and not the so-called Republican “elite.”*
*How does one join the Republican elite anyway? There clearly isn’t any kind of aptitude test.
Um…..how about the rest of us. Or those that were less enthusiastic “at least he’s not hillary” voters. Also, running for President isn’t the same thing as BEING President. Part of the job is to describe and explain policy to the American people which can garner support for said policies and make them more successful and likely to pass congress. The “elites never liked us anyway” argument is pretty old now that we are in year 3. There is no one on God’s earth that expects a “wonkish policy statement” to ever come out of Trumps mouth. That’s fine, probably a good thing. If he showed some basic understanding of what his policies are however it might be pretty helpful in:
a. Explaining the reasoning behind his policies to the public in order to garner support.
b. giving his subordinates in the administration an idea of what the hell was going on from day to day
Guess what? If he actually does expand his support he could win again, you don’t want that?
I would/have called Trump a pragmatic Conservative. He certainly is not an idealogue. His values come from his family and his experience as a builder/developer. He doesn’t study Burke for his ideas. And, yet, he can be credited as more effectively enacting conservative policies than any Republican in 30 years.
I’m not so sure Trump is the guy with his finger in the air measuring the latest polling, but lets stipulate that he does. The biggest force moving him towards the Dems is the treachery of the Republicans who should be supporting him, but are not.
Morning Concretevol,
You have hit on a Trump weakness, one could not imagine that Trump could give an “evil empire” speech or an “SDI” speech. The set speeches at the State of the Union are ones Trump could passably give. He could have Carson or Pompeo give policy speeches. I think although it would be helpful if Trump had Reagan’s speeech giving ability, Trump’s natural strength is a public boardroom setting with cabinet members or others. Trump is pretty good off the cuff and comes across as a calm chief executive.
The Republican anti-Trump movement seems to be “Thank you, Donald, for saving us from Hillary (even though we didn’t think you could), now just leave and let a REAL Republican be President.” I didn’t know that the Republican Party had decided that we should have a British-style government. Seems kind of anti-constitutional. But maybe that is just me.
I’m not sure this constitutes a rebuttal. Using what are essentially straw man arguments against the reality of losing some quality members of his cabinet, ie “What Hillary would have done” ignores the entire premise.
What you write above, however, is (likely) entirely accurate, but doesn’t constitute a rebuttal. Secondly, the turnover of “quality” cabinet members can be discussed on its face, especially regarding the tenures of, for example, Secretary of Defense, who historically turn over every couple of years or so.
Which begs one to address Jonah’s initial premise – is Trump turning over “quality” Secs at a rate inconsistent with historical averages? That’s easy math to look up. Just from the SecDef stuff I looked at a couple of weeks ago, the answer is “No”.
I’m all for kicking Jonah in the shins at times, as I think he’s got his own set of blinders on, but I don’t the above rises to a rebuttal or much of a counter-argument. Using it as a jumping-off point for the rest of the discussion misses the opportunity to point out where Jonah thesis is wrong. I do love what you’re trying to do here, though, so please don’t take it as one massive negative response.
Also: Since I like to kick shins: If character is destiny, why did Bill Clinton win the presidential election twice? Why did Hillary “win” a Senate seat, then become SecState? Both of these individuals are highly flawed, yet wildly successful, politically, by any measure, even with Hillary’s massive flop on the presidency. In fact, Jonah only mentioned Bill Clinton once in the article, en passant.
Also, because I can’t resist: Jonah’s a Contra? Which one, red or blue pants?
I take issue with a couple of points here even though I also tend to come down on the side of defending President Trump, am not convinced his character is bad (indefensible transgressions aside) and believe you raised a couple of very good questions.
I don’t like the “action speaks louder than words” maxim or think it’s been particularly helpful to society. In the Bible, both the Old and New Testament are clear that words matter. It’s a saying that has seemed to me to have reduced the power of words and apologies. I understand the intent but I see it too often used to justify something the Bible tells me is unjustifiable.
I think we are supposed to judge President Trump’s as well as all politicians. I think it’s exactly what we, as citizens, are supposed to do. Now, to be sure, it should be done with great great humility. Incidentally, as I’m writing this, the only thing that comes to my mind I’m upset with him about that I can consider a character issue is his past infidelity. Most things I don’t like fall under personality and decorum issues. Important because it affects how others will interact with him but not as important to me as character and morality. Anyway, I don’t know how to separate matters of character, personality and policies when making my final judgement. They’re all part of my calculation.
Your questions are important because they go towards judging him… but judging him fairly… which is what I don’t think many do.
I was living in New York in the late 70s, when Trump hit the spotlight as the Page 1 voice of Rupert Murdoch’s newly-acquired New York Post, saying the things about the city pols’ incompetence and corruption to match the inside the paper. Thanks to that 40-plus year history of being the voice of the bridge-and-tunnel crowd in NYC, Trump is his own best pollster in gauging which way public sentiment is flowing. He’s always been the voice of the people angry at the elites (including at times, the GOP elites).
But as president, he’s no longer the loudest angry voice in protest, but the guy who’s supposed to do something about it, and to his credit he has in a number of areas. But that also means he’s ginned up such passionate hatred among people (mostly bi-coastal types) for whom things were going hunky-dory under Obama that he’s really blocked himself from moving away from conservatism and being viable, even if he wanted to.
Some conservatives of the blue blooded stripe (or wannabe blue blooded) had a strongly negative emotional reaction to Trump because he was nothing like them, that is, the class of people who ought to be leading the nation. What followed was a gross ton of rationalization supporting that emotional reaction. Thus, we have people insisting that all sorts of personal criteria having nothing to do with effectiveness as a politician matter more than anything else.
So LBJ could not possibly have been the most effective president ever in advancing civil rights for blacks because he was, in fact, an unalloyed racist.
And the right winger, Nixon, could not possibly have opened up diplomatic relations with China.
Bill Clinton could not possibly have reformed welfare, bringing more people out of the ghetto and the cycle of dependency than any president in decades, because he was an ardent leftist with a generally poor character.
And Eisenhower, being the penultimate military leader in a world war, would never have been the one to warn us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, stop the Korean War, and avoid additional wars.
Trump, the clown, who talked about putting his sister on the Supreme Court, could never have made 2 solid and competent conservative picks for that court.
And so on…
Presidents have often risen far above their own personal foibles. Perhaps Trump will do more of this, perhaps not. He is much less likely to soar if he doesn’t have conservative support.