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.
Resolved: The Party Split Has Nothing to Do With Trump
The Republican Party was split long before Trump came along. I recall talking with one Joe Hoffman about when the Republican Civil War would begin. I think I said 2006 if W was not reelected, and 2010 if he was. If that’s not exactly what I said, it’s mi-i-ighty close.
The Republican Party is still split. Trump may or may not be gone.
There were people here on Ricochet (no longer present) in the run-up to Trump’s (magnificent, stupendous, yuuge) election who practically screamed about how the world’s economy was guaranteed to collapse if Trump should be elected, that the wars would bring about unspeakable horror anew, that all of our allies would oppose and might possibly invade us to ensure law and order, and all sort of unhinged apocalyptic nonsense. We were all stupid or evil, with (for a time) regular denunciations of the Trump right as various forms of midcentury German and Italian political systems. Notice that now those people are strongly aligned with the left, with admittedly globalist causes, and at best subscribing only to twee niche, ghostly nametag conservatism.
There’s a reason for that. The divide is older than Trump, and in fact has nothing to do with him.
I’m not running from my Trumpism. I’ll stand on that ground anytime. At the same time, I hold that the (I guess we still have this term) “NeverTrump” sorts are so focused on Trump the man because that means they don’t have to engage on the actual split. [EDIT: To them, I am] not a limited government conservative who remembers the serial betrayals of 2008 spending levels, sequestration, the supercommittee, Obamacare, never-ending Gang of Eightism, about-face on nominee loyalty pledges, and all the more recent stuff. Nope. I can simply be dismissed as a Trumpkin. Pathologizing the opposition is easily half of what modern politics is about. It’s as old as any form of dehumanization prior to slaughter. Thankfully, all we spill here is ink — but the human reflex is nothing new. The other is unclean. My side does it too: “TDS.” [EDIT: And I certainly (famously!) used epithets about collaborationist French and Norwegians to drive my point home back in the day.]
(You won’t hurt my feelings calling me a Trumpkin. Certainly nobody has recently. I haven’t even seen the word here recently except in my own usage. I rather like the word, and I use it here simply as shorthand for a whole complex of dismissive name-calling.)
“Trump” is big-party GOP’s preferred pronoun for “issues.”
This is not a carp about Ricochet. To address that directly, the site no longer features contributors or editors who engage in “that sort of thing,” or another sort of more contentious problem — some other time, perhaps, for that one. Complain if you like, but the place is much better for a number of reasons. As Mark Camp points out, perhaps it was my absence that really helped. Seriously, you can tell that the place is simply better run than it was. I bring up the former crowd simply to point out it seems to have gravitated to a far less conservative crowd after assailing the conservatism of those who were fed up with the GOP for its lack of conservatism. Please don’t bring up old names of the departed. We all know the syndrome.
Any person (ahem!) who wishes may certainly run this post into the ground with anti-Trump comments and so forth. Those would be quite on-topic here, so no hurt feeling flags on comments in this thread, okay?
To recap: Resolved: The party was split long before Trump and will remain split if it survives, well past Trump. The split has very little to do with Trump.
I’m FOR the proposition. I’ll put two comments in for voting. Then let the food fight begin. Again, no flags unless somebody is just cruising for it — regardless of side.
Published in General
That’s one reason why I like it.
Indeed. It need not serve any purpose other than that, in order to justify its existence.
That’s a clear line indeed, one I may have been on the wrong side of. However, it goes back farther than that: free market vs fiscal responsibility, fiscal responsibility vs social issues, moderates vs draconian extremists, fight vs surrender er I mean compromise.
The “Trump is a symptom, not the disease” has always been a valid argument. What is dispiriting is the lack of alternatives. Where is the person that is both anti-Trump and anti-pre 2o16 GOPe? Until someone steps into that void the former President remains the frontrunner.
That’s why the Liz Cheneys and the Adam Kinzingers are so ineffective and so utterly useless. Their war is centered on Jan. 20, 2021. All they had to do is say, “Trump’s time has come and gone, we’re focusing on the future.” Instead when Aunt Nancy asked them to do her bidding they both said, “Where do I sign up?” Stupid, stupid, stupid.
This one’s great. I particularly like the eagle with the vulcan cannon. It’s not that I don’t like them.
You’re answering your own question. Most anti-Trumpism is simply PRO pre-2016-GOPe-ism wearing the latest holey jeans.
Acid wash!
Wherever they are, they certainly don’t seem to exist in numbers large enough to detect without a telescope.
It’s only stupid if we believe that that they erred in light of their political values. I don’t believe that anymore; to the extent that they have political values which would make such a move stupid, I believe those values are secondary (at best) to their status and ambition. Which makes the move more corrupt and craven than stupid.
I thought that was DeSantis.
Just sayin’ the Republican governor of the state where I live is up for re-election next year. I will not be voting for him. Since winning in 2018, his main accomplishments have been a tax increase and a mask mandate. He also tried to pass new gun restrictions.
You want the split in the party? There it is.
Dancing Trump has always been excellent. Twenty of them would be good too.
Maybe I overstated it. But I could watch this all day.
In some states, the Republican is the one who wants to pass new gun restrictions. The Democrat is the one who wants an outright ban. (Except for BLM, Antifa, MS-13…)
Just like ol Geo. HW used to make.
I have often said the Bushes were the worst thing to happen to the Republican Party since John Wilkes Booth.
I’m tellin’ ya. The GOP is not a conservative party. Some conservatives find a home in it, but it is no longer a natural fit.
It’s time for an actual conservative party in this country. Let the GOP die — or merge with the DNC — which is a much more natural fit for them.
It does and it doesn’t have to do with Trump. The party has and always will have factions. That is inevitable in a two-party system.
How that split is manifested is a function of the personalities of the faction leaders. Trump is basically a class traitor. He was part of the elite who turned on the elite. They won’t forgive him for that. Trump doesn’t initiate the over-the-top rhetoric or start the conspiracies, but reacts to them. Frankly, I don’t think he takes the actions against them that are effective or anticipates them well. He doesn’t know who his friends and enemies are, especially when they’re wearing a uniform and have a lot of glitter. But he sure beats the alternative.
BTW, I am glad we have a two-party system. Look at Germany. It will be politicians making deals for power as they move away from what they promised in the election.
How is that different from what we get?
It might even be better for the DNC if they did. Might actually bring about a return to more rational politics. However, I think these guys were playing R because they had no influence in the D party. That’s going to be even worse now than it was in the 60s.
It’s like the Tories in the UK being called “the party that wins elections.” Boris has done damn few conservative things with that majority.
Same with the GOP in the years they held both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. They only pass legislation for the base when there is a split Congress or a Dem in the White House to veto it.
You’ve noticed that, too, eh?
Six years of bills to overturn Obamacare that they knew Obama wouldn’t sign. But hey, all that talk got them donor bucks!
Donald Trump gets into the White House. What does the GOP do? They save Obamacare.
Thanks for joining the thread, Gary.
I did that for you! I liked your comment #1, so that it would be accurate. This is not unlike members of the Senate “paring” their votes when one member can’t be there due to a wedding, etc.
Gary
You are welcome. Thank you for allowing me to vote.
Well, I can’t block you or ban you, so I guess we shall just have to get along.
Game on!
Would a parliamentary system where they had to deliver (some) Conservative outcomes if they wanted Conservative support not be in some ways better? From comments here it seems as if the GOP really consists of two parties, neither completely free to pursue its agenda in Congress. Why is that better?
A House divided cannot long stand. I do not mean that it will fall. But it will cease to be divided.
You have grown on me. If you are ever in my neck of the woods, I would be happy to take you out to lunch.
You can take Ivermectin for that.
Or maybe Compound W.
Oh wait, that’s if Gary grows on YOU.
In contrast, I *wish* we had a two-party system.
The split is because the GOPe Bush and Romney were supported by the “Trump” side. But when the “Trump” side decided to elect their own and the GOPe immediately attacked them and Trump. It was then that they truly saw GOPe for what it is. It’s support for the hoaxes and election theft was too much. Betrayal usually is.