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
Is not.
Comrade.
Is merely eh, how you say, optical collusion.
You mean before he applies his face?
And yet, no one will talk about it. It is just outright ignored.
The process can be very transformative.
“Craven” is my new favorite word, after “comeuppance.” Thanks.
And before “Ctesiphon”.
How many of us on this website supported Trump from the beginning? Less than 10%, but voted for him because he was running against Hillary. For me it could have been any Democrat as the party is totally corrupt and it’s voters delusional. We came to strongly support him because he moved the country in the right direction away from the only slightly less corrupt power warped Republican establishment. He scared the deeply corrupt bureaucratic establishment and the handful of consolidating digital companies who, along with the Chinese are taking over the country. It’s over unless we can wrench power away from Washington and the corrupt clicks who run New York, L.A. and a handful of other top down declining places. I simply do not understand why it is not obvious.
Great summary. Seems obvious to me.
Yep…so on point. Months-long process accepting I was a reluctant Trump voter in 2016 but alternative was unacceptable; not voting was disrespectful to those who gave all to protect that right. Heck, even if they are cheating enough to make my vote null and void, I will never make it easy on them. 2020 proved it when DJT received more votes in history. Oh yeah, sorry, other than basement Biden…are you kidding me?
Four years of the most conservative policies EV-ah (yes, including Reagan or Coolidge) made 2020 the easiest vote in history for conservatives…er, true conservatives, that is. Outrage over Trumps ‘s image and personality is conspicuous pearl clutching, especially when compared to Biden’s life-long trajectory of dishonest, shameless and corrupt behavior.
Yes, the biggest help we have in turning the prosperous suburban types around is Biden. Embarrassing foreign relations, tax and spend policies and high inflation will help join the people who did not like Trump to the Trump coalition broadly. (I think the ideas and people can meet, I don’t know that this can involve Trump the candidate)
Results:
After one day, 25 Likes, 50 votes, and 100 comments:
48 FOR, 2 AGAINST the proposition.
Science does not run on consensus, although it must at times be guided by it, as the picture is never really complete. Good thing we’re not doing science here!
The FORs have it.
You may at least say that on this day, a self-selecting sample of Ricochet members overwhelmingly supported the idea that the split in the party is not due to Trump; that it pre-dates him, and that (by implication) when Trump goes away, the Party will likely still be divided. If the party survives.
I love it when you cross-reference to your own stuff to call attention to comments that debunk your hyperbolic theories.
we see that same things with Obama, Bush (43), and Reagan. It’s not unique to Trump by any stretch.
I agree that the party divisions regarding Trump are not solely or even mostly issue-based. The so-called “split” in the GOP is usually just a spectrum. Conservatives will back “moderate” candidates because the alternative is worse. And “moderates” often back conservatives but are known to defect and “grow” on occasion.
When the Bush family or the Clintons talk about “bi-partisan” cooperation they seem to mostly mean drawing from the same pool of resident old hands when it is time to stock a new administration. Different people, slightly different politics but shared deference to establishment sensibilities, personnel and interests.
Trump is not only ill-mannered (he often is and that is so frustratingly unnecessary and counter-productive) but he does not share the presumption that the collective wisdom of the experienced ruling class is necessary and precious. That is the real third rail that animates Never-Trumpism and the well-spring of alleged fears that he was “dangerous” and “out of control”.
It HAS to be ignored, at least that is the view of the GOP. In their minds, to actually openly call into question the integrity of an election is a quick road to rebellion. For most politicians, for most Americans, we don’t want an actual conflict between the parties…in large part because it really wouldn’t be between the parties, but rather between two ideological factions that are interwoven geographically and the resultant chaos would make 1860-1865 look simple and calm. All of that being said, the true conflict in the US isn’t actually between those two ideologies, but between the gov’t and the governed. Each ideological group wants to use the gov’t to enforce their views on the governed. That is the end result of gov’t becoming so large that it is embedded into every aspect of our lives. When its that large, the individual becomes a bit player in a Kafkaesque play in which they have no control. We are constantly told that we need to elect this person or that person, and those elections do have consequences, but in fact the gov’t is so large and so bureaucratic that the elected officials have almost no power to change things, especially if they are on the right and want to reduce the size and scope of the gov’t. If you ever read The Weed Agency by Jim Geraghty, it is a great explanation of how the bureaucracy exists for itself, and the gov’t exists to feed that bureaucracy. Elected officials are just window dressing.
That is our conflict, but it is one that won’t happen. What will happen is that either one ideology will crush the other non-violently (the left is winning in case you were wondering), or one ideology will crush the other violently (my bet is on the left again because they are more willing to USE violence to attain their goals). The sad part is that, like almost all revolutions, what comes afterwards will not be what either group wanted, but something completely different. Along the way, the US will lose its world leadership position (a goal of the left), its economic dominance (a goal of the left), and many people will die (lowering the carbon footprint). The US will be a shell of its former self because, unlike in 1865, the winner (most likely the left) doesn’t have a plan to make the US more powerful. Their ideology is to weaken the US, and fighting a war internally, even one they win, will accomplish that goal.
So, this internal party split is important to us. Heck its generated over 100 comments in a day…but its only actually important in that a split in the party makes it more likely for the left to win outside of violence, or rather hastens their victory.
I remember that too. Also, Reagan was a Goldwater Republican back in the 60’s and launched his spectacular popularity with his “Time For Choosing” speech praising Goldwater. The Dems have painted us as war-mongering racists ever since that campaign. I’ve often wondered if this country would have been far better off in so many ways if Goldwater had won in 64 instead of LBJ. The dirty PR campaign against Goldwater was so unfair involving the Never Goldwater types in our own party who joined with the Dems in preventing his election. History repeated itself with Trump.
I agree with this. I have been talking about a sectarian civil war for three years now.
But 0bama was the messiah.
That’s what I’ve been saying, we aren’t ‘holding our nose’ for Dole, Romney, or Jeb! again , we asked them to hold their noses for our guy for a change and they refused.
How about Donald Trump Jr?
Ok, so Eric Trump then?
Or Ivanka?
Ivanka would never win. Trump’s base is highly suspicious of her husband and think he may have been behind some of the more questionable admin picks. DJTJ is the most likely of the Trumps to win Trump’s base.
I’m done with dynasty politics. Thanks to the despicable Bush family, and the Cheneys.
I like Jr just fine, but I’m not particularly keen on him running for office. I only know of him because I know his father; nothing against him for that, but it also doesn’t qualify him. He should start smaller or in some dad-independent roles/successes.
The second is generally a pretty diluted version of the first.
I am indifferent to Jr, but if Trump taught me anything it is that looking only among people who have a political career just gets you more swamp water.
I was being a bit facetious. And gender-inclusive. 😉