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.
Bret Stephens: ‘I Was Wrong About Trump Voters’
Thursday, there was a remarkable sight on the New York Times Opinion Page. Eight different columnists remark on how they were wrong about different issues. Paul Krugman admits that he was wrong about inflation. Thomas Friedman admits that he was wrong about the extent of Chinese censorship. Gail Collins admits that she was wrong about Mitt Romney. And Brett Stephens admits that he was wrong about Trump voters. It is a great column and can be found here. While the New York Times columns are behind a paywall, I think that you can read ten columns a month for free. This should be one of them.
Bret Stephens was a great columnist for the Wall Street Journal. Reportedly he left the Journal after concluding that they were being too easy on Trump, and he joined the New York Times. I ended my subscription to the Wall Street Journal about the same time, for about the same reason. So, Stephens and I have a long history of antipathy towards Trump. However, he admits that he has been wrong about Trump voters, and I generally think that I have been too. Stephen’s column begins, “The worst line I ever wrote as a pundit — yes, I know, it’s a crowded field — was the first line I ever wrote about the man who would become the 45th president: ‘If by now you don’t find Donald Trump appalling, you’re appalling.’”
I agree. What a way to make and influence people. Stephens continues,
This opening salvo, from August 2015, was the first in what would become dozens of columns denouncing Trump as a unique threat to American life, democratic ideals and the world itself. I regret almost nothing of what I said about the man and his close minions. But the broad swipe at his voters caricatured them and blinkered me.
It also probably did more to help than hinder Trump’s candidacy. Telling voters they are moral ignoramuses is a bad way of getting them to change their minds.
I agree with Stephens. This is so well stated. Stephens then states,
… Though I had spent the years of Barack Obama’s presidency denouncing his policies, my objections were more abstract than personal. I belonged to a social class that my friend Peggy Noonan called ‘the protected.’ My family lived in a safe and pleasant neighborhood. Our kids went to an excellent public school. I was well paid, fully insured, insulated against life’s harsh edges.
Trump’s appeal, according to Noonan, was largely to people she called ‘the unprotected.’ Their neighborhoods weren’t so safe and pleasant. Their schools weren’t so excellent. Their livelihoods weren’t so secure. Their experience of America was often one of cultural and economic decline, sometimes felt in the most personal of ways.
Ouch. I am part of the ‘protected class.’ I live in my beautiful mountain and university town with a population of only 100,000 with all of the amenities of a city five times as large. I live in a nice neighborhood with nonexistent crime, surrounded by a golf course. I have Medicare for health insurance. I am my own boss and run my office as I see fit. My judges know and like me. Life is pretty good for me.
Stephens continues,
It was an experience compounded by the insult of being treated as losers and racists —clinging, in Obama’s notorious 2008 phrase, to ‘guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.’
I remember having lunch with a major Democrat figure who told me that he was convinced that opposition to Obama was primarily racist. Grrrr.
Then Stephens says,
Trump voters had a powerful case to make that they had been thrice betrayed by the nation’s elites. First, after 9/11, when they had borne much of the brunt of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to see Washington fumble and then abandon the efforts. Second, after the financial crisis of 2008, when so many were being laid off, even as the financial class was being bailed out. Third, in the post-crisis recovery, in which years of ultralow interest rates were a bonanza for those with investable assets and brutal for those without.
Oh, and then came the great American cultural revolution of the 2010s, in which traditional practices and beliefs — regarding same-sex marriage, sex-segregated bathrooms, personal pronouns, meritocratic ideals, race-blind rules, reverence for patriotic symbols, the rules of romance, the presumption of innocence and the distinction between equality of opportunity and outcome — became, more and more, not just passé, but taboo.
It’s one thing for social mores to evolve over time, aided by respect for differences of opinion. It’s another for them to be abruptly imposed by one side on another, with little democratic input but a great deal of moral bullying.
I share this anger about the above things. But again, I am protected. For better or worse, lawyers are pretty protected. The best book about the evils of the transgenderism, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, was written by a lawyer with strong First Amendment protections. If a Psychologist or Counselor were to have written this book, they would be facing an ethics charge by their licensing board. But the State Bar would laugh at such an ethics charge.
Stephens then states,
For every in-your-face MAGA warrior there were plenty of ambivalent Trump supporters, doubtful of his ability and dismayed by his manner, who were willing to take their chances on him because he had the nerve to defy deeply flawed conventional pieties.
I have faced my share of MAGA warriors. But far more Trump voters are ambivalent, doubtful, and dismayed by Trump than I give them credit.
Then Stephens hits home with this paragraph:
Nor were they impressed by Trump critics who had their own penchant for hypocrisy and outright slander. To this day, precious few anti-Trumpers have been honest with themselves about the elaborate hoax — there’s just no other word for it — that was the Steele dossier and all the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media, that flowed from it.
Ouch. Oh, all the hours I wasted watching MSNBC’s evening shows! All of the energy that I wasted hoping that Trump would be caught! I was not until I read Bill Barr’s book One Damn Thing After Another that I realized that I had been wrong and wrote about it here.
The book is very well done. And it changed my mind. After the Mueller Report came out, I posted both the Introduction and Executive Summary on Collusion and Obstruction. (See here.) Barr does a deep dive into the Mueller Report and how Mueller both over-read and under-read his remit. My mind had been marinated in the MSNBC and my own TDS. But now reading Barr’s account led me to the conclusion that the Mueller investigation was a search for not all that much, and was a general waste of time and money. I was stunned. But I changed my mind.
To the credit of my fellow Ricochetti, there was almost no “I told you so.” Incredible.
Stephens ends his piece,
… I would also approach these [Trump] voters in a much different spirit than I did the last time. ‘A drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall,’ noted Abraham Lincoln early in his political career. ‘If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.’ Words to live by, particularly for those of us in the business of persuasion.
Words to live by when posting and commenting at Ricochet.
Published in General
Is it more likely that those intending to participate in the riot would have better access to Twitter? How many people near, at, or in the Cap[itol were “following Trump at that time? Certainly the Committee kicked this around.
No, Gary. You’re the one who’s glomming onto the narrative of the Democrats.
He did not say to drink bleach. That you still believe he did points to some basic problems with cognition.
You would think a person who considers themselves a conservative and lover of the Constitution, at this point would admit that the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’threshhold (according to the federalist papers) has not been met with either of the democrat inquisitions (not to mention the Weissman/Mueller Kangaroo Court), which have all proven to be based upon lies. They have never had the bulk of public opinion across the country. Perhaps they thought they did because the mitt romney republicans said they did.
You are lying again. I looked up that transcript for the benefit of Blue Yeti quite a while ago.
I know you don’t think for yourself, so I’ll take pity on you for your continued faith in the charlatans of MSNBC, NYT, WP, and CNN. But you might want to consider finding new sources that are more reliable.
‘Murderous’. That would actually be funny if the stakes weren’t so high.
The folks behind the cameras obviously did not perceive anything close to ‘murderous’.
Let’s be clear. The former President of the United State is being accused of conspiracy to commit murder. Yet that’s apparently not a violation of the CoC.
Even left-wing Politifact knocked this down.
As you can see, he’s talking very specifically about UV Light Therapy.
Nothing anywhere close to “drinking bleach.” But Democrats lie, the media lies, and people who are highly susceptible to suggestion believe obvious lies no matter how many times they’re shown the truth.
That’s a lot of what would seem to make a person non-honorable.
It’s like Rico permitting AOC tons of print space here daily to exasperate its subscribers.
So do I get to flag Gary everytime he lies about this? Is that against the COC? Fruitcake/misinformation ?
Of course not. Because Blue Yeti believes this lie, too!
Gary – this is a foolish post and so are the writers that you cite – NYT writers – wow! Not one word of Stephens’ quotes that you included mean a hill of beans because you and they are wrong – to this day. You think you can characterize Trump, then figure out what is right or wrong about those who supported him, and try to drip a little honey? Seriously? Your post insults me.
The wealthy, poor, working class, fly-over states, East and West Coast voted for him, both in 2016 and 2020. The 2016 election because he was different – 2020 because he produced results – for everybody. Who did he not represent? He had everyone at the WH – from corporate to clergy. He asked for ideas from big tech. He donated more to black colleges than any other president. He took the safety of our country and the well being of our citizens seriously, as well as our allies, especially Israel. Yet no one appreciated it. Now look where they are. Look where our country is under Biden and Democratic “leadership”.
Whether he runs again or someone else and wins, his legacy bettered all Americans.
And whether or not they understand and appreciate it.
The New York Post Editorial Board said it better than I have at https://nypost.com/2022/07/22/trumps-jan-6-silence-renders-him-unworthy-for-2024-reelection/:
“As his followers stormed the Capitol, calling for his vice president to be hanged, President Donald Trump sat in his private dining room, watching TV, doing nothing.
“For three hours, seven minutes.
“There has been much debate over whether Trump’s rally speech on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted “incitement.” That’s somewhat of a red herring. What matters more — and has become crystal clear in recent days — is that Trump didn’t lift a finger to stop the violence that followed.
“And he was the only person who could stop what was happening. He was the only one the crowd was listening to. It was incitement by silence.”
The editorial concludes:
“It’s up to the Justice Department to decide if this is a crime. But as a matter of principle, as a matter of character, Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country’s chief executive again.”
The Wall Street Jounal has also weighed in. They write at https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-president-who-stood-still-donald-trump-jan-6-committee-mike-pence-capitol-riot-11658528548:
“Still, the brute facts remain: Mr. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he had a duty as Commander in Chief to protect the Capitol from a mob attacking it in his name. He refused. He didn’t call the military to send help. He didn’t call Mr. Pence to check on the safety of his loyal VP. Instead he fed the mob’s anger and let the riot play out.
“In the 18 months since, Mr. Trump has shown not an iota of regret. On Thursday he claimed to be vindicated by a bill to clarify the Electoral Count Act. ‘Mike Pence told me, and everybody else, there was nothing he could do,’ Mr. Trump wrote. ‘If so, how come the Democrats and RINOs are working so hard to make sure there is nothing a VP can do.’
“Character is revealed in a crisis, and Mr. Pence passed his Jan. 6 trial. Mr. Trump utterly failed his.”
Does this excuse the fact that you accused the former President of conspiracy to commit murder?
I have a good deal of respect for the WSJ’s editorial board. Yet it doesn’t seem too much to ask to substantiate this claim.
Let’s not stand on ceremony. I appreciate being able to speak Truth to Clintons. Fight speech with better speech, not censorship.
It’s mind-reading again. Without mind-reading they’d have nothing on Trump. With mind-reading they have . . . mind-reading.
Under-rated comment, worthy of an entry in the Ricochet FAQ.
Nah. This is a concrete accusation base on available facts. It’s fruitcake stuff.
I don’t care about this. I care about the fact that you still believe the bleach lie. I need to save you from the mind-controllers. C’mon, repeat after me: “The president never said to drink bleach . . . the president never said to drink bleach . . . the president never said to drink bleach . . . “
I need you to put this into your brain as many times as the original lie went into your brain. You must overcome lies with truth, and the truth shall set you free.
Live not by lies.
I think that you are overstating what I said. Trump assembled the rioter, Trump whipped them up, Trump aimed them at the Capitol, when the mob was chanting “Hang Mike Pence” Trump did nothing effective. Indeed, he sent a tweet attacking Mike Pence. Trump sent out a couple of ineffective tweets, but refused to simply go to the Press Room to call on his followers to go home.
The proof was shown in extreme detail on Thursday at the January 6 Committee Hearing. It’s not too late for you to watch the hearing in YouTube.
Okay, I went back to Comment #75. Item #5 was
“5. Trump suggested drinking/injecting bleach to fight COVID.”
Trump did not suggest drinking or injecting bleach to fight COVID. Trump suggested many things, but he did not suggest drinking or injecting bleach to fight COVID.
Good. That’s one down.
We have 343 lies to go.
Don’t turn your back, he’ll get back to it like he got back to saying “insurrection” after saying he would stop.
No. You don’t care about my DILs elderly aunt Because you voted for a president. And that president’s VP donated – and encouraged others to do so – to the bail funds of those who terrorized my DIL’a elderly aunt, along with thousands of others. And that happened BEFORE the election.
I am incapable of reading peoples’ minds; nor can I look into their hearts. I’m left with judging people based upon their behavior.
Based upon your behavior, you have been judged. And found wanting
(slight edit to codify who Gary Robbins doesn’t care about)
Line them up. Let’s do this!
I think that there must a complete overhaul of the FBI. The notion that someone in the FBI talked about wearing a wire to catch Trump in a lie is repulsive to me.
However, in light of the Secret Service “losing” all texts from January 5th and 6th, would you agree that the Secret Service also needs to be completely overhauled?
Weird. Those two things happened after the election. Oh wait. I forgot you’re psychic
I have been convinced by the January 6th Committee that what we had was an insurrection. Now that I have more information, I changed my mind. I think that you would really benefit by watching the January 6th Committee on YouTube.
Since Trump said that the only way he could lose was if the Democrats cheated, I had a strong premonition that as to his behavior after the 2020 election. Trump exceeded my worst expectations.
There can be only one party dedicated to the coastal elites and the Dems are now it. Sorry GOP. Sorry fake conservative grifters. If you want to go to the cool cocktail parties, you are going to have to join the commie party.