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.
There’s No Going Back – Ever
We can never go back to the “good old days.” That was a thought that occurred to me today, and I realized how that fact—and I believe it is a fact—defines not only how we see the world, but how we see our political reality. It colors how we see those who agree with us, and those who vehemently disagree with us. I also realized that all the Trump/Never Trump arguments are not really about Trump at all. The people who get stuck on either side of that conflict are struggling with something else entirely. And realizing that truth, with honesty and sincerity, might actually bridge the seemingly insurmountable polarization that has plagued this country, particularly the Conservatives, for years.
Think about it. There is no denying that life today is vastly different from the life we experienced, say, 20 years ago. And many people have a predisposition to living lives that are relatively predictable, familiar, and consistent. When they have occurrences that disrupt that predictability, they can feel beleaguered—life has turned upside down and has let them down in a way, so that they become confused, stressed, and even angry at the new and unanticipated outcomes. They feel betrayed and disappointed, and once they wrestle down these reactions, they are ready to go to war. They can decide to fight for what they once anticipated for their lives, demand that life return to some kind of normalcy, and rebel against those who think they should be prepared to go in a new direction. Even if that direction has some merit, they will reject it because it is not the life that they expected or desired.
I propose to you that this mindset evolves from that sense of life’s betrayal, and Donald Trump has become the scapegoat for those who reject Trump and life’s demands.
Before you reject my proposal, let me describe those who are on the other side of this chasm.
Many of us do prefer to have predictable lives, for one reason or another, but we have learned that life doesn’t acquiesce to our expectations. The best planning in the world can be victim to life’s vagaries, and no matter how strenuously we’ve worked to correct course, life seems determined to design its own path. We learn, either as a child, or sometimes not until we are adults, that rejecting life’s whims doesn’t always work—it smiles at us, even laughs sometimes, at our foolish beliefs that we have the power to change its course. Eventually, we learn how to ride the rapids, tolerate the roller coasters, and even swim with the sharks. Over time we begin to learn how to balance the usual patterns of our lives with the unforeseen events that meet us. If we are wise, we learn that the changes we encounter can even be enjoyable and rewarding, stretch us beyond our understanding or our limitations and expand our possibilities. The patterns we follow allow us to grab hold of the familiar so that we can take a breath and find our footing, but also free us to try something new and creative, ripe with potential.
I propose to you that this mindset characterizes the people, whether reluctantly or with vigor, who support Donald Trump.
* * * *
How can these descriptions of these two groups of folks be helpful? For those of us who hope that one day the disruption among Conservatives can be mended, these factors are important and valuable to understand:
The Trump/Never Trump conflict is much deeper and primal than a fight over one man.
For those who reject Trump-
- This conflict has to do with the loss and dread that comes with losing the past, either the past of our imagination or the past that truly existed. (In many respects, it doesn’t matter if it’s real or not—we are wedded to it.)
- It is more comforting to hold onto our memories than to have the uncertainty of creating new ones.
- They confuse “preferences,” such as decorum and good manners, with “values” such as truth and integrity, and struggle with having to compromise either type.
- It’s so much easier to create a scapegoat, than to find a way to work with the reality of “what is,” rather than to insist on “what should be.”
For those who accept (however fully or reluctantly) Trump—
- For our own peace of mind, we benefit from reminding ourselves of the depth of the rejection of Trump by others and what it represents.
- We can find a way to talk about Conservative values and what they mean to us, and see if the people we support can live those values, and to what degree.
- We can remember that both sides of this disagreement can be determined to win over the other side, denigrate those who disagree with us, or simply “make them wrong.”
- Remember that the differences in beliefs are often not “values based”; they are also not fact-based but opinion based. We can accept, therefore, that we are unlikely to change the minds of those who prefer to fight to maintain the past rather than suffer through creating a new future.
For me, I have some empathy for those who desperately hold on to the past. I understood, and at one time even preferred, that outlook on life. It is the outlook with which I was raised.
But I also realized that it limited my own growth and creativity. It was an insular way to live, protecting me from considering other ways to live. It was, in fact, frightening to contemplate new directions and new ideas. Along the way, however, I encountered ideas that challenged me to explore, and people who supported my thinking about other pursuits. I enjoyed the ups and (some of) the downs that greeted me. Not everyone who resists moving forward, however, will be able to do so.
But I hope and pray they will.
Because there is no going back—ever.
Published in Politics
Capitalism without guard rails. What outcome did we expect?
A lot of those “capitalists” were former KGB. Where did apparatchiks get all that cash to buy up the shares?
Tells you something about secret services, wherever you find them.
And since every state has them, tells you something about counting on the goodness of government to protect you, doesn’t it?
The US was definitely involved in Maidan, but so was the EU. Remember the outcome of Maidan was to replace a EU Skeptic pro Russian government with an EU friendly government. That had EU elite backing. I am not sure the extent the German’s supported it but they certainly didn’t object overmuch. Germany has a pretty prominent place in the EU.
I don’t think that is actually true. Eastern NATO members have been picking up a more prominent place in the Alliance. Primarily because they feel like they are on the front lines. I think Poland has a fair amount of pull in NATO at the moment. US foreign policy is typically reactionary rather than proactive. The initial US response to Putin’s invasion was to offer Zelensky a ride out of Ukraine. The US wasn’t really interested in getting involved in this. It has been a series of fits and starts. Those aren’t the actions of someone who has engineered this. Plus the people running the show in the US right now are amateurs, this took them off guard. If you point is the broader sweep of NATO expansion was a US policy, partially true; however, Eastern Europe was definitely onboard with that. Once again there were major disagreements in US foreign policy circles about the wisdom of the expansion. In the end NATO has its own inertia that keeps it moving eastward. It has been a key of US foreign policy since WWII so I do think it is supported. That having been said I think it is more on autopilot that being actively managed by the US.
Perhaps. It also has to do with Germany’s conception of itself. Russia wants to be a world power again. Germany wants to be the principle part of the EU project. Germany’s conception of the EU project is that soft power has replace hard power in the world. They have worked to develop that. Also Germany is the vanguard of fashionable European leftism. A key component of this is appearance of going green. That has lead to the Russian Deals with Nordstream and Nordstream 2.
Putin wants to reassemble the old Soviet Empire. Part of that is now NATO so he either has to move off that goal or NATO and Russia are going to be at odds. (Like I noted above NATO has its own internal logic and inertia). Unfortunately the left in the US decided that Russia was responsible for the election of Trump which makes Russia the villain again. In truth Russia sees its expansion at the expense of the US, so in one way or another we are probably fated to be competitors. Europe and Russia have a fundamental values misalignment. I don’t think it is necessarily in Europe’s interest to be at odds with Russia; however, I don’t see how Europe can accept Russia as it is currently constituted unless they are willing to accept the Russian model. I don’t think they are, but stranger things have happened. Those are the whys. Is it in anyone’s long term interest probably not.
True, but it was largely by mutual consent. Also the competition between the US and the USSR had a lot to do with that. After the end of the cold war US foreign policy became unfocused. Certain things (like NATO) continued on autopilot but US foreign policy was very haphazard up until the GWoT. Since then it has been largely focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, everything else has been stumbling around like a bull in a China Shop. I think this has largely left the EU in the driver seat for US policy in Europe.
Probably not, but it would not necessarily be an unhealthy thing. I doubt German interests and US interests differ all that much on the important things both are pretty solid representative western democracies. There are some values that don’t align but for the most part the line up nicely.
That is being paranoid to the point of being silly. Many other NATO countries are plotting a course that causes Washington heartburn, Hungary and Turkey come to mind. I suspect it would cause the US headaches but we are use to the Germans causing us headaches. Pretty common occurrence since the end of WWII (before that it was worse).
Yes we are in his way.
I don’t think there was a way around that. He sees his success coming at the expense of the US. The US tends to be reactionary on foreign policy so once he makes a move the US is going to move to block it.
You are confusing Capitalism with Kleptocracy.
It’s a kind of capitalism. To avoid that we need the guard rails.
I don’t know that I would elevate it that far, plus I am pretty sure Kleptocracy is a lot older than capitalism. I am curious what you consider the guard rails to be. In my experience the people who make the guard rails are some of the more dangerous people in a post capitalist system.
You couldn’t tell it by the deal the EU offered Ukraine.
Which is a world power, however incoherent.
imo it’s about the control of Russia’s resources. Would it go the way of Saudi or not?
Is NATO not expanding the same as Russia expanding? Do buffers have a role to play here?
??
How many coups has the US supported in Turkey? Just being in NATO doesn’t mean the US won’t back a coup in your country.
That’s beautifully put.
What guard rails keep the US’ capitalism from going kleptocracy?
I think the law and the rule of law – iow functional government.
Russia and Ukraine are not post-capitalism systems. They went from Communism to Kelptocracy (which I think is an expression of capitalism, though not the only possibility, and you feel is fundamentally different, I’m curious as to why).
Good well put.
I don’t completely agree with you about Kleptocracy being a form of capitalism because it is much more venerable and a pretty prevalent feature in most communist regimes as it turns out. Capitalism is a pretty modern invention in the grand scheme of things. While Kleptocracy could be said to go back to ancient times. Many of the bad ancient rulers are what we would term Kleptocrats today. In fact only post capitalism is there any real history of wealth being more broadly distributed beyond the very top of society. Russia and Ukraine are actually closer to the historical, although not necessarily the modern, norms.
It does come down to the law and the rule of law as you point out. The problem is the law is an expression of the national government and of historical norms and traditions (unless you were conquered and had a law imposed on you that worked well), so in most cases the kind of guide rails you would need to make capitalism work can’t exist until the society has developed enough to demand them. Additionally they are easily derailed in countries with a history of Autocracy, like Russia, or without a history of strong government like Ukraine. Those will tend to devolve to the historical norm which is Kleptocracy. If they are lucky they can develop a strong enough society to put into place real laws that can protect property and then have proper capitalism. But as you say there is a cart horse problem at work here. I suppose a foot note would be very small or very local societies that don’t develop Kleptocracy or capitalism but they aren’t really germane to this discussion.