Fidelity to the Constitution

 

There has been a Twitter dust up between Dan McLaughlin of National Review and Tom Nichols of The Atlantic. Mona Charen decided to weigh in with this:

This strikes to the heart of one of the deepest schisms on the right. Most on the right (excepting perhaps Ms. Charen) look at the direction that the left is taking and see little adherence to the Constitutional order. Look at President Biden’s recent statement on Thanksgiving about how it’s madness that we still allow the sale of semi-automatic firearms. To the left, the Constitution is a barrier to what they want to accomplish, which they see as a progressive utopia.

But to some on the right, especially those who see Donald Trump as the greatest threat to (insert beloved institution here), he is a greater threat than the left’s slow wearing away of our system. I can understand that point of view, even if I don’t agree with it. The problem that we, the right and especially the GOP has, is that this isn’t a circular firing squad like normal, it’s not even cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, it’s a deeper and fundamental problem that may not have a resolution. People may have disliked Mitt Romney and they didn’t vote for him, and…he lost, but had he won, would a sizable portion of the right have abandoned conservatism and promoted and voted for Barack Obama?  The idea that Donald Trump is so much worse than any other President that has ever held the office is hard to imagine, even as someone who voted for McMullin in ’16.  For those that chose that part, who never accepted Trump and continued to fight him, can there be a reconciliation?  Do they even want one?

That problem has nothing to do with Donald Trump, and everything to do with what goals the conservative movement has, or is trying to achieve. The political right, and to a lesser extent the GOP is really an amalgam of various movements that align themselves into a coalition politically. Individuals may align to various levels with one or more of these groupings, but don’t have to be more than one. Some have opposing aims and goals and the conflict causes tension in the GOP and, to a lesser extent in the right itself. What are these groupings?  My list, and it’s always changing is as follows:

Social Conservatives – this contains two large and somewhat overlapping groups the Pro-Life and Trad-marriage groups. There is often an odd dichotomy between authoritarian tendencies and great compassion at an individual level.

Fiscal Conservatives – often can care less about social issues and willing to sacrifice defense to try and balance the budget, some ties to the Rockefeller Republicans of yesteryear.

Nation Defense Conservatives – see the primary role of the government as projecting strength so it doesn’t have to be used. Willing to spend profligately on defense, but usually not on anything else.

Neoconservatives – left the Democratic party when they became pacifists after Viet Nam. Often in conflict with the social and fiscal Conservatives. Differ from the National Defense group in that they see a moral need to use US might to bring freedom to the oppressed.

Paleoconservatives – I tend to use this to define isolationist, but it is more complex. They tend to want smaller government, protectionism in trade, and a strong military that isn’t used much. Often hold strong social conservative views as well.

Libertarians (small l, but it’s the start of a paragraph) – small government, leave people alone, don’t get involved in wars, don’t have the government involved in people’s lives (often very much at odds with Social Conservatives)

Chamber of Commerce Conservatives

Cocktail Conservatives

Judicial Conservatives

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 138 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    What the heck is a “Cocktail Conservative”?  You have my curiosity piqued!  

    I would say that I am a Judicial/Rule of Law Conservative above all others, followed by being a National Defense Conservative, a Fiscal Conservative and a Libertarian.  

    I would vote to see how other members of Ricochet would classify themselves.

    • #1
  2. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    I’m so glad that I hated her before it was cool.  And she doesn’t care for me (or my ‘viscera’) either.

    • #2
  3. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    I’m with Gary on what a “Cocktail Conservative” is. Is that someone who holds that a martini is 3 oz. gin and .25-.75 oz. dry vermouth? (That is, no vodka, etc., and it has to have dry vermouth.)

    I would say I’m a blend of Paleo and Social, though I only view protectionism as necessary if the partner in question is protectionist. Tit-for-tat, if you will. The ideal is free trade, but that’s not going to be reached with many trade partners. I’ll add that I think foreign alliances should be few, and only when a major interest of the U.S. is advanced.

     

    • #3
  4. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    I’m assuming that a cocktail conservative is the neo-Rockefeller-wannabe commentariat.

    • #4
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    What the heck is a “Cocktail Conservative”? You have my curiosity piqued!

    I would say that I am a Judicial/Rule of Law Conservative above all others, followed by being a National Defense Conservative, a Fiscal Conservative and a Libertarian.

    I would vote to see how other members of Ricochet would classify themselves.

    the problem you seem to have with “Rule of Law” is insisting that Law B be followed even after Law A has been violated, producing a bad/wrong/illegal result which you nevertheless expect to be enforced by Law B, else it violate “Rule of Law.”

    “Rule of Law” doesn’t really work in that situation.

    If Law A has been violated, that’s what needs to be addressed before moving on to B.

    • #5
  6. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Tom Nichols and Mona Charen are your reminders that there are a lot of people who coasted to fame pretending to be conservatives but have since been revealed as garden-variety Democrats who have nothing interesting to say.

    • #6
  7. Vance Richards Inactive
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Tom Nichols and Mona Charen are your reminders that there are a lot of people who coasted to fame pretending to be conservatives but have since been revealed as garden-variety Democrats who have nothing interesting to say.

    I always thought the whole neocon thing was just pro-war Democrats. Remember people talking about big government conservatism? Now that Democrats seem to be more hawkish, they can scrap the “neo” and just go back to being Democrats.

    • #7
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    BDB (View Comment):

    I’m assuming that a cocktail conservative is the neo-Rockefeller-wannabe commentariat.

    I assume it’s the ones who want to be liked and respected by the leftwing ruling class.  They are very vulnerable to peer pressure, and they choose their peers badly. 

    • #8
  9. Chuck Coolidge
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    Me, I’m a simple constitutionalist – except that God’s law overrules. What comes to mind?  Probably something but I dunno.

    • #9
  10. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Apologies for being a big dummy, but what specifically is she referring to? I read a few tweets in the thread but I don’t understand Twitter’s layout/interface and it gives me agita so I stopped trying to figure it out. Is Mona talking about January 6? I don’t get it.

    • #10
  11. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Don’t like cocktails. Just Anchor Steam and port. Real simple requests. Honor the Constitution. Lower taxes and regulation.  Fund the military. That’s about it. 

    • #11
  12. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    David C. Broussard:

    There has been a Twitter dust up between Dan McLaughlin of National Review and Tom Nichols of The Atlantic. Mona Charen decided to weigh in with this:

    The Dems are on the extreme wrong side no matter which kind of conservative one claims to be. Obviously and painfully so.

    • #12
  13. Freeven Member
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    David C. Broussard:

    For those that chose that part, who never accepted Trump and continued to fight him, can there be a reconciliation?  Do they even want one? 

    That problem has nothing to do with Donald Trump…

    I guess I’m not following, because it seems to me that — “for those who never accepted Trump” — the problem has an awful lot to do with Trump. They don’t seem to have minded his policies so much as his character.

    • #13
  14. Freeven Member
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard:

    There has been a Twitter dust up between Dan McLaughlin of National Review and Tom Nichols of The Atlantic. Mona Charen decided to weigh in with this:

    The Dems are on the extreme wrong side no matter which kind of conservative one claims to be. Obviously and painfully so.

    Yeah. For me, most of those sub-categories of conservatism have been pushed to the back burner. I hope we can return to the relevant discussions at some point, but stopping the extreme Left has to be the priority for now.

    • #14
  15. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    David C. Broussard:

    My list, and it’s always changing is as follows:

    Social Conservatives – this contains two large and somewhat overlapping groups the Pro-Life and Trad-marriage groups. There is often an odd dichotomy between authoritarian tendencies and great compassion at an individual level.

    Fiscal Conservatives – often can care less about social issues and willing to sacrifice defense to try and balance the budget, some ties to the Rockerfeller Republicans of yesteryear.

    Of course offering a list of common terms along with your take on what they mean is bound to invite nitpicky dissent. Invitation accepted :D

    Social Conservatives: as someone who thinks of himself as a social conservative among other things, I think it’s larger than abortion and marriage. Abortion is an issue for us because of when we think life begins. Marriage, on the other hand, is both wider and deeper in impact – for most of us it’s probably not even a religious issue. I think somewhere in the 90’s or 2000’s being social conservative went from defending traditional order in existing law to wanting to restore law which protected/enabled/made room for traditional order; so we were against SSM, we’re for school choice so people can both teach their children as they wish and avoid being indoctrinated with things we don’t wish, we’re for religious and conscious exemptions/exceptions, we’re against gender “affirming” care because it is neither true nor actually positive therapy on the whole, establishment clause protects religion from the state not the state from religion, etc. Plus purely cultural concerns outside of policy or law.

    Fiscal Conservatives: If such an isolated thing ever really existed then they’re all but extinct now, in practice. No one, but no one, actually cares about the fisc. Not since Gingrich. Can’t think of the last successful politician before him. In the wild this aspect is always subordinated. Personally I also describe myself as a fiscal conservative, I do care about the debt, the deficit, and prudent spending of public resources. I’d be ecstatic if we ever made real progress on that. Not gonna happen, though, so I mostly look at areas of real difference. Besides, fiscal conservatism has been largely replaced by Free Trade Utopianism. That isn’t gonna ever actually happen either, so my approach remains the same.

    • #15
  16. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Tom Nichols and Mona Charen are your reminders that there are a lot of people who coasted to fame pretending to be conservatives but have since been revealed as garden-variety Democrats who have nothing interesting to say.

    I was a long-time Mona Charen fan from reading her columns. Then I happened upon one of her podcasts; she was soo condescending toward the “little people,” I decided I wasn’t interested in anything she had to say.

    • #16
  17. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    David C. Broussard:

    Nation Defense Conservatives – see the primary role of the government as projecting strength so it doesn’t have to be used. Willing to spend profligately on defense, but usually not on anything else. 

    Neoconservatives – left the Democratic party when they became pacifists after Viet Nam. Often in conflict with the social and fiscal Conservatives. Differ from the National Defense group innthat they see a moral need to use US might to bring freedom to the oppressed. 

    Paleoconservatives – I tend to use this to define isolationist, but it is more complex. They tend to want smaller government, protectionism in trade, and a strong military that isn’t used much. Often hold strong social conservative views as well. 

    Libertarians (small l, but it’s the start of a paragraph) – small government, leave people alone, don’t get involved in wars, don’t have the government involved in people’s lives (often very much at odds with Social Convercatives)  

    Chamber of Commerce Conservatives

    Cocktail Conservatives

    Judicial Conservatives

    National Defense Conservative: I won’t argue much except to say that I can’t think of anyone who is that alone or that primarily. This seems to be exclusively the side that comes with the entree.

    Neocons: more explicitly “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” except that they always seem to find some moral imperative to short the first part,

    Paleoconservative: I used to think of this as an icky group, probably fully of racists, sexists, and central economic planners; the label alone is a sneer (with hindsight I see the label was applied by neocons mostly, so no wonder it’s a sneer). Now I tend to think of them as full-spectrum conservatives of the traditional mold. Socially conservative, fiscally prudent, militarily strong (but not imprudently adventurous).

    The rest? Either they fit into one of the categories or aren’t really a variety of conservative at all.

     

    • #17
  18. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    How about adding the “Talking Conservatives”? Those that like talking about conservatism but don’t actually care if conservatives win or advance conservative ideas as long as they can talk about it and cash a paycheck from someone. 

    • #18
  19. StChristopher Member
    StChristopher
    @JohnBerg

    I used to listen to Mona Charen and Jay Nordlinger and valued their opinions.  Once I saw they could not adjust to the reality of Trump (flawed, but good policies and Democrats acting insane)  I lost respect for Ms. Charen and Mr. Nodlinger.  They still have their high horses, but they have greatly diminished themselves.  

    • #19
  20. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Still not getting this. Help me out. From 1965 from Buckley times, it seemed real simple. Didn’t sign on until 1976 when I thought I made a mistake in voting for Carter.  Constitution and Bill of Rights real clear. Learned that in high school. Then tough times happened. Race riots.  Civil Rights Act. Viet Nam war. Survived all of that luckily. Now its all about DEI and drag queens? Give me a break. I don’t think we are at Moscow 1917 yet.  We still like real football. 

    • #20
  21. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Apologies for being a big dummy, but what specifically is she referring to? I read a few tweets in the thread but I don’t understand Twitter’s layout/interface and it gives me agita so I stopped trying to figure it out. Is Mona talking about January 6? I don’t get it.

    Gotta be.  Or maybe 2016 (!)

    • #21
  22. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    navyjag (View Comment):
    I don’t think we are at Moscow 1917 yet.  We still like real football. 

    Quote of the day for the site. ;)

    • #22
  23. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Freeven (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard:

    For those that chose that part, who never accepted Trump and continued to fight him, can there be a reconciliation? Do they even want one?

    That problem has nothing to do with Donald Trump…

    I guess I’m not following, because it seems to me that — “for those who never accepted Trump” — the problem has an awful lot to do with Trump. They don’t seem to have minded his policies so much as his character.

    I hesitate to say anything, because you have heard it from me already, but here goes.  I disagree that this “has nothing to do with Donald Trump.”  This has everything to do with Donald Trump for me.

    Before 2020, I really did not like Trump for a whole bunch of reasons, but mostly cultural.  I disliked the sound of his voice.  I disliked how he disrespected McCain and Flake.  I disliked his racialism.  I disliked his protectionism and strange relationship with Putin.  I disliked Trump’s arrogance.  Based upon my dislikes, for the first time in 48 years I voted for a Democrat for President in 2020.

    All of that shifted after the 2020 election and what I see as his manipulation of others.  And it locked in irrevocably after January 6, 2021.  People who I respect are offended when I say this, so I will try to say it in a respectful manner.  The impact on me, personally, of watching the riot at the capitol on January 6, 2021, approaches the impact of September 11, 2001.  Yes, I know that far fewer people died on January 6th, than on 9/11.  I do not want to dishonor their deaths.  But January 6th had an impact on me akin to my parents for the attack on Pearl Harbor.  My parents locked in over Pearl Harbor.  I locked in over January 6th.  My strong dislike of Trump was transformed into irrevocable opposition to Trump and all that was forged on January 6th.

    Do I want to reconcile with those people who voted for Trump?  Sure.  I love and respect my mother, my brother and my fellow Ricochetti.  I want Republicans to win, to the degree that they are more than Trump acolytes.  With only one exception (Tom Horne), I voted a Straight Republican Ticket in 2022, provided that the candidate was not endorsed by Trump, and all of the Republicans I voted for won.

    I yearn for Reagan.  But I am not willing to reconcile with Trump himself, or accepting the argument that the January 6th election was stolen.  For better or worse, after January 6th, I am a radicalized member of NeverTrump, and his endorsement is poison to me, and that is where I draw the line.

    • #23
  24. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Okay, I had to look up neocon. It has been bugging me for years. I’ve not been able to discern what neocon means from the contexts in which I have come across it. So, according to the Merriam-Webster editors, neocon means this–and the reason it is confusing to casual readers of political copy is that there are two operative meanings for it that are vastly different:

    1 a former liberal espousing political conservatism

    2 a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means

    Reagon attracted a great many Democrats–my husband was one. It was a funny time in politics and in our family–Carter alienated many young Democrats with his malaise speech, while Reagon attracted people with his pro-life stance, his school choice stance, and his embrace of optimism. America didn’t have to be remade in the European socialist image to survive.

    Needless to say, with the immense numbers of people who migrated from the Democrats to the Republicans, there were bound to be disagreements in the newly formed party. It was pretty similar to the social and political effects of the Great Migration that began a year into the pandemic.

    The fact is, our elections are a great runoff system to keep voting until we’ve finally made a choice as to who will represent us to the world. That runoff system is one major source of American strength in foreign affairs. We have to speak with one voice.

    But the price we pay is that we divide the country–330,000,000 people–into two groups, and there are naturally major disagreements within those groups on almost everything. My little family of nine people can’t agree on a restaurant to go to, let alone major political issues. We never learn much from our elections about how the country feels about specific issues.

    • #24
  25. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Okay, I had to look up neocon. It has been bugging me for years. I’ve not been able to discern what neocon means from the contexts in which I have come across it. So, according to the Merriam-Webster editors, neocon means this–and the reason it is confusing to casual readers of political copy is that there are two operative meanings for it that are vastly different:

    1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism

    2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means

    Reagon attracted a great many Democrats–my husband was one. It was a funny time in politics and in our family–Carter alienated many young Democrats with his malaise speech, while Reagon attracted people with his pro-life stance, his school choice stance, and his embrace of optimism. America didn’t have to be remade in the European socialist image to survive.

    Needless to say, with the immense numbers of people who migrated from the Democrats to the Republicans, there were bound to be disagreements in the newly formed party. It was pretty similar to the social and political effects of the Great Migration that began a year into the pandemic.

    The fact is, our elections are a great runoff system to keep voting until we’ve finally made a choice as to who will represent us to the world. That runoff system is one major source of American strength in foreign affairs. We have to speak with one voice.

    But the price we pay is that we divide the country–330,000,000 people–into two groups, and there are naturally major disagreements within those groups on almost everything. My little family of nine people can’t agree on a restaurant to go to, let alone major political issues. We never learn much from our elections about how the country feels about specific issues.

    This group you are referring to is called “Reagan Democrats”. I think they are largely working class.

    Neocons converted during the Vietnam peace riots. Those are what the second definition is catching.

    • #25
  26. Buckpasser Member
    Buckpasser
    @Buckpasser

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard:

    For those that chose that part, who never accepted Trump and continued to fight him, can there be a reconciliation? Do they even want one?

    That problem has nothing to do with Donald Trump…

    I guess I’m not following, because it seems to me that — “for those who never accepted Trump” — the problem has an awful lot to do with Trump. They don’t seem to have minded his policies so much as his character.

    I hesitate to say anything, because you have heard it from me already, but here goes. I disagree that this “has nothing to do with Donald Trump.” This has everything to do with Donald Trump for me.

    Before 2020, I really did not like Trump for a whole bunch of reasons, but mostly cultural. I disliked the sound of his voice. I disliked how he disrespected McCain and Flake. I disliked his racialism. I disliked his protectionism and strange relationship with Putin. I disliked Trump’s arrogance. For the first time in 48 years I voted for a Democrat for President in 2020.

    All of that shifted after the 2020 election and what I see as his manipulation of others. And it locked in irrevocably after January 6, 2021. People who I respect are offended when I say this, so I will try to say it in a respectful manner. But the impact on me, personally, of watching the riot at the capitol on January 6, 2021, approaches the impact of September 11, 2001. Yes, I know that far fewer people died on January 6th, than on 9/11. I do not want to dishonor their deaths. But January 6th had an impact on me akin to my parents for the attack on Pearl Harbor. My parents locked in over Pearl Harbor. I locked in over January 6th. My strong dislike of Trump was transformed into irrevocable opposition to Trump and all that was forged on January 6th.

    Do I want to reconcile with those people who voted for Trump? Sure. I love and respect my mother, my brother and most people at Ricochet. I want Republicans to win, to the degree that they are more than Trump acolytes. With only one exception, I voted a Straight Republican Ticket in 2022, provided that the candidate was not endorsed by Trump, and all of those Republicans won.

    I yearn for Reagan. But I am not willing to reconcile with Trump himself, or accepting the argument that the January 6th election was stolen. For better or worse, after January 6th, I am a radicalized member of NeverTrump, and his endorsement is poison to me, and that is where I draw the line.

    My issue is those people who dislike Trump’s character flaws, but like his policies, yet still wouldn’t vote for him.  Obviously policies do not matter to them.

    • #26
  27. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Buckpasser (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard:

    For those that chose that part, who never accepted Trump and continued to fight him, can there be a reconciliation? Do they even want one?

    That problem has nothing to do with Donald Trump…

    I guess I’m not following, because it seems to me that — “for those who never accepted Trump” — the problem has an awful lot to do with Trump. They don’t seem to have minded his policies so much as his character.

    My issue is those people who dislike Trump’s character flaws, but like his policies, yet still wouldn’t vote for him. Obviously policies do not matter to them.

    Neither does character for that matter. First Clinton then Biden were the alternatives. Yikes, it should have gotten easier to vote for Trump in 2020 on character alone. 

    • #27
  28. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard:

    Nation Defense Conservatives – see the primary role of the government as projecting strength so it doesn’t have to be used. Willing to spend profligately on defense, but usually not on anything else.

    Neoconservatives – left the Democratic party when they became pacifists after Viet Nam. Often in conflict with the social and fiscal Conservatives. Differ from the National Defense group innthat they see a moral need to use US might to bring freedom to the oppressed.

    Paleoconservatives – I tend to use this to define isolationist, but it is more complex. They tend to want smaller government, protectionism in trade, and a strong military that isn’t used much. Often hold strong social conservative views as well.

    Libertarians (small l, but it’s the start of a paragraph) – small government, leave people alone, don’t get involved in wars, don’t have the government involved in people’s lives (often very much at odds with Social Convercatives)

    Chamber of Commerce Conservatives

    Cocktail Conservatives

    Judicial Conservatives

    National Defense Conservative: I won’t argue much except to say that I can’t think of anyone who is that alone or that primarily. This seems to be exclusively the side that comes with the entree.

    Neocons: more explicitly “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” except that they always seem to find some moral imperative to short the first part,

    Paleoconservative: I used to think of this as an icky group, probably fully of racists, sexists, and central economic planners; the label alone is a sneer (with hindsight I see the label was applied by neocons mostly, so no wonder it’s a sneer). Now I tend to think of them as full-spectrum conservatives of the traditional mold. Socially conservative, fiscally prudent, militarily strong (but not imprudently adventurous).

    The rest? Either they fit into one of the categories or aren’t really a variety of conservative at all.

     

    Actually, I would say that you’ve identified the three legs of the stool in the portion I bolded above, and that those nearly orthogonal classifications cover the spectrum at the basic level.  Other features may be added (such as +militarily adventurous = neocon) which do not change the underlyhing values in the three elements you have identified.

     

    • #28
  29. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Buckpasser (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard:

    For those that chose that part, who never accepted Trump and continued to fight him, can there be a reconciliation? Do they even want one?

    That problem has nothing to do with Donald Trump…

    I guess I’m not following, because it seems to me that — “for those who never accepted Trump” — the problem has an awful lot to do with Trump. They don’t seem to have minded his policies so much as his character.

    My issue is those people who dislike Trump’s character flaws, but like his policies, yet still wouldn’t vote for him. Obviously policies do not matter to them.

    Neither does character for that matter. First Clinton then Biden were the alternatives. Yikes, it should have gotten easier to vote for Trump in 2020 on character alone.

    I differ to a lesser degree with this formulation.  In 2016, we were told that Trump’s poor character would improve once he became president, and that Republicans in Congress would be a check on Trump.  Trump’s behavior did not improve, and Trump attacked any Republican who disagreed with.  On the good side, we got three Supreme Court Justices; on the bad side, we had Charlottesville and Putin, and Trump purging the Republican Party of everyone he disagreed with.  

    What was more tolerable in 2016 due to one or more Supreme Court vacancies, became less tolerable in 2020 after Trump had filled all Supreme Court vacancies. 

    As for 2024, given Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election and his involvement in the January 6th Capitol Riot, it is now unthinkable that I would ever support Trump again.

    • #29
  30. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Trump’s behavior did not improve, and Trump attacked any Republican who disagreed with.  On the good side, we got three Supreme Court Justices; on the bad side, we had Charlottesville and Putin, and Trump purging the Republican Party of everyone he disagreed with.  

    There is not a stick of truth to any of the obvious meaning here outside of getting some SCOTUS picks done. 

    People like you chose to walk.  That’s not a purge.  That’s defection.  And so on.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.