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.
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:
Haven't we just conducted a test about fidelity to the Constitution and didn't the GOP fail or was I thinking of some other planet? https://t.co/dGssIMDaEh
— Mona Charen (@monacharen) November 29, 2022
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
Did you know that dogs no longer bark at Milo after he stopped being gay? A sign from God or he no longer uses as much fragrance. Either way, pretty impressive.
The Silence of the Hams.
Brilliance. I got nothing.
You voted for Eugene McCarthy? Sheesh.
Well, it could have been any one of these:
Place your bets!
I never voted for Gene McCarthy.
I voted for George McGovern in 1972. I was in college then.
In 1976 I voted Libertarian because I could not make up my mind between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.
In 1992 I voted Libertarian because I felt that George H.W. Bush had betrayed the Reagan Revolution.
In 2016, I voted for Evan McMullin.
In 2024, I will vote for any Republican (other than Trump or DJTJ) over any Democrat, and I will vote for any Democrat over Trump (or DJTJ).
Are you suggesting dogs are homophobic?
Au contraire.
I also voted as follows:
In 1980 for Ronald Reagan.
In 1984 for Ronald Reagan.
In 1988 for George H.W. Bush
In 1996 for Bob Dole.
In 2000 for George W. Bush.
In 2004 for George W. Bush.
In 2008 for John McCain.
In 2912 for Mitt Romney.
You went 900 years into the future and voted for Romney? I wouldn’t be surprised if he was still around. Dude takes care of himself.
Works out a lot. Dog lifts, Woman binds, Party crushes…
I got a Christmas Card from Mitt Romney. You would not believe how many grandchildren and great-grandchildren he has! 900 years from now, we will be a Mormon nation in that they are propagating themselves at an amazing rate. While I am not LDS, they are some of the nicest people I have ever met.
See, this is what I was talking about. Why in hell isn’t the GOP doing this?!
Maybe the GOP is in it for the fundraising and not to win elections. They are the equivalent of the Washington Generals in an exhibition game with the Harlem Globetrotters.
I’ll give a brief defense for NR here–they hold themselves out as an opinion journal, and very self-consciously avoid the appearance of being an arm of the Republican party (which the MSM does re: the Democratic party, to its shame). In fact, NR rarely endorses candidates for particular offices, although IIRC, they have begun to do that more often of late.
At any rate, I see nothing wrong with NR avoiding GOTV efforts. Those efforts are more properly for the parties and political advocacy groups, IMO.
Oh, I know NR isn’t any sort of Republican publication. They basically endorsed the Democrat in 2016.
Well, that is a perfect description of the Constitution. They do know what the Constitution is and they don’t get anywhere as long as Americans abide it. They got the 16th and 17th Amendments to soften the barriers, used the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech and press so successfully that now they won’t to get rid of it.
Pretty sure that didn’t happen. In the primary, the were stridently anti-Trump. In the general, it was every man for himself, but the anti-HRC columns kept flowing. My guess is virtually none of NR’s writers voted for HRC, but that many voted third party or left president blank. In 2016, I make no apology for voting third party. I knew HRC would be bad, but I had no confidence that Trump would be any better. When Trump ended up being relatively conservative and excellent on judicial selections, I was happy he won. But in 2016 I had no confidence that he would do anything he promised in the campaign.
What do you think about the discretion exercised by those who supported Trump in 2016? “Just lucky”?
@douglasmyers Were you unaware in 2016 of the power being wielded by the intelligence agencies? I wasn’t sure but I had great suspicion with that Communist heading the CIA. I was still uncertain about Trump at the beginning of his term but the intelligence operatives confirmed quickly my thoughts about them.
As they tell us when a RINO Squish is nominated, “It’s a binary choice!” So if they opposed Trump, they were essentially endorsing Hillary.
It probably depends. I would guess voters fell into roughly some overlapping camps. There were some who said, “Trump can’t be worse than HRC”, but never actually tried to figure out what Trump was all about. They were lucky. Others said, “Trump can’t be worse than HRC”, but based it on things they saw, knew, and surmised about Trump. Turns out they saw something more substantial in Trump than I, and I wouldn’t call them “just lucky”. Some obviously liked/loved Trump and saw something attractive in him as a candidate. In 2016 I saw none of that, but I have to concede that these folks read him and/or the situation better than I did.
Bottom line–I think if we’re honest, none of us actually knew what Trump would be like policy-wise, but it’s not ludicrous that some figured he could be held to his word more than I did. I was very concerned that he’d get into office and be flattered by Pelosi et al. into doing stupid things. That’s was probably where I was most wrong–no one even tried that tack, going straight for his jugular out of the gate, which I’m persuaded did as much to steel him against bad policies as anything else. In other words, the Ds promoted bad policies, the Ds viciously attacked Trump at every turn, so therefore Trump fought the Ds at every turn–and for the better.
In 2016 I had no inkling that intelligence agencies were wielding power in the election.
I hear you, but sometimes the choices are so bad, not voting is the only way to go. That’s what I thought to be the case in 2016. Turns out I was wrong.
The late, great Rush described Trump better than almost anyone else. Faults, bad judgement about people, strengths, and all the rest.
I think “lucky” but not just that. “Not Hillary” was big.
You left out this part of my comment:
(Emphasis added.)
While NR may want to “…avoid the appearance of being an arm of the Republican party,” they also don’t advocate that the party while ostensibly aligns with them, the GOP, sponsor measure such as voter registration, etc. Hell, I don’t think they’ve even done a profile of Scott Pressler, which they absolutely should.
My apologies. I didn’t mean to misrepresent your point. Thanks for pointing it out.
Take some time to assess the staff that works for them. You will find a decisive left/progressive tilt.