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
1000%
It’s impossible under a discretionary central bank regime.
If automation and globalized trade is forcing prices down and eliminating jobs while the Fed still creates inflation for some strange reason, what do you recommend? Nobody is interested in setting this up properly, one way or another.
I will take it given events.
Almost a complete waste of time in this era.
Join Principles First instead.
Yeah they checked the ACA repeal and the wall. Good work.
You would be better off finding a way to come up with an original thought about public policy.
Have you considered studying public policy and not helping Democrats?
That kind of snark should be redacted by the management.
Levin is discussing this now: Appeals court halts special master review in Trump Mar-a-Lago documents case (nypost.com)
Constitutional issues?
I don’t think that’s exactly what he is, but I think Pedro Gonzalez is very worthwhile to listen to. He’s on Charlie Kirk about once a week.
Even if they thought the McMuffin scam had a chance, that was evil too.
But if the “Not Hillary” people vote for 2 or 3 or more different people, Hillary still wins.
Significant, historic failures. I want to say ‘betrayal at the level of Benedict Arnold’, but I won’t.
That’s it? Some version of “can’t be worse than HRC?” No wonder Republicans have sucked so much. Obviously he was going to be better than HRC. That didn’t take either luck or a crystal ball.
As I recall it, the overlap was more operative during the primary: Trump can’t be worse than Jeb!, Rubio, or Cruz. Worse how? In terms of policy. Obviously Trump or just about anyone else was going to be way better than HRC.
I don’t do that part because, under our system, it is foolish.
Yeah, like Democrats are a check on Biden.
What, you think voting 3rd party doesn’t help the Democrat win?
I’d like to see the math on that.
I said I don’t vote third party and I don’t advocate that others do that.
I keep saying this. He doesn’t listen (others may or may not).
I’m at this point with it:
Apology accepted; all is forgiven.
Yep, exactly.
I wanted two thing from Trump in 2016: 1) don’t be Hillary, and 2) appoint decent justices. He surpassed my expectations.
Fair enough.
I’m just struck by how those who opposed him in 2016 have all sorts of complex rationales and mental models of how their peculiar vote strategy was the best thing if only some other thing had also happened.
Meanwhile, those of us who supported him are reduced to being right and winning. Darnedest thing.
Mine too. Very much so. It started to feel like a vacation.
We were told Biden would bring us back to “normal”. He is as big a demagogue as Trump, has horrible economic and foreign policies and is compromised with the CCP (10% for the big guy)
Ironic Mona wrote a book called “Useful Idiots” – the Bulwark is full of them
i.e.
https://ricochet.com/podcast/federalist-radio-hour/the-group-chat-on-rail-workers-statists-and-a-better-path-for-conservative-populism/
@garyrobbins
I disagree, but I supported McMullin in 16. To me, it’s no different from the EC, which invalidates the popular vote, and technically the States get to choose their electors any way they want to, and electors aren’t bound to vote as their State wished. The process is laid out in the Constitution for when the EC doesn’t get a majority for one person, and working for that goal is just another way to win an election, albeit a very long shot. Our system is arcane with good reason for the time but less so now. Even so, I’m not advocating for us to dissolve the EC just because we don’t need to have an intermediary layer from the ignorant voters and electing the chief executive. It serves other purposes, like balancing the small and large states.
An individual vote doesn’t matter. Sure in FL in 2000 the election turned on 600 votes (and a poorly designed ballot that had a few thousand Dems vote for Pat Buchanan), but in most States, I’m in Texas, even a few thousand votes one way or another statewide aren’t going to make a difference.
Quite true and I freely admit that my support for McMullin was a bad idea. I’m quite happy to admit that Trump turned out to be a very good President in almost every way and I voted for him in 20 (don’t tell my wife). What started my turn was the grossly unfair way he was treated starting the day after the election and still not ending even now, by the left and the GOP as well. It’s soured me to the point that I no longer consider myself a Republican and could care less how they fare in elections except that I expect them to lose because of their stupidity (hmm, and what just happened?).
Did you have any sense of the level of corruption within the intelligence agencies in 2016? What did you know about McMullin that would impel you to support him?
In a swer to your first question, no, I did not. Perhaps I was blinded by my Tom Clancy View of the IC, but I truly didn’t see just how corrupt they had become. I assumed such from the State Department, but not the IC. I actually think that the exposure of their corruption is one of the better things that the Trump Administration did.
Your second question is more complex. I disliked Trump for three basic reasons. First, I wasn’t convinced that he was a conservative ideologically and would blow in the wind. He isn’t and he did to some extent (bump stocks anyone) and especially wasn’t convinced that he was really Pro-Life, but was mouthing the words. On the issue of Life, Trump turned out to be the best and most Pro-Life President since Roe. Once again, I was wrong and happily so, but in 16 I greatly feared that he wasn’t any different from Clinton.
The second aspect of Trump that didn’t like was his isolationism. I still don’t like the resurgence of that on the right and in the GOP. I have strong neoconservative tendencies as it relates to freedom for the world, and that requires the US to both enforce the Pax Ameeicana and to actively promote freedom around the world. To pull back from the world is a big mistake because it allows our competitors to stake their claim to areas that we scan and should influence. As an example China is becoming more invested in Africa and the US less so. This will be problematic for us over the next few decades. I’m not convinced completely by the idea of “fair trade” vs “free trade” but in 16 was much more on the free than fair side. Now, I feel differently and I credit Trump with changing my mind on that issue.
The third issue I had with Trump was his lack of personal character. I actually love his combative style and his ability to mock the media is epic and entertaining. It’s his best quality IMO. What I was more concerned with were the affairs, the pay offs, the gold toilets that spoke of crass wealth as opposed to sophistication. It wasn’t mean tweets, I liked those, though his tendency to lash out at anyone and everyone was and is a problem. What he did against Cruz in the primary was terrible. To implicate that his Dad was associated with Oswald was wrong, flat out. It’s an example of Trump at his worst and part of the price that one has to pay to support him. It’s worth it to not get a Clinton or a Biden.
Hope that helps a bit.