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
Well, it does. I had some doubts, called myself a Trump skeptic, initially. I voted for Trump in 2016 mainly because he was not Hillary and I had a lot of questions. The Deep State showed its face quickly and as a former SES bureaucrat I had a sense of how well Obama had seeded the bureaucracy at the top, especially intel and law enforcement, so I got on the Trump train early. And McMullin not having any revealed background was a show-stopper anyway.
EDIT: @dbroussa BTW, I think the above and the relationship with social and public media of these agencies, DNC, and associates like Lawfare many have been decisive in the 2020 election.
Who ever said the Electoral College was insulation from stupidity? AFAIK, the entire purpose is to bring the States into the mix by Balkanizing a raw Democracy.
I thought we referred to that as ‘federalism’. We actually could benefit from a repeal of the 17th Amendment.
The founders also feared direct democracy and the mob rule it implied. It’s one reason why Senators were elected by the States and not the people. They feared that the average voter wasn’t always capable of making such weighty decisions. Hamilton expressed this in Federalist 68 saying that the electors would “most likely to have the information and discernment”.
On this I agree completely. It might also begin to restore some sovereignty to the States and we might end up with a functioning republic of functional states as opposed to a functioning republic of dysfunctional states.
Looks as if your answer to my second question is forget McMullin specifically but throw the election to the House.
The question of Neo-conservatism versus isolationism or nationalism seems to hinge on the judge of what is working or will work in the world as it is. It looks as if we are losing the fight against collectivism and are even threatened here.
It’s also a question of priority. We can’t help anyone with “democracy” and “freedom” when we are in the midst of losing it ourselves. The world looks askance at us and rightfully demands “on whose authority???” We have no authority here. Our elections are a shambles, our morality is repugnant to a large number of other countries, and those who have common values with the majority of the globe are struggling to maintain our freedoms.
I don’t want us to police the world because we end up exporting revolting culture and it is best for the rest of the world to not be contaminated by us.
You have expressed some of the kinds of detailed thoughts that run through my mind when I think about why I’m not interested in interventions around the world.
Our government pushes the worst in Woke Educational Garbage on third-world countries, using the threat of withholding money to get them to, for example, shove transgender nonsense on their children.
It’s evil.
Rush used to joke that we should export our woke nonsense to our enemies to weaken them. Of course part of that would mean we stop it from infecting us.
Today’s good news story: NPR Loses $20 Million In Corporate Sponsorships, Implements Hiring Freeze (thegatewaypundit.com)
EDIT: Wrong thread, but maybe readers will get a laugh out of it.
I remember Obama going to Uganda and forcing them to accept fake marriage or no funds seconds after it we became “enlightened”. It will be sadly funny after our collapse and we’re forced to renounce fake marriage or no aid.
I have a feeling that many on the left would rather starve, or at least they would be willing to let a lot of other people starve.
Yes, though, McMullin had a theoretical shot to win UT. To make it to the House requires you to be in the top 3 in EC votes, so you have to carry a state. It was a non-zero chance, but less than 1% IMO even then. The problem (really since the election of 1824) is that with two major parry candidates it’s rare for a third party to get EC votes. The last time a third part won a state was George Wallace in 1968 and before that it was Strom Thurmond in 1948. Before that 1924 with Bob Lafollette in WI. Andrew Jackson did us a favor after 1824, though it has also stiffled third parties. Since the modern homogenized election where regional differences matter less it’s even harder. Thus why a vote for Johnson or Jorgerson (neither of which I liked) was as meaningful as a write in for Condi Rice. McMullin had a non-zero chance. I regret that vote now because he turned out to be a truly vile individual.
It’s also about short versus long term actions. One can promote freedom.around the world and not send US troops to every hot spot. Personally I am more in favor of intervention than most, but do thunk that we need to serve legitimate interests of the US. I remember a friend of mine in the early 90s advocating for the US to send troops to Afghanistan to protect women from the Taliban. I didn’t think it was a good idea at the time, though I wonder how that might have changed things had we taken a more active role there. Unironically, this same friend was vehemently against US troops invading Afghanistan and later Iraq.
Well, that ship sailed a long time ago. US entertainment is the king around the world (though China is heavily influencing that). It was noted by an English man that the English form of digital insult (the first two fingers held up in a very shape but with the back of the hand towards the viewer) has been replaced mostly by the US “bird”.
When US troops entered Iraq people along the roads gave them a “thumbs up” even though in the Arab world that is the equivalent to the bird.
Our cultural imperialism is only now being slowed by the desire to cater to the Chinese and thus you had Red Dawn with the risable North Korean invasion, or the erasure of black actors from movie posters so as not to offend the Chinese dislike of Blacks.
The Chinese entertainment erasing lgbtq makes it so the only entertainment I’m comfortable with comes from those areas.
See how that works?
I think neocons are very much oblivious to the mess existing at home.
That is true to a point. It depends on what you mean by mess. Things are different today then they were 20 years ago when the question was how to stop Al Qaeda and should we invade Iraq. In a way that focus outward allowed the left to win a bunch domestically and make things worse. Balance is required in all things. Just as we cannot look only outwards, we cannot pull back from the world.
For what it’s worth, my brother spent three years in Afghanistan as a US Diplomat over the last few years (he retired in ’21).
He told me in a conversation we had on this topic that if he was a woman living in Afghanistan now, after two decades of hope for a decent future were crushed, he’d probably kill himself.