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.
Over the Cliff in 2024
I read this Xeet thread today, and it got me to thinking a bit.
1) A thread on Trump and the fragility of the regime.
This is the most iconic image of 21st century America since the photos of the planes hitting the Twin Towers.
It may prove to be even more historically significant.
This is how Trump returned to Twitter after 31 months. pic.twitter.com/eKXkX61FEt
— Alexsandr Kislov (@AlexsandrKislov) August 25, 2023
The central gist of the Xeet thread is that the system (the thread calls it the regime) is increasingly dedicated to stopping Trump from becoming President again and will do anything to achieve that goal. I think this is spot on. The system isn’t just the Democrats though. It includes the Banana Republicans because, to the system, Trump is and always has been an existential threat.
I thought this back in 2015-2016, and it’s a big reason I never thought he would win that election. The idea that a political novice would have their first political office as President is just insane. It undermines the entirety of the concept of the professional political class. Why do we need politicians if successful people can run for and win political office without paying their dues?
In a recent post, @TGOT suggested that Trump should abandon his campaign and endorse someone else. To me, that’s as likely as Joe Biden resigning due to his corruption. To Biden, he has paid his dues and now he gets to reap the rewards. But what of other options?
Trump could be found guilty and go to prison. I don’t know how they would handle his appeals and if they would incarcerate him pending appeals, but throwing him in jail, to me, isn’t likely to make him less electable. This is why we see the pre-emptive attempts to remove him from the ballot via the 14th Amendment.
He might die … he is old, after all, but if that were to happen, how many would assume foul play? If he is nominated and loses in 2024 with pretty much none of the issues from 2020 actually addressed, who will assume the election was legitimate? Those who wanted him to lose certainly, but how much worse can the trust in our electoral system be? Lastly, he could win, and we would be back to the existential threat to the system of professional politicians; can they allow that?
I don’t think they can. They didn’t think he would really win in 2016. They ensured that even when he did, he was hamstrung as much as possible. Then in 2020, they “fortified” the election to ensure he lost. Maybe there is a reason that the GOP has been slow to push for electoral reforms. Maybe they want to ensure they can still stop Trump in 2024, even if he is their nominee. I certainly wouldn’t put it past the Banana Republicans.
Published in Elections
I think Trump has a right to be angry.
And it’s not like the powers that be have learned anything. They are replaying 2020’s pandemic electoral changes now with predictions of a covid “election variant”. I guess if it works don’t change. But this gives me a least faint hope that Trump can adapt faster than the deep state, entrenched politicians, and uniparty governors.
I’ve said this before …
The ‘regime’ wants to run against Trump. No other candidate animates pro-Dem voters like Trump. Right or wrong, they think they can beat him again. It can’t be lost on them that after every indictment Trump’s support intensifies and his fundraising grows. That’s the plan. Every indictment forces the Reps to circle the wagons ever tighter around Trump.
That’s just it. They don’t. They want Trump in jail.
And even if that were true, then they would have a martyr running for president who would be unbeatable, and they know that.
Watch this. Trump voters next year.
This appears to be the case. I use “appears” to make it clear that this is a perception created by inaction and a lack of vocal support. The perception of opposition, or at least indifference to what many say is a constitutional crisis, can easily be rectified now, but will be more difficult as things go further.
I’m not sure the GOPe want to win. It has seemed to me for a long time that all they want to do is fund-raise by exploiting fears of what those nasty Democrats will do unless you send them your money. They’d also be scared of having Trump in office again, ready to do battle, and showing them for the cowards/grifters they are.
I voted for Trump last time. If I vote for him again, it will be for the same reason.
I agree that Trump has a right to be angry. He also has a right to market his brand to his core customers using a “This is me being very angry!” image.
Every time I see this cartoonish photo, I think the same thing: this guy is acting as if he were peddling a Batman movie to pre-teens. And that it has gotten even worse since his last campaign.
I voted for Trump last time in spite of his obvious contempt for the intelligence and honor of those who love this country, not because of it. If I vote for him again it will again be in spite of this contempt, not because of it.
The central gist of the Xeet thread is that the system (the thread calls it the regime) is increasingly dedicated to stopping Trump from becoming President again and will do anything to achieve that goal. I think this is spot on. The system isn’t just the Democrats though, it includes the Banana Republicans because to the system, Trump is and always has been an existential threat.
Could you explain why Trump is an “existential threat” to “the system”? I mean, “Lock Her Up” was frequently heard on the campaign trail in 2016, but he didn’t do anything about Hillary’s malfeasance once he was elected. He felt sorry for her: “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.” His judicial picks were great, but he was handed the list by the Federalist Society, whose donors include the Chamber of Commerce and the Koch brothers, which presumably are members of “the system” you refer to. He was quite comfortable, apparently, taking recommendations from “the system”. Since he didn’t do anything to the Clinton machine after saying he would, and was happy to work with groups like the Federalist Society, why do you think he’s a threat to anyone in Washington?
Yeah, you have to wonder how many times he practised this in front of the mirror to get it just right.
Because he isn’t a politician and thus isn’t under the control of a party or apparatus. It’s exceedingly rare for a person to win their first political race for President. When they do, it usually because they were war heroes (Eisenhower, Grant, etc.), but Trump isn’t that. If he shows the people that the professional politician isn’t required, and once they are shown to be not required, then why still have them in the first place.
But lots of politicians come from different backgrounds. Reagan was an actor before becoming governor of California, for example. Jimmy Carter was a farmer. I don’t think it’s a significant reason for “the system” to fear him, to be honest. But my main reason for asking the question was not his background, but his history as demonstrated by his first term. He didn’t go after “the system”.
So what image should he present in your opinion? A picture of himself eating oatmeal at the breakfast table? Like it or not, campaigning is emotional as well as rational.
“Should” in the moral sense of the word, or the tactical sense?
Reagan was an actor, then he got into politics and ran for Governor of California and won. He didn’t go from nothing to President politically.
Tactical, of course. I don’t want to get into the moral debate over oatmeal, pancakes or waffles for breakfast. Because I eat farina.
Say no more!
Tactically, the best image is the one that has the most favorable net psychological reaction among possible voters. If the group that responds favorably to the Batman cartoon is relatively is larger than the group that would be turned away by it to someone else, then he should keep pumping it till they puke or he runs out of money.
Nothing he says or does will likely affect my vote. I never hear the one, nor see the other. The instant I hear the voice or see the face of him and his kind on the telly, I hit the mute button, look down at my laptop, and pull the visor down on my baseball cap so there is no chance of catching a glimpse of them.
I will vote for the most conservative candidate who has a chance of winning.
Perhaps Trump’s lack of political involvement and experience (except for donating money to candidates for office, many of them Democrats) explains how he was able to lead the GOP to historic losses in the 2020 elections, losing the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Even the high-profile candidates he endorsed suffered appallingly at the polls. The idea that he is some kind of successful political genius who appeared on the scene ex nihilo and revolutionized American politics is laughable. He’s a proven loser, as the GOP will discover once again if he’s their candidate for president in 2024. But when the dust has settled it’s going to be fun to watch the finger-pointing and recriminations, so there’s that.
I’m not sure I understand you, but I think Oatmeal Til You Puke is not a good slogan.
Regarding “I will vote for the most conservative candidate who has a chance of winning.” does this mean the most conservative candidate even if he’s second best chance of winning or the second best candidate with the very best chance of winning?
Unfortunately, I would not be able to answer this question in a way that would meet your strict criteria of acceptability.
* * *
Optional reading for others:
[Disclaimer: The author is not responsible for any time you waste on this. If you wish to register your indignation after reading, Ricochet Moderators will permit up to two sarcastic personal attacks on me for writing the below, if they do not contain obscenities.]
The first problem is this.
Buckley’s maxim about whom to vote for is an example of a language convention, the use of a phrase without a precise meaning to convey a certain precise but complex idea for which there is no term in English. Here is another concrete example: “At Barnacle College, we accept only the brightest and most well-rounded candidates for admission.” In engineering we called the topic “vector functions”. We were not phased by such problems because we had a toolkit for dealing with it: partial differential equations with multiple independent variables”.
Another difficulty: the logical impossibility of assigning quantitative metrics of subjective value to factors affecting the ranking of subjective values. So it is not even possible to specify the vector function for the desirability function, Desirability = f(degree_of_conservatism, probability_of_winning).
Another results from the last one: What Global M. is assuming is that without concrete facts, it would be possible for me to evaluate two hypothetical candidate. That is obviously not possible.
Another one: the impossibility of ranking incommensurable factors, like “the degree of conservatism of a candidate” and “the probability of a candidate winning”. An example: “The economy’s output was 100 tons of apples and 50 tons of tomatoes. What was the total output?”
I’m just happy you used “whom” correctly. Really. It makes me happy. That’s all the thought I have time for!
They want him to be the nominee AND they want to use the 14th to remove him from the ballot? In other words, Democrats want to run unopposed?
Sounds about right.
I think you misunderstand “the system.” It isn’t just people in Washington.
Can you think of nothing he did that displeased Codevilla’s ruling class? How about tariffs on Chinese agricultural products? The farm subsidy lobby didn’t care for that much. How about knocking out ISIS without starting another forever war? Raytheon was displeased. How about treating our NATO allies like grownups rather than teenagers always pleading for more money and to borrow dad’s car? Betsy DeVos at Education? Oof, the teacher’s unions were ticked. Moving the American embassy to Jerusalem? That was an embarrassment to multiple past presidents how easy and smooth that was. Etc, etc.
He wasn’t right about everything (I’m glad he took the Federalist Society’s advice), but credit where it’s due. Trump has all the right enemies.
The permanent bureaucracy will do anything to keep power. This didn’t start with Trump. J. Edgar Hoover used blackmail to keep his position. The FBI/CIA did similar things to Goldwater in 64.
I recommend reading Steve Hayword’s book “Age of Reagan” which reviews the history from JFK to the Election of Reagan. It is eerie how similar it is to what is happening now.
This is true but the bureaucratic leadership is positioned much stronger systemically, a replacement for systemic racism maybe.
“Banana Republicans”. Very nice.
That’s a keeper.
But you still haven’t answered my question: why do you think Trump is a threat to “the system”, when he has already demonstrated, in his first term, that he won’t fight it? As indicated by his quotes that I provided above, he felt sorry for Hillary and despite the “Lock Her Up” slogans during his campaign, he didn’t do anything to prosecute her. And he was happy to take guidance from, for example, the Federalist Society, whose donors include the Koch brothers and the Chamber of Commerce – “the system”, in other words. So I’ll ask again – what makes you think “the system” has any reason at all to fear him, when his past performance indicates otherwise?
The problem with most of what you list is that it’s either unproven or nothing unique to Trump (meaning, one could expect it from any Republican president). I will grant you one exception, which is the moving of our embassy to Jerusalem, which was a marvelous move. I think that was done because Trump ignored the conventional “wisdom” of the State Department that doing so would be inflammatory. But I don’t see how that is an embarrassment to past presidents – I can see it being an embarrrasment to the “experts” at the State Department, but not so much to past presidents. It doesn’t even register on my radar of criticisms, because it’s never been a very prominent issue.
But at any rate, I don’t think he was uniquely an enemy to “the system”, any more than most other conservative Republicans would be. And he gave a pass to the Clinton machine.
I will add that I am very much in favor of disentangling our economy from China’s, the sooner, the better. But you said it was the “farm subsidy lobby” that was upset about the tariffs on agricultural goods – I can see why you used that term, and not “farmers”. Because it was farmers who saw the price for their soybeans (to use one example) plummet as a result of the tariffs. Don’t pretend that it’s only the lobbying class that is affected by these policies.
What I’m asking is: How do you apply your accepted maxim? Not how do you not apply your maxim.