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 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Immortal Election: Steelmanning the Never-Trump Position
At the first International Chess Tournament, in London in 1851, during a pause between official tournament matches, renowned Prussian chess player Adolf Anderssen sat down to play a friendly game with Lionel Kieseritzky, a Baltic German (today he would be Estonian or Latvian) chess master.
After a brief exchange of pawns and two dozen moves of what can only be described as perplexing play, Anderssen had managed to lose two of his pawns, a bishop, both rooks, and his queen — while capturing only three of his opponent’s pawns in exchange.
Kieseritzky appeared positioned to win with a mate in two, but never got the chance: In a stunning reversal, Anderssen advanced his bishop for a surprise mate using only the bishop and two knights, his sole remaining major pieces.
The game, dubbed “The Immortal Game” by Austrian chess master Ernst Falkbeer, stands today as a brilliant, if stylistically dated, example of sacrificial play. I was fortunate to see it first demonstrated without knowing its conclusion, and so enjoyed the full effect of the unexpected victory: The sacrifices pile up as if a drunkard were playing — I was almost embarrassed for the player and his relentlessly mounting losses.
It’s a peculiar and risky thing, the gambit, the faux-sacrifice that leads to advantage. There are so many ways it might go wrong and leave the gambler in an impossibly weakened position. In such an extreme example as this, it’s tempting to credit luck, but Anderssen was a master of this style of play, one of the greatest, and it seems likely that the game unfolded much as he intended.
I have less confidence in the strategy of those self-described conservatives who make one of what I believe are the two strongest arguments for not supporting Trump in the upcoming election: That the GOP must reform and that Trump being defeated is how we achieve that reform; or that Americans as a whole need to learn how dire is our situation, and four years of Democratic governance at this seemingly precarious point in our history will drive that message home more effectively than anything else possibly could, effectively enough to prompt real change.
Again, I think these are the strongest practical arguments a conservative can make against supporting Trump. I discount personal objections along the lines of “I simply can’t cast a vote for that man,” because I don’t think those are practical, nor even sensible: Barring some extraordinary event, we are going to get President Trump or President Harris, and making no effort to secure the less bad outcome simply because one is personally offended doesn’t make sense in any objective way, and seems both self-indulgent and ultimately destructive.
But there are those two arguments: That it really is in America’s best interest to let Trump lose, because then we’ll learn one of two important things. We’ll either learn that men like Trump should never be nominated, and so the GOP will do better and the nation will prosper as a result. Or Americans will learn just how bad it can get under Democratic rule, and will insist that we change course, and — again — the nation will prosper as a result.
Either strikes me as an enormous gamble, a sacrifice — of a candidate with a known history of relatively conservative governance and a professed desire to pursue the essential dismantling of the overweening state — in exchange for the hope that a lesson, the right lesson, might be learned through that sacrifice. It’s a dangerous gamble for two reasons. First, the damage that might be done by a Harris presidency is, I think, potentially lasting and significant. Second, I see no strong reason to believe that the desired lesson will in fact be learned, either by the GOP or by the American people.
Indeed, it’s easy to imagine that the GOP might learn a very different lesson: That we need candidates who are not combative, who don’t buck the conventional wisdom or challenge the press, who want to compromise with the Democrats in order to get work done. Or that millions of GOP voters will conclude that it doesn’t matter whom they support, because the establishment isn’t going to let them elect their preferred candidate anyway. Those outcomes seem as plausible to me as the more beneficial outcomes imagined by the never-Trumpers.
Similarly, it’s easy to imagine that the American people would, after four years of economic and social upheaval, be even more dependent on government for relief, even more encouraging of an expansion of government handouts we simply can’t afford, but which a Harris administration will drive us deeper into debt to provide.
The world has never witnessed the financial collapse of the American government, nor anything like it. It strikes me as an extraordinarily risky strategy to knowingly hasten that in hopes that we will come to our senses, that in that moment (as Dean Acheson said in a different context), “Cooler heads will prevail.”
Better not to get to that point at all and, while there’s no sure way to avoid it, common sense suggests we should do our best to avoid it for as long as possible.
That’s the point: There’s no sure thing here. We don’t know if a Trump defeat will strengthen the Republican Party or render it fragmented and irrelevant. We don’t know if four more years of Democratic Party governance will leave us with a broken Supreme Court, a wrecked economy, a weakened military facing strong adversaries, a compromised electoral system, restricted speech, and ravaged institutions — in short, in a situation from which normal Americans simply can not achieve, through the ballot box, a return to political sanity.
That seems to me to be what’s at stake. We aren’t playing a chess game, and we can’t afford to make a huge strategic sacrifice and then lose. Those who argue that a Trump defeat will strengthen us have no evidence to support that, whereas the evidence that a Trump presidency will be objectively superior, from a conservative perspective, to a Harris presidency is ample and compelling.
To those who think these arguments — again the best arguments I’ve heard for opposing Trump despite them still not being very good — are convincing, I suggest you acknowledge the gamble you’re taking, and not pretend to have an insight into the future that none of us possess. You’re making the immediately poorer choice based on a theory, a hypothesis, an unsubstantiated hope of a happy outcome.
And to those who hide behind seemingly serious arguments to justify their personal detestation of Trump, I say be an adult. Put the nation ahead of your own indignation, and do what’s best for America.
Published in Politics
And I’m not sure there are a lot of NeverTrumpers who fall into the category “very wise.”
Doesn’t work. They think they ARE doing what’s best for America.
What kind of word salad is that? What’s an objective way?
Be an adult? That’s what Jeb! Bush was saying in 2016. We rejected that idea and elected Trump instead, with reasonably good results. Better than we would have gotten with Jeb! anyway.
Perhaps it would help to look at the phrase in the context in which I wrote it:
“making no effort to secure the less bad outcome simply because one is personally offended doesn’t make sense in any objective way” (emphasis added for clarity)
And I’ll stand by that. Being personally offended is a subjective matter; wrecking the economy and endangering the country are objectively measurable outcomes which conservatives should deplore.
Yes, be an adult: Put the fate of the nation first.
No, I don’t think they do think that. I think they are doing what feels satisfying, not what a moment’s reflection would tell them is best for the country.
You’re sounding like one of those Anti-Trump, Anti-MAGA editorials in the WSJ in which I suspect Karl Rove has had a hand.
Present an argument if you like. I’ll be happy to have a discussion.
Be my guest. You’re the one who started it. “Be an adult: Put the fate of the nation first” is not an argument any more than Karl Rove had an argument. It’s a non-sequitur.
I think ultimately the problem with this exhortation is that the two strongest reasons given above or after the fact rationalizations.
How one votes is about emotion and feeling not about reason. Never Trump may tell themselves it’s about reason but it’s not. It’s about emotion. It’s about not wanting to vote for “That man.”
It was that way in 2016. It’s that way for anybody who looked at Trump and discussed on January 6th. It’s emotion not reason and while you have written something that’s very reasonable you cannot reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
Being against Trump is all about emotion.
Course being for him is too.
There’s a Pacific-size difference between being emotionally vested in a Trump victory because of his track record as President and being emotionally vested in a Trump defeat despite his track record as President. The former is rational. The latter is not.
It’s my guess that it’s going to be a clean sweep across the country in November. I think the Republicans will win a lot, including the executive branch.
And I frankly feel sorry for them all because they are walking into a financial disaster across the board. So many disabled people have been “disqualified” from the Democratic Party supported Medicaid program–people who really and truly need help. Trump would not turn his back on this group of people. I know he wouldn’t. The subject of single-payer healthcare financing came up in 2016 during the Republican primary New Hampshire debate, and he said rather forcefully that we had to fix it because, paraphrasing from memory, “the American people will never tolerate people dying in the streets.”
I don’t think the polls are capturing the frustration of American voters. That’s just my guess. The jobs reports last week were pretty grim. Even on left-leaning LinkedIn these past two weeks, there have been stories about how hard it is to get a job these days.
There’s a lot of talk of a looming recession. And it’s global, which means our customers are pulling back their spending too so there are no foreign markets to help out here. Even Hong Kong (two-minute Bloomberg video) is in a downturn. The economic situation around the world–China, particularly–is driving the mass migration we’re seeing.
It will be a very rough year for a Republican administration. But at least if the Republicans are running things, we’ll pull out in a year or two. If the Democrats stay in charge, it will be six more years–four for the Democrats and two more for the Republicans to fix the problems after the 2028 election–before we see any financial relief.
I don’t understand the idea that the Democratic Party as led by Joe Biden these last four years is no better at leading this country than the Republican Party.
I have two points on this:
DJT was a reaction to this. The GOP will likely never go back to what McConnell, Ryan, David French, Jonah, JPod, etc., want. If it somehow does, a sizeable portion of us former Tea Party voters will walk away.
No, you’re right, it’s not an argument. It’s a closing exhortation. The argument was all that stuff I said before that:
This is a difference.
And, being a Trump supporter, I believe my reasons for supporting him are, well, rational. AND, I fully understand that part of what I like about Trump and why I want to support him is totally emotional. I think acknowledging that instead of denying it makes me more rational, rather than less rational.
Ricochet is full of wonkish posters who value reading, being articulate, being knowledgeable, being smart, and being rational. Reason is often held up as the pinnacle of value in arguments. As a therapist and student of human beings, I can tell you that no one who thinks he is always rational is correct. Our emotions are always at play. If we ignore them or if we are not aware of them, then they will have their say in ways we are not aware of.
This is spot on. The Republican elites continue to be upset that the Republican voters they have mocked and ignored for 20 years are fed up.
It is not, by the way, as if the Democrats are doing a whole lot better. The parties are both being pulled apart.
Those who will not vote to keep the Democrats out must believe themselves to be very financially and personally secure – enough to last through four to eight more years of havoc.
I know it’s not your thing, but bless you, Henry! And Amen! Very well stated.
If they would have not endorsed FJB in 2020, I would agree it was the man. Biden is a loudmouth, liar, a demagogue, allowed his family to use his name for influence pedaling schemes. He ad all of the same issues that French/Kristol et al complained about Trump.
The first ten minutes of this ties in with post topic:
…or that Americans as a whole need to learn how dire is our situation, and four years of Democratic governance at this seemingly precarious point in our history will drive that message home more effectively than anything else possibly could, effectively enough to prompt real change.
Who are the advocates of this position? I’m not disputing you; I just don’t know of any prominent figures making this argument. However, I have been increasingly tuning out this election, so maybe I’ve missed this.
Jean, I can’t name anyone who makes that argument — at least, not out loud. But I do remember people offering it in 2016, saying that we’re heading into financial crisis and it would be best if the Democrats were in charge when that happened.
I actually consider it the best single argument in favor of not supporting Trump, and it’s the argument that gives me a tiny bit of comfort when I reflect on the fact that we might lose in November. It’s kind of the Atlas Shrugged/Galt’s Gulch strategy: Let the engines stop, and then step forward to rebuild.
I’d rather we didn’t do it that way, and I’m not sure it’s possible to do it that way. But I’m an incurable optimist, and try to find a path back to civilization regardless of what circumstances and elections give us.
There is also the “It’s no big deal it Harris win” argument
We are still in the middle of the Secret Service fiasco of the attempted assassination of former President and current candidate Donald Trump and the murder of a supporter with no accountability taken. (please don’t bring up the Director’s resignation, no accountability there).
Now, if we have a major international negative event with Harris in the White House, we won’t even know who to hold accountable.
I don’t think this is the best argument – it’s pretty weak. I remember hearing this brought up in past elections, long before Trump. It hasn’t gotten any stronger with time.
I don’t find it convincing. But, again, it remains the best argument I’ve heard.
If there is an argument that you find more convincing, I’d be interested to hear it. Seriously, I would like to hear anyone who opposes a Trump win explain why, with something more substantial than “I detest him.”
I would like to seriously engage with what people consider to be good arguments.
I would like to hear anyone attempt to defend that argument. I don’t think it’s true, and I don’t think a strong case can be made in defensive of it.
Why I have seen it right here, on the pages at Ricochet. Posters scoffing at the election and wondering why people are all upset.
Are there many – or any – members here who oppose a Trump win? I am not aware of anyone. There are no doubt several like me who live in states where our vote makes no difference, and aren’t going to vote for him, but I can’t think of anyone here who wants a Harris win.
Of the two arguments you present, I think the first one is the better, stronger argument.
There is David French, who says that his conservatism compels him to vote for Kamela Harris. There are conservatives (mostly in states that are not in play, anyway) who say they are not voting for president or writing Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley. French is the most prominent Republican I have heard of who is actually voting for Harris.
Again, I would like to hear anyone try to make a coherent case for that position.
I suspect so, yes. But we always hope for an audience larger than the Ricochet Member feed, right? ;)