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
So you can get either “isn’t good,” or “worse.” And your children may very well end up judging you harshly depending on how their future turns out.
Not guaranteed.
Yes, I agree. Republicans are supposed to be different.
So, you think Trump had “no record of performance?” Not in elected office, no, but I thought Republicans were supposed to favor running things “like a business.”
And kedavis asked something similar.
Yeah, this is fair. My premise is that I believe when Trump’s fans say “support Trump” they don’t mean simply “vote for Trump.” I’ve tried to present my reasoning, and you can read responses that seem to confirm I’m right – at least to my ears. They mean something like:
Be enthusiastic for Trump, and
Don’t criticize Trump.
I get how elections work, and I get voting for the less-bad candidate. That’s all fair play. I’m willing to vote for Trump, but I think many of his policies and behaviors are stupid and destructive of the things I care about a lot – conservatism, in a word. So I’m not going to do much more to support him than a) vote for him through gritted teeth, and b) point out how truly awful Kamala Harris is.
Who cares? Good question! I’m trying to help Trump. There are at least a few other people like me, who can be persuaded to vote for Trump but not much else. If they also think “support Trump” means wearing a T-shirt, we’re less likely to get what we actually want: their votes.
It wasn’t anything like what’s happening now. And plenty of people criticized Reagan from the right. Instead of explaining they should shut up, National Review (I think) for example tried to persuade them to “let Reagan be Reagan.” (Yes, good ol’ days, indeed.)
I do not. But okay. If you want to argue the enthusiasm for Romney is comparable to Trump, go for it.
I get your implication: I’m being obtuse about what “support” means. It’s possible, but I think a few people in these comments have more or less confirmed I’m right.
I didn’t say that.
I meant that Republicans are supposed to be different in that they don’t fall in love.
Meanwhile, NR among others appear to be against “letting Trump be Trump.”
You said it.
I think it’s more along the lines of “don’t keep criticizing Trump as if the primaries aren’t already over. It’s pointless, even counter-productive.”
Again, that’s your interpretation. Seems like people have been very clear that they support Trump because they support his policies, not the other way around. It’s been the NT types who have in many cases seemed to abandon their previous support of policies, because of Trump. Which would mean that, if anything, THEY are in a cult of anti-personality.
Yes, that’s my interpretation. I do agree that TDS is a real thing, including some of the names we’d both mention who have gone off deep end. That’s what started this line of thought for me, actually. I noticed that “Never Trumpers” and “people who don’t like Trump but voted for him” kept being conflated.
It’s fine if you support his policies. But he’s not very conservative, so expecting that anybody who voted Republican in the past also to like his policies isn’t realistic. On top of that, he’s… got a strong personality, let’s say.
Like I said, I don’t agree that it’s pointless. But thank you for confirming: “support” is not just about voting.
Particularly not guaranteed is an election by means of which the voters control the government.
The Russia Hoax indicates that elections like that have already been sliding away.
They said 2008 was the most important election ever–we’ll never get the country back if we lose this one!
Maybe they were right.
Okay, all — I’m off to coach my son’s high school football game.
Thanks for a thoughtful, civil discussion (three cheers for Ricochet).
I hope you have a good weekend.
Since 2015 there has been a bunch of people who just can’t believe anybody would support Trump and decide that there must be some sort of irrational reason for people to do it.
The reality is the irrationality is on the never trumpers not on the people who support Trump. At least not at Ricochet.
They’ve been right about it for as long as they’ve been saying it, which probably goes back before I was born.
I have nothing to add that hasn’t already been said, but I’ll just chime in to say that I largely agree with most of what Darin has said. I understand and respect the arguments on the other side, and I’m persuaded that they are worth keeping in mind when choosing when and how to criticize Trump. I even suspect those arguments will cause me to moderate some of my criticisms going forward. But on the whole, I think the country is better served by prioritizing honest and thoughtful criticism over winning a single election. (Fears that this will be the last election are unconvincing to me.)
Those are the only considerations you can think of?
I can think of reasons both pro-and-con as to whether Trump voters should criticize Trump before the election. These include arguments that have not yet been made in this discussion. I suppose I could state some of them here, but I prefer to let some people dig their holes a little deeper first. I’m also pretty sure everyone could think of them without my help if they put a little effort into it.
That’s fair. What gets to me the most is the ongoing assaults on free speech that I have never experienced before. The reason I have concerns is that I consider that one thing the most important content item from America’s founding. There are some astounding things going on around the world. Freedom of speech is primary with me because I consider myself to be among those who value individuality and small tribal/family/community as an organizing principle. Because of those values, the Left here and globally, is now calling us White Nationalists and implying that we support white supremacists. One need not be White to support nationalism over globalism.
How about just recognizing what he actually DID in his term, which had a lot more conservatism than recent Republican nominees/presidents, despite how much more they may have TALKED about things.
“Support” ALLOWS more, but I don’t think anyone here is arguing that it REQUIRES more.
How about a kind of thought experiments, are your thoughtful criticisms worth 4 or 8 years of President Harris or whoever is actually pulling the strings behind her?
And remember, nobody here, at least, is requiring that you somehow recite praise that you don’t believe, or something.
If I were convinced that that was the sole, direct, and guaranteed trade-off, and that no other factors were relevant, I would reevaluate. Obviously, I believe none of that.
You could be wrong, though. So you’re taking a chance. Potentially risking all of us, not just yourself.
That’s not a serious response. I leave it here.
“Thanks, Freeven!”
Again, what do you think the word “support” means in the context of supporting a political candidate? You’ve told me what you think other people mean when they use the word. What do you think it means?
Part of the problem might be that he seems to assume other people think it means what he thinks it means. Whether they do or not. And it might be that even if he asks them and they answer, he might think they’re wrong. Or something.
I would expect nothing different from Neocon Review.
One might as well be against the weather. I suppose those close to Trump might reasonably offer him advice, but anyone else pretending to do so is speaking for his or her own satisfaction, as no reasonable person will conclude that Trump is going to change his stripes based on their commentary.
That’s a good and bad thing. But it’s also reality.
I give you a lot of credit for standing up for your principles and being thoughtful and respectful about it amid an onslaught of criticism for your point of view. I noticed that only one other person, Saint Auggie, gave you a like on your good-natured farewell.