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
Unfort. that’s also one reason why a narrow Harris victory could be made to appear plausible. “Well, y’see, Trump wasn’t ahead big in the polls…”
I don’t think there’s even a question about this. It’s the Neocons. They are the crux of the “Illusion of Choice” for Republicans.
Economist Jeffrey Sachs Reveals How Neocons Subverted Russia’s Financial Stabilization In Early 1990s
aka, first-level thinking. Or just letting their emotions drive things.
I don’t know, Other Darin Johnson. I personally found John McCain very objectionable in many ways and voted for him. I knew he would be better than Obama. I didn’t financially support him but I did have a yard sign at one point because I was voting for him and doing some volunteer work for the local party candidates so it was kind of expected.
It’s pretty common “wisdom” that seems to escape a lot of people, especially those with some level of TDS: you vote for your preference in the primaries, and then vote for the nominee in the general. As the GOPe told us WE had to do, for decades.
Or, once again, in meme form:
Voting doesn’t make sense in any objective way.
The likelihood that your vote, or mine, will matter to the election outcome is very close to zero. Probably less likely than winning the lottery.
Doing anything else that you like to do, anything at all, is overwhelmingly likely to be more useful than voting.
I watched this earlier on CTH. I don’t understand why these “puppet masters” want to control the world and how they remain anonymous while doing so. Don’t power-mad villains ever watch James Bond movies? 007 always wins.
Those all do sound reasonable (and I share your dislike for people responding to political opinions with personal attacks).
I can understand not being willing to vote for Trump for a specific reason, even though one might prefer a Trump presidency to a Harris presidency. If Trump were loudly anti-free speech, I’d struggle with the conflict between doing the least harm by supporting him, and casting a vote that would disgust me. I honestly don’t know where I’d land on that, come election day. Fortunately, there’s no single issue of Trump’s that offends me that much, even when I disagree with him, so I’m not faced with that conundrum.
I have never followed David French. The reason is that every time his name is mentioned here at Ricochet he is saying something really, really arrogant…or just plain stupid. This one qualifies as the latter. But, I understand he has evolved to a more comfortable position–writing editorials for the New York Times.
Trump is loudly anti-free speech. Openly and loudly, proclaiming his intention to deport demonstrators who disagree with him.
Did you somehow miss this news?
Darin, that doesn’t sound like a very sensible question, really. I mean, if that’s a concern in this instance, then why isn’t it equally a concern when you like a candidate? We always have to draw a line at some level of support: I’ve never mortgaged my home to make a larger political contribution, nor quit my job to go door-to-door for a candidate.
And yes, of course I do think that it’s important that you, as a conservative, vote for Trump. Personally, I think that would be sufficient, though if you wanted to send money to the campaign I certainly wouldn’t discourage you. ;)
Voting for Trump is certainly supporting him, but so is refraining from saying I will never vote for Trump, even if that’s true. That last — supporting by not undermining — is pretty tepid support, I admit, but the target audience for this post is those who are conservative but are vocally opposed to Trump. I’d like to encourage those folks to consider at least not speaking and acting in such a way as to increase the likelihood of a Harris presidency, even if they are unwilling to actually vote for Trump.
I opposed Trump loudly and emphatically before he got the nomination in 2016, and then supported him once he was the candidate. I was pleasantly surprised. I supported him in 2020, since he was obviously going to be the candidate and I thought he’d done a decent job in office. This year I would have preferred someone else, and would have liked it quite a lot if DeSantis had proven himself ready. But I will of course vote a third time for Trump, and do what little I can to encourage others to do likewise.
My case exactly: I never liked McCain, always characterizing him as a “fine American and a bad Republican.” I never wanted him as a candidate, but also put up a sign and voted for him when he became the candidate.
I liked Romney more than I did McCain, and am saddened by what became of him.
Jerry,
That’s a topic worthy of a much bigger discussion than I’m going to engage in here. There’s a philosophical question about the sensibility of behaving in a way in which you wouldn’t want others to behave, a way that only works for you if others don’t emulate your behavior.
There’s also a matter of civic buy-in, of participating in society as a full member. If you don’t vote, you aren’t fully participating. Some people are probably fine with that; some people seem happy not to work, either. I need to work, and I think it’s good for me to know that I’m participating in what I think is the noble business of self-governance.
I wouldn’t advise anyone to pass up on voting on election day for some trivial reason that could as easily be pursued some other time. I think that would be a trade a thoughtful person might come to regret.
H.
Actually, “loudly” is always the wrong word to use with Trump, because he’s always loud.
So replace it with “plausibly.” Trump is not plausibly anti-free speech. He has a very good track record of respecting individual rights, far better than that of his opponents.
Yes, exactly. And it’s not as if there’s a shortage of Trump detractors in the universe, anyway.
Henry shows admirable self-restraint. I feel no such compunction. Unless you want Harris/Walz to win, it’s best if you remain silent about Trump at this point. Follow the old adage — if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
The difference between a Republican win and a Democrat win at this point isn’t exactly a close-run thing on the future of our freedom. The real Death Cult fascists are the ones screaming about “saving our democracy” while burning down our cities.
Once a huge all-out war breaks out, everything is on the table. I was hoping that that could be avoided. I think Zelenskyy was right to hold back on attacking inside Russia for that reason.
We’re not that far apart. I recall saying in 2020 that while I reluctantly voted for Trump in 2016, I enthusiastically voted for him for reelection. I thought he’d earned it. I’m not one who falls in love with politicians. I’ve never so much as put a political sign in my yard. I just reach for the best tool at hand. That’s been Trump the last several general elections.
He held back for over a year, right? Isn’t that long enough? Meanwhile, by attacking Ukraine, Russia is NECESSARILY attacking their ability to produce even defensive weapons, etc. Keeping that one-sided doesn’t seem fair, let alone wise.
Lynne Cheney said today she is voting for heals up . Defending “her democracy ”
John Thune said he is voting for neither . I believe he is lying . He is one of those “defending our democracy ” crooked bastards too .
No, he doesn’t have a good track record on free speech. He said that he would deport people who disagree with him. He said this to a room full of wealthy donors, to please them.
I find this to be true on issue after issue, Hank. Trump’s positions are terrible. Perhaps Harris’s positions are marginally worse, most of the time.
I do appreciate your openness to the idea of being “not willing to vote for Trump for a specific reason.” This is a major part of my thinking, at present. You specifically mentioned free speech, and as a factual matter, I think that he is sufficiently unacceptable on this point as to warrant declining to support him. Three other significant issues on which I find him unacceptable are the Gaza genocide, the promotion of the homosexual agenda, and his support of abortion.
At the moment, I’m not planning to vote. I have not made a final decision about this.
For those who may not recall, I voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020. Thus far, he has lost me for this election. I do not support any of the other candidates, either.
It’s not a question of fair.
In my view, it is very unwise for Ukraine to escalate the war. Russia has pulled its punches thus far, fighting a limited war. It’s been very costly and deadly, but could be much, much worse.
In such circumstances, it is particularly foolish for the weaker side to escalate. I think that this is the reason that the Ukrainians haven’t taken this step for almost two years.
My own judgment is that the Ukrainians are willing to escalate now out of desperation. This is bad for us, as it would be catastrophic to allow ourselves to be drawn into a wider war with Russia. From the Ukrainian point of view, I still think that it is unwise, but I think that it’s understandable. Desperate people will make desperate gambles.
He doesn’t have a good track record for speaking sensibly. But yes, he has a good track record regarding free speech.
He was President once already. I’m not aware of any instance of him actually censoring or silencing anyone, nor of spying on reporters, using the DoJ to scapegoat filmmakers to further a dishonest narrative, etc. Obama and Biden did those things.
I think that is an unwise position to take, given the near certainty that a Harris administration would be far more inclined to censor and suppress inconvenient and/or heterodox speech.
Absolutely your right and I fully support it.
I will vote for Trump, continue to support his campaign in other ways, and hope to keep Democrats out of the White House for at least four years.
When your only idea is, “We’re not them,” and you simply wait your turn to gain power, you:
In the marketplace of ideas, the NT’s lost, basically because their version of “we’re not them” in the primary was “we’re not him.”
And remember, if things get worse, Jerry has no business complaining.
Why?
I just assumed that you wouldn’t vote for Trump this time because he is the obvious Pro-Israel candidate.
Because at least so far as he’s told us so far, he won’t even have bothered to vote against it.
That is an appallingly egregious mischaracterization. He was specifically and strictly talking about foreign students who joined in on the ‘US government is Israel’s partner in genocide’ protest frenzy on various campuses.