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.
Dear Republican Candidates: Audentes Fortuna Adiuvat
With the notable exception of Carly Fiorina, all of the non-Trump candidates have been — how to put this politely? — soporific this past month. Doubtless, many of them have been simply waiting for the Trump thing to burn itself out, and have busied themselves with fundraising, flesh-pressing, policy paper issuing, and hoping that something about an email server will wake Americans up from a quarter century of toleration for the the Clintons’ lawlessness. But — however smart that strategy might have seemed a few weeks ago — it isn’t working. Trump is bigger than ever, and no one is paying attention to any of you, largely because you’ve done so little that’s attention-worthy.
As a conservative, I like my politics boring: The less that’s going on in publicly-owned mansions and domed capitols, the more space there is for important things to happen in business, religion, science, and civil society in general. I don’t — or at least shouldn’t — want politics to be any more entertaining than necessary, but this has been too little of a bad thing. We’ve an important election coming up, with a surplus of important issues and interesting candidates with some very different takes on them. And what are they doing? Trying to lay low and wait for things to blow over. On this point if no other, the Trumpsters have my full sympathy.
So here’s my general suggestion: The Republican candidates — all of them, including Trump — need to find some way to constructively tap into the frustration so many people are feeling and turn it into something constructive. Get some attention. Have some fun. Mix it up. Go rogue. Give people reason to think there’s cause for excitement on our side.
Here’s a specific suggestion: Host some mini debates — two or three candidates at a time — and don’t wait for Reince Priebus’ permission. Remember Sen. Rand Paul and Gov. Chris Christie’s spat over surveillance and data mining during the last debate? That was interesting! The two of them should meet somewhere in New Hampshire, set-up some AV equipment, find a smart moderator or two, and have at it for two hours. Meanwhile, let’s have a similar debate on Common Core between Jeb Bush and Gov. Bobby Jindal. Let’s have an all foreign policy debate between Rubio, Paul, and Walker. Let’s have one on health care between Walker and Jindal. Let’s have Trump, Perry, and Bush go at it over immigration. Let’s have Fiorina debate anyone over anything, because that’ll be worth watching. If there’s anything we at Ricochet can do, let us know (I gather at least two of you are on a first-name basis with Claire).
That’s one idea and I bet there are plenty of better ones.
We’re spoiled with riches this season, but seem intent on not showing it. That’s poor entertainment but — more importantly — bad politics.
Published in General
I’m afraid this is one of those no-win situations. The candidates that stuck their head out would have risked imploding themselves. There is a radioactive quality to someone like Trump. To fight him, or even be on stage with him is to inharrently asked to be brought down to his level. I’m sure they all want someone else to matter-antimatter annihilate with Trump.
Also, I would be shocked if someone actually tried any of these unconventional suggestions people make. I’d be even more shocked if someone tried them this early and it eventually led to their success. Too many unknowns. This is like the government shutdown a year before the last election. Unnecessarily risky and unlikely to make a difference in the long run.
Tom,
https://youtu.be/93walxW7mjQ
Happy now.
Regards,
Jim
I’m not entirely sure what kind of connections or pull the Ricochet founders and contributors may have, but doesn’t that seem like something Ricochet itself might be able to sponsor? I can see Peter Robinson and Jay Nordlinger acting as moderators for the first debate quite clearly in my mind. And fill in the blank for who could do subsequent moderations…
We’ve got an excellent (world class) cadre of conservative talent, brains and acumen here at Ricochet, and enough viewpoints exemplified on the right in our wonderful community that this seems like something we should be doing.
What a fantastic opportunity it could be as well to expand, swell our ranks and “join the conversation” – which, after all, is what we’re about here, isn’t it? Elevating the debate?
You’ve forgotten to mention the Gingrich/Cain debate.
Working on concession speeches.
Let’s not. I don’t watch debates and one like this might cause me to break my rule against it. Then what would happen to my schtick about not watching debates?
Tom,
In all seriousness your point is well taken. I think the other candidates are going to be forced to rise to the Trump occasion. This upcoming debate on September 16 should be free swinging. My money is on Maximus.
Regards,
Jim
More freewheeling debates could indeed attract attention.
Moderated by Claire. In Paris. With field trips to the Charlie Hebdo offices and the migrant camps at Calais.
Invite Fiorina, too.
I like the Idea of small debates but lets forget the moderated “debates” and have real toe to toe debates on specific issues or areas. It seems to me there are candidates who have little hope at this point in succeeding unless things change for them in a major way. Opportunity awaits the candidate who is willing to put everything on the line and create some theater to get heard.
Perhaps some candidates are already thinking along similar lines:
Ricochet admins have the connections to reach these people. Invite them to become Contributors, then let them combat or ignore each other like any other Contributors. The offer costs Ricochet nothing.
The candidates with little name recognition and little press coverage must take risks that others will not.
.
Normally electoral politics favors the nebulous and vicious, but, yes, these may be desperate times. One counter-intuitive tweak: limit topics to YUUUGE themes like “How can you restore trust in government?” or “What does ‘a free society’ mean, do we want one, and how do we get there?” In normal times this is an open invitation to emissions of hot, often toxic, vapor; in desperate times I’m interested in the response to the bait. And if I hear any more about Common Core I’m going to start weeping.
The best way to enliven the race can be expressed in two words: Gilmania 2016!
What about Patakipalooza?
You’re a political junky!
It’s summer. I like having things get boring in the middle of July through August.
Pataki is a RINO squish cuckservative. American needs Gilmore!
Didn’t Priebus arrange the Lincoln-Douglas debates?
What, you don’t think a serious discussion about repealing and replacing Obamacare is exciting? Surely talk radio should be intensely interested in discussion of the expansion of health savings accounts, tax credits, and the ins and outs of Medicaid reform.
This is the most thrilling election in recent memory. Trump is first getting people’s attention by stating the truth about a problem and then presenting his program.
Everybody else is triangulating. Trump isn’t. He is showing the hollowness of the professional class of politician. They are all there to manage America’s decline based on the agenda of the Left. Trump is there to save America.
Debates should be held without moderators. The moderator gets to set the agenda, to establish the bounds of issues. Much much too much power, especially since they are all working for the other side. These guys want to be president. Are they incapable of saying why without being asked some question by someone who hates what they are trying to do?
If there is a moderator, it should be Alex Trebek. He knows how to do it. Manage the clock and stay out of the way.
Hank: “Everybody else is triangulating. Trump isn’t.”
You’re right. Triangulation is the process of adopting policies to appeal to the largest possible majority of voters. Trump isn’t doing that. Instead, he’s pandering to a minority of voters who care very deeply about a particular subject and who feel marginalized and betrayed generally.
Sal,
Very interesting. Dr. Padula, what is your recommendation for the others if they are to compete?
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
My prescription for the other candidates is to remain calm and not try to out-Trump Trump. There’s nothing to be gained by wrestling with a pig. He thrives on attention and will likely self-destruct if ignored.
All the best,
Sal
Sal,
Seems like good advice. Of course, it’s hard to avoid political conflict nowadays.
https://youtu.be/IPtyOn2bUk4
Regards,
Jim
Only problem is the candidates don’t control the attention — the media does.
True dat.
I caught a little bit of Trump’s speech in New Hampshire (I watched it on television), and frankly, I was impressed. He has a good rapport with an audience. He has a lot of cheerful self-confidence, and he speaks in small and memorable sound bites.
He’s fun in his own way.
I think Tom Meyer is right. The election at the moment is entertainment, and the other candidates need to scrap the canned speeches for a while and be natural and funny. Like Ben Carson.
No one likes to be preached at, and Donald Trump doesn’t preach. Or teach. He’s a bottom-line guy. His audience seems to really like his style.
After the few minutes I saw tonight, I have to wonder if he may end up the Republican nominee.
Maybe. But that’s assuming that the other candidates can find their way out of the pigpen even if they manage to avoid physical combat with the pig. It may be underestimating pigs too. Then again, are we sure that Trump is a pig and not some other creature so easily avoided?