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.
The Debate We Were Supposed to Have
The 2016 election was the grand battle conservatives had been hoping for since Ronald Reagan left the Oval Office. The roster of candidates was to be a who’s-who of smart, proven, center-right leadership.
Scott Walker would show how his gutsy union changes transformed a blue state, while Bobby Jindal shared how his school choice revolution changed Louisiana. Rick Perry could press his breathtaking jobs record and tell us how to “make Washington inconsequential in our lives.”
From the Senate, Tea Party constitutionalist Ted Cruz would bring the intellect, while Florida’s Marco Rubio brought the heart. Add Rand Paul to energize the growing conservatarian wing, and the trio would appeal to the young, minorities, and independents.
Moderate Chris Christie would reach out to northeastern voters once considered out of reach for the GOP while Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson added an outsiders’ perspective from the worlds of technology and medicine.
No more settling for uninspiring match-ups like Mitt Romney vs. Herman Cain, John McCain vs. Mike Huckabee, or Dubya vs. Alan Keyes. 2016 was going to be about Big Ideas on turning around a debt-ridden, war-weary, stagnant superpower. A policy wonk’s dream.
Even better, Republicans could finally laugh at the Democratic primary featuring a corrupt Clinton, a socialist Sanders, and a Bidenesque Biden. Imagine the contrast of tired old Democrats yelling about microaggressions and wiped email servers, as fresh, dynamic Republicans addressed high-level social and economic policy.
It would be obvious to the electorate that Republicans were the only party with the vision, with the heart, and with the intelligence to lead the nation.
Instead, here are the political headlines of Summer 2015:
- Trump on McCain: “I like people who weren’t captured”
- Trump on Megyn Kelly: “There was blood coming out of her… wherever.”
- Trump: Rick Perry “should be forced to take an IQ test” before debate
- Trump is going to war with Scott Walker after being called “DumbDumb” by one of his supporters
- Trump on Fiorina: “Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”
- Trump on Heidi Klum: “She’s no longer a 10.”
These are the lofty policy debates dominating the presidential election of a 21st century superpower. We aren’t discussing America’s $18.4 trillion national debt and our insolvent social programs. The stagnant economy and an expansionist China, Russia, and Islamic State. Burning cities at home and burning countries abroad.
Instead we’re trading GIFs of a reality show star on “The Tonight Show,” giggling about menstruation, and wondering if the most impressive GOP field in a generation are a bunch of “dummies” or if they’re a bunch of “losers.”
These are serious times. We are not a serious people.
Published in General
“There are no solutions; only trade offs.” — Thomas Sowell
Consider this from just this past May. Immigration was not viewed as that important by most voters until a kind of hysteria came over the country. It was last November when Obama announced his Dreamer amnesty. By May, not that big a deal. Now, nothing else matters to some people.
I don’t buy the troll for Clintons theory of Trump, but I am open minded to the idea that this is not a 100% altruistic venture.
I agree. Democrats play to emotion and they get their emotion-based agenda implemented.
In a democracy, emotion wins. Our government has been becoming increasingly democratic for centuries, so appeals to logic are decreasingly effective. Republicans won the ’10 and ’14 elections because the voters were angry at the Democrats, not because they favor enhanced rescission authority.
Conservatives have always grasped at this, but they have been made speechless by its current exemplar.
As Scott Adams put it, Trump “brought a flamethrower to a stick fight”.
I am not a social conservative and don’t think there is a gravestone for it.
I do think the previous tactics of prohibition and tax code manipulation/incentives have been doomed for at least a generation. The goals are still virtuous and righteous, but the tactics need to evolve. I’ve not given up on the federal social conservatives.
I like how Jon detailed the bona fides of the credible candidates, and left out the fringe: Bush, Santorum, Gilmore, Graham, Pataki, and Huckabee.
At some point in these debates, will someone ask Mr. Trump how
is a policy position?
My disappointment with the Fox debate (which I thought was horrible) was it began by playing to Trump’s reality show persona (who’s not willing to forego a third-party run, explain this or that tweet, etc.). It didn’t challenge him and it played to his comfort zone, and his personality has become the focus of the campaign ever since.
My hope with the CNN debate is that Hugh Hewitt will live up to his reputation, ask all of them hard policy questions, and drag Trump into the reality of governance. Don’t let him get away with excusing every bad answer as defying “political correctness” and ignoring every hard question as a “gotcha” for which he will find an expert later.
Our country is facing some tough decisions and it would be nice to see a political campaign that reflects that.
She might be the leader we are all looking for, but she has to get out in front and lead from the front.
Edit: I don’t think 12 point economic plans matter, it all about leading from the front for a core of critical issues .. even something as important as the deficit might not rise to a core issue.
Any time we want to have the debate Jon describes Trump can be sent to the showers by co-opting hard line immigration and then continue the attack from the right. Unfortunately there are about two (2) candidates with the credibility to do so.
Thankfully Carly Fiorina is wrapping up her knuckles and pulling on the 16 oz Everlast mitts and going to work.
Like it or not, Bush is a credible candidate. And every person who supports Trump is someone who isn’t supporting any of Bush’s actually conservative competition.
Let’s put it this way, Bush isn’t the one that’s hurting because Trump’s in the race. I wish the Trumpets would recognize that.
Sowell’s epigram is right, when applied to a rational actor attempting to make a decision. The Republican party is making a trade off, but not one that promotes a conservative America in anything but the short term (if at all). The only possible upside for conservatives is a slight bump in votes for Republicans.
An America that doesn’t expel the illegals and demand full assimilation of its legal immigrants will never, ever, ever, ever* care a whit about any of the issues the hypothetical conservative policy wonk in the OP dreams of debating.
*Curse you Taylor Swift!
On the occasion corresponding to this 4 years ago all thoughts were anxiously pointed to the impending intra-party war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the debate was being held, insurgent agents were in the party, seeking to destroy it without war.
One portion of the party were convinced of their right to rule, not distributed evenly throughout the party. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To perpetuate, extend, and strengthen this interest did they rend the party. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or quickness it has achieved. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental. It may seem strange that a man should dare ask voters assistance in wringing their position from the sweat of another man’s brow, but let us judge not, lest we be judged. Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this scourge may speedily pass. Yet, if God wills it continue until every obfuscating speech in Congress is sunk with an obfuscating speech of Donald Trump, and every vote to avoid responsibility is paid with an irresponsible primary, as was said 3000 years ago, so to must be said today, “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
With firmness in the right as God gives us to see, let us strive to finish the work.
Lots of conspiracy theories here. If I were to posit a parallel as to how Pataki, Graham, Kasich are taking it for team Jeb, I’d be labeled a tin-hatted troll around these parts.
I am a fairly high-information voter myself.
There are a lot of people who have so much information about how the GOPe has betrayed the very people who voted them in, it will make your head spin. It is actually making your heads spin.
No, Trump is not a stalking-horse for Hillary or anyone.
There are many types of LIV’s. One type:
Democrats are so bad, we just have to vote for any Republican. These voters are also very trusting of the mechanisms which deliver the nominees, and trusting of the elite pundits to guide them.
Maybe it’s time the high-information disaffected conservatives teamed up with low-information miscreants who want jobs, leadership, a defined border, and who would like to give a giant middle-finger to the social nazis who are ruining political discourse.
Republicans are the Vichy French on all the pretenses of the left.
You know what’s not serious? To allow these social-nazis to control what you say and how you say it. How does the GOP ever think they can win when they allow Democrats to write the dictionary and the thesaurus?
Brent, you cannot be serious. As just one example, here is Marco Rubio’s 3-16-2015 article in National Review about the $18 trillion debt problem. This was a couple of months before Trump jumped into the race.
I don’t know whether it’s something about Trump in particular, or the primary process in general, that leads smart, thoughtful people to say things that are provably incorrect.
You’re frustrated. I get it. I’m so frustrated with the voters in this country, sometimes, that I can hardly see straight. A circular firing squad is not the solution, nor is following a Pied Piper.
If Carly comes out swinging and proves to be the leader we need, ironically, she might owe the opening she needed to Trump.
I was just joking about Bush. I always thought he was a good governor. Clearly I differ with the Governor on Common Core, and his version of Immigration reform. Other than that – I could support him in the general if he were the candidate.
I am very serious. I am not frustrated, I am sanguine. I’ve known what the republican party is about for years. Mostly I am just laughing at the Trump phenomenon and saying ‘told ya so’ under my breath.
Rubio isn’t any more serious than Paul Ryan or the others about the deficit or the debt. The magic beans of grow our way out of it shows how little they understand about how an economy performs with debt:gdp>100%.
“All the hoopla over Donald Trump is distracting attention from a large field of other candidates, some of whom have outstanding track records as governors, where they demonstrated courage, character, and intelligence. Others have rhetorical skills like Trump or a serious mastery of issues, unlike Trump.
“Even if Trump himself does not end up as the Republican nominee for the presidency, he will have done a major disservice to both his party and the country if his grandstanding has cost us a chance to explore in depth others who may include someone far better prepared for the complex challenges of this juncture in history.”
— Thomas Sowell
…. and some flair. Like it or not, this is a required component of politics but especially in the TV and internet age.
The only silver lining i could see in this is that if someone does stand up to Trump, they will get ‘standing up to a bully’ points. But that probably won’t happen.
Our ideas win, our party loses.
Sorry, that was directed less at you than the couple of folks around here who say they’re supporting Trump because they want someone more conservative than Jeb. Though they’ve been quiet, so maybe Ricochet will go back to being a place for civil conversation.
One other point: this is a democratic republic. The candidates’ goal is not to have a stimulating debate; their goal is to win the election.
But even if you wanted to have a debate about the most interesting issues, why would the candidates avoid the most interesting issue on which the future of the country hinges?
Trump shows up and talks about immigration, and now the nation is talking about Trump.
This is a difference of perception. Does an NR article from 6 months ago count as discussing it? Perception will vary. Does an article make it an important part of the campaign (which is what I took Brent to mean)? Not really, IMO. Even a plank in the platform or a point on the power point list probably doesn’t do the trick. What would? I don’t know, but I’m sure we each have some threshhold or indicator in mind.
And if the other candidates want to beat Trump in a debate over immigration, they ought to take a stand and debate him about it. Just asserting that Trump’s plan is too ambitious, implausible, or immoral won’t cut it. If the voters are to change their minds about Trump, they will need a plausible alternative to Trump’s plan that convincingly favors American citizens over illegal aliens.
Yes, by disrupting the whole nominating process, Trump has provided an opening for someone like Carly to rise above the mayhem. She just might become recognized as the much needed alternative to Trump as a result of this debate.
I’m not looking for boxing gloves or a direct attack on Trump. Carly’s primary mission is still one of introducing herself to the country. She will have to balance her assertiveness with intellect, grace, and good humor—all of which she possesses in abundance. Americans will naturally be drawn to her. I think she will give Trump the attention he deserves (that is, very little) and the blow dealt to Trump will result primarily from exposure of the huge talent gap between the two candidates, as well as the contrast between her persona and his.
The debate process we have is a disaster for those like Jindal, Perry, Rubio, Walker, Fiorina, Paul, and Cruz. These are people of substance, but they get dominated by Trump the Narcissist. This is the age of the selfie and the tweet and the sound bite and Trump is a master at this game. He operates like many people who comment on websites outside of Ricochet – he will say something brash to make a splash and move on to the next selfie, tweet, and verbal evisceration. He’s built a lot of momentum but he will crash and go down in flames, and when he does it will be ugly, but it will be good for conservatism.
Don’t hate the player. Hate the game.
Really good post. I am just flabberghasted. Who are these people that give Trump 40% in the polls? We have lost our collective minds. As I said somewhere else today, this culture has been spiraling downward for fifty years. We have reached a culmination.
The RINOs have sown the wind. Now it’s time to reap the whirlwind.
It began with the sexual revolution, the focus on self satisfaction. We (as a culture) are absorbed with ourselves. I used to wonder why sexual satisfaction outside of marriage was such a sin. The reason is it makes us all self absorbed.