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.
Democrats’ Best Weapon: Trump
The dictionary defines “bogeyman” as “an imaginary evil spirit, referred to typically to frighten children.” Hello Donald Trump. It’s not clear whether he set out intentionally to elect Hillary Clinton, but there is little question that he could not be fulfilling the role of Republican bogeyman to greater effect.
As Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin noted, during a week in which the disastrous fecklessness of this President and his party in the face of terrorism ought to have been Topic A, we are all talking about Trump instead. Brilliant. Tobin’s point actually applies to the entire presidential contest. By rights, it should be about the Democrats’ unraveling. From Obamacare to terrorism, from the economy to climate change, and from guns to free speech, progressive policies have proven deeply disappointing when not downright obtuse and dangerous. Mrs. Clinton promises more of the same while trailing an oil slick of corruption in her wake. And yet swinging into the frame week-in and week-out, the orange-maned billionaire bogeyman dominates the discussion.
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-Hispanic bigots, Trump (a lifelong Democrat) is supposed to confirm. Just look at the way he talked about Mexican “rapists” and vowed to build a wall that Mexico will fund.
Hell yes, Republicans want to fight a war on women. Did you hear what Trump said about Meghan Kelly and Carly Fiorina?
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-handicapped, anti-Jewish, and anti-Muslim. Line ’em up and Trump will offend. Not cleverly, mind you, but crudely. Donald Trump is fond of saying that our political leaders are stupid – constantly outmaneuvered at the bargaining table by shrewder Chinese, Mexicans, and Japanese. No one can accuse him of stupidity – provided his goal is to elect Hillary Clinton.
This week, while we were still burying our dead from San Bernardino, every Republican – rather than explaining why President Obama’s refusal to fight the war on terror has led to this moment – was instead having to condemn Donald Trump’s mindless proposal to keep every single Muslim out of the United States until further notice. Again, he’s the perfect bogeyman.
It’s not just that what he says demands condemnation. It’s that it seems to give credence to the Democrats’ narrative.
One of the false notes in President Obama’s Sunday evening speech was his resort to one of his favorite libels about the American people he purports to lead. He scolded the country for its Islamophobia. “It is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently.”
That’s not the trouble here. America is an incredibly welcoming nation and has opened its arms to Muslims along with people from every part of the globe. Far from targeting American Muslims for discrimination, the US has been a haven. Though liberals like to conjure it to slander the US, anti-Muslim discrimination and violence have been minimal in the US, even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. (The most common targets of religious bigotry in America? Jews.)
On the other hand, it’s only common sense to proceed with caution about admitting thousands of refugees and immigrants from the part of the world that is currently aflame with Islamic extremism. That caution, not to be confused with discrimination (there is no constitutional right to come to America), was endorsed just three weeks ago by a large majority in Congress (including 47 Democrats). It isn’t anti-Muslim to seek to exclude Muslim extremists.
Leave it to Trump to lob a stink bomb that putrefies everything.
Above all, the great favor that Trump does for Obama and for Hillary Clinton is to focus on personalities instead of philosophy. Trump, of course, has nothing to offer except personality (even if its charms elude me). But his emphasis on “getting the best people” is exactly wrong. That’s the progressive idea – that the best people know better how to run your life than you do. That’s what we’ve had under President Obama. Obama is a failure not because he’s stupid, or stubborn, or inexperienced. He’s a failure because he believes in failed ideas.
Hillary Clinton believes in all the same myths and shibboleths. After two terms of decline and decay, voters are ready for a different approach, unless someone can crash the party – the Republican Party. Can it be pure accident that Donald Trump is playing the role to perfection?
Published in Islamist Terrorism
Republicans play into Trumps strength every time they attack his political incorrectness, or even focus on him. Instead they should use the opportunity to put forth their own views on all these matters, not attack Trump. If they must say something about Trump they should point out that he is a big government progressives and is sounding more like Wilson all the time. He sounds like he would be as arbitrary and dictatorial as Obama.
He is the equivalent of Hillary’s attempt at a Southern accent.
If that’s the plan, it may be too clever by half. See David French’s piece on NRO about Trump expanding the Overton Window. Trump may depart the scene and leave Cruz sitting there looking like a moderate.
I share this concern. However, there is one candidate that I view as the anti-Trump image-wise, almost to the extent that he could be the only person standing to make the independents/undecideds who will determine the election forget Trump. He’s measured, careful, and does not, in my experience, appear bitter or (as much as I don’t like the word) “mean.” I think his nomination would go along way to removing any residual bad taste the electorate has in its collective mouth for the GOP due to Trump. Yes, Rubio. Is he perfect? No. But he’s a long way from Trump, and people will see that.
If the GOP approach to politics was a success, Trump wouldn’t be doing so well. I just don’t think being as inoffensive as possible, groveling, and curling up into a little ball in the hope that the kicking will stop are successful political tactics anymore, if they ever were.
I also note that the party establishment seems to be very enamored of its cleverness. I’m thinking of you, Karl Rove. And, as Mike Murphy said, the base always shows up, so no need to pay attention the base.
Well, maybe the party should have paid some attention to the base.
Sooner or later someone needed to confront the left, including its never-ending spew of politically correct bovine excrement. The GOP has been utterly unwilling to so.
Hence, Trump.
Trump is a viable candidate solely because of the cowardice of much of the Republican Party leadership. And they themselves are far too myopic to ever come to that realization.
As I read this piece, the question posed by Ms. Charen is not whether Trump’s support can be explained, but rather what his candidacy does to the eventual nominee and the Republican brand in the general election (and what to do about it).
I’m not particularly interested if Trump sticks a finger in the eye of Rove, McConnell or the rest if I’m living under HRC for eight years.
I’ve come to the conclusion that tRump’s support is more or less fanatics of a sort. Apparently almost half of his supporters have made up their minds. These are individuals that are needless to say, not exactly open in terms of mental thought. I think a word that LaRoche used a couple of minutes ago was myopic.
Unfortunately political philosophies are assumed in name by many who do not understand them. They cling to them because it gives them a form of identification. So while there may be a true “conservatism”, there are also many interpretations of what that means. Add in the issues of a political philosophy that has been beaten in a national election twice and the more zealous pundits of it (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.) will try to find means of reconciling the loss with reality.
This can result in some incredibly odd explanations, but people are more than willing to take an explanation that blames another rather than themselves.
-continued-
Several months ago I offered the suggestion here and elsewhere that Trump’s main objective in his campaign was to destroy the almost perfect road that lay ahead for Republicans to gain the White House in the 2016 election cycle. I am not inclined to conspiracy theories, but Trump seems intent on proving my theory correct. Without him, we had the best group of candidates Republicans have ever fielded. The election of one of them was assured given the idiocy of the last seven years. Now, we are watching Donald Trump dismantle any advantages we had. He has placed himself in the lead of the party candidates with about as much chance of winning in the general election as a snowball has in hell. Not only does he repeatedly say things which will rebound to demolish any chance of his ever being elected, but he taints the party by his ugly and ill-considered rhetoric. It is well past the time when one of the other Republican candidates should call him out for what he is.
-continued-
A great example of this is Ann Coulter. For full disclosure, I was a child when she was publishing her literature, I never read it. However, when she published her latest work (Adios America) I do remember watching her in interviews and her arguments on why illegal immigration was ruining the nation.
The issue (which I assume she is smart enough to know) is that left wing political victories, the kind that literally change society, happened from 1910 to 1960 and that period was not marked by incredulous immigration of any sort but rather protectionist and nativist trends. Americans (her coveted white anglo protestant culture) elected politicians that instituted the federal income tax, social security, minimum wage, tariffs, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, prohibition, etc..
It was a time of extensive restrictions of immigration also as the immigration law from 1923 on restricted immigration to a fraction of a percent of a nation’s population. The main reason being fear of socialist sympathizers entering the United States during the first Red Scare with the conclusion of the Russian Civil War and the failed socialist revolutions in Eastern Europe and Germany.
White, blue collar, hard working, traditional family valued, English speaking, christian, nuclear families voted in politician after politician which voted in progressive laws which restricted the Bill of Rights and gave more and more power to Washington and especially the Executive Branch. FDR centralized the means of communication (hence the Big 3 TV broadcasts along with new FCC regulation)
-continued-
-continued-
and furthered his power over the public and thus laid further ground for progressive power encroachment.
Immigrants, illegal or otherwise, were not the cause of America declining culturally, economically, and in foreign policy or for the victories of the Left in America but rather Americans are. Americans voted in the Leftist policies and they now have to deal with. Its not the fault of immigrants, but they sure are a convenient scapegoat.
So my point is that a conservative would not blame immigrants for the issue nor would they prescribe literally hermetically sealing the nation from immigrants either. Rather, they would garner their loins and fight the culture war and retake the nation by legislation piece at a time, just as the left did. When conservatives finally garner the intestinal fortitude to see what the enemy was and actually focus on it and deal with it then they will.
To be honest, I think this has happened. Many state governments now have conservative state governments and are repealing away progressive laws at the state level. In time this will eventually lead to further change, all the way up to the national government. But supporting a buffoon which spits invective is not the way to do it.
Supporting someone which articulates conservative values and has a track record (an actual record, even if they have a mistake or two) of conservative governance will accomplish such.
As I drove in to work this AM, I heard a republican campaign adviser (his name escapes me) say that if Trump wins the nomination it’s the end of the Republican Party. He also mentioned that he would not be elected.
To that I would answer: Neither one is such a bad option. The Republican Party has taken us for granted for far too long. I don’t care to be called a “Wacko Bird.”
Trump would be a horrible president. No loss there.
Yeah, I hear you. Hillary!
She’s the punishment we get for holding our noses and voting for the losers the Republicans trotted out in the past elections.
Who here thinks the press would go easier on a Republican running against Hillary had Trump never entered the race? That they’d not report crap like “war on women” with a straight face without Trump running? Does anyone really think the demonization from the left and the press will be worse than in the past because of Trump?
Show of hands. Anyone really think that?
Assuming of course that Trump doesn’t win the nomination. <shudder>
I’m sure Mona is embarrassed in front of her liberal friends to be in the same party as someone like Trump. Pity, that. But it’s highly useful to have a real bomb thrower out there so that Cruz or Rubio or whoever wins the nomination appears more moderate by comparison, as PJ mentions above.
Isn’t it obvious that Trump is a stalking horse, paid off by Hilary, to make the Repubs look asinine, to take the O2 out of the room? We had the most talented group of candidates in aa hundred years. Trump has ruined that.
Walker–out
Perry–Out
Jindal–Out
What he says being popular with a significant number of people does.
I’m not raising my hand, but it’s beside the point. The question is not the press, but his effect on minds/impressions of swing voters. Oh, and your modest swipe at Mona wasn’t really necessary, IMO.
Actually, she’s the punishment we might get for not realizing that virtually any Republican is preferable to eight years of Clinton.
Trump is an EMP of stray-voltage.
I still say there’s a 50/50 chance he’s a stalking horse for Hillary.
I think Trump fades when the voting starts. Iowa voters are already starting to get serious and Trump’s poll numbers are dropping. He’ll get bored and drop out.
The lady protests too much, methinks…
Not one of those “who cares–the Republican Party deserves this since it didn’t make me happy the last eight years” Trump supporters seems to understand the hugely damaging ramifications of Hillary’s ability to appoint 3 left wing SC justices when she beats Trump. It will take decades to recover from that. Our grandchildren will pay the price.
I agree with you 100%. I have been banging my spoon on my highchair for months about how Trump is just the Clinton’s Judas Goat.
Since Trump has no intention of being elected president anyway his statements are of no consequence to him no matter how flaky, erratic or contradictory of his previous statements they might be because his objective is to make the GOP to appear reprehensible to low informational independent voters.
Also I fully expect Trump will make a 3rd party run. I doubt the GOP will nominate him. His splitting of the right of center vote will throw the election to Hillary.
I understand why Mona et al hate Trump. He’s problematic. But he wouldn’t be ‘trending’ if the so called ‘establishment’ would have been willing to compromise with the conservative base instead of working for a total, winner-take-all defeat of the base.
There are quite a number of people who’d get on board with a compromise candidate IF that candidate would compromise on key issues – and by that, I mean really compromise, not just make empty promises (ie: lie).
I understood that his real support wasn’t concentrated in the so-called “tea party” contingent, but with more blue collar moderates.
My view is: If we elect a pro-amnesty republican, we’re only putting this ‘nightmare” off for 4 – 8 years. Those millions of new citizens will vote almost en bloc for democrats, ensuring a democrat lock on our government going forward.
I think Jeb was the real problem. He got in early, hogged all the big-donor money and big-footed around. I think this discouraged better candidates from entering – better candidates that might have been able to bridge the divide between the groups. And, I think that was the Bush-contingent’s intent. I think this was their strategy.
That’s rather a serous guess about the future, isn’t it? And what’s wrong with 4-8 years of a Republican who isn’t Clinton? Look at what’s happened in the last 4-8 years. There’s that Supreme Court thing too.
I’m not going to vote for Trump and I don’t think Islam is the enemy, but all this piling on is a bit much. He proposed it as a temporary measure until we figure out what’s going on, which I presume means how to sort out the bad ‘uns. Are Republicans and Democrats both saying we’re not going to figure this out, ever?
I wouldn’t be surprised that if you had polled American Muslims on the topic immediately, before they get worked over and learned how they should work the issue, that Trump’s idea would have had considerable support. Maybe not majority support, but substantial. Remember that immediately after 9/11 there were American Muslims in the local Arab communities who thought a little racial profiling might be in order in our transportation systems. They didn’t exactly like the idea, and they may not have been a majority, but they thought it was understandable. That changed soon, of course, when the Democrats made it known that racial profiling was bad, bad, bad, even as a temporary measure until we figured out what was going on.
Democrats are not going to like the idea, ever, but the corrupt cesspool known as GOPe just reauthorized the Ex-Im bank this week, and thereby lost all moral authority to criticize anybody about anything. They should just slither back in their holes and stay there.
I would contend from purely anecdotal evidence that many Trump supporters are disaffected Democrats and Independants or are not really “up”on politics. I think Trump is a backlash and is a representation of all the Archie Bunkers out there who work hard, raise a family and feel like their government is working against them not with them, and for years the a Republicans have been ignoring them.
Like so many things the establishment just wants Trump to just. go away, get this thing away so that we can win the election on the leftist media terms so that we can pander to the right groups and say things that aren’t going to offend anyone. It’s like Romney’s tax returns, just get them out of the way so that we can drop this subject and move on. but we never move on, the media never lets up and there is NEVER a smooth path for a Republican candidate in the age of Obama, do not kid yourself the media is going to break it’s back propping Hilary up this election and will pull no punches in trying to destroy the opposition. leftists don’t play fair, ever. I think Trump is blazing a trail this election cycle for another candidate, but instead of hoping Trump just went away they should try to find out why he has maintained his support.
That’s possible, but all of the people I know personally who surprised me this summer by praising Trump in face-to-face conversations with me had been very politically aware and usually supported very conservative politicians. I didn’t always agree with these people, and I certainly didn’t encourage any nice talk about Trump, but in the past we had often supported the same candidates for elections at various levels. (Yes, we have talked about these things.) It’s a very small sample, but 100 percent of my sample doesn’t fit your description.