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.
Republican Self-Sabotage
The latest CBS poll suggests that the Trump juggernaut continues to roll, with 35 percent of Republicans supporting him. Ted Cruz, his nearest rival, garners 18 percent. Jeb Bush, the candidate who should have been the obvious choice if conventional wisdom about money and politics were even remotely true, is dead last with 4 percent. In vain does Ted Cruz protest that Donald Trump is not a conservative. Among those who describe themselves as “very conservative,” 35 percent favor Trump versus 30 percent for Cruz, and 12 percent for Rubio.
In South Carolina, Trump is ahead among the evangelical voters Ted Cruz targeted as his savior army that would rise up to carry a true conservative to victory. According to a Fox News poll (2/18), Trump leads Cruz 31 percent to 23 percent among evangelical Christians. And while Cruz leads among those who identify as “very conservative” it’s a razor-thin edge (well within the margin of error).
As in New Hampshire, Trump leads nationally among a broad swath of voters. Not only those with just a high school diploma (47 percent), but also those with some college (33 percent), and college graduates (25 percent). He is the preference of men and women, and among all income groups including those earning more than $100,000.
Any number of theories have been advanced about the Trump voters – that they represent the downscale whites who have been abandoned by the Republican Party, or that they are enraged by Republican failure to secure the border.
But as noted, Trump does well among upscale voters too. As for the great immigration rage, it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Immigration was listed last among matters that were on voters’ minds in Iowa and New Hampshire. Besides, Trump did well even among voters who said they favored a path to citizenship for illegals living here.
No, there’s a better theory for why 35 percent of Republican primary voters are ready to hand the nomination to a bullying, loutish con man who accuses George W. Bush of war crimes while promising to commit some of his own (killing the wives and children of suspected terrorists, stealing the oil of Middle Eastern nations).
For the past several years, leading voices of what Matt Lewis has called “con$ervative” media, along with groups like Heritage Action, and politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz, have ceaselessly flogged the false narrative that the Republican “grassroots” have been betrayed by the Republican leadership in Washington.
Rather than aim their anger at President Obama and the Democrats, right wing websites, commentators like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin, and many others have instead repeated the libel that “Republicans gave Obama everything he wanted.” There has been a flavor of the “stab in the back” to these accusations. But for the treachery of the Republican Party, they claim, a party too timorous or too corrupt to stand up to Obama, we could have defunded Obamacare, balanced the budget, halted the Iran deal, you name it.
Aiming fire at your own side can be very satisfying for radio wranglers, et al. They have zero influence on Obama, but they can take down Eric Cantor. They can’t do much about Eric Holder, but they can dethrone John Boehner.
This is not to say that Republican leaders were perfect or that they couldn’t have done more in some instances to put bills on Obama’s desk – even if only to force vetoes and lay down markers for the next election. But the list of Obama initiatives Republicans thwarted is very long (universal pre-K, gun control, “paycheck fairness,” higher taxes). Moreover, the bloc of conservatives in the House that refused to vote for any budget made it that much more difficult for leadership to exert pressure on Democrats. Lastly, who believes it makes no difference that Republicans control the Senate in the wake of Justice Scalia’s death?
So congratulations to those conservatives who’ve been preaching the “betrayal” of the base by the establishment. You’ve won. You’ve convinced 70 percent of the Republican primary electorate (per the CBS poll) that the most important quality in a candidate is that he will “shake up the political system.”
With all its faults, the Republican Party is the only vehicle for conservative ideas in this country. Conservatives themselves, or at least those who styled themselves conservatives, may have sabotaged it, handing the reins not to a moderate, nor even to a liberal Republican, but to a lifelong Democrat.
Published in General
I have read Mona’s post over a few times, and though she mentions Cruz negatively by lumping him in with those who “flogged” a false narrative, it’s clear to me that she would leap for joy if Cruz were chosen over Trump. Cruz is not her first choice, she’s for Rubio, but she doesn’t worry about the future of the country in Cruz’s hands the way she does about putting it in Trump’s, Hillary’s, or Bernie’s hands.
That’s how I feel about it, too.
Let her come say it.
People really need to stop taking criticism of a candidate personally. If everyone sees criticism of their chosen candidate as a personal affront instead of just points in an ongoing debate, if everyone questions the good faith and motives of people who criticize their candidate rather than countering the points made, then democracy is meaningless and what the hell are we all doing here?
Sorry, but this is just plain trollish. The issue is not people taking criticism of the candidate personally. The fundamental issue as perceived by the angry base is that the GOP as a party does not represent us, takes us for granted, and lashes out when we dare ask for better. I realize that you don’t read this post the same way we do, but it isn’t us taking criticism of Trump personally. This is about precepts. In order for Mona to castigate a bunch of tent-revival stump-preachers for duping the masses, she first must believe that we are dupes.
She does perceive us as dupes, and is angry that her friends are no longer the ones doing the duping. This is just one more manifestation of a simple failure of the GOP — they really do see us as dupes. Her swipes at Trump are as incidental to the real fight as Trump himself is. The base will no longer accept business-as-usual, and has no more faith that the GOP agrees with us. This alone drives Trumpism.
So it looks trollish because you have a trite condescending answer which requires only one action to become plausible — ignore what we are saying. If you don’t believe it, fine. If you want top call us liars, fine. But giving soothing advice while delivering the same insult as usual is just exploiting the CoC.
Now I’m not telling anybody they don’t get to talk. I’m just explaining why you continue to get push back that is not on the terms you prefer. Re-framing an issue by ignoring your interlocutors in order to portray us as beyond the pale is a cheap tactic, and at Ricochet, a highly effective one. But you knew that.
I actually saw the Editors admonish two people to leave it alone for a bit (fair enough), and then come back to the topic “without preconceptions”. Sorry, but nobody deletes their memory like that. I realize that it is not the intent, but that’s the sort of liberal fascist “nice-grinding” political correctness that the base has no patience for.
I’ve enjoyed our recent talks and just wanted to shed some light where it desperately needs to be shed.
Certain people need to stop labeling things they don’t like “trollish”.
There’s that presumption of bad faith I was talking about. Thanks for the example.
Guys!
Given that she continues to do so and that Jay has explicitly endorsed Cruz and is, indeed, a close personal friend of his, that rather suggests that she doesn’t put Cruz in the same category as Trump. That’s also totally consistent with this piece where she accuses Cruz of helping to create the conditions that led to Trump.
Whether or not that’s a fair charge, that very different from treating them the same.
Just ‘splainin things. Honest Injun, I speak without rancor.
Robert McReynolds Man that is probably the best description of what has happened since the end of the Cold War here in the US that I have ever heard, at least as it explains the GOP and the Conservative Movement.
We call it “Conservatism, Inc.”
The thought of Trump is indeed troubling. But I don’t think I can vote for Rubio either. (My husband and I are in agreement on this) I’ve been discouraged and disgusted with the direction of this party and of this country in general, and Rubio stands (in our view) for more of the same. Rubio is the man who, shortly after his election, huddled with Schumer and McCain to craft legislation in direct contradiction to the wishes of his constituency and of his promise to them.
I think Rubio will do what is advantageous for Rubio at any given time. I don’t find him principled in the least.
And, a Rubio win will further cement the idea that the base can be successfully defied, and campaign promises are just lies you tell voters to win.
I stand with Thomas Sowell in the view that Cruz, though far from perfect, is the principled conservative in this race.
I support Cruz. I find Trump scary, and Rubio demoralizing.
I must be missing something. Show me where Mona called anyone “dupes” or said anything pejorative about Republican voters. Saying that certain media figures and politicians “flogged the false narrative that the Republican “grassroots” have been betrayed by the Republican leadership” and that this convinced 70% of Republican voters that “the most important quality in a candidate is that he will “shake up the political system” is not pejorative in the least of the people being convinced. The business of media and politicians is, in part, to convince. It is not insulting to suggest that you have been convinced to believe something that I believe is false. That doesn’t make you a dupe. If it did, we are all dupes much of the time, and the word has lost its meaning.
If you tell me that I’m mistaken to believe Rubio when he claims he’s strong on immigration you are not insulting me personally. If I tell you that I believe you are mistaken to believe Trump will be any more conservative than Hillary, I’m not insulting you. In both cases we are simply disagreeing. This is an important distinction for people to make.
I believe you are mistaken to believe Rubio when he claims he is strong on immigration*. I do not support Trump (see above). These are not the only two choices.
I was only offering examples, not a list of choices. In fact, I’m not even making the claim that I believe Rubio. I’m simply trying to illustrate what I see as a mistake of interpretation some people are making that gives rise to all these accusations of “insulting the base” and “calling us rubes” and the like. People do that sometimes, but only a fraction of the times they are accused of doing it.
Many kudos to you, Mona, for speaking truth to foolishness. If the GOPe (as if such a thing existed) had not been sufficiently strong in opposing the Dems, the answer would not be supporting Code Pink for President. Count me out of the “if you can’t beat them, join them, and then outdo them” brigade.
I know, I was just having my fun….and pointing out there is another choice…….
Is it just my faulty memory or hasn’t it been the Democrats who have condemned talk radio and irresponsible right-wing voices in the media for being the cause of so much disharmony and paranoia?
And that those voices wreak their havoc cynically and just for the money?
Perhaps Mona Charen’s post is simply a cri de coeur for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
I think “More of the same” is a perfect summation of how right wing voters feel about most GOP candidates right now. One of the things driving Trump’s ascendance is the notion that if we vote for a “conventional” candidate, then it’s just doing the same thing and expecting different results this time. And I think voters have hit a point where they’re tired of being Charlie Brown to Lucy’s football. So they’re rebelling.
Rebelling. Yes, I agree that a lot of Trump supporters fit that description.
Rebelling? I think “revolting” might be a better word. Yes, I think there’s an old joke about the peasants revolting…
The GOPe’s attitude in three sentences.
From now on my approach toward “the base” will come straight out of the Jay Nordlinger’s approach toward “the establishment”: defending it while at the same time denying that the term has any meaning.
It is, but not in the way you intend. There is just no way for Charen to overlook the years of base dissatisfaction with the party, as if we haven’t been quite loud about our own concerns, and ascribe the problem to some smooth-talking talk-radio bogeymen, without bypassing the agency of individuals in the base.
In the American Revolution, Charen would pen furtive denunciations of anti-Royalists Samuel Adams, Madison, Jefferson, and the whole Hee-Haw gang for stirring up resentment of an otherwise contented and well-governed herd of subject colonists.
That’s hardly unique to Jay, but yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
The criticism of the establishment by the base has weakened conservative candidates and favored a populist demagogue? Why is this different than the argument that criticizing and thwarting Obama will weaken the Republicans and favor radical leftists? Did anyone expect no backlash? This President exploits every incident involving black youth and white police, has greatly exacerbated race relations while doing everything in his power to keep wide swaths of the black communities dependent and backward and used immigration to distract and damage? The issue of illegal Mexican immigration is a stand in for white backlash and has the effect, like Obama’s economic policies, of harming the working class. Obviously they can’t blame Blacks that have suffered under Obama more than they. The Republican’s elected to stop Obama couldn’t even try to slow him down even though Obama attacked them anyway for being the reason for his failure. Does anyone expect that the mix of emotions, reactions, personal impact etc. of millions of voters can be captured in simple polls? The establishment is now engaged in helping elect either Trump or Hillary by muddying the waters, attacking Trump mildly for the wrong reasons, and spending it’s money to attack the only candidates who might beat both Trump and the Democrat.
I told you the Republican Party wasn’t going to survive Romney and it didn’t.
Behold the wages of the wanton bad faith of 2011.
There was a senatorial election in Mississippi which seemed to advance the career of a Republican senator, at the expense of a more conservative challenger. Guess whose side the GOP was on?
There was a conservative in Pennsylvania whose run for the Senate was denied because Bush 43 wanted the support of a grotesque Senator, a Republican who later became a Democrat in an attempt to be re-elected, in getting his judicial nominees out of that grotesque Senator’s committee. Bush got the nominees out of that committee but… a lot of Pennsylvanians were badly put off by this tactic, and in the long run it cost Santorum, who supported Bush 43, support that he needed.
Both Gingrich and Santorum were to the right of Romney in 2012. Gingrich was especially good on television where he regularly routed the liberal commentators who posited bizarre ideas which Gingrich refuted, easily. We got Romney and then we got Barry’s second term because what Romney would do to Gingrich and Santorum he refused to do to Barry.
The technocrat lost to Barry. Imagine if Gingrich in particular had been on the same stage as Barry. Barry’s bs would have been exposed for the bs that it is.
The leadership wants our votes, and the few shekels we might provide. They don’t want our pro-life, limited government perspective.
Rockefeller vs Goldwater. Ford vs Reagan. Jeb! vs Cruz. Can the Establishment Republicans please stop claiming there is no such thing as Establishment Republicans at least?
From what I understand, that was a very dirty election, particularly on the part of the incumbent. On the flip side, we’ve throw a lot of them out since 2010. As I said before, I think having a few, carefully-chosen purges on occasion is a good thing, as it keeps the survivors honest. My point is that we shouldn’t be so focused on the purges that we lose a majority.
While I also would have loved to watch Gingrich debate Obama, I’m not sure that would translate into victory. It might have, but I think Romney was a better bet (though, sadly, not a winning bet). And even if it had, I shared others worries that there was a significant possibility of Gingrich doing something unbelievably stupid and dangerous in office that would cause a war.
As for Santorum, I’m as confident as I can be about a counterfactual that he would have done far worse than Romney.