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.
An Open Letter to the Conservative Media Explaining Why I Have Left the Movement
Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.
First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.
Second, it doesn’t appear to me that conservatives calling on people to reject Trump have any idea what it actually means to be a “conservative.” The word seems to have become a brand that some people attach to a set of partisan policy preferences, rather than the set of underlying principles about government and society it once was. Conservatism has become a dog’s breakfast of Wilsonian internationalism brought over from the Democratic Party after the New Left took it over, coupled with fanatical libertarian economics and religiously-driven positions on various culture war issues. No one seems to have any idea or concern for how these positions are consistent or reflect anything other than a general hatred for Democrats and the Left.
Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.
All of this seems to have been lost. Conservatives have become some sort of schizophrenic sect of libertarians who love freedom (but hate potheads and abortion) and feel the US should be the policeman of the world. The same people who daily fret over the effects of leaving our society to the mercy of Hollywood and the mass culture have somehow decided leaving it to the mercies of the international markets is required.
Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.
The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?
And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.
Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.
Fourth, I really do not care that Donald Trump is vulgar, combative, and uncivil and I would encourage you not to care as well. I would love to have our political discourse be what it was even thirty years ago and something better than what it is today. But the fact is the Democratic Party is never going to return to that and there isn’t anything anyone can do about it. Over the last 15 years, I have watched the then-chairman of the DNC say the idea that President Bush knew about 9-11 and let it happen was a “serious position held by many people,” watched the vice president tell a black audience that Republicans would return them to slavery if they could, watched Harry Reid say Mitt Romney was a tax cheat without any reason to believe it was true, and seen an endless amount of appalling behavior on the part of the Democrats which is too long to list here and which I am sure you are aware. And now you tell me that I should reject Trump because he is uncivil and mean to his opponents? Is that some kind of a joke? This is not the time for civility or to worry about it in our candidates.
Fifth, I do not care that Donald Trump is in favor of big government. That is certainly not a virtue but it is not a meaningful vice since the same can be said of every single Republican in the race. I am sorry but the “we are just one more Republican victory from small government” card is maxed out. We are not getting small government no matter who wins. So Trump being big government is a wash.
Sixth, Trump offers at least the chance that he might act in the American interest instead of the world’s interest or in the blind pursuit of some fantasy ideological goals. There is more to economic policy than cutting taxes, sham free trade agreements, and hollow appeals to “cutting government” and the free market. Trump may not be good, but he at least understands that. In contrast, the rest of the GOP and everyone in Washington or the media who calls themselves a conservative has no understanding of this.
Rubio would be — as Laura Ingram pointed out this week — nothing but a repeat of the Bush 43 administration with more blood and treasure spent on the fantasy that acting in other people’s interests indirectly helps ours. Cruz might be somewhat better, but it is unclear whether he could resist the temptations of nation building and wouldn’t get bullied into trying it again. And as much as I like Cruz on many areas he, like all of them except Trump, seems totally unwilling to admit that the government has a responsibility to act in the nation’s interests on trade policy and do something besides let every country in the world take advantage of us in the name of “free trade.”
Consider the following. Our country is going broke, half its working-age population isn’t even looking for work, faces the real threat of massive Islamic terrorist attack, and has a government incapable of doing even basic functions. Meanwhile, conservatives act like cutting Planned Parenthood off the government or stopping gays from getting marriage licenses are the great issues of the day and then have the gumption to call Donald Trump a clown. It would be downright funny if it wasn’t so sad and the situation so serious.
It is not that I think Donald Trump is some savior or an ideal candidate. I don’t. It is that I cannot for the life of me — given the sorry nature of our current political class — understand why conservatives are losing their minds over him and are willing to destroy the Republican Party and put Hillary into office to stop him. All of your objections to him either apply to many other candidates you have backed or are absurd.
I don’t expect you to agree with me or start backing Trump. I would, however, encourage you to at least think about what I and others have said and to understand that the people backing Trump are not nihilists or uneducated hillbillies looking for a job. Some of us are pretty serious people and once considered ourselves conservatives. Even if you still hate Trump, you owe it to conservatism to ask yourself how exactly conservatism managed to alienate so many of its supporters such that they are now willing to vote for someone you loath as much as Trump.
I would also encourage you to stop insulting Trump voters. Multiple conservative journalists — Kevin Williamson to name one — have said, in so many words, that Trump supporters are welfare queens, losers, uneducated, and bums. I am a Trump supporter. My father is a Trump supporter. We both went to war for this country. My father spent 40 years in the private sector maintaining this thing we like to call the phone system. I have spent the last 20 years in the Army and toiling away doing national security and law enforcement issues for the federal government. Just what exactly have any of the people saying these things ever done for the country? Where do they feel entitled to say these things? And more importantly, why on earth do they think it is helping their cause?
I am sorry, even if you can convince me Trump is the next Hitler, I don’t want to be associated with that. I don’t want to be associated with a movement that calls other Americans bums and welfare queens because they support the wrong candidate. If I wanted to do that, I would be a leftist.
Perhaps none of this means anything to you and the movement has left me behind. If it has, I think conservatives should understand that it is leaving a lot of people like me behind. I can’t see how that is a good thing.
Published in Politics
As Kevin Williamson pointed out today our elected officials aren’t that wedded to core principles as it stands.
He’s spent a long time pointing out that to solve our budget issues we have to increase taxes and slash spending at the same time to solve our debt issue. And that’s betraying at least one core tenet of both parties (raising taxes for Republicans, slashing spending for Democrats).
So why are you indulging?
We collected more than $3T in taxes last year. We don’t have a tax problem that need be addressed by increasing them.
It is interesting to see we have 2 editors active on the thread and this comment remains in place.
Yet moderators redact member comments if they are displeased at the lack of support their outrageous assertions receive.
The consistency of Ricochet, stunning.
Mitt Romney is a good man, an excellent executive with a track record of being able to fix broken institutions, and a conservative at heart. Yes, he signed an insurance mandate into law while governing a very blue state. Perhaps it was the most conservative option he could get through the opposition in the state house. But in any event, if we defined every candidate by their worst mistake and ignored everything good about them, Trump wouldn’t even be in the running. After all, he supported single payer health care. Is that what you want?
And Romney went into that election with the media against him, some Republicans against him, and with a feckless party leadership that allowed him to be set up for endless ‘gotcha’ questions in debates stacked with hardcore partisan ‘moderators’. He was smeared as a far right lunatic, and quite successfully. So if Romney got that treatment, just which candidate of the time do you think would have fared better?
You need to go back and look at the history of that decision. The problem Bush faced was that Afghanistan could not really be turned into a functioning democracy, since it had no middle class or infrastructure or anything like a civil society that you could build on. So pulling out without changing the situation in the middle east was likely to result in having to do a repeat in a few years. In the meantime, Saddam Hussein was turning himself into a major supporter and financier of Jihad. He was offering bounties to the families of suicide bombers. He was bragging about WMD. The sanctions on Iraq were failing, the no-fly zones were problematic going forward, and if the sanctions lifted and the no-fly zones ended, there was potential for another genocide of the Kurds and others.
Bush’s team deduced that taking out Saddam and replacing him with a functioning democracy was the best chance for the kind of change in the Middle East that would secure America from further Middle Eastern terrorism. It was a sound enough strategy, albeit with many risks. And vast numbers of Republicans agreed with him. At least own up to the fact that you actually agreed with the rationale, and not that you supported the war because you were ‘told’ to. That’s a cop-out. And it may have worked if Obama hadn’t screwed it up.
Furthermore, before you can declare the war a failure you have to consider the alternative. No one knows what would have happened if Saddam were left in power, but there’s little chance that it would have ended in puppies and flowers.
The Editors have no idea that they lose credibility because of this. Members do get upset by this.
BThompson doesn’t upset me. The attack on Douglas isn’t cool, but certainly not unprecedented by BThompson.
It is frustrating that some moderators have freedom to redact Member comments they disapprove of and yet Editors leave this crap in place.
One day we are a bunch of CoC hard asses, the next it is a free for all.
The comment is the 65th on a hot thread.
Had it been flagged, it might have come to our attention earlier. It has been redacted.
That just means we’d have to slash the budget much more than we’d like.
From FY 2014:
Amount collected: $3 trillion
Amount spent: $3.5 trillion
Social Security: 24% of the budget.
Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, ACA: 24% of the budget (Medicare is 61% of that!)
Defense & International Aid: 18% of the budget
Safety Net (EITC, Child Tax Credit, SNAP and more): 11% of the budget
Interest on the debt (just interest): 7%
If we really want to make progress on the debt we’d have to slash the budget or increase taxes by $1 trillion so we can pay $500 billion down on the debt in a year – that would pay off the debt in roughly 40 years (a debt free America by 2056!)
You can do that by eliminating Medicare and Defense for example if you just want to cut spending. That’s the size of the cuts that are necessary. Are they going to do that? Or would they rather trim here and there to lower spending by $500 billion and take in $3.5 trillion in taxes?
Please provide evidence that this is the current position of any remaining Republican candidates. A link to their website would be great.
As far as I know the current wave of Republican governance typified by the Tea Party was a direct rejection of this. FYI Trump thinks the bailouts were just terrific.
“I do agree with what they’re doing with the banks. whether they fund then or nationalize them, it doesn’t matter, but you have to beep the banks going.” – Trump on Larry King Live 4/15/2009
I agree with you here but is Trump the answer? His foreign policy is so scattershot I have no idea if he will be an interventionist or an isolationist.
Who is advocating this?
Which candidate is contemptuously indifferent to actual United States citizens? Because we don’t agree with your proposed solutions, including massive tariffs and trade wars, does not mean we don’t care about the country or its people – in fact quite the opposite. We advocate these policies precisely because we believe they are the best thing for the country and its people.
I like your post. A lot. Thanks.
Moderators do not have the ability to redact comments.
Come on Brent, this is Infowars for Rubio
You cant expect civility here.
Brent,
I didn’t think you were upset.
Stockholm Syndrome?
In November of 1994, right after Republicans took control of Congress fo the first time since the 1950s, Peter Jennings went on ABC radio and delivered a commentary that tells you everything you need to know about elite, liberal journalism.
“Some thoughts on those angry voters,” Jennings began. “Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week. …Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”
http://bernardgoldberg.com/liberal-media-meltdown/
This is a well written piece, however I fail to see where the actual Trump has articulated any of it.
“Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest.”
Is this what “I do great deals” means? Because I could interpret it many different ways and your statement would not necessarily jump to the top. “Hope and change” could have contained this as well.
Thus far to me Trump is simply “Rude Obama”. Polite Obama was bad enough.
Thank you, Mr. Kluge.
I agree with you about Donald Trump, and so do many others.
We’re also in agreement on this …
While we’re a minority within Ricochet, there are enough of us to matter in the electorate.
I find that those that complain the most about editorial bias are also those the proudly refuse to flag posts. I don’t get it – the editors aren’t omniscient and omnipresent.
Max,
The Editors when they redact are small “m” moderators.
J. Climacus: Please note I’ve said nothing about Trump supporters. Trump himself is an ignorant, egotistical, loud-mouthed braggart who has no problem crushing any “little guys” in his path. I understand the anger of Trump supporters, but their answer will make things worse rather than better.
I beg to differ Climacus. You have said a great deal about Trump supporters. You have said they are dupes, and that you graciously sympathize with their frustration. That’s very white of you. You have said nothing to suggest that you have taken even a second to try to see what they are seeing. My suggestion: go to a Trump rally.
Moderators do not have the ability to redact, only editors do.
Again, the only reason the comment was not responded to earlier was because it 1) is on a fast moving thread and 2) no one had brought it to our attention by flagging.
The editors are editors, the moderators are moderators. The moderators — Mike Rapkoch, Midget Faded Rattlesnake, and James of England — do not have the ability to redact comments.
With the exception of item 1, no one has even attempted to refute any of the points Climacus made. Can these points be refuted? If not, then why should we believe that Trump has any chance to win the general election? The press will have a field day with this stuff (and more besides). Why should we tie the Trump record around our necks and loudly announce that he represents our ideas and values?
How about evaluating the claim on its merits, rather than on the history of the people making it? I think it’s completely obvious that Trump is not a conservative. He’s not conservative by temperament, the things he blurts out are all over the map and contradict each other.
This is a man who wants to change the libel laws so that politicians can sue people who criticize them. He speaks well of Vladimir Putin, even immediately after being reminded that Putin has had his critics murdered. He thinks the Chinese were smart the way they handled Tienanmen square. He’s a protectionist who wants to slap large tariffs on foreign products. He’s contemptuous of the Constitution and the Supreme Court. He thinks the best characteristic of a President is the ability to ‘do good deals’. Won’t it be fun to see what kind of ‘deals’ he makes with Democrats? With Putin? Especially if they are smart enough to say nice things about him first?
<raises hand> Um, a conservative is someone who respects the lessons of history and resists change for its own sake.
A conservative is someone who believes that character is important, and that character is defined by your honesty, willingness to work hard to get ahead, keeping your word, being a good neighbour, spouse, parent and a good citizen.
A conservative does not demand handouts of others, nor believe that charity belongs at the point of a gun.
A conservative is someone who believes that families and private institutions are the first safety net and the backbone of civil society, and that excessive government charity breaks down the bonds that hold civil society together.
A conservative has faith in the citizenry’s ability to manage their own affairs, choose which products to buy and which people to work for, and for what price. That includes the right to contract with foreigners at freely negotiated prices.
A conservative is someone who believes in living within his or her means, and demands that the government do the same.
A conservative respects the rule of law and the Constitution, and places freedom higher than materialism in the hierarchy of values.
A conservative is someone who opposes the progressive idea of using force to change society to make it ‘better’.
A conservative believes that government works best when it is small and local, and is skeptical of central planning and federal government solutions to local problems.
How’d I do? Because Donald Trump is almost the antithesis of everything I listed.
Respectfully, that hasn’t been my experience.
Well done. The fact that few politicians have lived up to these ideals is not a reason to discard the ideals.
They could also be folks who do flag posts per the Editor’s requests.
How do you know posts get flagged or otherwise?
I am sorry. I have read your entire treatise and all I can say is? How are you not voting for Ted Cruz? I mean you have a one in lifetime chance to vote a true solid honest conservative since Reagan and your throwing it away for a life long liberal who is going to betray you at the first chance he gets.
Two words. Ethanol Mandate. Trump will say and do anything to win, and not keep his promises.
He will be better than Hillary Clinton. I do believe Trump is an honest to god Patriot who loves America. But everything you cited exists in Ted Cruz and does not exist in Donald Trump.
I guess the old conservatism of America First is back. I get its allure, but how easily its faults are forgotten. The last time this attitude was pervasive in the US we were once again experiencing a non-recovery after a massive economic shock. Europe was in Turmoil and Fascistic powers were annexing neighbors, and the global world order established by the British Empire was beset on all sides. We had lost over 100,000 men in less than a year of fighting in WWI and we were sick of the world and had no faith in the “market”.
Now we once again see how the old liberal order around the world is crumbling, under attack by various forces. We think we can ignore it, and probably we can, for a while. But now as then we will be forced to pay attention by situations well outside of our control. And instead of the steep price we have paid to maintain the order we had we will find ourselves in the position of paying a much higher price to reestablish it once it is gone.
But, instead of facing reality, we have people turning to a man who helps you deny it. Trumps policies will not make us richer or safer. His idea of trade will cripple our economy, and his foreign policy will leave the world in the hands of tyrants and criminals. How will any of this serve our interest?
To the original poster, I generally agree with a couple caveats (toppling Saddam made sense, but the nation-building didn’t). The response of the Right’s pundits to Trump has been sensationalist and foolish, if not entirely without cause. They made him what he is today by refusing to recognize the points you have made and by foolishly insulting so many voters upon whom the Republican party relies.
In most respects, Trump is not much worse than many other Republicans. As you say, we seem to be stuck with the nanny state, crony capitalism, legal favoritism, and many other systemic problems.
But Trump concerns me greatly on two accounts.
First, he is lawless. Coming immediately on the heels of another lawless President, a would-be dictator, Trump’s election would seal that precedent.
Second, he is vengeful and has already threatened to use his authority as a weapon in defiance of his opponents rights. Is it not partly that hope of vengeance against Democrats that attracts you to his candidacy? The Republican party has proven weak, incompetent, and disinterested. We need a party that will admit the hatefulness of Democrats and fight vehemently against them, rather than beginning from an offer of compromise and betting on decades-long strategies to gradually unwind what Democrats will surely rewind the very next term. But that is justice, not revenge. In a culture that has already allowed (the Left’s) hate to saturate mainstream media and politics, raising more could destroy us.