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
Which older strain of conservatism would that be? In fact, free trade has been a core principle of conservatism for a very long time. Barry Goldwater was a free trader. Ronald Reagan was a free trader. Right-wing economic policy thinkers like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, George Schultz and pretty much every other serious economist on the right are all free traders. You know who isn’t? Robert Reich. Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders. Pretty much the entire ‘progressive’ movement. Oh, and Donald Trump.
This is just incoherent. Just how is propaganda from Hollywood in any way related to free trade? As for your characterizing conservatives as ‘schizophrenic libertarians…’ it seems more like you just created a new stereotype made up of all the things you personally don’t like, but which has no relationship to reality.
I guarantee you that slapping a 35% tariff on Chinese imports is not even remotely in America’s best interest. Nor is electing a leader who longs for the kind of power against his personal enemies that Vladimir Putin enjoys. Neither is killing the families of terrorists, just to terrorize them back. The Soviets tried that in Afghanistan, and it didn’t work out so well for them. It’s also antithetical to those conservative values you claim he and you stand for.
I assure you, it is a technical fact. Moderators do not have the ability to redact or append notes.
Max is using Ricochet’s definition of moderator. Here is the standard from Wikipedia. Max should know the Editors moderate.
Hoyacon: #81 In no universe could Romney be described as “liberal,”
We have thoroughly different ideas about who Romney is. Romney, when he ran against Ted Kennedy, was the best friend abortion ever had. Later, he repudiated that and settled for the LDS’ version of pro-life which is not quite pro-life.
His healthcare creation in Massachusetts is credited with being the example for Obamacare. That item was one he could not repudiate.
He is technocrat and able to handle money, both items in his favor.
But I’ve long thought him to be a moderate at best, with a left-leaning component to his politics. He doesn’t speak like a conservative, and given how bad Barry is, when Romney had the opportunity to paste Barry, he failed to do so. Imagine if Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum had that forum. Both of them would have worked Barry over.
Before I am accused of anything nefarious, I did vote for Romney. Bad as I thought him to be, he was better than Barry, the lesser evil if you will.
Because Tom just told us it wasn’t flagged. Unless you’re calling him a liar I think that is evidence enough.
Respectfully, the moderators do not have the ability to redact comments.
Wikipedia’s definition is irrelevant.
Good God, Claire. When did Donald Trump associate with the Klan? Can you provide a link to a photo where he posed with them? Accepted an endorsement? A quote saying what great guys they were?
Supporting Free trade. Otherwise known as “economics”.
I suspect a big part of the support for Trump is exactly that. Trump can be depended upon to work over his opponent without pity or fear. He might even use mean, crude, or politically incorrect ways to do it! He won’t hold back, that much is clear.
I don’t support Trump, but I sure can see how someone who has given up on Republicans because they don’t fight for anything could.
Does this count?
http://ricochet.com/the-trump-campaign-and-a-white-supremacist-blogger/
So, the founders of this country didn’t have economics? The Henry Clay American Plan era? Abraham Lincoln? All in favor of protective tariffs to promote American industry.
I ran into some quotes from this further along, and came back to find it. I don’t understand. On one hand it appears that Trump is held in great contempt; and on the other it appears that you want Romney to endorse Trump. Did I miss something?
Ricochet’s definition is bogus. How many web forums do you know have moderators without basic editing functions? The Ricochet Editors are moderators of this forum.
Like. Like. Like. Like. Like. Like. Like. Like. Like!
Dime,
Please move your discussion of moderator capabilities to a separate thread. Thanks.
From the same post:
“In a statement released on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Trump Sr said that the campaign issued the credentials routinely to everyone who requested them for the Memphis event. The campaign had no knowledge of Edwards’ personal views “and strongly condemns them”, the statement said.”
Lileks went on to mention that National Review was denied a pass, to contrast with Edwards, without also mentioning the bloody obvious: National Review has openly committed themselves to destroying his campaign.
While it’s gotten bad here, National Review has become absolutely unhinged in this regard. They’ve openly and eagerly adopted the language and arguments of the left in their blood feud with Trump. The Corner reads more like Daily Kos these days than any right wing blog. “Racist!” “Homophobic!” “Misogynist!”. It’s only a matter of time before we get a lecture on White Privilege, I suppose. I was surprised at how fast our “right wing” organs adopted the arguments of the Left. Maybe I shouldn’t have been.
Me too on that Douglas.
Richard,
I was just responding to Max and Tom. Thanks for your concern to keep things on topic.
“Neither is killing the families of terrorists, just to terrorize them back. The Soviets tried that in Afghanistan, and it didn’t work out so well for them. It’s also antithetical to those conservative values you claim he and you stand for.”
This line is pure gold for David Brock. I expect it to be highly effective for them. They have convinced themselves that Gitmo is a recruiting tool, but pales in comparison. Trump saying he will slaughter innocents must seem too good to be true. The media planes are getting into formation. Say goodbye to Trump’s Dresden.
Mitt Romney IS a good man with strong leadership skills. But he’s a moderate, not a conservative. Even NRO admitted he ‘spoke conservative as a 2nd language’.
Likely this was the best option he could get in Massachusetts. But when asked about Obamacare, his major criticism was that this type of legislation was for the states to implement, not the federal government. From a legal standpoint, this is true – I don’t believe the Constitution allows the federal government to implement Obamcare, whereas the states have no similar legal prohibition. However the conservative answer to that question is: government has no business forcing people to buy heath insurance and dictating what that coverage should include.
How is it, when Obamacare was a hot button issue for the electorate, did we get the Romney as nominee, of all people! And how is it when amnesty is a hot button issue, we get Jeb and Rubio pushed at us? It seems madness – certainly destined to fail!
I think the GOP leadership should have understood the division in the party and recruited several compromise candidates to run who could possibly bridge this divide.
Just catching up and haven’t read through any comments. So sorry if this is a repeat.
I will only speak for myself, because that’s all any of us can do. I agree with many of the sentiments of Trump supporters, I’m frustrated by the entrenchment of the two parties and their unwillingness to listen to their constituents, and on and on and on.
All fine and good.
But read my lips: I. Will. Never. Vote. For. Donald. J. Trump.
He has embodied everything many supporters claim to reject. There’s zero evidence anywhere that he’ll follow through on his conservative policies. Less than 4 years ago he was criticizing Romney and the GOP for being too harsh on immigration. He’s a proud crony capitalist. He embodies everything that’s wrong with our wealthy, purchased-politician system.
You want someone that will shake up Washington? There’s only one candidate who has: Ted Cruz.
Do you want a candidate who’s Constitutional bonafides are beyond reproach? Vote for Ted Cruz.
There’s only one candidate who has actually shut down government to reduce spending.
Ted Cruz is everything Trump supporters claim to want, except the vulgar temper tantrum.
I’m not sure that we do have that different views, and it may come down to a matter of definition. The O/P characterized Romney as “liberal,” plain and simple. That’s a bridge too far for me (as were some of his other comments). I’ll admit it’s difficult to separate the Romney who needed to win in Massachusetts as a Republican from the “real” Romney. He’s clearly more of technocrat than a conservative–which I’m rather sure is the genesis of Romney-care, as his version of problem-solving. Still, I give his private sector actions credence in avoiding the “liberal” tag, and would reference the first Obama-Romney debate as further evidence, where a real liberal was present.
In all my experience at Ricochet I’ve always noticed Editors taking the time to write in bold and often use brackets when making edits, redaction, etc.
I do not believe the standard you discuss is applied equally. Either that or Editors have significantly departed from one of their standard operating procedures.
Thank you.
How under the sun do you get that I am accusing Tom of lying about the comment being flagged? That is outrageous for you to make that accusation.
There are a great many comments on this site in any given day. Unless you have some eminent access to the back end of this database you are without benefit of knowing what is flagged or otherwise.
At no time did I accuse Tom of lying and you are not helping with your accusations otherwise.
I commented on this thread that the comment had not been flagged (i.e., I said “Had it been flagged …”). I would imagine that Jamie thought you saw that, but he appears to have been mistaken.
All of which is to say that it’s very easy to miss things in a fast-moving thread.
Tariffs, as a general rule, are not applied to capital that flows across borders…for very good reason. Who wouldn’t want capital investment in their country? Tariffs are applied to goods that cross borders. Tough to take this comment seriously when you don’t seem to know the difference.
Also, a big difference between free trade and open borders and not sure why you conflate the two.
As best I can tell, you want to impoverish the U.S. simply so we won’t trade with other nations? Is that the actual goal?
You were not the only one holding your nose for “compassionate conservativism.” But Trump is not just not a squishy conservative he is not even remotely conservative in both name, actions, history, or policy.
I’m not accusing you, but that is the implication given that you responded to me in which I quoted Tom saying the comment hadn’t been flagged. Now you may have missed that comment, but it was a fair reading given the available evidence.