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
equivocation
[ih-kwiv-uh–key-shuh n]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, especially in order to mislead orhedge; prevarication.
2. an equivocal, ambiguous expression; equivoque:
3. Logic. a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.
As noted, you included yourself in the category of people outside of Washington without actually asserting the claim yourself and as a result, left me to answer the purely theoretical rebuttal, and now, looking at the theoretical objection, doesn’t the claim fit the textbook definition of equivocation?
In general, I’d like to say that I find ironic the way that people on the site throw around the charge of fascism considering that the charge is a favorite of radical leftists. Let me quote Orwell in Politics and the English Language:
I apologize to Brent.
You did see the part about killing random people who didn’t execute union soldiers or didn’t enslave union soldiers, right? You’re moving the goal posts. Lincoln’s order was criminal by the definition implicitly used by most people criticizing Trump—Lincoln was ordering the execution of people in retaliation for the actions of third parties—but few people have serious criticism of Lincoln as a fascist or criminal. He certainly didn’t wreck the union or our values. Why the double standard?
[Both this comment and the reply have been lightly redacted to remove gratuitously demeaning turns of phrase. Good and vigorous arguments are always welcome on Ricochet, but belittling one’s interlocutor is not a good argument.]
John, this is a thoughtful post and it made me finally pull the trigger and join. But, I really have to disagree with you on the basis of temperament. Donald Trump has a very labile personality. He is a narcissist who is easily flattered, then turns immediately if insulted. I haven’t seen any other candidate on the Republican side concern me more about his ability to perform as Commander-In Chief or respect the coequal branches of government. Our adversaries would see immediately that he is an easy mark if he ego is stroked. Case in point- Vladimir Putin. I am also concerned about a man who says that during the Tienanmen Square uprising that the Chinese almost “blew it” by not being strong enough. Regarding respect for co-equal branches of government, he is the only candidate who threatened Speaker Paul Ryan . I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who possesses those characteristics. It’s chilling and all too much like our current President.
Duane Oyen #181 “This also parallels, in fairness, the meme of many other lazy conservatives (including right here at Ricochet) who continuously repeat the soundbite bit about Mitt Romney’s health plan efforts in Massachusetts, which were- when one looks at the facts, excellent.”
I googled the following:
In a subsequent story that same month the Globe reported that Commonwealth Care faced a short-term funding gap of $100 million and the need to obtain a new three-year funding commitment from the federal government of $1.5 billion.[47] By June 2011 enrollment was projected to grow to 342,000 people at an annual expense of $1.35 billion. The original projections were for the program to ultimately cover approximately 215,000 people at a cost of $725 million.
During the week of April 5, 2010, the Boston Globe reported that more than a thousand people in Massachusetts had “gamed” the mandate/penalty provision of the law since implementation by choosing to be insured only a few months a year, typically when in need of a specific medical procedure. On the average, the Globe reported, these part-time enrolees were paying $1,200–$1,600 in premiums over a few months and receiving $10,000 or more in healthcare services before again dropping coverage.
Since I am a lazy conservative, I thought I’d clue you in.
Mr. Kluge, did I read your post correctly that you are voting for Trump, but leaving the Republican party? Does that mean you are becoming an Independent? Interestingly, here in FL, we can start voting Sat. but only Republicans and Democrats – it’s a closed state – so “minor” parties – I think that includes Independents (?) cannot vote?
Despite the fact that Trump has made us cringe on more than one occasion, you have nailed it John Kluge. Herein lies his appeal to those of us who would otherwise consider ourselves political sophisticates and loyal Republican soldiers. We’re not going to take it any more.
Ditto
Double Ditto.
The republican establishment is still not hearing us. The GOPe is implementing a scorched earth policy to stop Trump. They would rather sabotage their own party’s ability to win the presidency than have Trump win.
One must ask the question why they did not fight Obama this hard? Why is Trump so much more dangerous than the Marxist progressive left? Obviously Obama only wanted to control the nation’s domestic and foreign policy. That evidently is less threatening to the GOPe than losing control of the Republican Party’s policies to an “outsider.”
I don’t think you (they) get it. Nearly every DC GOP politician, NR & Weekly Standard, much of Ricochet has been over the moon/Tiger Beat crush on Rubio. I’d guess that nearly all Trump voters, a good chunk of Cruz voters view him as a 4th Bush term. He continues to flirt with legalization, won’t back off/repudiate TPP and sure sounds like McCain/Lindsay Graham on foreign policy. I don’t want Trump to get nomination but it’s clear that the DC establishment/power structure (whatever you want to call it) faction that supports Rubio will not drop those positions, will not yield or compromise with Trump/Cruz supporters.
Truth in advertising – I’m a Cruz guy but as this thing goes on and gets more acrimonious, I think he is the most unifying at this point.
There is not much to add after 250 comments, but…
Trump is none of the things that anybody on either side of this argument have said. Trump is a Master Wizard/Persuader who decided that he wanted to be elected President. Trump has no game plan beyond being elected President. When he first sits down in the chair behind the Resolute desk, he will say, “Now what?” I predict that he gets bored by year 2 and may even resign in year 3.
Let’s just be glad Kanye West didn’t decide he wanted to be President.
I sincerely Thank You for that sacrifice.
I agree the OP is compelling, and causes me to Pause.
It helps me to see the tremendous fear I have for the Tsunami that is Trump, and the Disaster which is Hillary.
When I think of my choices:
I tremble.
And I pray, “G-d in Heaven, help us all.”
Add me to the never Trump crowd. I agree with what was said above, he has no plan past day one.
It’s not that I don’t get the Trump crowd. I do, I just can’t support someone who I think lacks morals as a guide. I think he is all about himself, that is not a guide on how to lead a country. I’ve been in different areas of my life where people told me I was voting against my interest, but I voted for what I believed was right. I don’t believe the same about Trump.
It’s not a choice between Hillary and Trump right now, I hope it never is.
Trump is Liquid Plumber? How many bottles do we need?
As an aside: if we just manage to have a balanced budget for 40 years, economic growth would essentially solve the problem. Assume anemic 2% real GDP growth and low 2% annual inflation.
The debt (owed to the public) is $13.1 trillion (end of FY 2015). 2015 GDP was $17.8 trillion. The debt was 73.7% of GDP.
After 40 years of a balanced budget, 2% growth, and 2% inflation, the debt would be 15.3% of GDP. The equivalent of $2.7 trillion today. Less than one year of government receipts. No problemo.
In fact, if the debt got that low, it starts to be a good thing to have, to provide a safe and stable investment as a foundation for financial institutions and investors.
Ah, by your nom de plume you joined Ricochet today?
If you haven’t read the member feed ’til now, don’t presume too much. Nice post.
Do you have something to base this on ? I have not met the man, but I know a fair number of people like him from New York. I would expect him to have a team in place for the transition well before election day and by inauguration day be ready to roll very fast. It is how they work.
Time is money to these guys. It is in their DNA. They rarely sit still unless they are in “Family Time”
But hey, I could be wrong.
Can we have a definition of fascist and racist since it is being thrown at Trump and many of his supporters. Is it fascist/racist to be against open borders? Is it fascist/racist to worry that this may not be the same nation if whites become a minority? Is it fascist/racist to think that allowing many Muslims in without careful screening could lead to additional acts of terrorism and other problems? Is it bigotry to not want to be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding? It is fascist/racist to think that replacing Alexander Hamilton with Harriet Tubman is the beginning of the destruction of the nation’s heritage? All my life I have tried to look beyond race, that good ideas and policies transcend race. However, the left has been playing identity politics for so long that it is hard not to react to it. They have been operating on the assumption that this is a racist nation run by whites, appealing to the resentments of minorities, and that the only way forward is to tear down and delegitimize the nation’s history and change its demographics. I do think this is Trump’s appeal.
I agree that would be useful. It would be a good subject for a post on the member feed, if you want to give it a shot — a positive definition of one or both of those terms (I’d suggest only tackling one at a time), explicitly saying what they are, not what they aren’t, and how one would recognize them.
Given that just about everyone here — including #NeverTrump folks — would agree with those, I’d say no.
Claire and Tom,
Thanks for your comments. I am going to perhaps try to post on this later. It is sad to say, but I had to switch to a pen name for fear of stating my opinion on this under my own name for the first time since I have been a Ricochet member. I am greatly disappointed in this site for not being able to handle politically incorrect opinions. I thought name-calling and shutting down conversation by calling opponents racist, homophobic, fascist, was only something that happened under the thin-skinned, intolerant left, but I have learned otherwise here.
Mr. Kluge, welcome to Ricochet and thank you for the thoughtful post.
Why didn’t you ever come back?
I had same reaction Charlotte. Was wondering if he was going to respond. It was a great post, and a first one at that!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
I would say that advocating for loosening of libel criteria, interrogation measures exceeding water boarding (edge limit of legality per Mr. Yoo?), and religious test for travel strongly indicate fascism to me.
So Paul, I guess that means you are okay with allowing thousand of Muslims in without additional scrutiny, that they should not be looked at any differently than say someone from Denmark? I guess Kudlow is a fascist under your definition.
“Additional scrutiny” is a measured phrase that could be appropriate. The proposal was for a ban on Muslims coming into the country. Granted it was walked back from initial offering, still it was proposed.
Paul,
I think he said ban until a better vetting system was in place, not a permanent ban. I think he said both at same time.