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.
Credo, ut Intelligam
“Tessellations,” MC Escher
I had the true pleasure of meeting a provocative and charming cadre of the Ricochetti in Manchester, New Hampshire recently at the Ricochet/National Review get together. Greetings to all my new friends! It was deeply satisfying to be with such sparkling, philosophically compatible company.
But here is a confession I have to make. When Charles Cooke, in the warmup act to the GLoP podcast, rhapsodized about how smart and noble National Review’s Donald Trump lynching issue was, there was someone in the front row who audibly (as audibly as possible) hissed.
That was me.
I have already written about my disapproval of the National Review issue (The conservative elite chooses irrelevance) and have discussed it many times with my co-host Todd Feinburg on the Harvard Lunch Club Political Podcast (for example, here).
But listening to the Goldberg, Long and Podhoretz (i.e., GLoP) podcast (Which, by the way, was completely hysterical!) I was at one point struck with a sense of déjà vu when John Podhoretz, referring to the looming end of the Trump fad and the logically ensuing conundrum the Trump supporters would soon encounter, opined as follows:
I’m wondering if, as I hope, the Trump bubble bursts, or he fizzles or whatever, how some of the people who have gone all in in this way are going to put the genie back in the bottle. Because there’s two sides to it: obviously you can support a candidate who loses and go on to support somebody else, that’s part of what happens in a winnowing process in a primary … but obviously there’s something about the temperature of the Trump supporter, that makes the idea of walking back … or getting back into the regular world [very difficult].
This is a textbook example of projection. I don’t mean that this is projection as a kind of literary metaphor. I mean that Mr. Podhoretz is deeply troubled by the prospect of Donald Trump becoming the Republican nominee. He is confronting the possibility of having to choose between Trump and Hillary Clinton. He has been over-the-top vitriolic toward Trump for months. And so he has a genie of his own to put back into a bottle.
I have enormous respect for Podhoretz and have looked to him as an inspiration and ally in all manner of battles over the past many years. So let me be clear (and eschew my normal, snarky cynicism) that I feel no rancor toward him.
As for my déjà vu regarding Podhoretz’s dilemma, here (forgive the somewhat lengthy quote) is what I said in What Will Capitulation of the GOP Establishment Look Like? back in November:
How do Karl Rove and George Will and Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg and Kevin Williamson (et tu, Kevin?) and Bret Stephens and Daniel Henninger – oh, why not just throw in the whole Wall Street Journal editorial board? – I could go on, but you get the idea. How do these and so many more venerable conservatives reach that final stage (Kubler Ross is trite, I know) of acceptance of the nomination of Donald Trump?
How does Henninger walk back the remark of saying Trump is “beyond the pale” for politicizing 9/11?
How does Goldberg escape his remark that Trump is like a “cat trained to [urinate] in a human toilet?”
During the general election, how does Will equivocate when asked about his remark that “nothing is now more virtuous than scrubbing, as soon as possible, the Trump stain from public life.”
In short, how do these pundits and many more deal with the extreme vituperation they have spewed toward Trump’s candidacy to date?
Because walk back, escape, equivocate and deal with is what they will inevitably be doing if Trump wins the nomination.
Because the alternative is Hillary Clinton. And, assuming you have no power or vested interest that is going to evaporate if Trump is elected (part of the problem, of course, is that many actually do) then it is foolish to think you really have a choice. Here are two words in case you think you do: Supreme Court.
So forget the despicable GOP money men who have illegal alien maids (we all remember Meg Whitman) or business owners who employ Dollar-Store-priced illegal alien workers. Let’s just concentrate on the honorable, intelligent and wise conservative writers who have developed a gestalt from which they cannot escape — a Quinian web where each new piece of evidence is guaranteed to support the existing conclusion because of the escalating rage that has gone into its formation. How do they escape?
First, what might tempt them to want to escape?
Consider Larry Kudlow’s anecdote about the humanity of Trump, who met him walking down 5th Ave. when Kudlow had been fired and he was despondent and Trump offered him some valuable unsolicited encouragement. Consider the integrity of Donald Trump’s children, especially the bright light of Ivanka. More than anything, go to a Trump event (as the venerable Mark Steyn did recently) and soak in the enthusiasm of the Children of Paradise. Yes, they might be vulgar. Yes, they are uneducated. And, oh yes, they are profoundly unsophisticated.
But blend yourself in, listen to their chatter and their concerns and try as hard as you can to sneer at them. Good luck. If you can then I have nothing more to say to you.
Because here’s the deal. Donald Trump is a man, much like other men. He is vain and irascible. He is spoiled and not deeply intellectual. He can be warm and charming. He can be vulgar. But Trump is not Rasputin.
Trump is campaigning on a set of policies. They are not always so consistent with the many comments he has made throughout his career. But even if they’re not, even if they are thinly developed, they are clear enough to have attracted millions of Americans to his side. They have also attracted the very gold standard of the conservative movement, Jeff Sessions to his side. If you, you distinguished conservative writer or you, you conservative housewife, have truly painted yourself into an emotional corner and interpret every new shred of evidence as proving that Trump is Mussolini, then you are in a very bad place indeed. It is not a bad place for Trump. It is a bad place for you.
Consider what Augustine said: “Credo, ut intelligam.” I believe, in order that I may understand. Perhaps you will find your way out.
Here is one other shallow piece of schmaltz that perhaps will help you:
No Drugs, No Alcohol, No Cigarettes.
Trump 2016!
Published in General
I will probably stay home. Personally, I would have an easier time voting for Hillary than than Trump (and I would have a REALLY hard time voting for Hillary).
If that is a bad place for me, I’m fine with that.
I’m sorry, but I still don’t get how your candidate is any different than Hillary, at least on the issue that you hold as being the most important, the Supreme Court. Can this man who thinks his sister would be a good nominee really be taken seriously? I’m asking, truly I am.
I get the anger (I think it is not particularly useful) but if you’re going to pick a candidate to do something about it, why Trump? There were plenty of others better suited, and even now we could absolutely guarantee better SC candidates with Ted Cruz.
Not yet. There are still two other Republican candidates, both of them far superior to Trump.
Well said. Short of extraordinary procedural measures or a 3rd (and possibly 4th) party competing in the main election, conservatives are likely to be stuck with Trump and need to deal with that fact.
I voted for Cruz. If he wins the nomination, I’ll be pleasant surprised. If not, I wouldn’t discount the possibility of those procedural measures. A lot of powerful people are very determined to select a different candidate. This could get uglier yet.
It is possible that Republicans could negotiate with Trump for legislation and restrict overuse of executive orders if the party is unified. But it’s evident that the party will not be unified. Let that factor into your calculations.
Moreover, selecting Trump as our nominee virtually guarantees that Hillary will be in the Oval Office with a Democrat-held Senate and House to boot.
I feel exactly the same as Mr. Stopa. Neither Hillary nor Trump are fit to be president. If our republic has sunk so low, our future is bleak. I’m sad.
But that’s the trick isn’t it? Continue to talk about Drumpf being the inevitable nominee. Never mind the facts that trump currently polls with over half the Republican Electorate definitely not wanting to support him. Make it that False Dichotomy so that the impression of Drumpf or Clinton is all one has (I thought they complained about that happening in other elections?). I think that some who support Drumpf need to just be honest.
Say (or type) what it is one finds so darn appealing/compelling about his candidacy? Then try to defend it against criticism from other conservatives (and their conservative critiques) rather than try to deflect criticism by saying “but Hillary”. The primary season ends in June. There are 3 more months of this. The ride has only just begun, don’t chicken out now.
I welcome any reasoned defense of Trump’s “set of policies.” Romney provided a reasoned critique of them today, and is in the process of being raked over the coals by Trump supporters for having the temerity to voice an opinion and “put Hillary in the White House.” It’s beginning to look like some of those who have spent a fair amount of time bemoaning our “victim culture” are now viewing Trump as (guess what) a victim.
BTW, using an analogy like “lynching” to describe a political takedown of a billionaire (by his count, anyway) strikes me as rather inappropriate. I’ll take a PC penalty for that one.
But Drumpf is the populist crusading hero that will triumph over the world spanning GOPe conspiracy against the GOP base and yet at the same time be a victim to them that he can blame for his own personal failings…
In all honesty though, this has been one of the paradox’s of Drumpf support I have noticed. There is alleged (by some Drumpf supporters, I cannot say all as I have not seen or talked to every single supporter of his) to be a massive RINO conspiracy to repress the GOP base. Its allegedly been so powerful that it has done this since Reagan (never mind the Tea Party or Gingrich) and continues to.
But at the same time Drumpf can allegedly show up out of nowhere and defeat them. Sounds like a convenient story plot device.
Nobody I have heard complain about the NR issue has been able to dispute, much less refute, a single argument by any of the authors.
Trump has proposed Diane Sykes and William Pryor Jr. as potential nominees. Of course if you believe that Trump is a devious liar who will say anything to get elected and who will not be bound by any force to anything he says during the election, then it doesn’t matter what names Trump suggests.
But then you have an unfalsifiable argument and have gone beyond the reach or argument anyway.
Yeah the one person who wrote in the NRO Anti Trump piece who held my position was Erik Erickson. ‘Basically I am against Trump. But if he is the nominee I am going to vote for him.’
Now I cant vote for Trump except in Ricochet Polls which I don’t.
see you in a month, Richard.
“lynching” issue ? ? ?
Oy vey.
Where you hear “over-the-top vitriol” I hear magnanimous restraint. Where you see lynchings I see the words of honorable people raising reasonable objections and lucid arguments. I could go on.
Michael, your guy just made a BJ joke in his speech today about our former nominee. Go ahead and vote for that guy and please explain your touchdown dance. Anything else I say will COC noncompliant.
This anecdote might go a long way toward getting the victims of the Trump University scam to drop their lawsuits against Trump for defrauding them.
I also loved Trump’s response to Hugh Hewitt at the last debate, when Hugh reminded him that on his radio show Trump had said he would release his tax returns. Trumps said, “No one listens to your show. No, really. The ratings are terrible.”
This is a man who has virtue pouring out of him.
I keep hearing his supporters say, “It’s time to support Trump because Hillary!!! Supreme Court!!!”
Fine. I get it.
But doesn’t the same logic hold going the other way? I mean, the Never Trump movement is a very real thing–as evidenced by who knows how many comments here in Ricochet over the past four or more months.
For Trump supporters in the states that have left to vote, if “Hillary!!! Supreme Court!!!” are really so important, isn’t #NeverTrump a pretty good reason to support Rubio or Cruz in the primaries instead?
Thank you for providing this information. You are correct that I don’t particularly trust Trump, but if in the general election he makes clear his views and commits to fighting for these candidates, perhaps I’ll support him for this one reason. Stranger things have happened.
As to your the idea that I’ve “gone beyond the reach of argument,” I hope I just proved that’s not true. On the other hand, it was your nominee himself who said he could kill someone and his supporters would stay with him. That is what I call “beyond the reach of argument.”
I have no problem with people continuing to support other candidates for the Republican nomination. Go for it! I am talking here really about what to do once the nominating process is over assuming Trump wins.
And really what I am talking about is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Michael, I am pretty dedicated listener to the Harvard Lunch Club podcast. In most cases, I find I am in total agreement with you and Todd. However, on the issue of Trump both of you seem to have convinced yourselves that his victory is a decided fact. That I find completely ludicrous, particularly coming from two such intelligent men. I am also a listener to and a fan of GLOP, Ricochet, Need to Know, Flyover Country, and Commentary podcasts. I find their arguments far more credible, and I certainly do not find John Podhoretz hystrionic, as you seemed to imply in a recent HLC podcast. I think his ideas of what would follow a Trump nomination very credible.
Both you and Todd seem to think that being president doesn’t require any prior knowledge or skill other than being able to convince the rubes out there that you have it under control. So all Trump has to do is clean up his act. What you fail to realize is, it isn’t an act. Donald Trump is Donald Trump, a slightly less civil, white version of the current resident of the White House, with the same level of integrity, and about the same concern for the American people. Those of us opposed to Trump want a president who knows the Constitution, and will restore it primacy in his administration, not continue the autocracy of Obama.
Thus it is proven.
People on both sides of the Trump issue like to paint their adversaries as having a purely emotional response, either against Trump (as in this original post) or for him as the case may be. Both accusations are no more than partially correct.
People who support Trump have their reasons. People who oppose Trump have their reasons. These reasons are of different categories, and so there is not much room for persuasion. I think your reasons are either invalid, or don’t matter, or mistake reality. You think the same of my reasons.
But please have the courtesy not to accuse me of being purely emotional, and I’ll return the courtesy.
So what is the argument for Trump other than you are disappointed in the Republican party?
Eugene, thanks for being a listener. I did not mean this piece today to be an elaborate defence of Trump, of course. And I have no trouble seeing all the things that his critics see and I am no less disgusted with them (so too are many of his followers).
But here is where I am coming from. In the early spring of 2015 I was thinking about starting a “draft Jeff Sessions for 2016” movement. I realized I just didn’t have the wherewithal. But he was the only Senate member and one of the few Congressmen who was saying that we need to send all illegal aliens home for the good of the country. To me the issue is existential. Don’t solve that and nothing else matters. Build a wall as big as you want and if you don’t send illegal aliens home it won’t make any difference. But there’s a rub. There are perhaps 100,000 employers in America employing illegal aliens. And they donate money to political candidates. Even Ted Cruz pointedly refused to say that he would send them back. Only Trump has the freedom to say it.
Might Trump renege? Yep. But Jeff Sessions believes him. And so so I.
Might Trump renege? It is guaranteed he will renege.
I struggle with this.
Are you suggesting that we can be disgusted with Trump, but we should vote for him regardless of how disgusted we are?
I think I will pass. I’ve held my nose and voted for many GOP candidates I was not fond of, but asking me to vote for someone that I’m disgusted with is a bridge too far.
If Trump is what the GOP wants, then the GOP doesn’t want me.
Amen. I don’t like Trump. My dad is a Trump fan. What’s the point of me insulting him or vice versa? We’re both smart enough to know that will do nothing but harden feelings and positions.
Finally i think we have some clarity. Immigration Derangement Syndrome.
And once again, where mr. Stopa sees a stalwart leader (sessions), i am reminded of the senator who ive voted for in spite of his extreme views on immigration.
Hmmm, OK. This is odd. I try to be nice, say thanks for providing pertinent information that could change my mind and this is what I get. Is this how Trump supporters try to win people over? Oh well, what should I expect. It’s about the same as Trump and his outreach to people like me. We’re either with him or we’re losers.