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
Micheal,
From one physicist to another, I am with you. I would have been part of the Jeff Sessions 2016 brigade.
I agree that there is a lot of Trump hysteria on the Right. I have never believed Trump to be a authoritarian. Trump is just a guy, who loves America and just happens to be a Master Wizard/Persuader.
Trump doesn’t have any agenda or policies beyond getting elected. When he is elected he won’t even know what to do with himself. He will probably just hand it off to his chief of staff and spend the rest of his time bedding women on his way to the next Mrs. Trump.
AKA amnesty. But sssshhh.
If he wore them to a debate you might get me to watch.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump reaches “clown car” levels daily, and “cat who has learned to [urinate] in a toilet” on a regular basis.
Trump has set the tone in this campaign, and the conservative commentariat has just about caught up now. Not saying that’s good, but it’s apparently what you need to be seen/read anywhere now. Thanks Donald.
You made my day, thanks!
I am not talking about the candidates. I am talking about the writers and editorialists. Ye Gods, Man! Millions of people are dedicated to this guy and more enthused about politics than they have been in their lives. What kind of garbage is that when Podhoretz calls his campaign a “clown car?” That is vile condescension not only toward Trump but toward a social phenomena that is more than anger, more than righteous frustration – it is excitement and hope.
Conservative writers!
GO. TO. A. RALLY. YOURSELF.
SEE. FOR. YOURSELF.
Read the piece that I linked by Steyn. You will get an idea of how an honest conservative who is not necessarily enamored by Trump approaches a mysterious phenomenon objectively.
And if it is *not* a mystery to you why millions of people follow this guy so passionately then you are just dismissing them as uneducated dolts.
Now I’m intrigued. Is it really your expectation that opinion writers in partisan journals operate with higher standards of decorum and verbal restraint than presidential candidates? That has never been my expectation. You can’t celebrate someone whose shtick is defying the norms of political correctness then tut-tut as those who aren’t expected to have the same strictures go to the same level in opposing him. The sincerity or intelligence of his followers doesn’t enter into it. This is Trump’s show, and he set the terms of engagement.
Also, does anyone else think “clown car” rises to the level of “vile”? Are you sure you’re not just a bit emotionally invested in Donald’s campaign? Might you be projecting here? A bit?
I am certainly emotionally invested in the campaign. I should say that if Cruz wins, however, I will only be mildly disappointed. If Rubio or Kasich wins we are still in a better spot than we were at the start of the year but we are looking at four years of having to burn up the D.C. phone lines to prevent amnesty. But still, Rubio and Kasich are not bad.
I am disgusted by the way that Trump behaves calling Cruz a liar or making fun of Rubio’s ears. Lots of people working for Trump feel the same way. That is not what I happen to be writing about here. This is not tit for tat.
And the issue is indeed the disdain and condescension that the writers that I am discussing show toward the supporters of Donald Trump.
I don’t know who you are supporting, but how would you feel about a columnist who referred to your chosen candidate’s campaign as a clown car? You would assume it was a liberal I suppose because that is the kind of condescension that they truck in.
Thanks so much, Scott!
This is the core of what I am talking about. It is very difficult to argue in a linear way and get someone to change their position on anything. I have had really lengthy email arguments with two people about Trump. They are very enjoyable. And the people I am arguing with are as intelligent and open minded as you can get. They are both capable of being persuaded. I think that I am open to being persuaded. But it is a long slog.
And these two people do not write (or podcast) with the same vitriol as people like Podhoretz and Stephen Hayes and George Will etc.
So. I think they are locked into their positions. Far more than my friends, I think they are impervious to evidence. (They might be arguing in bad faith, i.e. they might have housekeepers who are going to be sent home by President Trump…but I assume they are arguing in good faith).
So, how do you convince someone if linear arguments don’t work? How do you get out of your Quinian web? That is where Augustine comes in. There is nothing to do but leap…even if only for a moment. Leap into the Trump camp (as I say, go to a rally). Talk to the people. Feel the excitement. And only then might you change your mind.
So, basically, I wanted to talk not just about Trump but about the nature of belief. I think that the same psychology applies to God or other belief systems.
The fact that Trump can attract a lot of people to a rally and get them to enthuse about his message says nothing about the worthiness of his message. The world has seen very bad men do the same.
No matter how many times Trump supporters say it doesn’t matter, I insist that his character matters much, much more than his stance on a few issues of the day. As the years go by he will, if president, be required to deal with myriad issues that he has never thought about. How will he do?
He gave some indication of how debased his character is at the debate tonight, when he said that he might very well give illegal orders (to commit war crimes by killing innocent people) to the military and they would follow them because “I’m a leader.”
Trump supporters can insult his critics all they want with “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” but if someone can ignore that statement there is something wrong with him.
Dear Mr. Axe,
I am not attacking all Trump critics. I am attacking the opinion makers on the right (the writers) for their screeching tenor.
I agree that character does matter. I think Trump has a lot of flaws. But, I think we should waterboard ISIS captives if necessary and I have no problem with doing much more. I think we should temporarily halt non-citizen Muslims from entering (to say nothing of settling in) the U.S. I think we should send all illegal aliens home. I think that it is hard to decide how to punish the families of terrorists, but the Israelis have a policy (or used to) of blowing up the houses of suicide bombers. If we actually were able, in this 21st Century world, to make some retribution against suicide bombers’ families I have no doubt it would be effective. (But I won’t advocate it here). I think a little bit of protectionism is probably not such a bad thing since while it may in the aggregate hurt our GDP it will certainly help a class of people who need help.
So I am willing to put up with the character flaws.
I was originally a Walker guy, but I could think of a couple ways in which “clown car” would be an apt though uncomplimentary description of how that campaign was run. I didn’t hear JPod’s context, but I’d think it’s well within bounds of political give and take.
But you don’t see it that way, so I’ll tell you how I react to “vile condescension” directed at my candidate or me.
I’m a Rubio supporter, so I’ve got months of experience of columnists/commentators who call me a cuckservative, dismiss him as an Establishment puppet and dismiss me as an Establishment dupe.
Fortunately, I haven’t had to alter my media diet too much because of this (e.g., I made the decision not to pay attention to Ann Coulter years ago in a similar way). (continued)
NR has been the center of my political commentary world for decades now, so I can understand how discombobulating it would be for you to see them to turn against your sympathies in a way you see as disrespectful and which takes them beyond the reach of debate. But speaking for myself, I decided last fall I couldn’t vote for Trump in the general, and would be disappointed if Jonah and JPod did “come around” (Williamson and Cooke as well).
Again, it doesn’t have to be about the movement–I’ll freely stipulate that Trump’s people are the salt of the earth and have legitimate grievances (I can’t speak for Jonah and JPod, especially since they’re on the front lines of the twitter war). Why can’t it be a judgment on the categorical unfitness of this particular man? You see the many principled objections to the man, don’t you? You wouldn’t recommend going to rallies or experiencing the movement to convince someone of Cruz or Rubio’s acceptability, right? It’s pretty much out in the open for people to accept or reject either of them, right? Why not for Trump?
Remember the fun over “epistemic closure”? #NeverTrump is, self-consciously, a species of that. It is a judgment that Trump cannot be the Republican nominee, a realization that reasoned debate is ineffective at achieving consensus on that point, and a preference toward breaking the party rather than letting it happen.
The important question here is: If I challenge all of you Trump supporters to a Chess match for a change, will some of you show up?
I think you need to make it tick-tac-toe. In chess, it’s too easy to sweep all the pieces off the board. Which seems like a very Trumpish thing to do.
You frame the choice as breaking the party or supporting Trump. That’s not the choice. The choice is breaking the party by not supporting or killing the party by supporting Trump.
We didn’t have to wait 24 hours. Trump flipped on H1-Bs, then flopped back.
I’m sorry, I promise! I was distracted by Super Tuesday, but I haven’t forgotten. If there’s anyone else on Ricochet who supports Rubio, you’re welcome to make a move, but one way or another Black will move before the day is out.
Honestly, it hadn’t even occurred to me to mean that as a criticism of your delay. I figured you had good reasons.
A criticism of the nearly 50% of Ricochet that claims to favor Rubio yet can’t defend his honor on the Chess board–maybe.
I also don’t have a problem with torturing terrorists. But don’t you see that it doesn’t matter whether you and I and Donald Trump have no problem with doing much more. As a country we have agreed with various accords and treaties that we would not do much more in the way of torture. A man running for president who states openly that he would torture our enemies and kill their families has gone so far over the line that only a person who is suffering from his own derangement could ignore it. As I said earlier, Trump announced that he would give the orders to the military knowing they are illegal and “They will obey me.”
Then there is his obscene comment about Romney dropping to his knees. His beyond childish reference in the debate to the size of his genitals. If you and the rest of his legions cannot see, will not see, that this man is categorically unfit to hold any office under our Constitution, let alone the presidency, there is no saving our country. We will reap the whirlwind.
I also don’t have a problem with torturing terrorists.
How about a moratorium on Muslims entering the U.S. You oppose that? Or do you think it is appalling to deny entry to the U.S. to people who subscribe to a belief system which approves of the execution of apostates, heretics, homosexuals and blaspheming cartoonists?
Trump’s plan to temporarily ban Muslim entries: “not consistent with our values?” “impractical?” “insulting to the religion of peace?” “driving peaceful Muslims into the waiting radical arms of ISIS?” [some other canard I’ve missed?]
I have a problem with a temporary ban on Muslims entering this country. Would we be OK with a Muslim country banning all Christians from entering its country.
I would be OK with extra scrutiny of Muslims entering to ensure they don’t have ties to Islamic extremism, but an outright ban, that is SEVERAL bridges too far for me.
Like most of Trump’s ideas, the childish simplicity of banning Muslims would have unintended consequences that could easily dwarf whatever supposed gains in security that might accrue. The bad will that a blanket ban would generate in the Muslim world could cost us dearly in ways that could not even be predicted today.
Do all Muslims believe in your list of drastic beliefs? Who cares, ban them all. I have little affection for Islam, but I know Muslims who don’t believe in any of the things that the Salafis do. There are bad and good just like with every other group. Since there are Mexican and Salvadoran gangs who probably kill more Americans than Muslims do on a regular basis, why not ban people from those countries?
I can see banning people whom we cannot vet, such as young male Syrian refugees. But that is not the same thing as a blanket ban.
What do you call a leader who is willing to give knowingly illegal orders to the military and insists that they will be followed, which to me means “or else?”
A dictator.
I am not generally sympathetic to arguments of moral relativism between Christianity and Islam. But I understand there are a lot of multi-culturalists out there.
I wasn’t making a moral relativist argument. I was simply making the argument that no country should ban everyone from a given religion from entering their country. And the last country in the world that should be doing so is America with the right to free exercise of religion built into our constitution.
A-squared, is that a blanket claim? No religion, no matter how nihilistic and depraved its values and practices – so long as it had a deity, an origin myth and a moral code – should be banned from entering our country?
Or is it just that there are lots of Muslims so they’re too big to ban?
Yes. If their practices violate our laws, they can be arrested and convicted when the engage in those practices on our soil, but they should not be denied entry simply because they have a particular belief. Should a wine-drinking catholic be denied admission to Muslim country because they view alcohol is a sin even if the prospective tourist agreed to not consume alcohol while in the Muslim country?
If the individual applicant has a history of violent behavior, they can be denied entry based on their actions rather than their beliefs, but that is a facts-and-circumstances-based denial, not a blanket ban on everyone of a given religion.
If someone else made this point I missed it- dropping to your knees is not synonymous with offering oral sex. It’s a traditional way of pleading and throwing yourself on someone’s mercy. Maybe Trump is crude, but it’s a certainty that everyone who interpreted that statement as referring to oral sex has a mind in the gutter.
The problem is that Muslims believe in state enforcement of religion, and that when they have enough numbers and political power it’s their duty to bring that about. Unfortunately, though many Muslims are personally wonderful, their presence here threatens our freedoms if they become more than a tiny tiny minority.