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.
For the Establishment
“Burn it down.” That’s the slogan of faux conservatives who now rejoice that the Republican Party is being smashed by a slick, howlingly transparent grifter. The urge to destroy has a kind of pornographic appeal to a certain personality – but it’s a shock to find it so widespread.
The Republican Party is choosing an odd time to commit suicide. Obama’s two victories were painful setbacks, but in the Obama era the Democrats lost 13 US Senate seats, 69 House seats, 910 legislative seats, 11 governorships, and 30 legislative chambers. All that stood between Republicans and real reform at the federal level was the White House – and the Democrats were sleepwalking toward nominating the least popular major player in American politics.
Republicans have managed to find someone who is even less acceptable. One-third to 40 percent of Republican primary participants are embracing a figure who not only loses the general election but who introduces an element of fascism to American politics, and thus demoralizes the Republican majority while delegitimizing the party in the eyes of others. It is Trump’s unique contribution to wed authoritarianism — threatening the First Amendment, promising war crimes, admiring dictators, encouraging mob violence, fomenting racial and ethnic strife — with Sandersesque leftism on entitlements, abortion, and a 9/11 truther foreign policy.
And what sin has brought down this despoiler upon the Republican Party? Why are so many self-styled conservatives complacent about his success? Failure to stop Obamacare? Please. That was never possible with Obama in office. It would have been possible, in fact it was probable, that it would have been replaced if Republicans held majorities in Congress and got an agreeable executive. Now? No. Failure to get control of the border? Illegal immigration from Mexico has slowed to a trickle and, in fact, more Mexicans are now leaving than coming. Failure to defund the Export-Import Bank? Yes, crony capitalism is disgraceful, but the irony of those who are offended by such things sidling up to Trump – who boasts of buying influence – is rich.
As Edmund Burke observed about the extremists of his day: “He that sets his home on fire because his fingers are frostbitten can never be a fit instructor in the method of providing our habitations with a cheerful and salutary warmth.”
Here are a few words of praise for the Republicans. The Republican Party has become more reform-minded and more conservative over the past 30 years. The Arlen Specters and Bob Packwoods are pretty much gone. In their places are dynamic, smart, and articulate leaders like Tom Cotton, Ben Sasse, Cory Gardner, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Suzanna Martinez, and Marco Rubio. The party has become more conservative and more ethnically diverse.
Between 2008 and 2014, when Republicans were the minority in the Senate, they blocked cap and trade, the “public option” in Obamacare, and card check. Republicans declined to give President Obama universal pre-K, the “Paycheck Fairness Act,” expanded unemployment benefits, a higher federal minimum wage, varieties of gun control, mandatory paid sick leave, a tax on multinational corporations, higher taxes on individuals, and more. They passed bills authorizing the Keystone pipeline (which was vetoed) and trade promotion authority (the one issue Obama is not wrong about). They endorsed entitlement reform.
The American system is slow and balky by design. It requires maturity and patience to achieve your political goals. Democrats have been remarkably strategic, returning again and again to cherished objectives, whereas Republicans have told themselves that leadership treachery rather than Madisonian architecture accounts for their frustration.
Those who encouraged the “burn it down” mania and who popularized the narrative that a malign Republican “establishment” was responsible for the state of the nation may be many things but they are not conservative. Conservatives respect institutions and traditions. They understand that process is ultimately more important than policy outcomes because it guarantees legitimacy and political stability. Laws can be repealed. That is why Obama’s worst offenses were not Dodd/Frank, the stimulus bill, or Obamacare, as bad as those were. His worst offenses were against Constitutional constraints. He governed by executive fiat and got away with it, thus undermining the rule of law.
A plurality of Republicans seems to have accepted and adopted contempt for the Constitution. They will reap the whirlwind and look back longingly at the Republican “establishment.”
Published in General
You do an amazing impression of one.
I’m a big proponent of, you can’t fix stupid, so I do not try.
Yes, well, well done then, Klaatu. You certainly can’t fix your own stupid without trying.
You certainly do an excellent impression of the film ersatz Klaatu rather than the interesting original one.
I’m content not being the one making excuses for irrational supporters of a demagogic fascist.
Actually, you are making excuses for them. They’re idiots, right? Unless you are a very sick individual, you can’t hold an idiot responsible for not being able to figure out who is a demagogic fascist.
By the way, you don’t know what apologist means. But I do expect you’ll offer your sui generis definition. But I’ve seen all I need to in this conversation. Ta ta.
I guess I’m a sick individual then, I hold idiots responsible for their actions.
Does Merrian Webster qualify as sui generis?
Apologist: a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people
Ok, last try. I’m not defending or supporting Trump supporters. I’m explaining why they might support Trump without resorting to calling them all stupid. I have admitted along the way that you may be stupid, but folks can judge for themselves. You should stop providing evidence in support of that proposition.
Look, I’m busting your balls here, but I don’t really think you’re stupid. It’s really easy to say “to hell with everybody” when you’re frustrated, but it’s not very productive. A full 35% of the GOP electorate did not suddenly become stupid or crazy or suicidal for absolutely no discernible reason.
Sui generis definition of defend?
I’m not convinced a significant number of Trump supporters were members of the GOP electorate until this year. One of the few things Trump says I actually believe is he is bringing many new voters into the system. I prefer they would have remained outside of it.
No, not a sui generis definition of defend. Saying they are not necessarily stupid is not defending their support for Trump. Even defending their abandonment of the GOP establishment is not defending their support for Trump.
Sure, there are new voters (Democrats, Independents) who constitute some of those 35%. But evidence suggests that a great deal of that support for Trump comes from former GOP voters (the “former” assuming Trump is essentially a RINO.) Absolving the party of responsibility for the loss of those voters is counterproductive.
You’ve been pretty patient. I’ll give you the last word.
A few things here.
First, sui generis means unique or one of a kind, and makes no sense as applied to the definition of a word.
Second, popularity is no excuse for a bad idea. Bernie is popular, but socialism is still a bad idea. Trump is popular, but proto-fascism is still a bad idea. And voting for a ridiculously unqualified and ignorant blowhard, who clearly knows less about how government works than your average third grade social studies student is a really bad idea.
Third, Ario, you not only sound like a Trump supporter, you sound like Trump himself. His only excuse for his own candidacy is to cite polls. Just like you.
Fourth, I’m just tired of anti-GOPe complaints from people who never identify any specifics, never tell us what candidates they would have preferred in past elections, and never even tell us who makes up the “GOPe,” or how they supposedly exercise their nefarious power. If you want your complaints to sound legitimate, you need to give a rational explanation for your grievances. A mere scream of rage is not sufficient, even if you get a lot of other people to scream in rage along with you.
One can have one own’s unique definition of a word. Not sure why you can’t understand that.
Never said popularity was an excuse. I’m not citing polls to “excuse” his popularity. I’m citing polls to suggest that the tactic of excoriating Trump for saying things most voters agree with (all these immigrants aren’t helping Americans, we should be very careful about Muslim immigration, etc.) even if Trump is impolitic about it, was a mistake.
If you think I sound like Trump by explaining how commentors like Mona Charen screwed up by 1) ignoring the grievances of a large part of the Republican electorate to put up more vigorous resistance to Obama’s policies by using the power they were given by that electorate, and 2) reinforcing the pro-amnesty impression the GOPe gives off by excoriating Trump when he says popular, if impolitic, anti-immigration things, well, I suppose you’re entitled to your opinion.
As for who the GOPe is, I’ve pointed it out many times, as have others here. The GOPe are the people with influence and power to set the GOP agenda, and those opinion leaders who support the agenda. Notably, that agenda has included refusing to push back against Obama when that pushback might give the MSM something to bash them with (cowardice), and amnesty in the form of Go8 or going along with non-enforcement of immigration laws. The GOP congressional leadership fits this bill, as do many commentators who support these goals and tactics.
I’m quite upset that Trump may be the nominee. I have from the outset favored Ted Cruz because I think he both understands the Constitution and appreciates the importance of the rule of law. I’m just offering a rational explanation for the Trump situation that doesn’t require assuming those I disagree with are cognitively, emotionally, or morally inferior.
Yes, please stop with the scream of rage and engage your brain at something above “a third grade level.” Is that the type of discussion you find useful?
Larry, I don’t know you, but you have made yourself appear as rational as you think a Trump supporter is.
For myself, I agree with Paul Rahe, a distinguished, thoughtful, and measured scholar and commentator. You may support and be aligned with whomever you choose regardless of how emotional and unhinged they may be.
Pushback? What the hell is pushback? What does that even mean?
In case you missed it, there has been no amnesty. No Go8 legislation. No change in the immigration laws. Why do you think that is? Maybe because Obama didn’t want it? Or Congressional Dems didn’t want it? No. It’s because Republicans in Congress have blocked it.
What do you want Republicans to do? Grab their shotguns and go stand at the border so they can shoot anyone who crosses it? If there hasn’t been enforcement of the immigration laws, it’s because we have a President who doesn’t enforce them. Sixteen of the 17 GOP candidates would have done a better job of enforcing them. The only one who won’t is Trump. Get Mexico to pay for a wall my foot. Deport them all and then let them back in my foot. What lies. What crap.
The anti-GOPe people don’t have “legitimate grievances.” What they have is a severe deficit of knowledge about how our Constitutional republic operates. And about the respective powers of Congress and the President.
Another thing, Ario – I don’t believe your explanation for Trump’s support. You claim that it is the result of anti-GOPe grievances. Maybe a small fraction of it is. But there are lots and lots of Ricochetti who are anti-GOPe, but very few Trump supporters around here.
I think that most of Trump’s support comes from low-information voters who know nothing about politics, and who would normally stay home, but who will come out to vote for a TV “celebrity.” It could be Trump, it could be a Khardashian – it really doesn’t matter to them.
Right, no “legitimate grievances”. I hope you are enjoying the 25% of the GOP electorate you ended up with through absolutely no fault of your own.
Larry, I don’t find your arguments rational or interesting. I don’t like the characterizing people as stupid. But I’m not interested in engaging in a discussion with the thoughtless.
You know, that is a very intelligent piece of advice. I’m going to follow it. Bye.