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.
Conrad Black Exactly Right: Trump the GOP Nominee
Conrad Black is a bit of a curmudgeon and definitely a contrarian but his analysis this morning of the March 15 primaries is very accurate in all regards and I endorse what he is saying in this NRO article. Here’s a sample:
Those who initially saw the Trump candidacy as an exercise in buffoonery and exhibitionism, and gradually accepted it as an insurgency, now see it as an attempt to hijack and ravish the Republican party and even to hoodwink the entire electorate. The alternative interpretation has been that Donald Trump, though a billionaire, had the genius of expressing public grievances in an Archie Bunker style that mocked political correctness and was popularly seen as plain talk from the only candidate not in any way complicit in the terrible blunders of America’s political class since the end of the Cold War.
And all he did was address the 900-pound gorilla that everyone else studiously avoids (except for Cruz, of course):
Trump alone recognized the significance of a few basic numbers, such as the percentage of Americans who think government officials are largely crooked – which increased between 2000 and 2015 from 30-something percent to 50 to 60 per cent, depending on whether they are Democrats, independents, or Republicans. In the same period, the percentage of Americans who thought the federal government was run by a few big interests increased from about 50 percent to about 70 percent.
And here’s the money quote:
Those collectively responsible for governing the country through the last 20 years, as these ominous levels of public discontent accumulated, showed no apparent recognition of the gathering storm. Marco Rubio, as he graciously departed the race, called it a “tsunami none of us saw coming.” Future historians of American politics will probably be astounded that the political system ignored the 900-pound gorilla of illegal migrants in the country and imagined that such an immense number of unskilled entrants could be tacitly accepted.
And Trump is simply doing an Archie Bunker routine. It’s really that simple:
One of Trump’s talents is to harness the rage and fear of the low-income and marginal groups by his Archie Bunker routine, while maintaining contact with the party’s moderates and the vast center of American politics by having relatively uncontroversial views of most issues except illegal and Muslim immigration.
And here’s how he will clinch the deal:
There is no reason to doubt that Trump can get 54 percent of the remaining delegates now that he has been polling over 40 percent regularly before it even became a three-candidate race. If Cruz withdrew in favor of Kasich, it would, as I wrote last week, be possible to give Trump a run for it, but even that would not work, and none of it will happen. If he runs into problems, Trump can trade the vice-presidential nomination for a final push of delegates.
And here’s the finale:
He’s not complicit in the failures of the last 20 years and he is new to politics, yet has huger name recognition. There is no more mud to throw at Trump and Clinton has not begun to answer for her long record of untruthfulness, evasion, cynical speech-making for exorbitant fees, and influence-peddling through the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state, even if she avoids indictment on Emailgate.
It is a bizarre turn and a startling gamble, but the great office is seeking Donald J. Trump, and will probably find him; he’s hard to miss.
It’s over: Trump has the nomination. I’m for Cruz but I’m ready to face the fact that Trump has it in the bag.
Published in Politics
Agreed entirely. However, without a culture which leads to these political principles we’ll never get there. Government cannot correct the cultural problems we face. They are primary and the solutions are not political.
How does this not apply even more to Kasich? Kasich first went to Congress in 1983.
There are more non Trump delegates than Trump delegates. It’s not hail Mary until there is only one down left in the last of the last quarter and you’re behind by only 6.
It does apply to Kasich. I did not say Kasich is anti-establishment. He is just not very conservative either. His base doesn’t migrate to the most conservative candidate in the race. It migrates to Trump. Kasich can win rust belt states. Cruz is playing only out West now. Trump and Kasich overlap in ways that Cruz and Kasich don’t.
Ross Douthat had a piece yesterday that I took as a good corrective to the anti-establishment fever raging in conservative circles right now (with which I too am infected.)
It’s not for nothing we have political parties, as opposed to a popular democracy.
We may hate machinations and backroom deals, but at times like this, they can serve to save us from disaster.
“the only candidate not in any way complicit in the terrible blunders of America’s political class since the end of the Cold War.”
You mean the guy who has donated tens, maybe hundreds or thousands, of thousands to get Democrats elected for decades further entrenching all the problems everyone on here is complaining about? Yeah, he’s not complicit…
I still don’t agree that a conservative can’t win. I do agree that none of these conservatives can win. And , no, I don’t have an alternative. All of the people I had any interest in are long gone, so maybe they weren’t the right pitchmen either. Jindal, for instance, just does not connect with Republican voters let alone a wider audience no matter how much I might support his mix of policy positions.
Oh, and I think people are simply too glib in declaring all of Trump as not conservative, a full on central planner, no better than Hillary, likely a fascist. Whether or not he’s trustworthy, whatever we think are his true positions, much of what he’s campaigning on has at least some overlap with conservatism.
I don’t see how Trump wins in the general.
But I don’t know what I’m afraid of more right now, Trump losing the general or Trump winning the general.
But I know I refuse to vote for someone because they have a specific letter next to their name. Trump can earn my vote in the general, but he would have to COMPLETELY change in the general (which I think is a distinct possibility – but I doubt he will move closer to me on anything).
That’s another fair point.
I think this foolish. Party’s do mean something. Being part of a party forces every politician, including the president, to pull towards the voters of the party he represents.
Even if you think Hillary and Trump are equally liberal, one moves one way when elected, the other moves another way. That’s because of the party. It does matter.
I give up. You all want a purity that isn’t possible and certainly not a majority of the country. I stand by what I said above.
Yes, the media and the establishment always tell us that a conservative cant win. We’ve nominated two conservatives in my life time, Goldwater lost to the Kennedy assassination sympathy vote and the fact that nobody knew what a conservative was. We do now. Where does this narrative come from? It comes from liberals who know that they have to pretend to be conservative reformers for general elections, then move back to the left. Conservatives don’t have to do that.
Here’s how:
Trump is very good at going after weaknesses that many of us don’t even see. He will have a big target and he will go after her unmercifully.
Trump’s negatives are based on his lack of political correctness. Clinton’s are based on her already well known reputation for corruption and lying. What will make more of a splash, ads like the recent one about how Trump talks about women, or ads about Benghazi or the Clinton foundation? (Most of the comments by Trump in that ad were about his opinion of particular women, not women in general, or his personal opinion of what characteristics are attractive in a woman, but that is easily overlooked.)
I agree, party means “something”, but Trump is at best loosely affiliated with the Republican Party.
But I need to stop now before I’m called a cuckold.
Trump will crush Hillary or Biden or any of the Dems because they can’t become dog catcher without the media and Trump has already proven over and over and over that he knows how to deal with the media. Their despicable Democrat bias will be dealt a serious blow.
Romney was a conservative. Even McCain was a conservative, though less so. Just because the media says something doesn’t mean its wrong. It also happens, in this case, to be borne out by the facts.
Bush II invented “compassionate conservatism” precisely to get over the problem of electing conservatives.
Now I would say, a unique talent could be elected as a conservative. A guy like Mitch Daniels in 2012 may have done it, in my opinion. But you can run a lot of bad Democrats into the white house. The conservative candidate needs to be a superstar to win.
I agree with you back. :)
We urgently need cultural reform too. But a good president (like Cruz) combined with a Republican congress might be able to reverse the decline and do some good, buying us a little more time to get our cultural act together.
You underestimate what we’re willing to settle with ideologically. We don’t demand purity, just some real amount of conservatism.
The founding fathers didn’t have a majority. Neither did the pre-civil war abolitionists. The cold war dissidents were few in number. Martin Luther King, Jr., launched the Civil Rights movement in the face of popular opinion backed by political powers and violent prejudice. There were only 12 apostles in the ancient world.
Lasting majorities come from self-sacrificing commitment to true principles and values.
From abandonment of fundamental values and principles—concessions to corrupt powers that be—comes gradual enslavement to tyranny, and/or violence and chaos.
See Vichy France, for example.
According to Elizabeth Kubler-Ross there are 5 stages in the process of dealing with a personal loss like the death of a loved one.
The stages, popularly known by the acronym DABDA, include:
In this last stage, individuals embrace mortality or inevitable future
It is clear as I read the posts on this thread and others about Trump that Ricochet members are at various stages. After Rubio was annihilated in my home state of Florida yesterday, I am all the way to stage 5. I accept that Trump is going to win the nomination. I also accept the fact that whether it is due to poor strategy by the Republican establishment or the frustration of the base, the goal now is to defeat Hillary. Nothing else matters. No way is he worse than Hillary. If you can’t beat’em, join’em.
I disagree this is the goal. The goal is to give my personal vote to the candidate that will cause the least harm to the office of the Presidency (since we no longer have the option of the voting for a decent human being).
But I am one of those guys who thinks long-term enough that I don’t do something that there is a very high probability I will look back on in, say, four years and deeply regret. Among other things, this is why I have never gotten a tattoo no matter how trendy and cool they seemed at 2 AM after a night of drinking.
Thank you, Larry, for summarizing Black’s important and insightful article.
This piece from The Washington Post discusses the demise of Rubio, reformicons, and the think tank elites which tried to design an agenda for Republicans. The voters, obviously, were not sufficiently consulted by the elites.
Still, Washington Republican insiders and Right-siders from the thinking+chattering class still have Congress, and a fight to wage against Democrats in order to stay there.
Some items are obviously dead conversations now, from Rubio-style comprehensive immigration reform to his (anti-singles, ageist) plan for an expensive child tax credit. Others, like Bush era surveillance and interrogation policies, could well return if Trump wins in November. And did you hear The Donald’s kind words about Marco Rubio’s future in last night’s victory speech? Marco’s eloquence (sans the schvitzing) might resonate as, e.g. U.N. ambassador in the Trump Administration. After all, if there’s one thing he’s proven it’s that he can stay on script!
Bitter and bruised anti-Trump Republicans have options they’re not ready to discuss quite yet, but should. One is focusing electoral energy on their favorite GOP congressional candidates. Another is channeling all their negativity against the Democrat candidate for President. Finally, they should consider how they might become a part of implementing a President Trump’s agenda, by planning to legislatively negotiate a place for their goals within his.
If Rubio’s, Cruz’s, and Kasich’s delegates are combined right now, they have more than Trump. And no one is close yet to the 1,237 delegates needed for nomination.
This fight will go all the way to the convention.
The party is split half and half.
If Trump is within spitting distance of 1,237 watch Kasich fold faster than a cheap suit.
It is indeed funny when a political party is unwilling to apply an ideological or historical litmus test to persons seeking to represent that part in word and deed. It goes to show that the Republican alliance has only the vaguest identity without any clear priorities that unite the various factions therein.
The time for such a litmus test was before the first primary vote. To disqualify Trump now would guarantee loss of this election and in many other elections, but might begin to lay the foundation for a more purpose-driven party.
I’m definitely a conservative and have problems with the fact that I don’t think he is one or even cares enough to learn about it at all. But that’s not even my main problem with the guy. He’s a vile human being. Character matters. As Prager puts it, voting for Trump means that what one does for their entire lives doesn’t have meaning. He’s a serial womanizer who brags about sleeping with married women, will take advantage of the little guy in an instant if it will benefit him and represents all the worst of capitalism without any of the greatness. No way.
Maybe.
Kasich is definitely a go-along-to-get-along guy.
I don’t trust you, Rahe, not after the last election. You cut me real deep. And I trusted you. Never again, Rahe! Never again!
(I’m only teasing you…sorry…)