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.
“Wreck-It Donald” Is Breaking Conservatism from Within
It’s always easier to destroy than to create. GOP frontrunner Donald Trump has spent his candidacy showing Republicans just how easy it is. Media organizations, think tanks, and the electoral process itself have seen decades of hard work reversed in months by Wreck-It Donald.
Consider this partial accounting of the wreckage he’s left behind, starting with Fox News:
During a discussion about the fractured GOP today, The Five‘s Greg Gutfeld brought up how the current GOP fight has been a source of tension not just on their show, but on Fox News as a whole.
“We as a show,” he said, “are facing internal strife, from a micro level to a macro level… Look at The Five. On any given day, we have tension over this nomination, over this candidate. You can look at our network as a whole.”
He said this is true of pretty much “every area where there is conservatism” these days, but pointed to specific “issues within a family of anchors” that has fractured the anti-Obama unity they once enjoyed.
Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields has resigned from the conservative news site over its response to her alleged assault by Donald Trump’s campaign manager.
Three of her colleagues also resigned from Breitbart: editor-at-large Ben Shapiro, national security reporter Jordan Schachtel and Jarrett Stepman, an editor.
In his departing statement on Sunday, Shapiro said the site should be “ashamed” of “their treatment” of Fields, whose allegations of assault came amid escalating violence in and around Trump campaign events.
The chairman of Liberty University’s executive committee is knocking the endorsement of Donald Trump by the Christian school’s president.
“Donald Trump is the only candidate who has dealt almost exclusively in the politics of personal insult,” Mark DeMoss, who sits on the Liberty University’s board, told The Washington Post in a story published Tuesday…
“I’ve been concerned for Liberty University for a couple of months now, and I’ve held my tongue,” DeMoss continued. “I think a lot of what we’ve seen from Donald Trump will prove to be difficult to explain by evangelicals who have backed him.”
Longtime conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly’s endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has led to internal strife — and what she claims was an attempt to oust her — at the organization she formed nearly a half-century ago to help defeat the Equal Rights Amendment.
The 91-year-old said six of the Eagle Forum’s 11 board members, including one of her daughters, met improperly by telephone Monday “to wrest control of the organization from me” and “seize access to our bank accounts.” She said in a statement she was kicked off the call when she objected.
Following a fawning editorial endorsing Donald Trump in the New York Observer, which is owned by Trump’s son-in-law, the paper’s national political reporter, Ross Barkan announced he was leaving.
“I knew going into this there would be complications with covering Donald Trump and working for the New York Observer,” Barkan told CNNMoney. “I did not imagine that the events would transpire the way they did.”
Republican National Convention:
Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that his supporters could riot at the Republican convention in Cleveland if he is not “automatically” made the party’s nominee if he arrives with the most votes but fails to secure a majority of convention delegates.
Speaking to Chris Cuomo on CNN, Trump said that he hoped to win the nomination outright before the convention in July, but warned that if he goes to Cleveland with more delegates than any of his rivals and the nomination goes to anyone else, “I think you’d have riots.”
Longtime Donald Trump ally Roger Stone is threatening to make public the hotel room numbers of Republican National Convention delegates who switch from Trump to another candidate.
“We’re going to have protests, demonstrations. We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal,” Stone said Monday in a discussion with Stefan Molyneux on Freedomain Radio, as he alleged that Trump’s opponents planned to deny the democratic will of Republican primary voters.
“If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them. You have a right to discuss this, if you voted in the Pennsylvania primary, for example, and your votes are being disallowed,” Stone said.
Wreck-It Donald seems to break another conservative institution each week, not to mention the continuing damage to years-long efforts promoting limited government and civic virtue, denouncing crony capitalism and personality cults, and reaching out to women and minorities. Much of movement conservatism has outlived its usefulness, but 2016 isn’t a case of free-market “creative destruction.” It’s just destruction with nothing to take its place except dyed hair, a fake tan, and a big mouth.
As damaging as President Obama and Secretary Clinton have been, they were never able to infiltrate conservativism and tear it down from within. Sure, they could peel off a squish here and there, but imploding right-leaning media was beyond the limits of even the most statist IRS commissioner or NSA director. One big-government liberal was able to slap an R at the end of his name and leave chaos in his wake.
Breaking stuff is easy, but building things (e.g., state campaign infrastructure, detailed get-out-the-vote strategy) takes a lot of hard work. Despite the tacky buildings sporting Trump’s name in all caps, Ted Cruz is the only candidate who is creating institutions to advance conservatism.
For the sake of our Republic, let’s hope he succeeds.
Published in General
Almost the first thing any of my Evangelical friends had to say about Rubio was “he lied.” This is in reference to his Gang of 8 activities. Most of them went for Cruz (these were people back in Iowa who voted in the caucus after I moved). I’m not saying their judgement was correct, just that that was the way they saw it.
Trump did pick up an endorsement here and there, but curiously it may have been Branstad’s anti-endorsement of Cruz that helped more than anything else. Whether Cruz’s position on ethanol subsidies helped or hurt, it was a stand on principle over advantage, and that made a difference with some people.
I think the point is, a plurality of the Republican party is not conservative in any meaningful sense.
The problem is, we disagree on which part is not conservative. Trump supporters believe everyone that is not a Trump supporter is not a conservative. Trump opponents believe Trump supporters are not conservative.
The Republican Party and media outlets like National Review have only themselves to blame for this.
This is nothing new. Trump is the catalyst, but he doesn’t exist in a vacuum. That Trump isn’t the answer doesn’t mean that these problems don’t exist, or that a Jeb Bush a Romney, a Christie or even a Rubio would fix them at this point.
From June 2014 before Trump:
http://ricochet.com/archives/analysis-by-mark-levin-on-whats-happening-in-the-gop/
What has National Review done that is blameworthy?
They opposed Trump, our national savior.
I hope it works. Trump is a little like a war elephant. Once the elephants got rolling, there was no telling who was going to catch hell. There was one ancient battle – I don’t remember which one – where both sides deployed elephants, both sides lost control of their elephants, and a case can be made that since the elephants drove all the other combatants off of the field of battle, the elephants won.
I hope this doesn’t end like that.
I’m not sure, but my dad’s best friend told me just yesterday that Rich Lowry was an Alinskyite progressive.
Thou doubteth the existence of the one true “conservative silent majority”? Thou art a heretic and should burn!
And they opposed trump because they are GOPe/Elites/Establishment/RINOs. They should all burn for their lack of faith in the “conservative silent majority”!
/end sarcasm
The Tea party never was organized enough to share ideology, many were just non political types that just knew instinctively that Obamacare and the bailouts were not the right direction for the country. They all had their own reasons for why they opposed them, but I would be surprised if most would answer that it was because they believe in smaller government.
I’m sure many of them became disaffected from the Republican party after the way the party rejected them despite the fact that they were the force behind the 2010 Republican wins. I don’t think there was much doubt in most peoples minds what the party thought of them- redneck Jesus freaks and ignorant rubes. Useful to win elections, but not worthy of a seat at the big boys table.
And the best explanation for Trumps support, I believe, is a complete rejection of the Republican party as it is. After a betrayal like that, I’m sure there were plenty of them who decided that any name at random picked from the phone book would be better than anyone in the party. Thus, Wreck it Donald.
As has been pointed out, Trump is not the cause of the party’s imminent demise, but he may well be the instrument.
No, Trump is the GOP’s punishment for sucking at politics. Why should a party that thwarts the will of its majority be rewarded? The GOP leadership seems to think the members are here to serve their electoral ambitions. I’m old fashioned . . . the party is here to serve its members needs, not the other way around.
You beat me to it, I think you are spot on.
Well… duh
If,on November 9th, Ted Cruz has won the presidency I will thank you profusely on the condition that you promise to ask forgiveness if we wake up to Trump having lost to Hillary, the Senate being lost and two dozen plus House losses. Deal?
No, they’re not progressives.
But kicking out their best writer (or driving him out, or making him feel unwelcome, whatever it was, Mark Steyn) for violating the dictates of political correctness didn’t exactly endear them to those of us on the right who don’t like leftist sensitivities framing our political discourse for us.
May 31 2013
Jeb is Lying
The idea that anybody with two spare nickels to rub together could be that out of touch still has me shaking my head.
Add on top of that the “lose the primary to win the general” strategic nonsense … there’s no explaining it.
I don’t want to relitigate the events leading to Steyn’s departure, but I flatly dispute that he was their best writer.
March 12, 2013
Excerpt:
This is it, folks. This is where the GOP splits in two. I don’t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it’s happening now and I wonder why there are so few talking about this here.
Rush Limbaugh has it. the NBC Nightly news has it. The Atlantic has it, but here? besdes a few people, crickets and naysayers.
Why isn’t this the big story? Why so few comments and posts on this subject? Is this a site that wants to pretend there is not a chasm developing in the GOP under our feet? I wonder about this place sometimes. We can’t wish these things away by ignoring them.
I agree to accept your accolades when Cruz beats Shrillery. (Lord, please don’t make us listen to that voice for 4 years! Please!)
But if your alternative scenario occurs, it’s your jacked-up Party that is to blame. Seriously, if you are running such a clown show of a Party that a political charlatan can waltz in and walk off with a consistent 35-45% of the vote in your primaries . . . good God, you deserve every calamity that befalls you.
Trump’s constituency includes (but is by no means exclusive to) conservatives who are disaffected with politicians who say they’re conservative but aren’t, politicians who don’t seem to have the will to actually fight the Democrats, and politicians who are more afraid of offending anyone than saying what needs to be said.
For all the protestations we’ve heard about Trump not respecting the Constitution, some conservatives look at how Congress funds all sorts of programs (amnesty, etc.) that aren’t exactly Constitutional. Politicians might say they respect the Constitution, but when push comes to shove they’ll follow Washington. So, if we’re going to have somebody who doesn’t like the Constitution anyway, might as well be someone who cares about immigration or whatever particular issue they care about and might get something done.
As for PC, there’s a case to be made that we’ll never be able to do what needs doing if we can’t speak freely. GOP politicians are horrified of saying anything unrehearsed or potentially offensive. With this mindset, there’s no chance anything will change.
So, throw somebody in there who’s the opposite of that. He might not change everything that needs changing, but nothing seems to change by us doing what we’ve been doing, and at least he says something that wasn’t written by a focus group.
I’m not saying it’s flawless reasoning or anything, but people are getting desperate, conservatives included.
Fine, but he was damn good and the reason they got rid of him was stupid.
The issue between Steyn and NR had nothing to do with political correctness. They had a difference of opinion regarding legal strategy in a suit both are party to.
Will you still expect thanks if Cruz loses 53-47%? That’s more likely than him winning.
I’m sorry, but this argument is kind of like breaking into someone’s house, getting drunk and starting a fire and then saying it’s their fault because they didn’t lock up their booze and matches.
Look, you’ve engaged in some risky behavior to try to get an edge for Cruz. You’ve been playing with fire. At least take some responsibility if it gets out of your control.
My best guess is Cruz wins 52.3% to 47.7% with a +/- 2% error margin.
If Cruz loses, I’ll sleep soundly knowing that it would have been an even worse loss with anyone the GOP’s grandees had hoped to jam down our throats.
It was after the “fruit cordial” joke (and Steortz admonishing him for it) that he stopped writing for them.
Both the home and the legal case were factors, but Steyn was infuriated by NR’s hissy fit about the joke.
Well I would expect those who live in fantasyland sleep soundly. Those of us who live in the real world know that’s nonsense.
I had forgotten that. I was not a fan of Steortz. I believe there were a few threads discussing him on here. ‘
Unless you have personal knowledge of the situation, that is not what Steyn has said publicly. His relationship with the magazine ended because of legal strategy differences.