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.
On Conservative Navel Gazing and Upending the Game
Dr. Charles Krauthammer is an intelligent man and I’ve enjoyed his analysis over the years. Nonetheless, the Trump Phenomenon has opened my eyes to the ways conservative intellectualism has blinded conservatives from understanding our world. Conservative intellectualism has become a straitjacket. The latest piece in the National Review by Krauthammer exemplifies this limitation.
[Republicans feel not] just let down or disappointed. Betrayed. By RINOs who, corrupted by donors and lobbyists, sold out. Did they repeal Obamacare? No. Did they defund Planned Parenthood? No. Did they stop President Obama’s tax-and-spend hyperliberalism? No. Whether from incompetence or venality, they let Obama walk all over them. But then comes the paradox. If insufficient resistance to Obama’s liberalism created this sense of betrayal, why in a field of 17 did Republican voters choose the least conservative candidate? A man who until yesterday was himself a liberal. Who donated money to those very same Democrats to whom the GOP establishment is said to have caved, including Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton. But then comes the paradox. If insufficient resistance to Obama’s liberalism created this sense of betrayal, why in a field of 17 did Republican voters choose the least conservative candidate? A man who until yesterday was himself a liberal. Who donated money to those very same Democrats to whom the GOP establishment is said to have caved, including Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton.
Conservatives like Krauthammer analyze Trump by applying conservative preferences, regardless of the suitability of their application. Krauthammer seems puzzled as to why an electorate that — as he sees it — is angered by the Republican Party’s “insufficient resistance to Obama’s liberalism” has, strangely, chosen Donald Trump. His tone leads the reader to conclude that the voters are ignorant in some manner, incapable of understanding that the solutions they sought were to be found in, say, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
But Krauthammer is confused because he is misreading the public.
Conservatives have been arguing that the solution to Obamacare is to repeal it; the solution to Planned Parenthood is to defund it; the solution to the increase in the size and scope of government is to shrink it, or starve it, or whatever; and the solution that matters most is growth. So why — if you object to all of the liberal policies during the Obama years — would you possibly vote for the man who appears to be supporting the opposite of the conservative solutions?
Because the public, in its wisdom, has concluded that there will never be any solution — conservative or otherwise — to the Left’s failing policies until the foundation on which politics is conducted is completely upended. They have correctly concluded that conservatives will fail, as they have always failed, until it’s possible to implement changes that do more than shift pieces of the pie to those with the ability to direct policy in their direction.
The public is smarter than conservative intellectuals at the current moment and they correctly concluded that the only candidate who offered a chance to change the terms of debate is Donald Trump.
To be sure, many supporters reject free trade, and Trump has been inconsistent, at best, in his policy positions. But, again, this matters less to voters than fundamentally altering the conditions of our politics. That is how Trump wins both Greenwich, Connecticut and the rust-belt working class communities. They are not unifying on an antipathy to trade; they are unifying on antipathy to structures that perpetuate ineffective policy.
That is why Trump is a conservative candidate. That is why he can run as a Republican and not as a Democrat. Whether we are talking about the role of corporations in building preferential policies (e.g., free trade that gives them access to cheap labor), the restrictions placed on speech by enforced progressive morality (e.g., the inability to even discuss immigration), or the role elites play in undermining public choices (e.g., everything), he is running against the structures that are required to maintain failing liberal policies. Trump delegitimizes the very institutions and people required to maintain liberalism.
In order to enact and sustain successful policies, the stranglehold made by those who keep screwing-up — who happen to be the same people who direct solutions toward their own personal gain — needs to be broken. Once that is done, conservatives will have a chance to implement policies that may work.
Conservative intellectuals are coming to the conclusion that the public is judging their solutions, or is misunderstanding them, or is just plain ignorant. This is completely false. The public isn’t affirming them or rejecting conservatism, but is using this election to reset the terms so that, going forward, we can have that debate on policy. The public understands — and Krauthammer and so many conservative intellectuals fail to grasp — that effective policy, including conservative policy, is not possible so long as the terms of the game remain as they are. They are voting to flip the chessboard over.
And the public is completely correct on this.
Published in General
The campaign has fundamentally changed the acceptable outcomes in the immigration debate. If you don’t recognize that, you don’t understand politics. Campaigns matter.
We had multiple attempts at immigration reform that failed because the debate was not lining up with the public’s preferences. Now, its been significantly realigned.
He has already made a resolution of the immigration issue more likely, and that resolution is very likely going to include much better enforcement in one way or another.
Right. Krauthhammer’s point is that any Conservative is a fool if he thinks Trump is any kind of answer. But there is always an audience for someone promising to stick it to those nasty foreigners, even if the result will be sticking it to ourselves.
Again. It’s not about the policy choices. It’s about shifting the politics to move the debate in a manner that will allow for the implementation of policies that may be successful.
You keep arguing this policy or that when the electorate is telling you they don’t care, they just want the way things are being decided as different.
Trump’s move on trade may not be the right policy, but he has already fundamentally undercut the support for people who were preventing trade policy from ever changing. What that change will be right now is less important than opening up the possibility of new solutions.
That is what is needed when policies tend to produce bad results.
Reminds me of my first Captain who slapped me upside the head with this never-to-be-forgotten admonition: Get your GD head out of that repeater and use your eyeballs to scan our surroundings for spitkits.
That is only part of Dr. Krauthammer’s point. More properly stated, Dr. Krauthammer’s point is that any Conservative is a fool if he thinks Trump is any kind of answer to the question of how to overturn Obama’s failed policies.
The voters aren’t asking that question or looking for that answer. They are looking for someone to change the way decisions are made. I have some sympathy for the argument that Trump will just fall back into the same old way of business once elected. There is a lot of potential in that outcome, to be sure.
But of all of the candidates, Trump proved in the election that he at least CAN change the debate terms. He did it on immigration, he did it on trade.
I guarantee you that the guys who voted in Greenwich (where I grew up) do not agree with the guys who voted in the rust belt on trade. But they do agree on who has the best chance to change the way decisions are being made in DC.
Decisions that have been as bad, in different ways, for the Greenwich crowd as much as the rust-belt crowd.
Trump is the change in politics. Not, I think, wittingly. And not necessarily for good. Trump is the crisis that must not go to waste. This is not about tweaking the Ryan plan or adopting a new GOP platform or a realignment of the two parties. It’s about seizing the revolutionary moment to remake American democracy. This won’t be easy. There are many, many people who are comfortable with the way things have been done in since World War 2. After all, no one alive has known any differently. There is, for example, no constitutional reason there should be two national parties. We know lots of people who think the right thing would be a single party (and others who feel it’s been that way for a while). Others would prefer none.
There is great potential. And great danger. But arguing about a system whose foundations have just been found to have rotted, rather than undertaking the work to replace that system, the victory of the Others is assured. Lovers of freedom, do not shirk this great work.
SPA-25G was a miracle worker. Well, it was when I used it. And I received much the same admonition.
In your dreams Trump will do anything significant to “help” this country. A Democrat will be elected if it is Hillary or Trump.
I think this is was you were going for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0K14HBSWw0
I think we understand that very well.
How does touchback amnesty and a “negotiable” wall change the terms of debate on amnesty?
It seems to me, like many Trump supporters, you are projecting hopes on to Trump just the way voters projected hopes on to Obama with his “hope and change” rhetoric. Saying outrageous or empty things does not change the terms of debate – although people are regularly tempted to make that mistake. And Trump knows it – this is why his actual proposals on immigration are standard left of center stuff.
I think a lot of good people have been fooled by this self-promoting man. And it breaks my heart , both for them and for my country.
I’ve made no secret of my frustration with the big-government ‘trend’ in the republican party and the overall direction of this country. And I have been angry at the republican party’s disregard for the interests of their own base. And angry that they won’t reign in out-of-control immigration and spending. So, I was ready to do something bold – but calculated-bold, not reckless-bold.
I just cannot understand Trump as a choice of liberty-minded people. I was holding out hope that we would rise up as a people and push this country back toward limited government – to limit the power of government over us. But we’ve chosen Trump instead. I guess we’re not liberty minded after all.
That’s just not true.
Jindal and Walker had both taken deeply entrenched orthodox democrat state establishments and turned them around. Perry had extended the wisdom of conservative policies. Paul understood the need to radically re-think the role of government. Any one of those four would have been a wonderful person to elect as president. Also Christie, for all of his many flaws, had succeeded in one of the most dem of political enclaves. Four or Five suitable candidates, all taken to the cleaners by a dedicated dilettante. Any one of them would be better than Trump.
And even Trump will be better than Clinton, so we are obliged to fall in line, hold our noses, and vote for the Yuge Guy.
A Partial list of scandals involving
Hillary Clinton
Watergate Committee
Travel gate
Hillarycare Secrecy
Whitewater
Filegate
Vince Fosters files
Rose Law firm Files
Commerce Dept “pay to play”
Renting Lincoln Bedroom
John Huang
Charlie Trie
Johnny Chung
No Controlling Legal Authority
Monica Lewinsky
Pardongate
Looting the Whitehouse
Bosnia Sniper lie
Email scandal
Clinton Foundation
Benghazi
So, thank you for putting me in a position where I have to make a very hard choice between two ‘lessers’.
Added: I may very well chose Trump in the end, after making some difficult personal calculations, but I will do so with no enthusiasm and a very heavy heart.
I am very much hoping that Trump fights hard and savages Hillary for all the horrible things she is and does.
I am also hoping Hillary points out what a fraud and liar and scumbag Trump is. Ruthlessly. Relentlessly.
The sooner they get at it, the better the chances of some Deus ex machina at the Convention.
Me? I voted for Cruz. As an ER doc I am by nature a pragmatist who frequently has to make major decisions based on the lesser of 2 evils. It’s called life.
I completely agree that on the state level, conservative politicians have been successful, and we owe a lot to them for those successes.
But on the national level, it very difficult to argue that those approaches would work. Walker survived because of the character of the people in Wisconsin. Jindal and Perry were effective because the states they governed were predisposed to conservative solutions.
The national stage is very different. Even conservative interest groups on the national stage work against common sense solutions. But almost everyone on the national stage is paralyzed by progressive moral politics, particularly on race, in a way that can be mitigated on a state level when the spotlight is turned down.
[And similarly, gave the donkeys, Bernie.] The fix is in. The Democrats won’t be nominating Bernie no matter how many votes he garners.
Whether you agree with Red Fish or not, this is as accurate as it gets. There is a sickness in the soul of America. I personally know evangelicals, including Texans, who did not vote for Cruz, but pulled the Trump lever. I know Hispanics who pulled the Trump lever – the rules are gone and were gone, when handed two victories, the Republican establishment remained silent.
We’ve had a deal maker for eight years – who whispered to Putin when mike wasn’t off to “wait until after my second election”, who made a deal with Iran, who put Black Lives Matter before All Lives Matter including police who are being murdered sitting in their vehicles or pumping gas. Once upon a time in America, a great Olympic athlete graced the cover of Sports Illustrated. Now that athlete will grace the cover nude, covered with the American flag and that medal, not because he achieved further athletic awards, but because he is now a she, and now for less than 1% of the population, public bathrooms will be altered to anything goes. This is what it has come to – our priorities.
The working class cannot afford their healthcare, services have been reduced. But that was the result of another deal. Ditto for gruesome videos and wretched talk of selling body parts – that’s still law. Ethnic cleansing throughout the Middle East, slavery of children and beheadings in 2016 – Where was our president and secretary of state? This is not America.
Yes, and life also includes individuals and civilizations destroying themselves. We didn’t have to be here – Trump was a terrible mis-calculation on the part of an angry base.
And I don’t think he’ll win. Even if I vote for him (I’ve voted for McCain – so I have the capacity for these grim tasks), I don’t think he can win. Not with republicans. He’ll have to move left and pick up democrats for that – making my choice all the more repugnant for me.
Yes, this is the only view of things that makes sense to me.
I think there was a decent chance Cruz would put someone on SCOTUS that would have this effect. Do you disagree?
I am not particularly angry or emotional. I am not absent any understanding of my country, of its exceptionalism, or of the Constitution which seems to be under siege from the left on several fronts that confront the progressive agenda.
However, I do seem to see these things a bit differently than do you.
Does your intellectualism deny me the right to think without being accused of anger or emotionalism? Isn’t your position somewhat akin to the idea behind political correctness? Whose thinking is colored by emotion and anger now?
A lot of conservative commentator’s, and politician’s reputations are going to be in ashes by the end of 2016. Krauthammer and George Will are two whose names come to mind immediately.
Meanwhile pass the marshmallows.
No. Not at all. A slew of 9 conservative justices wouldn’t change this game when Congress and the Executive are beholden to the structures that perpetuate liberalism.
And the parting on the right is now parting to the right. However your position makes no sense to me.
This is a valiant attempt to rationalize the irrational but it ultimately fails as all such attempts do. Trump shot to the top of preference polls the moment he announced his run and has stayed there for one very simple reason, name recognition and celebrity. You are correct the people supporting Trump are unconcerned with policy but there is nothing to suggest they are operating on some higher intellectual level.
Some people don’t get angry, they just allow the their hearts to harden. (My father is like this).