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
I don’t believe that they are operating on some higher intellectual level. I think they are reaching a common sense conclusion based on their lifetimes of experience that is being missed by conservative intellectuals because conservative intellectuals insist on applying their conservative tools to the analysis. Hence the straight-jacket.
It’s possible for people to come to a correct conclusion based on their shared experiences in a manner that those who are protected or have ideological predispositions fail to grasp. I mean, the entire Academy seems to be that way now, no?
Why does Trump win with the voters.
“I can’t spare this man, he fights.” Abraham Lincoln
These were the words President Lincoln used when speaking about General Grant during the Civil War. Many of the high ranking military personnel thought that Grant was unfit to serve; even Mary Lincoln called Grant a “Butcher.” However, Lincoln supported him and Grant and Sherman would lead the Union to victory over the Confederates and earn Lincoln a second term shortly before his assassination.
Trump fights. Mark Steyn has a lot on why Trump works for all sorts of people.
Some of the people I know that voted for Trump over Cruz in Texas are happy, very successful, in fact are neighbors with Bush. Kids are well educated – they pay taxes – your assessment of the Trump voters could not be more wrong iWE –
What confounds me about Trump’s popularity is that it has been with folks who actually bothered to go to caucuses and vote in primaries. That’s not usually your standard Joe who only shows up once every 4 years in November. These were folks who I assume were engaged and bothered to be informed. What used to be called the party faithful. How can this be? Therein lies a powerful message. (says Mr. Obvious)
Were these people angry about out of control illegal immigration? My guess would be this is a motivator for these people. The republicans have been terrible on this issue. I don’t believe that Trump is going to do anything meaningful about this in the end, but neither will the republicans.
This is it. Pure emotional reactionary foolishness. I know some Trump people. They ARE conservative. They ARE intelligent. However, more than anything else, they are angry and they have lost some sense of hope. They feel threatened. I see wounded animals that have been backed into a corner.
Trump has succeeded in using the same devices on white conservative men that the collectivists have used on minorities for generations. I fear that there is no rational, civilized way to unite 2 irrational foes.
This all makes sense, in that the GOP has been too timid about opposing Democrats. I still don’t see how Trump is more likely to upend the system than Ted Cruz.
Black Americans used to vote overwhelmingly for Republicans, for obvious reasons. Then the Democrats offered them a new deal, and they took it. Donald Trump has offered the white working class a new deal of his own, and they are taking it. How has the Democrats’ new deal worked out for black Americans? How should we expect Trump’s new deal to work out for the white working class?
So, we have to spend the next 40+ years putting the idea(s) of liberty into the minds of new Americans. Ideas are upstream of actions.
I don’t expect this to happen; not by a long shot.
It would take a while. Plus, I was thinking, “justices who believe in the I-think-recently-by-Randy-Barnett-defined practice of judicial engagement and are therefore willing to ignore stare decisis and overturn anything they deem unconstitutional.
Once the chessboard has been flipped over, do you project a path by which conservatives will be able to implement policies that may work? Can you outline that path? I ask because I like the sound of it, but I have a difficult time believing it, as I have many and strong “intuitions” of my own that point in the opposite direction.
“But then comes the paradox…
But then comes the paradox…”
Wake up, editors! This is what happens when ExJon’s coffee is taken away for a TV interview.
Yes, Trump is a wrecking ball. But he will wreck much more than the GOP.
This is what baffles me. When has Trump fought for anything other than Donald J. Trump? When it became clear he was in trouble in Iowa, he flew in to the state and went in to full pander mode on Ethanol subsidies. That’s “fighting”? He found out he struck a chord with anti-immigrant rhetoric (even though he’s never done anything to oppose it and in fact has exploited it in his own businesses) and so has exploited that while failing to propose anything real that might actually address the problem. Yeah, that’s “fighting”.
His actual record is one of outrageous rhetoric coupled with cozying up to power brokers to enrich himself. But somehow when he becomes President he’s going to “fight” for all those issues he never was interested in fighting for before. Uh-huh.
The problem is not politicians but voters.
The nation is committing suicide; I don’t believe in assisted suicide. Unless things change, I will turn to the Article 5 movement and down ballot conservatives.
This is total nonsense. “The public” hasn’t spoken yet. Less than 20% of voters have.
I hate “the public in its wisdom.” I find myself in disagreement with “the public” as a broad category about 80% of the time. I’m not ready to acquiesce to an abstract wisdom of the majority over my own application of reason.
I don’t think Krauthammer or any public intellectual should be asked to, either. You can call it an idealogical straitjacket. I call it intellectual honesty.
The real thrust of the Krauthammer piece and most pieces about Trump is that voters are morons. The writers can’t afford to be so blunt about it. They pretend to understand, not understand, and clinically analyze to obfuscate their true passions.
My prediction is the Trump nomination will hand the Democrats the presidency, the house and the senate. And that will mean they’ll have the court too as a liberal rubber stamp committee for at least a generation. Democrats will rule for the foreseeable future until the coming economic collapse and/or military catastrophe.
I was not denying that you are a thinker – you or other Ricochetti. The words I used were “vast majority.”
I find it amusing that the intellectuals who support Trump are all trying to do it using intellectual arguments.
I think that you may be right about what Trump voters are thinking, but I’m having a hard time seeking their thinking as entirely rational.
So the Trump supporter wants to “shift[] the politics to move the debate in a manner that will allow for the implementation of policies that may be successful.”
I ask — what policies that may be successful?
And the Trump supporter answer s– I don’t know. I don’t care. It’s not about policies.
So it comes down to — let’s put Trump in charge and maybe he’ll do some things that will make it better.
I can see some rationality in this, at least in part, if: (1) the Trump supporters recognize that the Leftist policies of the Democrats are terrible, but (2) they are not willing to support conservative solutions either because (a) they don’t believe that they will work or (b) they don’t trust the Republicans to implement conservative solutions anyway.
If so, then we are in even worse shape than I thought. He really might be the next Obama – the celebrity blank-canvas candidate in whom everyone projects their own ideal platform. Except that Obama truly was, in most respects, a blank canvas. Everything we know about Trump tells us that he will be an awful President.
I agree with your prediction. I’m trying to remain optimistic.
Adam Smith once said that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation. This is good news, because it means that even after serious catastrophes, there remains a solid chance for a comeback.
Perhaps the coming mess is necessary to teach the younger generations the lessons of the 1970s, that Left-wing economic and foreign policy ideas lead to disaster. It could lay the foundation for a Reagan-style renewal.
I’m going to cling to this, because the alternative seems to be joining the Russian population at the bottom of the vodka bottle.
Do you expect Donald J Trump to be your ally on this?
There is nothing to suggest this either. We are all comfortable acknowledging the role name recognition plays in polls and elections but you seem unwilling to accept Trump’s success may be due to nothing more than this. You are intent on finding higher meaning for irrational action when no evidence for such meaning exists.
This talk of policies, anger, intellectuals just don’t understand, conservatives, the people, etc., reminds me of early peace talks. A bunch of Harvard/Cambridge trained diplomats/masters of the world gathering around a table in a stately named city, discussing “terms”. The reality is that there is peace when the will to fight is gone. The will to fight can withstand a whole lot of un-reasonability, pain and anguish and destruction. Reference the glorious cease fire in Syria.
The country is headed to violent conflict. That is the way we are voting. On purpose. Does anyone seriously believe the clouds are going to part and doves fly at a Trump inauguration? Or a Hillary nomination? What is gone is the respect for countering views. Intolerance is now deep. Blaming anyone for voting for or not voting for X is irrelevant. We want this.
Krauthammer understands completely. He understood the moment that ACA was passed that it a politically monumental task to peacefully extricate the country from that bargain. What has been unreal is the casual talk of repeal. ACA is a cancer on society. Manageable with treatment but not cured with a magic wand or a shut down of government to demonstrate just how serious we are. A sizable and statistically meaningful portion of America believe it is a right and are entitled to State care. They will not peaceably go “oh well, fair play on that repeal, we’ll get you next time you rascals”.
The problem cannot be the voters. That is illogical and backwards in a representative democracy.
This is a dangerous strain of thought on the right.
I think this is just about right.
You assume its irrational action. I don’t. You are committing the same logic failure as Krauthammer.
It is irrational as there is no evidence any rational reason exists for it. If you have evidence to support your argument, present it.
That does not make it irrational. It makes it unknown. I am positing a theory that makes their actions rational in the context of the question they are asking.
You are assuming irrationality to prove irrationality.