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.
An Open Letter to Donald Trump
Dear Mr. Trump,
As a voter, a military retiree who served three tours in the Mideast, and a truck driver, I wonder if you and I might be able to reach an accord? Because I know you appreciate people who shoot straight, I’m going to respectfully do exactly that. To be quite candid with you, you were not my choice for the Republican nomination. I supported Ted Cruz, given that he has spent his entire adult life advancing conservatism and was as well versed in the philosophy of this nation’s founding as any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.
That this philosophy has been rejected by the voters is instructive, not only with regard to current the state of civic literacy, but with respect to the political class as well, for it is the political class that repeatedly equivocated and surrendered in the face of the progressive onslaught, choosing to fight against their own voters instead.
Mr. Trump, you appear to be a recent convert to some conservative causes — causes I’ve been advancing in word and deed for over 30 years — so you will understand if I seem a bit skeptical given that you and I have been on opposite sides of the ideological divide for most of our adult lives. It doesn’t mean that winning my vote is hopeless, but it does mean that my vote is not a given. Remember please, you are asking me to hire you, not the other way around.
Four years ago, in this space, I wrote a letter to Mitt Romney, reluctantly pledging my support. He wasn’t my first choice either, and he spoke conservatism as if it were a second language, but I reasoned that I had little choice but to pull the lever for the guy with an “R” next to his name. Come to think of it, John McCain wasn’t my first choice either. And I’m pretty sure George W. Bush wasn’t my initial favorite, but you get the idea.
Even though I registered as a libertarian sometime around George W.’s second term (when I realized that the party’s relationship with the idea of limited government was purely platonic), I’ve been a reliable Republican vote. That time has come to a close. If you want my vote, sir, you will need to earn it. You will need to state your prescriptions clearly, specifically, and definitively, though I’m afraid things are not off to a promising start.
A few days ago you equivocated on your minimum wage position, and less than 24 hours later, after the first whiff of resistance to your tax plan on CNBC, you began backtracking and negotiating with yourself, saying of your own plan, “I am not necessarily a huge fan of that.” That’s not conservatism as a second language. It’s not even conservatism on training wheels. It’s simply incoherent. Mr. Trump, if we wanted people who start giving ground before the fight even starts, John Boehner would still be Speaker of the House and their would have been no revolt against the Republican establishment.
I’m under no illusion that you are a conservative, at least as that term has been traditionally understood. But if I do vote for you, it will be because you convinced me that on at least a few key issues, you will proceed in a reliably conservative direction. I need to know, for example, that you will secure the border and enforce the immigration laws already on the books. Likewise, I need to know that your judicial appointments will be originalist in nature and that you intend fidelity to the constitution as it was written and understood by the framers rather than the latest intellectual fashions of liberal salons.
Now, I understand that you’re new to being a political candidate. I’ve never run for office myself, but I’ve studied politicians for several decades now, so perhaps I can offer some advice by way of contrasting examples. Here is Ronald Reagan’s closing case on his opponent, Jimmy Carter, in 1980:
I believe that there is a fundamental difference — and I think it has been evident in most of the answers that Mr. Carter has given tonight — that he seeks the solution to anything as another opportunity for a Federal Government program. I happen to believe that the Federal Government has usurped powers and autonomy and authority that belongs back at the State and local level — it has imposed on the individual freedoms of the people — and that there are more of these things that could be solved by the people themselves, if they were given a chance, or by the levels of government that were closer to them.
Here is your closing case on your opponent on the day of the Indiana Primary:
[Cruz’s] father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald being, you know, shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right, prior to his being shot? And nobody brings it up. …What was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before his death? Before the shooting? It’s horrible.
Surely you see the difference, yes? It’s the difference between an informed contrast of candidates based on diametrically opposed philosophies of governance, and a shameful, uninformed, trashy tabloid attack on a family member that would be unbecoming from a candidate for dog catcher. I pray you are a better man than your small-minded attack on a candidate’s father suggests. In truth, even as a Cruz supporter, I was prepared to mount a vigorous defense of your candidacy as the Republican nominee up until that moment, but I cannot, and will not defend anyone who traffics in such third-rate garbage.
The good news is that you won’t have to resort to tabloid fiction to battle Hillary Clinton. The simple facts of her disastrous record, from the deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi to her own war on the women who were victimized by her predatory husband, will provide plenty of ammo. Still, your habit of resorting to infantile name-calling and your malicious lies about your Republican opponents, should give anyone with even a semi-developed conscience reason to pause.
We live in dark times, Mr. Trump, and there are days when I agree with Mark Twain who observed that, “Often is does seem such a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat.” If Hillary is elected, she will fashion the majority on the Supreme Court in a way that will literally erase the Bill of Rights. Our right to free speech, to free exercise of our religious faith, and our right to self defense will be eviscerated. She will throw open the borders to illegal aliens and Islamic fanatics alike, resulting in a permanent Republican minority and a national security catastrophe. To use a current phrase, it will be, “game over.”
All the same, I’ve wasted too many votes on weak-kneed Republicans who brought us to this precipice in the first place, and I’ll be damned if I’ll waste another vote on a crude vulgarian who is a man of his most recent conviction and who has both philosophical feet planted in midair.
So with respect, put down the National Enquirer and pick up a copy of the Constitution. In an interview on CNN, you stated that the top three functions of the United States government are security, health care, and education. That’s the sort of answer one would expect from Nancy Pelosi, who is as comfortable with the Constitution as I am with playing a violin concerto. The Republican Presidential Nominee really ought to know that it is the Constitution which specifies the functions of the federal government, and health and education are nowhere to be found in that document.
Further, the 10th Amendment requires that those functions which are not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution remain the sole province of the states or the people. If you win, you’ll take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution and — I can’t believe this needs to be said — you might want to familiarize yourself with it.
Next, take a stroll through the Federalist Papers, starting with Federalist 10, written by James Madison, which explains that, contrary to your repeated assertions, the system isn’t rigged and that pure democracy, or majoritarianism, is something the Framers specifically warned against. For example:
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. … Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
Crack open a history book and you will learn that the Republican delegate system which you so vociferously railed against, and which is based on the same principle as the electoral college, is precisely what allowed Abraham Lincoln, who came to the 1860 convention with only 22 percent of the delegates to William Seward’s 37 percent, to win the nomination after three convention ballots. Are you prepared to argue that the system which gave us Abraham Lincoln is “rigged,” and fatally flawed, and that Lincoln wrongly stole Seward’s delegates?
Once you put away the mental junk food and sit down to the rich feast of American history and the philosophies which undergird American exceptionalism, your newfound conservatism might take root and provide the intellectual foundation for those things you now seem to embrace intuitively without fully understanding why. While you’re at it, you can take the American people on the journey with you so that your supporters can respond to the issues with something other than the Pavlovian response, “Lyin’ Ted,” as one did when Senator Cruz made an effort to thoughtfully engage him.
We are about to test Milton Friedman’s thesis that:
I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they all shortly be out of office.
And herein lies the genius of the American system. Your capacity to intuitively know where the American people are with respect to their concerns and aspirations is nothing short of amazing. As a leader, you have the opportunity to foster the sort of American renewal that the country has long needed. So with respect, I ask you to embrace the Constitution, understand the Founders and the Framers, and in so doing, you will tap into strength and vitality of the American character itself and unleash true American greatness. If you do at least that much, you will have my support.
Published in General
Dave Carter,
Thank you for writing this. Especially thank you for perfectly describing what I thought of Trump trying to sling tabloid garbage at Cruz and his family by implying Cruz’s father had some connection to Oswald, some connection to what Oswald did—God help us—seven years before Cruz was born. That sure was right up there with imitating the gestures of a man who has no choice but to cope with a permanently damaged arm.(No. Attempting to exploit the stupidity of stupid people—which is what Trump was doing when he tried to tie Cruz’s father to Oswald— is actually much more evil.)
Also, thank you for obliquely reminding people like me that it is our responsibility to take the Hillsdale course on the Constitution, read the Federalist papers and learn more U.S. history. (I’m ashamed to say this, but until recently I had no idea that was how Lincoln became the nominee.) Our ignorance is the space into which this version of Trump stepped. And, I agree, Trump isn’t getting my vote if he doesn’t meet the criteria you specify. What’s the point of voting for him otherwise?
Also, please check and see if you don’t have a typo—“low” when you might have meant to write “know”—in your quote of Trump talking about Cruz.
Ansonia
And the worst part, James? You’ve likely just encapsulated the man’s thinking perfectly. Gee I hope you’re wrong.
James, I liked your comment, but in a world where Trump supporters are so hard to satirize, I am afraid that not everyone will get your meaning.
She has already won, it is a fait accompli. The only thing that prevents it at this point is an indictment, then again Trump is going on trial for fraud immediately after the election so an indictment of Hillary might not even derail her.
I thought that was a civil lawsuit.
I appreciate your optimism, but I wouldn’t necessarily bet the farm on it.
Good catch!! Thank you!
It is a civil suit, but he’s still being tried for fraud. That’s not a winning look for a guy running for president. Hillary’s wrong doing will be spun by the press as minor mistakes involving unimportant documents that shouldn’t have been classified anyway. Trumps civil lawsuit will be spun as billionaire swindler stealing poor working class people’s life savings. After the media is done, Trumps civil suit will seem far worse than Hillarys email server.
Well-said. Unfortunately, I don’t think Trump would the patience, wisdom, or good intentions to be affected by it, even if it could somehow be delivered into his hands.
But…I found it to be quite powerful. Thank you.
That’s an overstatement. I’ve been consistently predicting a Hillary landslide win if Trump is the nominee, and that remains my prediction, with maybe an 80% confidence.
But, a whole lot could happen between now and November to reshape the race. Most of it bad: an economic collapse, a major terrorist attack, etc. Hillary’s fate is largely tied to the Obama administration, and as long as he remains popular she will be seen as the “safe” choice for 4 more years of similar policies vs. the massive wildcard that Trump represents. If anything happens before November to make the public finally turn on Obama and sink his popularity, that would create the opening Trump needs to win.
It’s not so much optimism as grim determination. As long as we conservatives vow to stick together and continue the good fight until the last man falls, there’s hope no matter what happens come November.
Okay, I modify my comment. Barring a force majeure, it is a fait accompli.
It doesn’t sound so bad when you say it with French.
Trump’s appeal has never been properly understood by many (if not most) Ricochetti. My prediction: Trump wins in a landslide.
I wouldn’t either, but I also am not so confident otherwise as to bet the farm on Trump instead.
I’m pretty certain a Clinton victory would mean a Court shift which would have some serious consequences for religious liberty in particular, at least for a time. But “game over” for the American experiment? Only if God allows it.
One other factor in my thinking is that I do believe much of Trump’s support is about personality, not support for his philosophy. His voters didn’t punish traditional Republicans. And if he loses to Clinton, and if he runs behind other Republicans, I think we’ll see the party shifting back to something resembling conservatism.
But he has a philosophy, and it’s troubling. Give him power, and inevitably his philosophy will win the day in the Republican Party. And that means no one is speaking for liberty.
The though of Trump winning doesn’t make me feel any better at all. It only means the GOP and conservatives would own his disastrous presidency.
Dave, I ❤️ You. In the most intellect and writing admiring sort of way. Thank you for the letter and particularly for whatnot would take to convince you.
Hear, hear.
My problem with Trump isn’t that he lacks eloquence; he barely achieves lucidity.
Trump’s appeal has never been properly understood by many (if not most) Americans, hence his record-breaking disapproval numbers.
What precisely do you expect him to do between now and November to change that perception?
Dave Carter you are right on about Trump and right on about Hillary. This letter is exactly what conservatives need to do to influence Trump towards making the correct decisions. He has many of the correct instincts and many others that are far off base as a result of the influences he has experienced living almost entirely within the realm of Democrat progressive politicians. He also has the ability with the force of his personality to be victorious against Clinton. At this point we can only defeat Clinton with Trump and we can only influence Trump by supporting him. I, too, was very disappointed in Trump’s ridiculous attack against Cruz’s father but encouraged by the tone of his victory speech. He is an enigma. Our only hope is to bring the light to him so that he may see. We started with 16 other candidates, many thoroughly righteous and accomplished people. Trump defeated them all. Helping him to defeat Clinton is the only viable option that I can see.
As Rush Limbaugh has argued, Trump is non-ideological. He is about himself and that’s pretty much it. He hasn’t been on the opposite side of you, he hasn’t cared about your positions at all. And Trump certainly has no incentive to care now.
Who in the world can influence Trump to make the correct decision? Trump will do what he thinks best moves his own personal intersts forward, period, end of story. Don’t expect him to agree with or care about conservaitve ideas ever. He hasn’t, he doesn’t, and after winning the nomination without conservatives, he won’t care what we have to say.
The question is not convincing him to agree with conservative ideas. The question is how do we keep non-conservatives from thinking Trump represents conservative politics. That is a sticky wicket indeed.
Oh Mike, do help me, the poor unititiated Trump detractor, understand the secret knowledge I am too blind to see.
The information is available if you are willing to look for it. Trump’s popularity amongst many conservatives is due to the fact that he actually fights, rather than refusing to engage for fear of offending the opposition.
But it’s not satire. The people who spend a great deal of time and words promoting Trumpism, aka American Greatness, are past the Constitution. As they recently wrote:
Ergo, Caesar is inevitable, so he’d better be on the proper side. To be fair, they note that the alt-right should not be dismissive of “the principles of the American Founding” – and please slap me hard if I ever end up in a movement that has to counsel its members thus – but they want a return to the principles of the Founding, which does not suggest great interest in the documents that set them forth. Those documents are specific and hence limiting; the “principles” are open to debate depending on your own ideas and principles, and hence are no check on the state.
The progressives have been post-Constitutional forever, but at least the Port Huron Statement had the sense to throw a wet kiss at the founding document. Now that the alt-right has decided there’s hay to be made getting past that fusty old illegible piece of paper, Salon will discover this alarming trend and pronounce it a new development.
The court has already that it is an individual right, in Heller. I have been looking for a case where a court has declared a previous court ruling in error and haven’t found one.
For example, while Brown v Board of Education effectually overturned Plessy, the court never overturned the specific rulings in Plessy.
All the more reason not to preemptively throw in the towel and declare that the entire Bill of Rights will be null and void should Hillary get to nominate Scalia’s replacement.
Ok Mike, properly, clearly, and simply explain it. It may still not be accepted, but it would be nice to understand it. I went back and read your “fights” explanation. Cruz fought (lost), and Walker fought (won). I don’t know how the perception worked for Trump and not them. Maybe there is something you could add?
If only it was a silent lucidity.
My answer is printed in today’s WSJ on the OpEd page under the byline “Bobby Jindal.”