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
I love Bobby Jindal, but on this he is wrong.
We can’t convince Trump with arguments, ideas, abstractions, history. He doesn’t read and it’s not even clear he has the capacity to understand them. Yet he might win and even worse Hillary might, so we have to try to capture him. He understands leverage and deal making. We need a deal for credible commitments on the Court, Secretary of Treasury and Sec State. Ryan has set the stage and should be supported, but with a clear purpose. He’s used to building things where he is neither architect, engineer or designer, so give him good people that know what they’re doing. The third party approach and never Trump elects Hillary. We don’t want a third Obama term. Hillary tops everything we don’t like about Trump. Moreover, Trump does not embrace the political correctness insanity that is destroying our universities, the educational unions that are destroying education for minorities, the Democrat racism that has destroyed the black culture, the big government intrusive regulatory apparatus that has caused economic stagnation, stopped upward mobility, nor the flood of open borders immigrants, legal or illegal that is creating an under class, all these things and more will continue with Hillary. They need not continue with Trump if he appoints solid adults. If we can’t, then we can vote for a third party or write in. But we have to try.
A third party approach may save the House. If the party backs Trump, we will lose the House and deserve to do so.
Thank you for a great post Dave. I wish you were our candidate.
With all due respect, Mike. Trump appears to fight. He reminds me of the typical school yard bully. He stands behind the teacher (or in his case a host of bodyguards) and shoots off his mouth without any fear of having someone push his teeth down his throat. He risks nothing by saying what he says, unlike men like Cruz who put everything on the line to stand before the Senate and fight for what he believed in. Trump is neither brave nor a fighter. He is, at best, a big mouth with nothing to back it up.
Mike, friendly question here: I’m curious about your take on Trump’s back-pedaling on his tax policy. On one of the talk shows yesterday, he said that his tax cuts will probably end up being tax increases when all the negotiating is done,…and the negotiating hasn’t even begun yet! Seems like a classic Mitch McConnell / John Boehner move to me. What say you?
Mr Carter, I didn’t listen to Trump’s exchanges per se, but it is my understanding that, like Reagan, he wants to both lower and simplify the tax code…eliminating many special deductions and lobbyist induced special treatment, like treating Hedge Fund income as long term Cap Gains rather than ordinary income. Just like with Reagan, some special interest folks found themselves out in the cold with higher taxes after the decreases were put into effect. Sometimes Sunday shows try more for headlines than clarity.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump and wouldnt vote for him. But I think all those prematurely declaring his death are going to be greatly surprised come November.
He has defeated the best and brightest on the Republican field. The strongest field it has ever had. That is no small accomplishment.
As I was talking to a friend of mine last night, who has been a campaign manager since the 70s. He says that we cant trust any real poll till september. And even then.
I really need to put that podcast together.
Too few ponder this point
On the other hand, he has near universal name recognition with sky-high negatives. That puts polling on him in a different category from polling on other political races at this stage.
I disagree, it is quite a bit worse, previously there was no affirmative legal decision on the issue of an individual’s right to bear arms, and now that would be gone, there would be a Supreme Court decision, saying there was no individual right to bear arms, and as fast as a state could ban firearms for individuals altogether, another decision saying that outright bans of individual possession of firearms is constitutional. I agree, that federal confiscation would not happen immediately, but all legal barriers to state laws demanding such, and the eventual imposition at the Federal level would be removed. It would not happen overnight, but very likely over 20-30 years you would no longer have the right to own or possess any firearms at all. The country would permanently loose the right to self defense.
Even worse will be the gutting of the first amendment right to freedom of religion, which will morph into a Supreme court backed right to freedom from Christianity and even the loss of a church to select its leaders from its membership.
Freedom of speech will morph into the freedom to speak and publish anything approved by the government, and publishing anything without prior consent will be subject to punishment. Hi Mom, might stay legal, but Mom, I think you should vote for a conservative, will become offensive hate speech.
No other decision any President makes is as important as the appointments to the Supreme Court. The next president can reverse executive orders, the next legislature can reverse statutes.
But once on the Supreme Court only death, or impeachment can force a change. This takes decades, from the mid 1930s until now, the court has has a liberal tilt, and we almost got to the point where it might have been conservative, but a Hillary victory will add decades to when the conservative point of view might again be viable.
I only meant that some people might think that you yourself were in favor of jettisoning the Constitution.
Dave, Daaaave, I love your posts but now why oh why are you trying so hard to make me take him seriously? So far, I have only been mostly laughing, sometimes crying, every time he releases one of his nonsensical grunts.
Unfortunately, I don’t think Trump is serious enough to even read the constitution let alone The Federalist Papers.
Here’s what’s going to happen in November. Hillary will win in a landslide, the dems will win the house and senate and the GOP will become a rump party (for real this time). I think this is the scenario even if Hillary is indicted. She’ll win regardless and Obama will pardon her the day after the election because “the people have spoken.”
Yes, this will happen unless we can split the party and the down ticket candidates can get behind a credible, non-Trump alternative. If it’s Trump vs. Hillary, the House and Senate go down.
The circus is taking on a new form when Palin goes after Paul Ryan. What a complete farce! I hope Ryan sticks to his guns and disowns Trump when they meet. Time to get a third candidate. Come on, people!
It simply doesn’t follow. It’s choosing not to participate. The party will back Trump, he’s running as a Republican. The question is can we get good appointments by using the leverage of maybe not backing him? Trump’s biggest negatives are his progressive past and his ignorance. We don’t know where he stands on anything. We know where Hillary stands and we must not elect her.
Actually if you could cut it to 140 characters and tweet it, you might have a chance of him reading it — especially if you put an unflattering picture of Hillary in the tweet.
I just read Victor Davis Hanson’s piece on NRO. He is advocating for the hold your nose and vote for Trump school. I am unconvinced, though I have great respect for Dr. Hanson. It did occur to me as I read it that a small possibility exists that the RNC committee at the convention could look at the overwhelming possibility that Trump is going to lose, and choses to change the rules allowing the delegates to vote for whomever they want., in short, an open convention.
Given that unlikely scenario, I ask our Trump supporters if they, as they expect from us, would then support the nominee of the party? Or, would they feel as betrayed as so many of us do by the apparent projection of Donald Trump into position of nominee of the Republican party refuse to do so? The shoe on the other foot, how would they react? It isn’t as though Trump won a majority of votes within the party. Quite to the contrary, he has a simple plurality, far less than half of the Republican voters.
I would only contest this:
“That this philosophy has been rejected by the voters is instructive…”
A substantial majority of GOP primary voters voted in support of “this philosophy.” Trump didn’t come close to 50% until the liberal Northeast voted, and even then, only barely exceeded it.
The problem was, the voters’ votes were diluted by the wealth of conservative candidates. And when you subtract all the Democrat crossover votes that Trump got (whatever their number), the proportion of GOP voters who support “this philosophy” only grows.
It’s too bad the Stupid Party’s braintrust (sic) wasn’t smart enough to figure out how to manage the primaries so that the Party’s best candidate, not its most outlier candidate, would secure the nomination.
Cruz and Walker actually fought to advance the conservative agenda. Trump doesn’t fight, he talks. We should not equate words with deeds.
Ditto that!
Then we have a 30 year fight to prepare for. We need to start planning, not just throw up our hands in despair wailing “it’s all over!”
Not without a fight it won’t.
Well then, we may need to impeach a justice or two. Or steal a page from FDR’s playbook, expand the Court’s size and pack it with originalists. If the Court starts repealing the Bill of Rights than the Court becomes the enemy and must be defeated by any means necessary.
Let’s not overstate it. He won 10 million votes, a very small percentage of the voting population.
I saw this too.
He is right, and I see no way around it.
But even on the Supreme Court justices issue–if Trump is true to form, he will say this to them: “You’ll do as I say. I made you who you are. You owe me.”
I, too saw Dr. Hanson’s post on NRO this morning. His take essentially comes down to seeing evidence that Trump will at least somewhat accommodate conservative positions on some issues. I think the point in my comment earlier still stands; credible change requires the humility to recognize when one is wrong. Not just on a position, but on a point of character. Trump doesn’t believe he needs to change. I cannot trust any feints toward my position. Sorry, Dr. Hanson & Gov. Jindal, I cannot follow you there.
To which any justice would reply: “Lifetime appointment. I’ll be on the bench when you’re worm food. Deal with it.”
Dave, I believe the only fact that will get you to vote for Trump is the certain knowledge that a vote for a third party or choosing not to cast a Presidential vote to preserve your moral high ground is only a Hillary win. And the blood on her hands is far worse than Donald Trump repeating the Enquirer story about the photo of Cruz’s dad in a photo with Lee Harvey Oswald. Or his vulgarity compared with her Supreme Court picks. Or his lack of solid Conservative credentials as opposed to her absolute progressive liberal views. Look at a photo of Hillary and vote for Trump.
Ahh, never mind.
Very good letter, Dave.
I had a similar conversation with my cat, Ares. “You say you love me,” I told him, “but only when it’s time to eat. If you want me to believe you, you will let me sleep in on Saturdays, rather than dance on my face.”
I suspect Ares will comply with my wishes faster than Donald will with yours.