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.
Ulysses S … Trump?
General George McClellan was beloved by his troops. McClellan returned the affection, earning a reputation as a well organized and meticulous commander. Giving credit where due, McClellan turned the Army of the Potomac into a cohesive unit and kept it together, even in the face of defeat. He is also credited with fortifying Washington, DC and securing the Union frontier, all through his skills in logistics. But after some early victories, defeats became all too common. It is a common theme of biographies of McClellan that, when it came to actual battle, the general was overly cautious, unable (or unwilling) to gamble, and failed to take advantage of Confederate mistakes that might have turned stalemates into victories, or victories into routs. According to some, McClellan consistently overestimated his opponents’ strength and, thus, refused to advance or attack for fear of losing. Lincoln came to distrust the general and, when sufficiently frustrated with McClellan’s hesitations and caution, fired him.
The Army of the Potomac then went through a series of generals (Burnside, Meade, Hooker), all of whom were blamed for similar failures of leadership, chiefly the inability or unwillingness to advance against the Confederacy. Then came Ulysses Grant. In the western states, Grant had fought hard against the Confederacy. Unlike the other generals, he was willing to risk casualties to achieve strategic advantages and would try unproven tactics if he thought some advantage could be gained. With the full aid of superior Union industry and a far larger Union population — advantages his predecessors shared but failed to exploit — he was relentless in his advances, racking up casualty numbers that earned him criticism as a butcher of his own troops. But he won battles.
The years since 2008 have reminded me greatly of our Civil War. The Obama administration has effectively declared a cultural war on middle America through an expanded regulatory state, lawsuits in retribution of political appointments, collaboration with far-left activist groups, the stirring-up of racial animosities, attacks on religious institutions, the opening of borders, assaults on the Second Amendment and the attempts to gut the First Amendment, and scores of petty and vindictive skirmishes against small businesses, churches, and private citizens. Our president has pitted half of America against the rest, claiming — like some restless dictator — that his advances and occupations are really defensive in nature, while wielding powers no prior president would have dared try.
We scored a few victories in return, regaining first the House and, later, the Senate as well. We won many lower court victories, but the battles that counted at the Supreme Court have frequently been lost. As for our generals in the cultural war, John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell deserve more credit than they are generally given. They returned the House and Senate to our side and Regular Order. They stopped the relentless legislative push to enshrine and secure the regulatory victories claimed by Obama. They built a defensive works that, while not impenetrable, have held true against many of the worst excesses of Obama’s agenda.
Yet — like McClellan before them — they’ve held party unity and discipline remarkably solid, but have secured few offensive victories and rarely exploited the enemies’ vulnerabilities. “We need more troops! We need more Congressmen and Senators!” they’ve pled, without ever breaking camp.
Mitt Romney, too, failed to make a solid case for himself or to sufficiently attack Obama; such, it seemed, would have involved getting his hands too dirty. He waved the flag and paraded the troops, but led a tepid campaign that seemed more hopeful of victory through Obama’s mistakes than his own aggression.
So now we come to the campaign season again, and we have a general (for those who would follow him) who could well cause enormous casualties for our side. “And yet he fights,” as Lincoln said of Grant. His principles are uncertain, and his tactics are unconventional, hearkening back to an America well-nigh forgotten. And yet he fights. He won the Republican primaries, out-maneuvering the party princelings and upstarts, turning them against each other. Those within his party who were most dismissive of his abilities when this began are now those most opposed to his victories and, unsurprisingly, most convinced of his inevitable failure. Many — like McClellan running for president after his termination — are now threatening to oppose the one who succeeded where they all failed.
The worst damage Obama has done to this republic has been to our national unity and, though it, support for the rule of law. No president since Lincoln has been so utterly divisive, and no president has ever so actively pursued division. No previous president has so openly sought to curtail the First Amendment without even attempting to disguise the attacks as “temporary” or “expedient.” Obama has launched and led a cultural war on America, the likes of which has only been seen writ in larger scale in major revolutions in France, Russia, or China. Hillary shows every indication that she will continue this war. Love him or hate him, only Trump is openly fighting them.
Yes, the man is morally distasteful. Yes, the man is corrupt. Yes, he may well butcher the down-ticket races in this election. And yet he fights, and for the sake of wrenching the presidency from the cultural Marxists, we should not fear a bloody battle. With the head of this cultural war firmly entrenched in Washington, with an uncertain and timid Congress unable or unwilling to attack the executive overreach, and with the courts having deferred the very law of the land to the whims of the cultural warlords, we must remove the Democrats from their power base. We must remove their hands from the levers of control. We must break their stranglehold on the media and the dissemination of information. After four or eight more years, the damage may be insurmountable, and the losses unrecoverable.
Trump may be the most reprehensible and amoral candidate the GOP has ever fielded, yet he is the general we have. And at least he is fighting.
Published in Politics
I never suggested it was fanaticism to desire a return to Constitutional order, ultimately I’d prefer that too. But one entire party has decided that document is null and void.
I will again repeat an analogy: If you and I are playing chess, and I start to cheat, is it still chess? You might be the better player at chess, who would win a fair game handily, but when I cheat it becomes more difficult for you to achieve that win. The worse I cheat, the harder the game for you. If there are referees to the game, they might stop my cheating, but the referees (the press, the courts) are in my pocket too, and will not enforce the rules.
There was a time when the parties both desired to preserve the sanctity of the game, but that time is gone, and a loss this time around will be the end.
I don’t think it’s that bad. I don’t think either ideology or party politics are that strong among Americans. Partly, because I’ve seen societies were they do rule. But partly, it seems far more prudent to overcome every disappointment & keep going than to acknowledge a showdown now or in the past–there are some even on Ricochet who think it’s been over awhile now…
I had the same reaction as Z — and liked his comment accordingly — but that’s because I believe local law enforcement are often better guardians of liberty than Washington pols. To me, an officer enthusiastically endorsing Trump lessens that respect.
(I’ll add that, considering how beleaguered cops feel today — not without cause — I get the enthusiasm for someone explicitly being on your side, as Trump has made very clear. Still…)
I have to jump on the “too late for that” argument. It is never too late and it can always get worse. That principle applies all across life. I had my eyes opened to that years ago when working with addicts. I saw how the thought “things can’t get any worse” was a pernicious set-up for giving up. For them it led to backsliding in their addiction. For us, here, it is demoralizing and leads to retreat and cynicism.
So, let’s try to avoid the “too late for that” line of thinking except where it actually calls for a tactical retreat to marshal our forces. Adherence to the Constitution must be defended at all costs and it is possible to regain ground. If the public can be seduced away from caring, it can be brought back. If not this generation then with the next. We need you in that fight, skipsul. You are too valuable.
This is a bit earnest, but it’s earnestness I can believe it–let me sign up for your project.
Let me add something. It is the better part of prudence to remember how limited our powers are. Sometimes, that means the Constitution is just a piece of paper–who cares about it? Sometimes, however, that means that good laws can survive bad times–even without being enforced, simply staying on the books can help people’s moral compass, as people say today.
I put it somewhat differently. There is a great different between the advantageous & the noble. What is expedient, concealed as what is urgent, concealed as what is real–that cannot be allowed to win the day. Our mistakes should not become our principles. Having those principles allows everyone to look up to them. Removing that hope & that example from people is too dangerous-
And you honestly don’t think Hillary would be worse??? Sometimes we don’t get a choice between good and bad. Just bad and worse.
Whom exactly has Trump fought? How? And for what?
It’s not as simple as that. It’s possible that Mrs. Clinton be a worse president than Mr. Trump & still be preferable, if the price for Mr. Trump’s presidency is the collapse of confidence in constitutional politics in a party.
So I’m all for lifting Skip’s spirits & will work overtime gratis to restore his faith in constitutional politics in the current circumstances–& I might swing it–but neither I nor anyone else can do that for most conservatives. This election might cost them far more than they know. But quite a number of them seem to know that they’re sacrificing a lot-
Wonder what black people in the South would feel about this statement. Or Native American people in my native South Dakota.
Of course that little minnie ball that mortally wounded Albert Sidney Johnston had a bit to say about the matter as well on the next day. ;)
I appreciate the optimism. Generally I am optimistic about things (or at least sanguine), but in this I am far from it.
You do fine work, Titus, a model for us all. Let’s keep up the high slander standard.
You should have seen us discussing proper plunger etiquette yesterday in the PIT.
Noo, that’s one plunge you don’t want to take. If Dime were around, he’d call it a plangent plunge or something like that.
Look, all we suggested was that there is an order and rank to proper plungers. You have your toilet plunger, your sink plunger, your fish plunger, and your salad snake. The true mark of the gentleman plumber is to know which is which and when to use them.
All you fancy pants PINO (Plumber in Name Only) squishes with your right tool for the right job. I’m a populist plumber; I’ll use whatever plunger is available, as long as it’s made in America.
Is a lady allowed to be decorously ignorant about all this plunger minutia?
Trump has fought normal Americans, creditors, an municipalities in court for his own wealth and position. He has fought the other combatants for the R nomination with pithy quotable put downs in the media for his own personal glory.
This is where we completely disagree. I’ve come to believe he loves this country — as in, he wills what he believes is good for it — for us. That may not align with conservatism on half the issues, but it’s different from the open hostility and naked aggression of the Left, as embodied by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Currently, he’s been fighting his way past the GOP establishment’s mooks in order to get at the real enemy, Crooked Hillary. It’s been almost like a video game, where you have to clobber a whole bunch of nobodies before you get to the real fight at the end of the level.
It occurs to me that as one works further away from one’s tribal abode, the plumbing increases in size. The diameters increase and the job becomes bigger and less manageable for mere household tools. The closer one gets to the main communal collection point, a pitchfork may be employed to un-lodge the jam.
America makes those too.
Ray and Linda,
My slander is mostly directed at law enforcement. I think law enforcement has taken a disturbing turn in the past 30 years of treating the citizenry as the enemy not as their protectorate. The increase in late-night SWAT style warrant raids, the body armor, the militarized vehicles, etc is all very bad.
I will admit that there are some in the law enforcement community that have a strong commitment to the Constitution – I applaud the Oathkeepers movement. What I find ironic is that people of the radical conspiracy theory right i.e. Alex Jones, the Bundy’s, the militia movement, etc. are supporting Trump. I think they are so afraid of “the globalists” that they have been fooled into thinking Trump is any type of friend to civil liberties – when Trump has been explicit in his anti-liberty leanings including his praise of eminent domain, wanting to loosen free speech protections in libel cases, etc.
I seem to recall Grant’s victories were ugly affairs with a lot of dead on both sides.
And after the battles ended, Grant became an ineffective president in a historically corrupt administration.
This is what you’re fighting for?
His real enemy, Crooked Hillary? The same Crooked Hillary he had at his wedding? The same Crooked Hillary he supported for senate and for president? The Crooked Hillary he has long had a better relationship with than the Republicans he’s fighting now? She’s his real enemy?
No, the paper is what the Consititution is written on. The constitution is the thoughts and principles upon which our nation rests.
Here’s my problem. I wholeheartedly agree with this comment – and with Skip’s OP.
I won’t speak to Trump’s mindset, but Crooked Hillary is certainly my enemy, and Trump is the candidate most willing to call her out for her crookedness. If the GOP establishment had had it’s way, they’d have picked some ineffectual milquetoast like ¡Jeb!, because “it’s his turn”, and Crooked Hillary would have won in a landslide.
I wish the GOP could have found a charismatic leader who was not in the pocket of the Chamber of Commerce that everybody could rally behind. But when the short list consisted of Marco the Amnestymonger, Ted the Televangelist, John “Did you know my father was a postal worker?” Kasich, and the list goes downhill from there, even Donald Trump starts looking good. None of the other GOP candidates had the ability to beat Trump with any consistency.
Assertion without evidence.