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.
A Fighting Chance for Integrity
As someone who believes that excessive partisanship and Balkanization is poisoning our politics, I have tried to view Hillary Clinton as something other than the ghoul she is portrayed as in conservative circles. No accusation against her is considered too outlandish to gain assent in some precincts of the right. Vince Foster was murdered. Clinton covered up a cocaine smuggling operation in Arkansas. She assassinated Kathleen Willey’s cat.
It seems a waste of effort to conjure lurid theories about Hillary Clinton when the truth is thoroughly, totally damning. Of course all politicians shade the truth to some degree and we’re not electing a pastor and all that – but as a voter, one likes to believe that candidates are at least operating broadly within the same moral universe as the rest of us. She isn’t — and neither is Donald Trump.
As the new report from the State Department’s Inspector General hammers home, Hillary Clinton endangered US secrets and then repeatedly lied about it. “Everything I did was permitted,” she has claimed. Actually, while serving as Secretary of State, the Department sent out an advisory over her signature to all State Department employees warning them against transacting public business on private emails. Not clear if the dateline of that cable was Chappaqua, NY…
Clinton has maintained that classified material was never discussed on her bathroom server system. In March 2015, Clinton said “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.” But the State Department itself has declined to release 22 Clinton emails because they were deemed secret. Having been trapped in a lie, Mrs. Clinton has attempted to cloud the issue by criticizing the over-classification that afflicts government departments. Maybe it does, but even matters that are not strictly top secret are sensitive when you are the Secretary of State.
This is where we enter the different moral universe. Of the more than 300 million Americans, how many would be casual to the point of reckless about national security information falling into the hands of our enemies?
I worked in the White House for Ronald Reagan and recall with special intensity the protocols that governed handling secret materials. This was before the email age. Classified documents were paper. They were kept in a safe. They did not leave the grounds. You were careful to the point of reverence about classified materials. It was a high honor to be entrusted with them.
Hillary Clinton couldn’t be bothered to trouble herself about security. Why? Who knows? Perhaps she didn’t want Freedom of Information requests to reveal that she was selling valuable American policies in return for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, as alleged in set ital Clinton Cash end ital. Perhaps she feared congressional investigators would comb through her records in search of damaging revelations that would harm her political chances (yes, the irony here is rich). Whatever the reason, she has demonstrated utter contempt for the American people by endangering national security. When caught, she stares straight into your face and lies. When old lies are exposed, she concocts new lies without shame.
Donald Trump has not yet had the opportunity to endanger American security. So far, he has merely been able to cause tremors of panic among American allies and among those Americans who blanche at the thought of such an unstable, emotionally stunted man with access to the nuclear codes. But he lies with as much or greater fluency than she. Trump deceives not just about petty matters – his polling numbers, how many books he’s sold, whether his vodka or steak brand is still in business – but about serious matters as well. Thousands of American Muslims were not celebrating in the streets on 9/11. Ford did not cancel plans for a factory in Mexico in response to Trump criticism. Trump did not oppose the Iraq War pre-invasion. We are not “losing” $500 billion a year in trade with China. Our trade deficit with China was $365 billion last year, and it’s not “losing” — we are buying products. Wisconsin’s “real” unemployment rate is not anywhere close to 20 percent.
American primary voters have left us with this excruciating choice. Both candidates fail to clear even the lowest bar of basic political/personal decency, far less offering anything approaching responsible leadership.
With such a choice looming, and with 6 in 10 voters expressing disgust with both candidates, an independent run by Mitt Romney would be a lifeline. One could praise Romney in many ways, but I give you the times: Romney is not a corrupt, despicable liar. If, in democracies, people get the government they deserve, at least let there be a fighting chance for integrity.
Published in General
To you and Franco–no, I really haven’t. Expectations can also be unrealistic. Not that there haven’t been reasons for disappointment, but the outrage is way out of proportion, especially considering the constraints of our type of government and the other factors that have played into the picture. If the outrage had led to an intelligent conservative candidate with any hope of fixing anything–and I can think of several possibilities here–then I might give the amorphous anger some respect. As it is–meh.
I would love to think we could come out of this mess with President Romney. But I can’t imagine the House of Representatives providing the Profile in Courage that would be required. As horrifying as it is, we’re stuck with the two losers.
“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.”
The idea anyone selected by the House could then govern is fantasy.
The idea that a constitutional crisis is preferable to Trump is insane. It smacks of rank elitism. Anyone shooting for this goal is putting conservatism above America.
I am an American before I am a conservative.
Yes, you have. Tu quo que.
I remember those stories too.
Scrolling up, that’s four people I’ve noticed who recall some sort of report of celebration from our Muslim friends.
Out of a comment thread with 25 people following it.
Extrapolating, that’s a yuuge number of Americans who believe Trump and not the people who claim that it didn’t happen.
My God.
It was in no way unrealistic to expect George Bush to enforce US law and secure the US border, especially when it became obvious that it was huge problem. It was in no way unrealistic to expect him to hit back at the people claiming he lied us into the Iraq War, or to expect him to tell the public that WMD were in fact found in Iraq, or much else, but he chose otherwise.
I could go on, mentioning John McCain and Mitt Romney and their respective failures, but the point is that this has been going a long time- too long think it is a mere accident.
Your real problem- and Mona Charen’s as well, I’d guess- is that your philosophy is being rejected by the public, because it is not recognized as what most people would call conservative but as something else.
That’s why the hysterical flailing against Trump has been so ineffective- the public has figured out that we’re the mark in this political class con game.
Thus, the outrage and hostility.
Which is not amorphous, btw. It is quite aimed quite directly at the idiot globalists who have been selling us down the river.
As it should.
There are documented eyewitness reports of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating. Not thousands but several groups, including reports by police officers.
That day was utter chaos, rumors were flying about all kinds of things. I remember the reports of the celebrations, and I’m not surprised people have conflated the few confirmed reports of local muslims, with the video of large groups around the world who did celebrate. Clearly many muslims all over the world do hate us, and were quite happy that day.
Yes–you are the mark.
I wanted Romney to win in 2012. On election night, which I spent in a NYC hotel because there was no transportation (not even a zip car) on account of Sandy, I watched the returns. “We (the people) are screwed,” I thought. Hurricane Sandy is a good metaphor for Romney’s (and our) misfortune. The President toured the devastated areas, promised to spray a torrent of federal dollars on the affected areas (as only an incumbent can do), and sealed the deal.
Ronney was the better candidate. He was informed. He was experienced. His campaign was substantive and policy oriented (as opposed to Obama’s, which was about interest groups – remember his website – everyone (African Americans, Jews, Latinos, gay people, etc.) had a little box to click and a liaison to call.) Romney’s press conference after 9/11/12 was presidential, and he seemed poised to take the contest. It may be that he was too cautious a candidate; I don’t know.
But here’s the thing. The voters liked Obama and enough of them wanted to give him a chance to make his policies work. That was all there was to it, I think. His appeal was not related to specific policies. Romney, running as a technocrat, could not connect with voters well enough to unseat an incumbent.
So, wether it was the weather, ‘likability’ or ‘style’ or opportunities that were not seized.
Obama began the feminization of politics and Clinton hopes to continue it. Trump hopes to bring back masculinity in somewhat new way.
see this excellent article:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/obama-shaman-13096.html
So- in other words- you no have response.
This lack of response was a key reason why the anti-Trump folks failed so miserably.
It turns out that hysterical denunciation- or a witty remark- is not a substitute for reasoned argument.
Worse, you also have to make an argument that the other side might accept, not one that makes you feel good about yourself.
I suspect that this simply was not possible for your side. The mainstream conservative movement has been living in a post- apocalyptic political wasteland caused by the catastrophe of the Bush administration- and no one involved even seemed to notice, let alone figure out what to do about it.
Hence, Trump.
I had a lot of fun at this site arguing about the merits of Mitt Romney. At the end of that I had a much better opinion of the man- and I not only voted for him- I sent his campaign a small donation.
This time around Trump dominated the discourse, at least as thoroughly as Romney did, circa 2012. But the arguments of the anti-Trump folks can’t compare to those from the pro-Romney people of way back yonder.
Reasoned argument, not hysterical denunciation. Nevertrumpers never seemed able to grasp that, somehow.
Hence-yep. Same guy.
Yes–some of the GOP leaders were feckless, but not all. There are many who are very, very good. The GOP has done a lot to impede Obama’s agenda, which is why we don’t have cap and trade, comprehensive immigration reform, gun control, unlimited abortion and a whole lot of other things. Dems have a lot of the political control in the country. We can impede but not stop. You and I probably have similar political goals, but since Trump is utterly feckless as well, I can’t see why we should put our trust in him to fix anything or move the country in the right direction. Hence, I can’t vote for this awful man. Or for their awful candidate. And if you want to understand conscience voting, see my daughter’s article on NRO today.http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435992/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-voting-your-conscience
So there you go, my argument. I understand that you didn’t everything you wanted, nor did I. But most importantly, neither did the left. My argument is that Trump is very, very unlikely to give us much of anything we want because he doesn’t believe in anything conservatives believe in. And blowing the whole thing up is not likely to bring us closer either. So yes, I get the anger, but I think some people have allowed anger to cloud their judgment severely. I don’t think the anger, in other words, is entirely connected to reality. It’s rather like a temper tantrum.
Yes, we get it, your daughter the philosophy professor wrote a brainy article about Thomas More. You should Have her write another article about the “I refute it thus” guy.
I don’t understand the reference Mark, but I sure wish some of you would read the article carefully, because I hope that then you’d understand why voting your conscience really is important.
It seems to me we now have thee camps:
Voting for Trump, for me, is not about party loyalty. I think a selected candidate is far, far worse for America than Trump or Clinton.
You want me to vote my conscience? My conscience dictates for me to vote for Clinton to avoid the House selecting the President. Mona is wrong about the damage it would do if the person selected governed well. He would not be able to govern at all. Look what the Democrats did to the legitimacy of Bush.
Again, my conscience, (the thing you think I should listen to above all else, regardless of what anyone else thinks) tells me that electing anyone in the regular process in 2016 is a near-mortal threat to the Republic.
So I read Rachel’s article and it does not move me at all. I read Mona’s and it does not move me at all. Option three is highly dangerous.
If, you support Option 2, then by all means be honest about it.
#NeverTrumpers who do not want Option 3 (Praise them) want Option 2 to happen. Those that support Option 3 are willing to threaten America to preserve the conservative movement.
an appeal to emotion, you aren’t supposed to understand it.
I don’t understand what you mean by this either.
When questions of conscience arise in the political realm, we frequently find ourselves in awkward debates about the relative value of a clean conscience as compared to some desirable political goal. Which matters more: your feelings of guilt or a healthy judiciary? The question itself manifests a deep confusion. No reasonable person tries to weigh “unpleasant moral feelings” against the value of a conservative SCOTUS justice; if you do see the matter that way, you’ve almost certainly decided in advance that conscientious objectors are little more than self-righteous navel-gazers. This judgment misses the point entirely: An easy conscience is not something we value for its own sake. Turbulent moral feelings are usually indicators of underlying moral realities to which we may perhaps be beholden. If we dismiss conscience as a luxury for the morally fastidious, we are effectively rejecting the entire moral order. In that case, the ramifications for our own humanity are bleak. We have effectively offered up our souls to gain the world.
Bryan, here’s the relevant part. In order to seriously make your case, you need to respond to this.
What I mean is that those who have gone to the Trump camp don’t for the most part tout the virtue of a Trump presidency, they don’t try to pretend that he is conservative in philosophy or try to say that he is moral in his nature. What the argument is comes down to basically is … he is not HRC. He is not someone who has a dubious record regarding Bengazi or emails or enabling her spouse. He is not the devil.
This question has nothing whatsoever to do with any point I was making. I did not talk about feeling guilty, and I did not talk about judges anyplace in the last post. Perhaps you feel the need to change the subject because you don’t like my three options and they make you feel uncomfortable. I will tell you this, I don’t care what someone’s feelings of guilt are about. That is between them and God and none of my business.
I don’t see the matter that way at all. I have never even formulated the premise that way. That is your formulation, and frankly, it strikes me as a formulation based on feelings instead of logic. Based on your posts of late, I would gather that is how you make important choices. It is not the way my brain works.
Conscientious objectors are freeriders, following their morals, and only free to do so because others without those morals fight and die in their place. This is not a judgement but a fact. If everyone in America refused to fight in a war, there would be no America. It is the same as saying the sky is blue.
Of course it is. People want to be at ease and decrease cognitive dissonance. I just taught and ethics course yesterday that talked about this. People value it, and they change their behavior based on it. They also change their conscience to rationalize their behavior. It is part of being human.
Again, you are clearly not understanding what I am saying, and I wager, that is your own turmoil. My three options are not moral statements, they are statements of reality. There are three outcomes at present for the Conservative side: Trump, Clinton, Selection. Failing someone dying or other unexpected events, one of those three things will happen.
I don’t have to respond to your moral dilemma to make my case. I am stating facts. If those facts are so disturbing to you that you cannot accept them, then there is no case I can make to change your mind. You simply will retreat into philosophical mazes to not face reality.
You have four choices and three outcomes:
–
Regardless of what you pick one of the following will happen:
–
Note, supporting no one does not have its own outcome.
If you want to follow your morals which say to support no one, by all means do so. If you want to follow your morals which means support the selection of the President, have at it, because while you cannot refute the facts above, you can differ with me on effects of those outcomes. To wit: You clearly think a President Trump is more of a threat to the Republic than a President Clinton, or a President Selection. I disagree.
However, we cannot talk about that disagreement because you refuse to even acknowledge it. At least Mona responded that she did not think selection would automatically be that bad.
So, what you need to answer is which outcome of the three do you feel is the least harmful to the Future, or tell me which one you are rooting for, and what actions you plan to take to help it along, or what actions you will fail to take.
Oh Ok–now I see.
Bryan, you have worked out what to you is unassailable logic, which looks to me like an evasion of the most important questions. But I think it is time to agree to disagree because we’ve been through all this before. If you are religious, have a joyful Sabbath. Have one even if you are not!
The sad thing is that these are among the least of Hillary’s sins.
Thank you for a reasoned response- but I still disagree. In my view the reason why we don’t the above written into law is because these items are terribly unpopular with the public. The GOP has been mostly irrelevant.
Cap and trade- effectively, enacted by the EPA, lawlessly. Comprehensive immigration reform- the GOP leadership has fought hard for that, blocked only by intense grass-root efforts and the defenestration of Eric Cantor. Gun control- viscerally unpopular, with a large lobbying group well-funded by public donations. Unlimited abortion- still the law of the land, with planned parenthood still butchering babies for parts.
This is not political success.
I should add the caveat that I am discussing the national party, not state or local governments, or the many fine GOP elected official (e.g. Tom Cotton.)
But the national party has been a failure.
I have to depart, but I think this is coherent enough to bring some light to our disageement, even if incomplete.
Well, we just have to agree to disagree. We live in a time when the zeitgeist is not going our way, I will give you that. Progressivism has been a cancer on the Republic since the beginning of the 20th century, or even before. The whole point of it is expert management of citizens and it doesn’t work out well, and yet they never quite figure that out. They think more management will solve the problem. It’s difficult to fight the zeitgeist because it seeps into people’s assumptions about the world.
Here’s the hopeful part, however. It doesn’t work. It leads to less freedom and terrible “management”. Y’all think Trump will break the toxic prog zeitgeist, but many of us believe that not only will he not break it, he will only make it worse by supplanting it with some sort of twisted personality cult that is devoid of the actual principles that can defeat progressivism–conservatism.
But conservatism doesn’t do the whole job, just gives guidance, because we live in a time when such principles must be adapted to new circumstances, as Yuval Levin points out in his new book. Electing Trump would help with none of our national problems IMHO, it would simply exacerbate all of them. The answer is federalism, civil society and community decision-making as much as possible. We do not get there with Trump, we only make the journey harder.
Electing Clinton would help with none of our national problems, it would simply exacerbate all of them.
Selecting a President would help with none of our national problems, it would simply exacerbate all of them.
All three are bad. It is a question of which of the three you want to have happen.
Why won’t you say which one you are rooting for?
Because I’m not rooting for any of them.
Well, isn’t that special.
I can certainly agree to disagree, but as I also find this an interesting comment I’d like to respond.
I would agree that the answer is federalism and civil society, etc- and this is what I’d call a conservative agenda. We share that.
My problem is that the GOP and the so-called conservative movement have been so miserably ineffective at advancing a political agenda for such that I can no longer believe the GOP is attempting to do so.
My theory is that when members of the mainstream GOP establishment call themselves conservative what they really mean is globalist. Since the left is also globalist the GOP establishment has had wonderful success advancing the globalist agenda. Note that we have the WTO, Al Gore-endorsed NAFTA, de facto open borders, with more of the same inbound. The federalism and civil society stuff- that’s yeah, whatever. But plenty of people get paid to put out stuff to convince the people in the cheap seats to show up at the polls, so we get a lot of prattle about how successful the party has been at blocking the left.
I see no reason to congratulate a political party because it has not enacted the agenda of its opposition into law- but the GOP claims credit because they haven’t, which is ludicrous.