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.
Donald Trump Is Not a Conservative, But …
In an article published yesterday, Victor Davis Hanson agues that “Politics, Not Personalities, Will Likely Determine the Presidential Election” and advances several important policy distinctions between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I believe these distinctions are real, important, and can help guide conservative voters to use politics (logic) more than personalities (emotion) in making a difficult decision in this crucial election.
In several recent Ricochet threads, many members have stated that they believe Trump is just as “scary” or “dangerous” as Clinton, or that he will be just as liberal as her. Others have argued that he will “set back” conservatism more than Clinton, and that we should just write-off this cycle and try again in 2020. I think Hanson debunks these ideas with several points regarding the likely policy distinctions under each administration. Regarding their foreign policies, he writes:
Trump is a Jacksonian nationalist who likely would choose America’s friends and enemies solely on the basis of perceived national interests. Clinton presumably would continue Obama’s lead-from-behind foreign policy. Trump would be blunt about the connection between terrorism and radical Islam. Clinton likely would mimic Obama’s policy of not referring to Islam at all in such a context.
Regarding taxes, spending, and the border:
Trump probably would revise the tax code and lower taxes, cut back on government regulation and seek business-orientated solutions to the economy. Clinton likely would raise taxes on the upper income brackets and expand government in continuance of the Obama tradition. Chances are that Trump would cut overall spending but increase defense expenditures. Clinton probably would expand entitlements and limit military spending to past norms. Trump presumably would make good on his promise to close the border to illegal immigration by building a wall at the border and would also probably end sanctuary cities. Clinton likely would maintain the Obama administration’s lax immigration policies and offer formal amnesties.
Regarding climate change and the 2nd Amendment:
Clinton seems to believe that the government must act radically to curb global warming. Trump seemingly is not sure that man-caused warming is an existential threat worth drastically altering the economy to address. Trump likely would oppose further gun control and follow a National Rifle Association agenda. Clinton would almost surely double down on the Obama administration’s efforts to make gun ownership more difficult.
Regarding judicial nominations:
On the Supreme Court, Clinton undoubtedly would appoint more justices like progressive jurists Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Trump probably would try to steer the court in the conservative direction of justices such as Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. In general, if voters are content with the current foreign, economic, social and cultural policies of the Obama administration, then the progressive convert Clinton would likely ensure that those policies continue for at least four more years. If, on the other hand, a voter feels Obama has been, in the words of Trump, a “disaster,” then professed conservative Trump would represent a shift in the opposite direction.
In summary, if Hillary finishes-off a third Obama term, she’ll likely take the county with it, and there won’t be much left to save in 2020. But if a Trump administration halts — or merely slows — the progressive assault on what America represents, we’ll be in an infinitely better position to renew a real “American future” in the years to come.
Published in Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy
For Never Trumpers, it ultimately all comes down to Trump’s personality. They often make it sound like it’s deeper than that, that Trump isn’t a conservative or is even actually a Democrat. Well, Hillary is a Democrat and also isn’t conservative. The only factor left is Trump’s personality, in light of the policy differences VDH highlights.
For me personally, my biggest beef with a Trump nomination is that it demonstrates that the GOP is no longer remotely conservative.
If that is true, then the country has no hope long term hope regardless of who wins in November.
Hoping that Trump will temporarily slow the growth of government for a couple of years versus Hillary is meaningless if both parties compete on which party is the best economic central planner from here on out.
I hope this revelation isn’t shocking.
This is where I am. Self professed conservatives for decades supported a disingenuous political party and are now reaping the whirlwind. That is sad because a lot of good people believed what Republicans were selling.
I found this to be the case long before Trump’s arrival on the scene. I guess this is why it is so easy to be ambivalent this year. I don’t see Trump as a shocking arrival on the scene to destroy the Republicans. I think he is the natural logical extension of decades of political suicide.
I would only quibble with there not being a conservative movement post-Clinton. As I’ve been saying on other such threads, conservatism is a reality (like marriage) which precedes any movements or institutions, like the GOP. To paraphrase a popular figure (Bono) the American idea (which is the conservative idea of ordered liberty) is and will remain “out there” for anyone or any group to find and promote and try to live by.
I think what Never Trumpers are really trying to save from Donald Trump is the Republican party — the status quo. It’s not unreasonable, given that there doesn’t appear to be any serious, credible vehicle for conservatism on the horizon.
What is unreasonable in my estimation is putting party before country. I am convinced there will be no recovering the American idea in America if Clinton follows Obama. I’m actually even more negative on our future than that. I think 2012 may very well have been our last chance.
Well, with regard to what Victor Davis Hanson estimates as Trump’s likely policies. Others really do estimate Trump’s likely policies differently.
VDH is a respectable, knowledgeable man, no question. He hopes Trump will be the vehicle for advancing Jacksonian and Jeffersonian interests, because he thinks those interests are important and undervalued.
I’ve never been attracted to NeverTrumpism, and I still disagree with VDH’s estimates of what Trump is likely to do.
I do not think Trump is likely to “revise the tax code and lower taxes, cut back on government regulation and seek business-orientated solutions to the economy”. It seems more likely to me that Trump’s “business-orientated solutions” will increase cronyism and crony-favoring regulation. I have nearly zero confidence that “Trump probably would try to steer the court in the conservative direction of justices such as Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.” I don’t see Trump as plumping for any more than “moderate” judges in the end – very far from anyone like a Clarence Thomas.
It’s quite possible to disagree with VDH over Trump’s likely policy, as I have above, and still feel a moral obligation to support Trump as less-bad than Hillary. Perhaps overregulation really is less pernicious when there’s a businessman in charge of it, and compared to flamingly Leftist judges, moderate judicial picks may look awfully good. Nonetheless, that’s still disagreeing with VDH’s estimation of what Trump is likely to do, not just a disagreement over cosmetics.
Shocking? No. Disappointing? Yes. As I’ve said, it’s clear the GOP doesn’t want my vote. It’s their party, they can do what they want with it.
I agree. I’ve long said the only substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Dems want to drive over the cliff of national destruction at full throttle while the Republicans merely want to drive over that cliff at half throttle. Unfortunately, Trump eliminates that sole remaining distinction between the two parties.
I’m coming to the conclusion that America actually lost the cold war and marxism actually won. Oh well, some country will inevitably pick up the mantle of freedom and capitalism. I just need to keep my options open.
Thank you Midge and others. My objective was to have a conversation about the rationale behind #NeverHillary and #NeverTrump. Trump has never scared me. I don’t see his nomination as ending conservatism or means the GOP is no longer remotely conservative, any more than McCain or Romney nominations did. It is one election cycle. It is one man. It is the anti-0bama campaign year of “celebrities”.
It is the known Unknown of Trump (yes, hope exists with this) versus the known Known of Hillary (yes, this is the socialism of Marx).
Columbo, spot on as usual. Watching the GOP go complete weasel justifies every bad thing I have every thought about them.
The #Nevertrump folks in general are reacting to folks who are unlike them, who think concretely rather than abstractly, who say what they think rather than measure each phrase, who deal in basic emotions rather than reflected nuance.
Our educated classes from today’s higher education mills place words over deeds, demeanor over actions and style over substance.
It is what we inherit from the Divine Right of Kings.
Some thoughts,
VDH writes: Trump is a Jacksonian nationalist who likely would choose America’s friends and enemies solely on the basis of perceived national interests
Trump will choose America’s friends and enemies solely based on his perceived interests. That is the key it will be what Trump thinks best serves him not what he thinks best serves American interests or values. I could easily see Trump selling out many former Soviet Republics to Putin for some immediate and transitory advantage for the Trump administration while leaving a major headache for America in the future. Similar to Obama’s Iran deal.
VDH: Trump would be blunt about the connection between terrorism and radical Islam. Clinton likely would mimic Obama’s policy of not referring to Islam at all in such a context.
True but of very limited value by itself Trump proposed solutions to the problem amount to insane and pointless visa restrictions and war crimes. We will get some relief that someone names our enemy correctly but his policies would make our problems worse not better.
VDH: rump probably would revise the tax code and lower taxes, cut back on government regulation and seek business-orientated solutions to the economy.
The first part about the tax code I give a big maybe. Cutting back on government regulation is not something Trump will do nor will he no how to do it. Trump is not very business-orientated in his business life how much less so will he be in Government?
VDH: Chances are that Trump would cut overall spending but increase defense expenditures.
The first part little to no chance of reducing any spending. He may very well increase defense.
VDH: Trump presumably would make good on his promise to close the border to illegal immigration by building a wall at the border and would also probably end sanctuary cities.
I give that 50/50. Immigration is a perfect issue for Trump to triangulate on. He will do a Gang of eight type bill and then scoff at critics that say he does not care about border security. If anyone can get that kind of immigration reform passed it is Trump. Who could resist him? It something that would win him big kudos personally so I think it is likely he will betray his immigration promises while claiming he is keeping them.
VDH: Trump probably would try to steer the court in the conservative direction of justices such as Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Very, very unlikely. Trump is very likely to try and get a conservative to replace Scalia because for him it will be a show of strength that he can use later in negotiation. So we will get one good justice at least. Any other appointment will be for Trump’s benefit alone and he will trade it away as he sees fit. If the court becomes more conservative ti will not be because Trump guided it that way.
And I agree with your “quibble”. You caught me in an over-exaggeration (that I would point out in other’s thoughts) that I threw in hoping to better make my #NeverHillary point.
On social issues Trump is likely to deliver some victories to White working class Americans and we might see some wins on transgender bathrooms and the like. But the mess he will make of everything else will simply be too high a price to pay for the few good things he will give us. I don’t think we end up better with Trump then we do with Hillary and Hillary while be better on a few things than Trump is far worse in other ways. It is kind of a wash there is no benefit from either Trump or Hillary winning but surely one of them will win which is the sad future our country faces.
I think Trump is an Americanist.
What does that mean?
I heart this article.
I’ll let Stephen Decatur, great pioneer of the US Navy say it:
“Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!”
The opposite of the guy in the White House, or Ms. “Reset”
Thanks for the clarification! Appreciate it.
Personality, temperament, judgement, honesty, ethics, knowledge all play a factor.
Pretty sure T came out in favor of TG bathrooms.
I concede this and, in the abstract, it’s largely appealing. Regardless, I have two major problems with it:
As those who have reconciled themselves to Trump often point out to #NeverTrumpers, this is speculative and none of us are certain as to the future. I’m not saying that I know the country will survive a Clinton presidency, but I give us good odds if we can hold onto Congress (it’ll be a mess, regardless). Obama’s done terrific damage since 2010, but nothing compared to what he did before losing Congress.
The chances that Trump will ruin the conservative movement, however, strike me as very high and I think we’re already seeing it (and he’s not even president!).
Never has Balkanization seemed so attractive as this election. I expect it to get much more attractive to many in a few more years.
VDH: “Trump likely would oppose further gun control and follow a National Rifle Association agenda.”
This might have been published yesterday but I suspect it was written before Orlando.
Columbo,
Thanks for the post. Yes, my point of view is very much expressed by VDH. For whatever reason, Trump is what we have to rid ourselves of the Obama-Clinton horror show.
As you know the Japanese are different. Just how they view things I really don’t understand. However, just for laughs, take a look at this.
Regards,
Jim
Could you elaborate more on how he will “ruin the conservative movement”? Almost no one thinks he represents the conservative movement. He is the Trump movement. Which I think represents Republicans (broader than conservatives) who are fed up with the losing ways of the GOP after 2004. Nothing more. And as VDH has also argued, Trump 2016 is the natural reaction to the past 8 years of excessive liberal anti-Americanism.
And with regard to “ruining conservatism”, these two jokers did more than Donald Trump could ever dream of doing (a picture tells a 1,000 words):
Sounds very much like what they said about Reagan, and Goldwater before him.
In the end, I thought Reagan proved that the result was a renewed respect for the power of America.
Everyone other than conservatives do. That is the problem.
I’ve said many times that Trump is running as a caricature of what the left thinks about Republicans, and unfortunately, he is proving that the left’s stereotypes are accurate.
Even if Trump wins in November, the GOP will probably split into a Buchananite / Isolationist / Big Government Authoritarian party and a Conservatarian / Libertarian freedom party. I welcome the split, but that is going to wind up effectively handing government to the Democrats for a decade or more.
But, hey, the destruction of the GOP is what the Trump supporters wanted. They wanted to destroy the GOP more than they wanted to win the White House, which is why all the “We have to join together to defeat Hillary” arguments are so ironic.
Good luck.
What country would we be at war with, who really wants to go to War with the United States over some stupid minor slight? Specifics matter for this to be “seriously likely”.
No stupid comment is going to create a Major War with any European, African, South American or North American country.
I think VDH is projecting a lot of his own desires onto Trump. Trump hardly has any policy goals at this point except “the wall” and the “muslim ban”. From what I have seen his solutions for the economy are not to deregulate, but to punish bad actors as he see it. i.e. His ridiculous suggestion that he can force Apple to build their phones in the US, or penalize Ford for opening a factory in Mexico.
Hillary will be an extension of Obamaism. And we have utterly failed in understanding the nuanced genius of the “smartest person to ever be President”.
Yep, the more I think on this, the more I realize how silly we conservative, so-called Classical liberals have been. For instance, How many times does he have to remind us that he is not a ‘red state nor blue state’ president, but president of all 57 states. That he was a professor of that constitutional thingy (smurk). Another example of our misunderstanding: After Ft Hood, Boston, Orlando, et al, he really meant to pronounce it “corpseman” (Though the White House’s PR firm, Main Stream Media, Inc., later nobly conceded he obviously meant “corpseperson”).
We now humbly bow before the commissariat as he and she continue their pledge to “fundamentally disfigure Amerikka”.
Thank you dear leader….sigh…