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
Reagan and Goldwater were very principled men. Reagan in particular spent about 20 years thinking very carefully about about what he should believe and why before he started running for President.
The same can not be said for Mr. Trump.
Which means it must not be true, right?
I was not equating Trump to Reagan, just pointing out that politicians that sound ‘tough’ scare liberals and appeasement types, but once elected, our enemies don’t dare provoke. The worst thing a president can do is convince the world that he would not dare enter a war…
A splendid point PHenry. The deterrent power of a strong voice actually keeps the world “safer” and the aggressors of the world more at bay due to fear and respect of America, rather than a foreign ‘policy’ which assumes that past American influence has been “bad” and that “leading from behind” is good. We should be more concerned about policies like this which have the potential to lead to wars from the resulting chaos, rather than Trump’s bluster.
Conservatives, specifically center-right did more damage to the conservative movement since 2010 than I think Trump may do.
After failing to support Congress and pushing them to keep their promises of 2010 and 2014 nobody knows what or if conservatives stand for anything.
Trump supporters and the left (perhaps overlapping) are criticized for supporting their candidates for emotional reasons. Then barrels of ink were spilled (or GB’s of bandwidth) saying that while Ted Cruz was the most conservative he wasn’t ‘likeable’ or ‘electable’ enough.
I respect your dislike for Trump, but to worry about the damage he may do is ironic considering the neglect from center right.
I would vote for VDH for president. I value his opinions more than my own. As Trump’s Secretary of State, he would finally have the influence he deserves.
Today’s conservatives have already made a mess of things. There has not been an effective spokesperson since Ronald Reagan. The movement has become a caricature of the one begun with Goldwater and has allowed the Democrats to paint it as the warmongering, anti abortion party, the party of the rich and the party of no. It’s a crying out loud shame, and it has nothing to do with Trump.
Sure.
Regarding the second point, it’s not hard to find conservatives who will defend Trump as a conservative, and I’m wholly confident that the media will do everything in its power (they are already) to cast Trump as a conservative, as Trump confirms that we’re all loud, bigoted, flag-draped, jerks.
More importantly, Trump will be heading the rightward of the two political parties — and has the endorsement of almost all of its most powerful figures — so it’s almost inevitable that he’ll pull the party closer to him even at least as much as we pull him toward us. After all, the guy is a master negotiator.
And we’re already seeing this, as protectionism gains strange new respect and as the NRA walks-back its opposition to using suspect lists to stall/deny firearms purchases. God knows what’ll happen when Trump starts actively pushing for libel reform and everyone starts defending it.
to be fair, they say they have not walked back anything, that this was their position all along. ( hat tip Frank Soto)
NRA statement
The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed.
Tom, you write this good analysis as though we are starting from t=0.
What about all the debt ceiling increases? Funs for planned parenthood? implementing Obamacare? Failing to impeach rogue agency leaders? Exercising the power of the purse generally?
We denigrated a true conservative this year.
Republicans surrendering have been an ongoing issue for 6+ years. Why is it shocking we are extending the trajectory?
Which means it must be true, right?
We have heard this same kind of smear for every Republican in my lifetime. If you aren’t an appeasement, peace, love and Bobby Sherman liberal, you are going to destroy the world with nukes.
It was debunked by Reagan, but now it is revived by conservatives to attack their own nominee. Excuse me if I find it hard not to take such conjecture and exaggeration with a grain of salt…
Not sure how, specifically, this would come about.
What I am sure of is that Clinton is highly likely to be asleep, drunk, drugged, a combination of the three, or otherwise unavailable when the 2:00 a.m. phone call comes like she was when the Benghazi station was under attack in 2012.
More likely than Trump responding in a majorly inappropriate way over some minor personal slight is Clinton failing to respond in an appropriate way to a real, major attack. I think Trump has been essentially correct in the tone and substance of his remarks on Orlando; while Clinton has been feckless and pusillanimous in hers.
Inasmuch as the choice is between reposing National Security (the sine qua non of issues, because if we don’t have that, we ultimately don’t have anything) in the hands of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, I pick Trump.
I agree he is going to be stuck with the label of being on the right.
Well, Trump supporters did, and loudly.
Republicans don’t want conservatives in their party, which is fine with me. Maybe once the GOP is completely dead, we can have an actual conservative party that I’m proud to vote for.
After after listening to Omega’s speech in Orlando, how can we even be having this discussion?
Our president, as he tenatively did in the first speech post-massacre, blamed the carnage on: us. “We” have to change our evil homophobic ways–and “we” have to surrender our guns; the only practical way to fight Islamic terrorism is for Americans to disarm. (Never mind that Omar Ka-Blam worked as a security guard for DHS; even if private gun ownership had been banned, HE woulda had one.).
And Clinton parrots him. They piped a few bars of that tune, and now all the rats and children (perpetual undergraduates) are dancing along behind them. If you weren’t enthusiastically in favor of gay weddings, you are “the bullets in the gun”, as one oft-shared Facebook post says.
“Conservative”? What does that even mean, in this climate?
Unless Trump is elected, the anti-Trump Rump won’t survive to have that argument.
I mean that literally. I listened to Milo Y’s speech in Orlando yesterday. He didn’t call for violence of any kind, it was all political,opinion–yet he ended it, accurately, by telling his audience that in Europe, what he just said could get him arrested.
The time for nice little caveats about Trump’s personality, his “vulgarity” is long over. It’s just polishing the silver in a burning house.
Pick.
A.
Side. #change1mind
An extraordinary claim like the election of a President will likely lead to a major war over something stupid, requires some level of reasoning beyond just Trump is a thin skinned loud mouth.
I am talking about the infamous center right. Heck, even here on Ricochet the only thing that outnumbered the comments and posts about how Ted Cruz wasn’t likeable or electable were the posts and comments calling him a lying scumbag.
The reality is center right isn’t very much of either, doesn’t want conservative, and would prefer to feel good and be liked.
Well now we have Donald Trump and who is carping the most? The same crowd that for years said we have to raise the debt ceiling, have to fund planned parenthood, have to fund the DREAM act, have to implement Obamacare, have to always wait until next time.
I don’t have much pity or concern for this same crew now wringing hands over the fate of the conservative movement. Will Donald Trump finish it off? Quite possibly, heaven knows he has the rhetorical skill.
I share your hope that out of this fiasco will come a true conservative revival, but all I am hearing from center right is longing for the Republican Party of 2008 or 2012 minus Donald Trump. Hand, meet hot stove – again.
The only people I saw on Ricochet calling Cruz a lying scumbag were Trump supporters. In their mind, if Trump says something, it must be true because Trump said it. And Trump called Cruz “Lyin’ Ted” so Cruz must be a lying scumbag because Trump called him “Lyin’ Ted” – QED.
The Republican party is toast. It needs to die a quick death so we can either try to rebuild our country or find a new of home of freedom and capitalism. I’m not optimistic for the chance of the former, so I’m leaning towards the latter.
Thank you. This helps me understand the perspective.
Surely the media will do what it does every POTUS election cycle – the GOP candidate will be described as a knuckle-dragging neanderthal (McCain and Romney were given same treatment). It will last one election, and not beyond.
With regard to Trump pulling the party towards himself, if it happens it will be temporary not permanent. And if he is the master negotiator as you concede, he’ll clearly move toward the party too. Outlandish statements are part of negotiating.
Really?
Heh.
Heh. Squared.
Agree to disagree?
While Brent is absolutely correct that we featured some harshly critical pieces on Cruz such the one from Frank that he cites, they were hardly representative of Cruz posts that were promoted to the Main Feed.
I’m not sure Soto counts for anything, but I concede the point.
Tom, that is a good follow up and I only cut it out for space and my paltry word limit.
I don’t know all of those folks positions. I believe Peter is on record that he will begrudgingly vote for Trump and I think exJon is Never Trump, but can’t quote him on that. The rest I don’t know.
Ricochet did feature many positive articles on Cruz including a From The Editor’s Desk piece when NR endorsed him.
My point is that my memory is that those who were most critical of Cruz and trashed Reagan’s 11th have significant overlap with the Never Trump crowd.
I think Frank counts a great deal. Whether I agree with him or not he is a professional contributor, thought leader, and outstanding author on the site.
I agree there’s a heavy overlap there, and the poll from last week indicated that relatively few #NeverTrump Ricochetti were initially Cruz fans.
As two additional counter points, James of England has been one of Cruz’s strongest critics here and I believe he’s planning to vote for Trump. Also, Cruz is the only candidate this cycle I have donated to (though I voted for Rubio in the primaries).
I recall you wrote a good piece about why you were planning to vote for Rubio in the primaries. If memory serves because I am too lazy to go search for it you wrote it based on the merits as you saw them of a President Rubio not from the dangers of President Cruz or Trump. My recollection is that you wrote reasons to vote for Rubio and not just against others.
I don’t know if James will vote Trump and don’t care. I don’t know if I am going to.
To call James a Cruz critic is the Ricochet understatement of the year. James is the one who penned a comment that Cruz was more likely to be impeached in his first term than Trump.
I’ve no doubt James prefers Trump to his core.
Correct and thank you.
Conceded. :)