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 Trump Compromise
The republic is dead. Long live the empire.
No matter who wins in November, the next President of the United States will be a self-absorbed multi-millionaire who doesn’t see the Constitution as binding on his or her power, who doesn’t believe in the rule of law, and who is willing to use racial and class grievances to get elected. As such, I had been planning to leave the presidential line of my ballot blank, as I could not fathom voting for either of the two realistic candidates. I’ve felt like Claudius stammering, “B- b- but I want a republic!” as others debate which candidate will make the better emperor.
But — and you knew there was a “but” coming — I was honored to have my friend and fellow Ricochet member Sabrdance over for dinner on Wednesday. He’s a non-tenured professor at a state college in flyover country, specifically, in a state where the Democratic Party barely exists. Despite this, he and his colleagues are scared to teach fundamentals of Western Civilization like Augustine’s theory of natural law. If a student complains that a philosopher dead for 1,500 years is “triggering” by modern PC standards, then the professors will likely find themselves out of a job; from experience, they know that the university president cannot be relied on to defend academic integrity in the face of political correctness. Only the fact that their governor is a mini-Trump — willing to defy the orders of the enormous executive agencies that really run the country — prevents them from being overrun by even more ridiculous imperial dictats.
This isn’t isolated to academia, of course. Ask member Skipsul, as a business owner, how heavy the imperial burden is on his business. Ask member Bryan Stephens about trying to help the less fortunate with the imperial minions constantly in his way. Even in my own business of real estate appraising, the burden on the appraiser to comply with every crazy rule (such as answering any possible concern a computer program can muster) is driving good appraisers out of the business. In a country like this, stomping my foot and saying “But I want a republic!” is going to be just as effective as when Claudius did it.
So here’s the deal: If the race in my state is competitive (as defined by the candidates being within five percent of each other, as of the last poll before Election Day), I will do my part to ensure our next ruler is the emperor wearing the red ribbon instead of the empress wearing the blue one. In exchange, I ask two things:
- Please stop telling me that less-than-wholehearted support for Trump is tantamount to voting for Clinton. I know she’s terrible. I know she’s a chronic liar, corrupt to her core, who has wasted American lives for nothing and who ought to be in jail. That she remains not only at liberty, but within reach of such power is yet further proof that we no longer live in a country where all citizens are equal before the law. Conceded.
- Please stop telling me that Donald Trump is somehow a conservative. He belongs with me in the Republican party to the same extent Caitlyn Jenner belongs with me in the women’s restroom. Whether it’s a wall with Mexico that will violate water treaties, or a trade war that will violate trade treaties, or a ban on Muslims that violates the Equal Protection Clause, or his unsubstantiated attacks on the judiciary, or his praise of the Chinese massacres in Tienanmen Square, the man clearly has no sense of what the Constitution says, nor any respect for the rule of law. My possible vote for him has nothing to do with his (dubious) merits or (lack of) character. Rather it’s that, as a red-ribbon emperor, he will probably bring more red-ribbon cronies into the executive branch than the blue-ribbon empress will, and that I will likely find his dictats to be less distasteful than hers.
I am called by God to honor the emperor, and I will. If my vote is likely to make any difference, I will vote for the marginally better emperor. But if my vote won’t make any difference, please let me keep voting for either of these two off my conscience, and leave me to mourn the passing of the republic in peace.
Published in General
And this is still debatable. Both are so terrible as to make the other seem plausible.
And yet, are either of them worse than our current president?
I live in California, so can we all agree right now I’m off the hook? If Trump were actually within 5 points of Hillary in California come November it would mean he’s going to win in a historic landslide with or without my one little vote…
Good, scary question.
Amy,
Surprisingly, Claw Claw makes a rather good Emperor.
Regards,
Jim
I opposed Trump throughout the primaries for all the reasons expounded at great length by the nevertrumps. Nevertheless, I may end up voting for him in November. My preference would be to cast a negative vote against Clinton but civilization in general has yet to adopt my sensible suggestions to that effect. If the election looks close in Ohio, the closest I can come to voting Not-Hillary is to vote Trump. If the election isn’t close, other options (vanity, virtue-signalling, self-righteous preening, or just sulkiness) become available.
I’m really struggling with this. The people who voted for Donald Trump in the primary are responsible for him being the GOP nominee.
I understand there are many other cultural and political forces that proceeded the Trump nomination that contributed to this such as kicking God out of the culture, the rise and domination of reality television, the decline of the United States education system, and the almost comically corrupt political ruling class. But…the primary responsibility for Trump lies with the millions and millions of GOP primary voters who inflicted him on the American political system.
This is going to end badly no matter how it plays out.
I think there’s more to this than you realize. I think “Conservative” has become an identity for a lot of people, and Trump represents the triumph of Identity Conservatives over Ideological Conservatives.
It’s a deal as far as I’m concerned. I see no need to tell you snything, as long as you vote for Trump.
but, just one last thing then I’ll shut up:
foreign nationals, who have not entered our jurisdiction, do not have rights under the US Constitution. Trumps moratorium on immigration is not unconstitutional.
Amy, well said. Thanks. If you haven’t seen it, you might find Christopher Demuth’s article in this week’s Weekly Standard on what he calls executive government of interest.
Trump is talking about a religious test for people being allowed into the country. That is different than a moratorium on immigration.
That’s a definite distinction, but the consensus is that it’s still constitutional.
But still not unconstitutional.
I agree with this. But I have to say in my own life there is no confusion. Most of my brothers and sisters are conservative – some more conservative than me. Ditto with many, many friends. All of whom are voting for Trump.
None of them think Trump is a conservative.
So while my world might be small, I have no idea who Amy is talking to when she says: “Please stop telling me that Donald Trump is somehow a conservative.”
I haven’t heard anyone on Ricochet say that, nor on Facebook, nor in my personal life.
I don’t think that it a consensus, it is unsettled.
If it applies to citizens trying to re-enter the country after travel abroad, it’s clearly unconstitutional. If it applies only to foreign nationals applying for a visa, I think it would be constitutional.
I don’t think it would be very practical, though. Would it simply rely on self-disclosure, e.g. “check this box if you are a Muslim?” If so, obviously not so hard for potential terrorists who believe in taqiyya to circumvent…
I believe it’s already in the law to take religion into account when deciding admission.
So? I’ll say again, until people get in here somehow, they don’t have rights under US const. And in his speech post-Orlando, he made it clear this will be implemented by temporary ban on immigrants from certain areas.
we do not have to let anybody in.
The Identity Conservatives, of course.
Perhaps Ricochet is too ideological to attract pure Identity Conservatives, but it seems obvious to me that even here, there’s a great deal of diversity in how members relatively prioritize identity and ideology.
The Rabble Alliance seems to have grown impatient with ideology, for example, and some would rather identify as Americanists first, rather than as ideologues. That is not to say ideology means precisely zero to them, only that it may have taken backseat to other concerns.
Here’s the foolproof Muslim-immigration-prevention-system, as explained by the candidate:
Willie Geist: Donald, a customs agent would ask the person his or her religion?
Donald Trump: They would be probably, they would say, ‘are you Muslim?’
Geist: And if they said, ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country?
Trump: That is correct.
Take that, ISIS! There’s no way any of their sleeper cells could get through that kind of scrutiny!
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428198/muslim-immigration-ban-and-constitution-jim-geraghty
This, at least, would get the stupid ones. We have enough stupid people already.
I have a better idea, why don’t we just ask everyone who applies for a visa this simple question:
“What is your purpose in visiting the United States?”
If they pick #3, don’t let them in. Problem solved, with no messy religious tests or constitutional questions!
Yep, no need to beat around the bush.
Why not allow in only those people, no matter their religion or country of origin, whom we can legitimately vet. If they cannot be vetted, sorry.
Agreed on the vetting part, but I also want likelihood of cultural assimilation taken into account. Some cultures assimilate with much greater ease, and with far fewer problems.
Makes sense.
If you’re talking about people applying for permanent residency status, then sure, that seems like a good idea.
If you’re talking about the much larger volume of people visiting on a temporary tourist visa, then how much vetting are we talking about here? If, say, James Delingpole wants to hop on a plane and spend his holiday in Florida, could he still show his U.K. passport, answer a few questions, and get in? Or are you going to do a full background check on him first?
One option would be to hold his country of origin responsible for his actions. That would incentivize good exit controls on their part.
Thus, if Delingpole commits a minor terrorist act, we respond by taking out Prince Charles. If he commits a major terrorist act, we take out Adele.
What sort of deal is that?
If doing your part does not include voting for Trump, what help
are you actually offering to ensure the defeat of Hillary?
The government can’t even “vet” prospective employees. Hassan was on US gov’t payroll. The San Bernardino killer worked for county government. OmarKa-Blam was an employee of G4S, with whom Dept of Homeland Security contracted to secure our borders.
(Why aren’t we even hearing about that last? Dems make this last massacre about gun control, when the fact is this guy had a security officer license, and would have had a gun even if private ownership were completely prohibited.)
And why let people of this religion and from these areas in at all? Even if they don’t mean us any harm–
what good are they doing our country?
Trump is the only candidate I have ever heard say that immigration should be good for America.