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.
Confessions of an #AlmostNeverTrumper … And What Could Make Me Change My Mind
In one of my first posts for Ricochet, I outlined what I thought was the most important aspects of picking a president: understanding their core values and priorities. The presidency is a huge job where enormous amounts of information comes the way of the president who, being human, has only so much time and attention. That’s part of the reason why all presidents are ultimately a bit of a disappointment. At best, a president will only be able to accomplish a few things and those things need to be very important if the country is to benefit.
For an example of clear priorities, take Ronald Reagan. First, he had to arrest the economic free fall America was in after Carter, which he did by fighting inflation, tax reform, and giving confidence to the business community by breaking unions and asserting a steady economic hand. Second, he moved on to winning the Cold War by accelerating a military build-up at home while exploiting Soviet economic weaknesses wherever ever he found opportunity. After effectively winning, Reagan was able to turn his attention to ensuring that George H. W. Bush could succeed him and cement his legacy. To be fair, he only slowed (rahter than truly curtailed) the administrative state, and his judicial nominations were a very mixed lot. He also compromised on immigration, not grasping what the new immigration regime doing to the country, nor the effect his amnesty would have on the future.
The point of this brief summary is that — taking his presidency as a whole — Reagan moved the entire country and culture in a healthy way his legacy benefits us still to this day. For more proof, just think to the priorities of the first Bush, how he carried them out and the different outcome he achieve despite real competence and massive success at his priorities.
Which brings me to Donald Trump. I believe that Trump is, vaguely, a Republican rather than a Democrat in disguise. Trump’s politically incorrect rhetoric is genuine and — to the extent he panders — he finds pandering more palatable when it’s to Republicans and our interests than to Democrats and theirs. Second, it’s no coincidence that he saw the market opportunity on the Republican side. While Hillary Clinton had some of the Democrats’ most powerful interest groups wrapped-up, the Republicans manifestly and obviously did not have any leader that was connecting to the base in a powerful way. This provided Trump with a great opportunity to make headway and then win the Republican nomination.
With Trump now the presumptive nominee, we have to look at what his core. For his whole life, Trump has been driven by his own success. This shows in the way he treats vendors, old women that stand in the way of parking his cars, the students at Trump University, and his branding deals that got him his money even if the venture was a failure. In a businessman and a showman, this is not necessarily a bad trait and Trump’ success does somewhat speak for itself.
My problem is that this desire of Trump to simply win for his own benefit continues while he is a presidential candidate and the face of a movement. His primary advisors are his own children, and he shows great reluctance to change his behavior for the benefit of anyone else. Since this campaign is about him, why should he change for anyone else? The RNC and other Republicans are far more likely to change for the benefit of Trump, not the other way around. So what if the RNC did not do the primary GOTV operations for the presidential campaign? They will do so now because they must change to suit Trump, and it suits Trump to have the RNC do GOTV.
As far as I can tell, Trump is still operating on the principle that the presidency is about him and it is about him winning. If Trump wins, that will be his core principle. Everything will be about Trump winning, what makes him feel like he wins, what makes him feel like he is having a legacy. This negates Trump’s main talent of making making deals because what we want from a great negotiator is the achievement of the right goal; great negotiation toward a bad goal is not a good thing.
Take Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik. Our president walked away with nothing and — in doing so — won the Cold War. Everything in Trump would have screamed for him to make a deal and bask in the glory of having done so. Where would we be today if that happened?
There are also the matters of experience and ideology. The president receives way too much information for any one man to process, so it must come to him pre-filtered. Trump has neither the ideology nor the experience in politics and global affairs to help him navigate through all that he doesn’t know, and will not know when to push advisors, ask for more options, or how to get a view outside of his own bubble. The people he trusts and respects are not more knowledgeable in these areas that he is, so it’s likely that the winner of these arguments will be whomever best stokes Trump’s ego and makes him feel like his option is the “winning option” for Trump.
This also limits the benefit of having Republicans fill the posts in his administration. Lacking a solid ideology, Trump will judge his appointees by how they make him look. This means there will be little real reform and, if someone really tries to do something good, Trump will not know if he should back him or not.
One thing we know for sure is that Trump is not winning when he limits his own power and ability for action. That means the executive will continue in his imperial ways; if you like the Obama Administration that way, you are going to love a Trump Administration.
A Trump Presidency based on Turmp’s core principles will lead to a great deal of failure, many liberal victories, a few conservatives ones, a terrible foreign policy, and a likely rise in corruption given the need to get Trump’s ear to make anything happen. Conservative victories will be accidents and, when the Democrats roll Trump, he will be extremely hard to resist. His mistakes will color the entire Republican party and his foreign policy mistakes will most likely be huge.
On the other hand, a Trump Presidency means we beat the Democrats, which has it own advantages.
Trump has no loyalty to any ideology, which means he has no commitment to any hard position, even on immigration; from what I have seen, Trump will deliver us the Senate Gang of Eight bill, albeit slightly modified, and his rhetoric on border security will give him cover to follow his instincts of a big business guy who likes cheap, imported labor. There is really no downside for Trump in doing a deal like that.
I see a Trump Presidency that would be just as disastrous as Clinton’s, though disastrous in differet ways. Moreover, these failures will come home to roost on our barn, leaving the Democrats clean to elect a far-left ideologue without the Clinton baggage. That would not be a victory.
So how can I can my mind be changed? I need is evidence that Trump’s core principles align with mine. I would need to see evidence that Trump is acquiring experienced hands that he actually listens too, and that he is honing his knowledge on policy so he can bring conservative reforms. I would need to see him willing to sacrifice his own instincts for the betterment of the Republican/Conservative movements. In essence, I need evidence that he is willing to sacrifice for the good of the country even if it means that he is not personally “winning.” Until I see that, voting for Trump is just voting for a disaster every bit as much as voting for Clinton would be.
Even if Trump changed, I’d hardly be an enthusiast and would never expect him to be a great president. I could, however, accept that he actually is the lesser of two evils and that his presidency — while not being good — would good enough to earn my vote.
Published in Politics
This is not as complex as you ” almost #Trumpsters are making it. This is the 1st election in US history with a divided Court and a justice in the balance. See the recent UT Affirmative action ruling and the worst Texas abortion ruling and read the dissents by Alito and Thomas. A vote or Hillary ASSURES us of a left leaning run amok high court.
Holding one’s nose to vote for Trump–who will assuredly produce a more conservative justice– is a SMALL price to pay for the next generation of SCOTUS rulings.
If Trump could convince me that he believes in a constitutionally-limited government and would govern that way and appoint justices at all levels that firmly believe in the Constitution and its limits on government power, it would be an easy choice.
He hasn’t yet, but he still has plenty of time between now and November.
Unfortunately, most of his comments lean the other direction. And if the Republican party abandons any leanings towards constitutionally-limited government, the next few SC appointments are meaningless – we are finished as a nation.
I fear the nomination of Trump clearly demonstrates that the Republican party has already abandoned any leaning towards constitutionally-limited government.
Finally, a voice or reason. Most of the other commentary is boring, as usual.
I think it true that Trump might have done better on Benghazi then Clinton or Obama but most calls are not that straight forward and easy to make. A “little green man” invasion of Estonia by Russia would be an extremely difficult thing for someone like Trump to understand and Trump would almost certainly make the wrong call in such an event since he has little to no understanding of who Putin is, what Putin is doing or the nature of the current Russian mafia government. Putin to Trump is a “winner”, “strong” and stands against political correctness like Trump does. Putin will chew him up and spit him out and Trump will thank him for the experience.
The major problems are not the justices but the role of the Supreme Court having the attitude that the Constitution is whatever the Justices say, is the actual problem. Trump will do nothing to change that. It might serve Trumps interests to nominate as his first justice a real conservative and that is a big, big bonus. If he nominates one such justice he will be in great bargaining position on the other justices and I am sure he will get great short term concessions from the Democrats that make Trump look great for nominating moderate justices that go more and more liberal over time.
For Trump as president always remember he will have two enemies the far left and Conservatives. He will do everything he can to triangulate between the two, it is what he does, it is his nature, and claim great success in the middle. The Supreme Court will be nominally better under Trump but I doubt it will a lot better. But still nominally better is a good reason to vote for him. If I knew for a fact how many Justices would die or retire in the next four years it could make Trump more attractive to me. But I think most of them will hold on for four more years when Trump’s hard left successor takes over with congressional majorities.
Trump has been in the public eye since the 80’s. There is no more evidence waiting to be unearthed. Those — who many saw (as I did) — as the Republicans best and brightest couldn’t meaningful dent Trump. Ironically, if Trump were to satisfy your requirements, in the ways you’ve carefully outlined, he’d be merely speaking to your concerns, i.e., giving you lip-service, which, well, isn’t that the problem, Trumpkins? He’d be just another politician.
Again: Trump is as bad as Clinton. I have no time for arguing over which ring of policy-hell either inhabits or, unicorn permitting, will inhabit. It’s still hell. I have no irrational hope that he’ll snap to well-thought out policies, or “Our Policies Better Than Hillary’s!™”
Trump was goaded into making that statement about McCain by Frank Luntz, who kept interrupting Trump after Trump was defending himself and his supporters against McCain calling them “crazies”.
But he’s a war hero! He’s a war hero! Was what Luntz said interrupting and defending McCain. So let me get this straight. Someone who was a war hero can say whatever he wants and call American citizens who disagree with McCain “crazies” at will without pushback. Got it. It was to this insanity that Trump responded however inartfully. I’ve been sick of people using this trope to defend McCain for decades now. Thank You John McCain for Your Service. Now be a hero (again) and go home (to one of them) and retire already!
Part of my motivation was to let the Trump supporters know what would be convincing, and let them know why the lesser of two evils arguments don’t really carry the day with Trump. Right now Trump is not even showing he can run a campaign I am not sure how he would shepherd a real conservative to the Supreme Court or why he would even feel motivated to fight to get a conservative Justice to the Supreme Court.
I am not saying that Trump will actually change his spots, I don’t believe he will and that is why I am sure he will be a rotten president that in the end leaves us no better off than a Clinton presidency would. But of course his disaster would be different in kind and form then hers would, its true! And there would be transitory advantages to a Trump election over a Clinton election but that does not justify supporting him.
With so much ammunition and so many different ways you can rightfully and forcefully criticize McCain I would you pick to attack him in the one aspect of his life where he is a real, true blue hero. That is the kind of thing that someone like Trump should know better. However Trump could not attack McCain for his non conservative views because Trump didn’t know that McCain wasn’t a real conservative. His ignorance in such areas would continue to haunt him and trip him up through this campaign and into any presidency that he is increasingly unlikely to win.
What would constitute evidence at this point? In the thick of a campaign, almost everything any candidate says or does should be considered self-serving?
Maybe that would have hurt him in the primary but not really in the general. Most people don’t know anything about conservatism nor the constitution. I mean we have judges saying the studying the Constitution is pointless. Also, note that Justice Ginsberg is 83, Justice Breyer is 77 over the next 4 or 8 years there is likely to be another vacancy other than Scalia, that should convince any liberty loving person to vote Trump. He did put out a list and the people on it were good, I know he gave himself an out but you can’t marry yourself to that in case someone better comes along for consideration.
I hear how people think Trump will be an unmitigated disaster. I don’t agree, I will defer to Jeff Sessions, Rush Limbaugh, Larry Kudlow, Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich and Conrad Black in their assessment. I will trust their judgement as they all have confidence that Trump will do his best to put conservatives where needed.
I’m with you. Trump for president. Yes, Yes, Yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
I disagree. A good part of his appeal on a variety of issues is plain common sense without a political filter.
Who is John Galt?
Could not disagree more. Can’t imagine anyone taking his word salad answers as common sense. Though I think like Obama he is a screen that we can project our hopes and fears on but to the man himself that is just shadow and light and has no impact on him.
No actually it will hurt him most if he wins. Not knowing what is Conservative or liberal, having no background in the thinking behind our political movements will cripple Trump in power. He will have no time to learn these things once he gets going. In his ignorance he will make mistake after mistake and then double down on the mistakes. I would love to think that he would do better than the list he put out but he will only do worse. He is not going to on his own find more conservative judges, he would not even know what to look for. He will look for judges that are valuable to him for his own purposes.
I would love, I mean this sincerely, for you to provide me evidence that Donald Trump defers to people more knowledgeable than himself when it comes to policy or politics. He is micro-manager. I don’t see it. If I thought he would actually defer to people who know more than he does I would be more willing to support him. Wishing for him to do this will not make him do it.
Did we have a candidate in whom you have some high level of confidence that the response would be an effective one? In other words, someone for whom such an action by Putin would not be difficult to understand so they would assuredly make the correct call in response?
That Putin is potentially OK, despite what he has actually done his whole life. If he’d just make a few good speeches that I agreed with, and promised to appoint certain people, I might be OK with him.
Trump, on the other hand, still believes that it is OK to use a campaign rally to slam a judge in a personal lawsuit. He must have learned that from Bill Clinton.
I, of course, stand with George Will.
This podcast from 2010 made me feel a bit better about the current choices.
Given the fact that the Constitution is routinely ignored by the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the President, what exactly *is* the point of studying the Constitution?
(I followed the link, that’s not the point made by the Judge in question. But it’s a better argument for the position than his…)
And Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney too. VDH, David Hororwitz as well
This separation is an interesting study in the split. It seems to mostly occur between people who see the threat from the left, and those who don’t.
Note that those who are Republican NeverTrumpers have never attacked the left with any gusto.
Brian, you make good points – I don’t think anyone here can convince you that Trump is better than Hillary or that he can do the job – only Trump can do that.
I cannot imagine Hillary commanding our armed forces, putting fair judges on the courts, repealing the disaster called The Affordable Healthcare Act, getting our country producing again, taking on the Middle East disaster etc. Allowing Assad to remain has brought us the refugee crisis, destroyed that country and allowed Russia to get a further foothold.
Trump does have leadership instincts and effective leaders employ the best people to do the job. Hillary could not even manage her emails effectively. As to what qualifies one to be president, we had quite the lineup and Trump soared ahead. What qualifies a peanut farmer? I understand your position completely – it is difficult for me too.
Maybe this will help:
Declaring American Economic Independence
I read it hoping to be impressed.
I wasn’t.
I agree with some of what he says (how our tax code discourages exports, heck, our tax code discourages companies from being headquartered in the US), but he comes off like autarky is his goal (which it probably is, heck, he titled his speech with the definition of autarky.)
I despise Trump. He will ruin the country, no if’s and’s or but’s.
However, I will vote for the devil himself before I’ll vote for Hillary. Or a Bush.
I don’t despise him. But I absolutely respect your position. Cheers!
I have noticed they sound WAY more like Democrats than Republicans, all the while pretending to be holier-than-thou conservatives. Give me a break.