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.
Save the Party; Abandon Trump
The reason the United States has not become just another European-style welfare state is that one of our two major parties is officially committed to limiting the growth of government while encouraging the growth of the private sector. Moreover, only the GOP has anything like a faithful approach to the Constitution, and it has appointed judges with a sound view of the Constitution. Republicans often betray these core principles – the list of GOP failures is long – but having core principles has moved the party in the right direction: tax reform, welfare reform, school choice, block grants, and even spending restraint (at least when compared to the Democrats).
Politics is a long game. Notwithstanding all the usual RNC hyperbole about this being the most important election ever – and the apocalyptic visions of a President Clinton – the survival of our republic is not at stake. The survival of the Republican Party, however, is.
If Trump wins, the Republican Party will own everything that Trump does. He will define the party. What does that mean for the GOP? Donald Trump is not a conservative. He is not pro-growth. Like European politicians, he sees the economy as a zero-sum game. He doesn’t talk about growing the size of the pie, he speaks for those who believe that somebody – an immigrant, a politician, a financier – has deprived them of their rightful slice of the pie.
To the extent he has articulated policies, they would be disastrous. He wants to rip up trade agreements and provoke a disastrous confrontation with Mexico – using cash remittances from the US as a bargaining chip to force Mexico to pay for “the wall.” He would attempt mass deportations of Mexicans and impose a religious test on new immigrants.
He has said almost nothing about shrinking the role of the federal government (except in education). Tellingly, he resists all calls to cut entitlements. What makes anyone think that a President Trump – a man addicted to power – would do anything to undercut his own power by shrinking the federal government? What makes anyone think that a President Trump would not eagerly follow in President Obama’s footsteps in ruling by executive order?
Abortion? He asserts that he recently became pro-life because of one acquaintance who decided not to abort her child and who, instead, gave birth to a child who became a “total superstar.” Classic Trump: Would it be ok to abort a child if somehow you knew the kid was going to be a “total loser” (e.g., if the kid had a disability like that reporter Trump made fun of)? His understanding of the issue is so shallow that he has suggested that mothers, rather than abortionists, should face prosecution for abortions.
Which brings me to the one issue that so many people consider decisive: the Supreme Court. Come on. The Constitution and social issues are simply not priorities for Trump. Does anyone really believe that a President Trump would expend political capital to nominate a conservative justice? Why bother? Far more likely, he’ll nominate someone who will breeze through confirmation so that he can make “deals” with the Senate about things that really matter to him. Even Ronald Reagan settled for Justice Kennedy. I have absolutely no confidence that Trump judges would be materially better than Clinton judges.
So, what to do? We save the party. Give all your support to down-ticket Republicans and none to Trump. Hope that Trump loses badly – so badly that he and his biggest supporters walk away from the GOP in disgrace. And hope that principled conservatives are there to rebuild the party for 2020.
Published in General
Does suggesting Ted Cruz’s father was part of the Kennedy assassination count?
“The reason the United States has not become just another European-style welfare state is that one of our two major parties is officially committed to limiting the growth of government while encouraging the growth of the private sector.”
Um … with all due respect, we’re hurtling on our way there at Mach5!
Pray tell … which of these two major parties of which you speak did ANYTHING towards either limiting the growth of government (including its DEBT) or encouraging the growth of the private sector?!
In truth, both major parties have gone on almost a twelve year binge of government growth and the discouraging of the private sector, with a special emphasis on harming the middle class. Throw in race and class warfare and an assault on police and the rule of law … and …
Voila … you get Donald J. Trump. Embrace the Suck.
Mr. Freedman recommends surrendering the executive branch of the US government to the progressives for the next 4 years.
Consider:
Progressives overwhelmingly control one of the major political parties in the US;
Progressives control the federal judiciary, along with all federal departments and agencies;
Progressives dominate academia, universities, and K-12 education, both government and private;
Progressives run the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association;
Major corporations, both global and domestic, are run by progressives. Their boards are progressive. Their corporate branding and messaging is progressive;
Wall Street is progressive;
Silicon Valley and the tech industry are dominated by progressives, from Google to Apple to Microsoft;
Progressives overwhelmingly control traditional media, including broadcast news and print publications;
Progressives overwhelmingly run important social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr;
Progressives dominate the major foundations and NGOs in America
Progressives set the tone even in sports journalism (Bob Costas, ESPN);
Progressives run Hollywood: they hold sway over the film, TV, and video industries, including the market for streaming content;
All major religious institutions in the West, from the Vatican to mainline Protestant churches to virtually all synagogues, are now thoroughly progressive. (H/T Jeff Deist)
And who does Mr. Freedman think has a better chance of getting their way and accomplishing their goals – Hillary, with all these forces allied with her, or Trump, with none of them?
This is an incredibly stupid idea.
Darn it, Fred. Now don’t make me say it again …..
Did you recently lose your sense of humor, or did you never have one?
You aren’t the first one I’ve read suggesting that. People have said Cruz’s speech basically didn’t make sense unless that was going to happen.
When do you think we’ll be able to sign up for it?
That’s happening no matter who wins, mate.
I know some Tea Partiers who support Trump. Other Tea Partiers I know look upon him as signaling the Tea Party’s death knell – the antithesis of the Tea Party’s purpose. I suspect the division is not really new. Around where I live, it seemed visible even during the Obamacare protests. There seems to be a similar split among those who voted for Cruz in the primaries.
No. It was a lie, but apparently not sufficient enough to motivate voters to not support him and I am not aware of anything illegitimate about his vote totals save some shenanigans in Nevada for which they are being punished.
If we are going to tie politicians lying to the legitimacy of their elections then cancel the republic, show’s over folks.
In North Texas I think the majority of Tea Partiers supported Cruz. There were some exceptions who disagreed with Cruz on 1 or 2 issues, primarily TPP, that voted Trump.
Once Ted Cruz dropped out most of them started supporting Trump. The ones that previously supported Cruz talk about supporting Trump out of patriotic duty and to prevent Hillary from taking office. The hatred of Hillary here burns like a thousand suns and I think most folks would vote Charles Manson to keep her out of office.
Perhaps this is just a passing fad. I just have a gut feeling, as a student of history, that we’re in the midst of a political realignment–such occurrences usually don’t become evident immediately. When I read statements like the quote below from a Republican Chairman, it’s hard not to think there’s a purging going on. Maybe I’m wrong.
Does the fact that Trump is bringing conservatives into his orbit not help never Trumpers at all? Larry Kulow, Rudy Guiliani, Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence,Ben Carson, Jeff Sessions, etc…..
Meanwhile Hillary is surrounded by Elizabeth Warren, Cecile Richards, and other socialist and grievance mongers
i am not convinced trump will be a disaster simply by the company he is keeping
It makes me think less of those that are willing to throw away their principles for a piece of the Trump Brass Ring.
I would like to respectfully submit that this is only true if we allow it to be true.
And then I read comments like this from Trump supporters on Ricochet and feel even less inclined to change my mind that there’s a purging going on.
There is no way to categorize or pidgeonhole tea party principles outside the very basic reason they formed. Opposition to tax hikes, bailouts, and obamacare. Marginally also opposition to illegal immigration. That is the extent of the tea party, and even that is loose and informal.
As someone who considers himself a tea party supporter, I don’t see anything in Trump’s policy positions that offend those principles. His stated policies mirror each of those positions. I realize that some think he can’t be trusted so his stated policy positions are irrelevant, and that may well explain the tea party supporters who see him as the antithesis, but it isn’t because of his stated policies conflicting with the tea party principles.
They were never an ideologically driven group. I suspect most didn’t ever consider bigger government vs smaller. They just looked at the end of the Bush administration and TARP etc, and the beginning of the Obama administration and Obamacare, and they instinctively knew the country was on the wrong track.
To me, self-defined as TeaParty, the Known Known of H is like having rolled snake eyes. But, thankfully, we have the opportunity to roll again, but with a [CoC] pair of dice with “1”s, “2”s and a single “3”. The choice is whether to roll again or not. What would you do?
Time will tell who is right. I believe that in November Trump will beat the only politician with higher negatives than he, and thus will produce a slightly better than snake eyes roll on the board.
Or how about they are doing it to help save the country over their careers
With Trump that’s speculation; with Hillary it’s fait accompli.
And once again, who has the better chance of having their policy goals implemented should they win, mate?
Save The Country; Abandon Hillary
Obviously, there’s disagreement: some think supporting Trump is about saving the country over career, some think it’s about saving career over country.
Are you saying that making one million dollars collecting interest on the ten million you already have is just as impressive as making one million dollars starting with nothing? I beg to differ.
Exactly. This is just simple logic. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is being intentionally blind. You could even say that it really requires a willing suspension of disbelief
Adam,
I’m sorry but I don’t get it. Comey said that Hillary was guilty of about 5 different felonies besides her perjury. He said he couldn’t indict only because he couldn’t prove intent. She was a Yale Law School Graduate, she was a US Senator on the Armed Services Committee for 6 years. If she didn’t know exactly what she was doing who would. Intent should have been the easiest thing to prove unless she wanted to try an insanity defense. This adds up to the end of the rule of law nakedly displayed to the whole country. On top of that, once elected HRC would appoint 3 Justices to the Supreme Court that would end the constitutional basis of the country permanently.
My comments are not hyperbole. I don’t see how this doesn’t involve the survival of the republic.
Regards,
Jim
I am not sure that is a universally agreed list of conservatives.
The definition of conservative is pretty fluid.
No, it doesn’t help them at all. Nevertrumpers don’t like Donald Trump. He offends them. They demand a “cleansed, reformed, and improved” Republican party in the same way a minority of collegians today want a “safe space” from offensive people and scary ideas.
I thought Trump was vocally for TARP at the time. And for the kind of government takeover of healthcare industries Obamacare opposers mostly opposed.
In my region, size-of-government concerns, states’ rights issues (and, as time went on, social issues) featured fairly prominently on the placards of Tea-Party protesters. I’m open to the possibility that my major metropolitan corner of the Midwest was simply weird, though.
You can choose to believe that, but to do so you would have to believe that Trump is what is going to save the country. I look at Christie and see a man who desperately wanted to be Veep – which is why he endorsed a man he declared unfit for the presidency. I look at Mike Pence and see a man facing a tough reelection battle in his home state who decided to side step it in the hopes of maintaining some semblance of political career. I look at Newt Gingrich and see a man who has been out of the limelight and away from the levers of power for a decade who is jumping on the one train he thinks will carry him back there even though that man bashes one of his signature achievements (NAFTA).
No. That’s not my evidence. (RealClear average is what I usually go by.)
But that’s a dodge. My point is that you have no evidence to suggest that former non-voters will become voters. For that point, it doesn’t matter what I have.
Simple logic in an uncertain world also tells us that one can tell the truth to perfectly-reasoning beings and not be believed, and by symmetry, that it’s logically possible for two sides of an argument to both be reasoning correctly based on their prior beliefs, while no amount of additional evidence brings their beliefs closer together.
For something to be logically possible doesn’t mean it’s the usual explanation, but at least in some cases, the appearance of “intentional blindness” is simply the result of the other guy being just as reasonable as you.