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.
Where Does a Patriot Turn in 2016?
The Democratic Party’s national convention is attempting to lay claim to the patriot mantle. Yet the party is not quite there. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was heckled with chants of “no more war.” The Code Pink wing lost the nomination this year, but it won the platform, and may yet win it all in the next cycle.
President Obama seeded his own speech with patriotic grace notes and, while he recoils from Trump, his horror at Trump’s style seemingly blinds him to their similarities. On substance, they are more alike than not. This shouldn’t be shocking, considering that Trump has been a Democrat for most of his life. What is stunning is the degree to which so many patriots, whose eyes water at the flag and the anthem, imagine that Trump is a patriot in the same mold.
Obama reproached the Republican nominee for wanting to “turn away from the rest of the world.” But that’s Obama’s view too. He’s happier to be a follower than a world leader, never more gratified than when the U.S. is more modest. When asked why he failed to give even rhetorical/moral support to the millions of Iranians in the streets during the abortive “Green Revolution,” his administration explained that the U.S. was tainted by its history, and any expression from us would have backfired.
His refusal to help the suffering people of Syria – failing even to provide a safe haven for refugees, which has had radiating consequences for Europe’s stability and security — was grounded in the same perspective, that American power was blundering when it was not downright imperialistic. When he did intervene, as in Afghanistan, it was feckless. In Libya, he played second fiddle to European powers, which seems more morally acceptable to progressives.
Trump thunders that “We don’t win anymore” (he’s referring to trade, which is completely wrong) and bristled (rightly in this instance) at the humiliation of our sailors at the hands of the Iranians in January. But, like Obama on steroids, he takes a dim view of America’s moral standing.
When he was questioned about his warm endorsements of Vladimir Putin and reminded that Putin has killed quite a few critics, Trump shrugged “We do a lot of killing in this country too.” That’s an extraordinary calumny, implying not the indisputable fact that we have too many violent deaths in America, but that, like Russia, our government engages in targeted assassinations of political opponents. Here, Trump leaves Obama behind altogether.
Asked about the attempted coup in Turkey, Trump’s tropism toward tyrants was manifest. He praised Erdoğan’s success in thwarting the coup, and when asked about Erdoğan’s crackdown on thousands of journalists, educators, judges, civil servants, and others, Trump was unmoved. “I think right now when it comes to civil liberties, our country has a lot of problems.” He mentioned Ferguson, and Baltimore, and police being killed, and offered this: “When the world looks at how bad the United States is, and then we go and talk about civil liberties, I don’t think we’re a very good messenger.”
Trump misses the most crucial fact about Turkey: The thwarted coup may have empowered Erdoğan to take one of the world’s most advanced Muslim nations, a NATO ally, down the path of Iran. But also consider his view of America. Is that how a patriot thinks? We lack the moral standing to criticize other nations on human rights?
Trump has famously praised Saddam Hussein (“At least he killed terrorists” – no, the opposite), China’s communist bosses who mowed down protesters in Tiananmen Square (“They put it down with strength”), and even Kim Jong-un, (“You got to give him credit. He wiped out the uncle. He wiped out this one, that one. This guy doesn’t play games.”)
But Trump has reserved his greatest affection for Vladimir Putin. Yes, George W. Bush praised Putin (once), but he wised up. Yes, Obama attempted to “reset” relations (less explicable) but he was forced to backtrack when Putin snatched Crimea, reintroduced Russia’s military directly into Syria, and made proxy war on Ukraine.
Trump is on notice about all of that and much more. It is common knowledge (which is not to say Trump knows it) that Putin’s opponents tend to die by poison and other methods beloved of the KGB; that state controlled Russian media ceaselessly incite America hatred, that Russian internet trolls seek to destabilize democratic governments in Europe and quite likely here; that Putin sides with Iran, Syria’s Assad (a genocidal dictator), and Hezbollah, and that Putin, having strangled civil society and freedom in Russia, seeks to recapture the lost glory of the Soviet empire. Yet Trump bats his eyes at Putin like a schoolgirl with a crush.
Part of Trump’s appeal is chauvinism — a strutting sort of nationalist appeal (unsupported by anything approaching policy ideas). It’s more than odd then that his followers are unshaken by his willingness to be Putin’s poodle.
Published in Foreign Policy
ROTFLMAO, very droll.
What happens at a state level is the party Nomenklatura select someone (q.v. Alan Keyes in Illinois in 2006)
Frankly, get over yourself. I will not be in “anguish” over the supposed Hobson’s choice between Clinton and Trump for one big elephant-in-the-room reason: 300-350 million guns in the hands of 80-100 million gun owners (at least those are the latest figures).
That figure I quoted is one massive check and balance against anything Clinton or Trump may do.
The same statistics are true regardless of outcome, so I take it you are cool with President Clinton Redux.
If anguish over the outcome of the election is of no concern, then why is anyone to be bothered if Trump wins or loses?
There’s little point in talking to Brian about this. He just snaps at anyone who disagrees with him about this subject.
Excellent point!
His ability to do that will be limited simply because he will have to go through the primary process again if he wants to be re-elected. Conservative leverage over Trump is not totally absent.
Normally, I would say this is absolutely true, presuming that pursuing the White House just isn’t a big ego trip and once he’s in he doesn’t care if he even runs for a second term.
But I would point out that conservatives voted against him this time around and he still got the nomination. He doesn’t think conservatives are a problem. He will have a core group of supporters who have already shown that they will swallow whatever he dishes out as long as they get to watch political opponents (Democrats and “establishment” Republicans) on the receiving end of his bile.
If he doesn’t build a fence along the southern border paid for by Mexico, it will not be because he can’t get it done but because X, Y, or Z didn’t support him or opposed him. Think of the way Obama’s supporters rationalize every set back he experiences and that is what I expect to see from core Trump supporters. So if he does look to 2020, he will probably think he can re-run the same strategy as this year (and, trust me, the Democrat nominee will basically stand for everything Hillary stands for now and that alternative will be THE END OF THE WORLD!) with the same supporters.
Now about that one that “loves” the country your family has served…
“I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there — it’s scary, like Vietnam,” he told Stern 19 years ago. “Sort of like the Vietnam era.”
Stern then called these trysts Trump’s “own, personal Vietnam.”
“It is my personal Vietnam,” the businessman-turned-politician agreed. “I feel like a great and very brave solider.”
Trump later admitted that unprotected sex was better than Vietnam.
http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-the-view-stds-vietnam-howard-stern-abc-candace-cameron-bure-whoopi-goldberg/
When you look at how far down Trump had to stoop to fill out his convention roster I wouldn’t be so sure that enough capable patriots would be willing to “surround him” to fill out his administration.
It is interesting to read the comments. But, the result is always the same: we are between a rock and a hard place. Neither Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton would be my first, or twentieth, or maybe even fiftieth choice to be president.
As I have said previously have said, however, the choice for me is between Mr. Trump, a potential Mussolini, and Mrs. Clinton, a card-carrying certified Leninist. And, I regard the Leninist as far more dangerous than the potential Mussolini.
So, when commentators dwell upon Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and warts, I adopt the wonderful old device of common law pleading: the demurrer.
And, what is the function of the demurrer addressed to the complaint or to the plea? The demurrer says: “SO WHAT”.
The people who voted for him aren’t as conservative as we are. Many of them feel conservative rather than think conservative. But they aren’t liberals either. If Trump goes hard left, they will abandon him.
Let’s revisit this on November 9th. Keeping a President Trump in line is going to be a big challenge for everyone.
For many reasons, Trump will have less room to maneuver than any recent nominee, certainly less than McCain or Romney.
Like it or not, Trump is our nominee and we are his party. Do you think he chose Pence because he is omnipotent?
Trump may not be a genuine conservative, but by the end of the most vicious, personal campaign by the concentrated shock troops of liberalism he would enter the Oval Office as the fiercest anti-liberal since Nixon. Trump will also be the most hated Republican in memory should he upset Hillary.
Very hard to see a Trump victory without GOP control of the House and Senate.
Is anyone seriously forecasting that Trump, after all his “friends” in the media have aligned with Hillary and savaged him for months, is then going to nominate a liberal to SCOTUS, collude with Schumer on an amnesty bill, sign comprehensive restrictions of firearms, impose massive new regulations on oil exploration and hydraulic fracturing?
This is just a diverting nightmare so some conservatives can continue to wear their purity ring.
If Trump were to betray his pledges for corporate and individual tax reductions, immigration and refugee hardlines and education reform, and then sign on to Democratic gun grabbing legislation, his erratic behavior (and semi-monthly exposure) would lead him into dire trouble faster than you can say “Jeremy Corbyn.”
Who would save him from impeachment? The Democrats, who would then own him going into the 2018 midterms.
The scenario is silly.
Use your hand to cast a tough vote, fraught with troublesome aspects.
Or just use it to pat yourself on the back.
I see dead Americans that show Hillary does not. Easy choice if leaving people to die matters to you.
It’s a satisfying thing to say, but the cumulative effect of DT’s utterances have the unfortunate effect of undercutting what the Right has stood for, while validating the Left’s opinion of everyone who doesn’t snort the Kool-Aid crystals of statism and moan Ohhhh, Yeahhh. This happened today, as he was endorsing raising the minimum Federal Wage:
For. Crom’s. Sake.
One way to soften up the #NeverTrumpers who may, in the privacy of the voting booth, grumble and think she’s worse, they’re worse, I can live with this and pull the lever for Trump is to STOP SOUNDING LIKE AN MSNBC HOST when you absolutely don’t have to. It is sufficient to say “The national movement for $15 would have severe consequences on the people it’s intended to help, but we can’t ignore the working families who find it hard to pay for housing and food on the current wage.”
It would be wrong, but it would be politic, and it would help shape the debate in ways that preserve some vestige of conservative ideas. To say “you need to help people, and that’s not a Republican thing to say” is unutterably stupid. It’s a line from a Hillary speech. It smears us all.
He doesn’t have to poke us in the eye with a pointed stick, but it seems to come naturally.
So the Democrat in 2020 will be a progressive liberal, that makes sense. But assuming we are coming to the end of a first Trump term and the world has not ended, we are not in 5 nuclear wars and we still have trade with other countries, I wonder what the #nevertrump arguments will be in 2020.
Mr Lileks, I view not being a hardass on minimum wage somewhat more tolerable than the rest of the party not closing the borders, spending us into oblivion, giving subsidies on everything for donors from sugar to ethanol and so forth. At least this one might stop some folks from never voting for a GOP candidate. We seem to have selective pander radar. At least this pandering is tied to votes instead of personal graft and losing elections.
Same one they make now- “He is not our kind of people, my dear…”, just carefully rephrased.
Actually, Trump is “my kind of people”, which is precisely why I don’t like him.
I attended a boarding school full of mini-Trumps: kids with rich parents hailing from NYC, Westchester, or Fairfield County, who then went on to an Ivy League school before becoming rich in some cronyist business by leeching off their parents’ connections and/or money. And every one of those kids was a phony.
Funny how my first two choices this year were the two candidates who were the least like me: Walker and Perry. But of course my objection to Trump is based on my snobbish class identification. Now where did I misplace my pearls?
I’m curious…why do you assume you will be in anguish? What if the elected one does a marvelous job? What if Supreme Court openings are filled with good, solid jurists. What if a major terror attack is dealt with swiftly and honorably and America unites against a common and ruthless enemy? What if trade partners are challenged over currency manipulation, etc. and they become better partners or are dumped, to the advantage of Americans. What if our new President actually does a good job and our economy moves up and to the right? The choices we have seem so different to me I can’t imagine that one of them wouldn’t please you in some way if they actually performed well.
My takeaway on this is DocJay for Surgeon General.
Mendel had a rational discussion with me, refuting my opinions. He was logical, on point, and concise. It was classic Ricochet. Whatever you’re doing doesn’t make sense. He’s said and done bad things right? Shut up, no way, gag me with a chainsaw I did not know!
I don’t think this is true. For many, their support is like being in a fan club. Nothing he says or does will sway his supporters. They see in him what they want to see, no matter what he says.
Hillary Clinton could be a repeat of her husband, an cesspool of corruption with a centrist bent willing to work with a Republican Congress to achieve a successful, center-right agenda. Her Secretary of State could also be the Easter Bunny. Why do we know this? Precisely because she has a track record of paranoia, corruption, incompetence, paranoia, radicalism, scorched-earth partisanship, paranoia, scorched-earth personal relationships, paranoia, etc.
Donald Trump could be a sensible, conservative executive, working with a Republican Congress to shrink the size of government, leading a collaborative team of top-shelf advisors in a strong cabinet, being a shrewd diplomat, and unifying the country. His Secretary of Defense could also be the Tooth Fairy. Why do we think so? Because he also has a record of shady business practices, exploiting foreign labor, stiffing his vendors, cheating on his wives, rambling utter nonsense, longtime donor to Democrats and Democrat causes, simply saying whatever he needs to say at the moment, treating people like garbage, insulting and demeaning anyone who confronts him, being unserious about any matter of policy, being too undisciplined to even stick with the script of his own acceptance speech, being absolutely nowhere when the GOP struggled over these last years to contain Obama’s agenda, jumping down rabbit holes of nonsense conspiracies and National Enquirer headlines, never saying a single complimentary word about any democratically-elected leader and speaking admirably about any authoritarian who bounces across the headlines, not being able to confidently speak well of the US verses any two-bit thug on the planet, not being willing to support democratic countries against Russian incursions.
Because I say I’m NeverTrump, some comments are that I don’t understand the Clintons. I lived in DC during the middle 1990s and I know them all too well.
I also served under a captain unmoored from any restraint, arbitrarily spouting demands, screaming and belittling people before the crew, change his mind and lie about, give a stupid order and brow beat officers to get them to say they misinterpreted his command, never miss an opportunity to get in a personal insult, etc. I look at Trump and I see him.
This isn’t about purity. It isn’t about having too high a regard for myself. I’m not intellectually blind. I’m not for open borders and I don’t support ethanol subsidies (although Trump does). I don’t sneer or look down my nose at any Trump supporter. I don’t think Trump supporters are racist.
I am not going to sit down, shut up, and eat my spinach. I look at this guy, and I know from experience that everything you detest in Obama you well get with Trump in extra doses. That is why I have anguish about the next four years.
At some point early in his Administration, someone asked Obama about how many people were expressing disappointment with their expectations of him. His response was something to the effect that he was a screen on which many voters projected expectations on him. True, except that he actively courted those expectations.
I fear the right is doing the same with Trump and seeing things that just aren’t there.
Hillary Clinton is among the last people deserving to elected President of the United States (Who’s worse!? Charles Manson …), and if all I needed was someone who wasn’t Hillary to vote for, I had a heck of a lot better and more viable alternatives than Donald Trump.
You can say that I’m grumbling over the decisions in the past that can’t be undone, so move on. But that choice carried with it more than a name on the ballot to put an X next to. We have a candidate here with a blank slate as to governance and a terrible reputation as a human being.
Let me suggest that rather than brow beat, insult, and dismiss those who criticize Trump that his supporters start holding his feet to the fire now (right now) because you’re going to need to exercise leverage over him to get him to do what you want. Otherwise he will treat you with contempt and do what he wants.
Assuming? Let’s wait and see how good your assumptions are.
I’d say he’s not my kind of person, but it has nothing to do with money or class. It’s his aggressive bullying, his inflated ego, his lack of curiosity about or interest in anything outside his own head and wallet, and his shocking lack of respect for the basic dignity of other humans that separates him from not only me, but most of the pack. I’ve rarely known or even seen anyone, regardless of ideology, race, social class, or wealth status who makes a habit of treating others so poorly. Do we really want one of the very worst people in America to be President?
Funny, they seem so similar to me, not so different.
The on the question of who is fit or unfit to be president, there are no authoritative standards to turn to. The fact is that this is not only a matter of opinion but it is also one whose standards are changing with the culture.
A divorced man would have had a hard time being nominated for president in the past. At one time it might have disqualified him. Conservative women don’t vote for them and frown on their husbands for doing so. In general divorce is anti-women, because women usually lose big time in divorce unless the man and/or woman is rich or has the education and skills to be a single mom. I suspect Ricochetti are in one or both of these categories. We’re elites who don’t resemble the rest of the nation in this respect. Also, according to Charles Murray, elites don’t get divorced as often as the people in Fishtown do.
Abortion is viewed as anti-women by many conservatives because they know it’s about men wanting to escape responsibility at least as often as it’s about women making choices about healthcare.
Trump is one of many capable rich men who has been divorced but who would have been excluded from presidency because of divorce. There are a lot of capable people who have been excluded from holding the presidency because of their marital histories. There’s no way to square this circle.
It is possible that this was written tongue in cheek, but I am going to take it at face value as it is representative of the claims that i have heard from people against Trump.
Trump was never my candidate. These “the end of the world”, no more trade and nuclear war claims against a Trump Presidency have had some effect on my thinking, but not what the writers are probably hoping for. These hyperbolic claims are actually making me more supportive of Trump.
There are legitimate concerns and arguments against trump, the end of the world or the initiation of 5 nuclear wars are not in this category. I take less seriously all the claims of the #nevertrump people (even the legitimate ones) because of this stuff