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.
To Save Conservatism
If one believes conservatism is the only cure for what ails the nation, then 2016 is a bleak year. We have before us a choice of a dedicated leftist whose entire public life has been dedicated to the destruction of our republic (and replacing it with yet another European-styel socialist welfare state), or a guy who can be charitably described as “not a conservative.” Because Hillary Clinton is such a well known statist and a threat to our way of life, it would seem obvious that the only viable option for conservatives would be to oppose her with everything they have. Under any normal set of circumstances that would be exactly the right course of action. Indeed, many have claimed that it’s so obviously correct that there can be no other argument. Ben Shapiro, however, takes a different view:
That brings us to the real reason to oppose Trump’s candidacy: the attempt to turn the conservative movement into a nationalist populist one, complete with shilling for Trump’s incomprehensible decisions and statements. If you believe that the only solution to America’s problems is true conservatism, your greatest fear is not a Hillary presidency: It’s the perversion of the conservative movement itself, the corruption of conservatism in favor of power. Hillary Clinton’s presidency does not snuff out conservatism, even though it provides a serious danger to the republic. Trump’s presidency does.
I share this view. Conservatism is the solution to our problems. Not voting for Trump increases the likelihood of for four more years of an anti-conservative president who will do everything she can to obstruct conservative ideas and policies. However, a vote for Trump is a vote against conservatism itself. If conservatism has outlived its usefulness and must pass then so be it, but I cannot take an active part in bludgeoning it to death while it still draws breath. Hillary is just another external threat against which we have established defenses. Trump represents an internal rot eating away the very foundation of what America is and what we fight to conserve.
Published in General
Isn’t one of the main arguments for Trump that Republicans (ostensibly the conservative party) are feckless crap weasels with spines the consistency of a jello mold 3 hours into the summer picnic? If that’s the case, then why would we place our hopes in those same elected officials standing up against their own party?
Agreed. So in the case of Rep. Huelskamp who was just defeated in KS by a more ‘reasonable, pragmatic, agricultural subsidy supporting’ candidate – which brand of ‘conservatism’ is the most dangerous? Trumps? Huelskamp/Cruz? Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnels?
Buddy, I hate to say this, but you are WAY off here. Trump can no more destroy conservatism than he can defy gravity. As a way of looking at human interaction and governance, conservatism has been losing ground since our founding. That does not dilute its power as an antidote to all manifestations of left wing politics, but conservatism has never been able to counter the idea that with just the right programs and leadership, government can deliver us all from pain and want. Conservatism is realistic about government’s ability to deliver on its promises. Citing history and hard evidence, conservatives point out the failures of government again and again, horrific, massive failures, and yet statists continue to make promises and govern. Conservatives are chided as niggardly pessimists, naysayers, mere speed bumps in the way of progress, progress, progress.
I hate to say it, however, only statists can stop statism. Public debt being may be merely an accounting convention, and unfunded future promises a looming, but future bill, however, as Lady Thatcher once said (absent massive inflationary currency expansion) eventually you run out of other people’s money. You can be rich with immense natural resources (Venezuela, Brazil) and still grind the statist ship of state hard aground on a reef made of squandered taxes and un-kept promises.
Conservative policy might save us from a crash or a slow march to serfdom, though we may be too far gone. Conservatism will never be irrelevant, but in the face of irrational optimism, of wishful thinking, it is a very hard sell. I’m afraid we will once again have to endure some significant hardship and failure before people realize that progressive statism is a fool’s game.
Income taxes lower-Conservative win
State abortion rights mostly moving right- Conservative win
Education become more Federalized- Liberal Win
More gays and transgender nonsense-Liberal win
Union membership cratering and more RTW states–Conservative win
Medicaid expanded-Slight liberal win.
Medicare drug benefit but large privatization move and other cuts-Slight conservative win
Social Security not much change but 401ks have take off-Conservative win
Overall not so bad imo. Thats without mentioning the strong military/tough on crime mentality thats generally defeated liberal weak military/let criminals out mentality. Oh, and major welfare reform and most gun rights in world.
You’ve zeroed in on the primary point of contention. Some of us see Hillary in that role. But our choice isn’t really one of choosing between two individuals. We should be considering which presidential administration poses the greatest threat to Conservatism.
Perhaps a better way to state it is that conservatism will be drummed out of the Republican party and will have no national vehicle.
Trump is an ideological unknown and has an outrageous ego. He’ll put in an administration that will stroke that ego hard enough to cast off sparks. That scares me a lot.
I’m of two minds on this. There are myriad GOP officials at local, state and federal levels who have run as “Conervative”. I think Ted Cruz is correct that those in the cartel ‘always runs as us’ (Conservative).
I’ll be curious to see in the next several electoral cycles if office seekers drop that moniker.
That’s certainly not my argument. I think more highly of Conservatives. And I don’t view my support for the Republican candidate as validating in any way the “feckless crap weasels with spines the consistency of a jello mold 3 hours into the summer picnic” theory.
First, the claim that abstention empowers Clinton assumes that one’s vote does count, obviously. So Shapiro’s statement that it is thought policing is just more of the hyperbolic nonsense that has undermined NeverTrump arguments since the beginning of the primaries.
Second, nothing prevents a person from voting for the lesser evil and publicly condemning that evil idiot with every utterance. Trump will tarnish the GOP even if most Republicans condemn and refuse to support his foolish actions, which they are fully capable of doing. But if the party and conservatism were not synonymous before Trump’s rise, how would the GOP leader (supported or not by his fellow party members) redirect conservative philosophies and priorities now? If Trump has not corrupted National Review’s authors so far, why should we expect him to have more influence tomorrow?
The GOP as a whole has not been devoted to limited and local government, nor to any other conservative or Constitutional goal. But it has been the only political vehicle — effective or not — of conservatives. Trump has already damaged that vehicle. But conservatives are as free today to speak against him and express their values as they were yesterday. And no Republican politician is beholden to him except by choice.
Me too. But the same goes for his opponent, in spades. What’s worse she already has most of the infrastructure in place (Thanks Obama).
Well if I am reading Ben correctly then I choose saving the Republic over saving Conservatism. Trump is a baffoon but Hillary is an existential threat to this very republic. So if that means that the movement started by Goldwater dies in order to save it then so be it. Hillary must be stopped no matter the cost.
To a large degree this “nationalist, non-interventionalist, anti-amnesty, isolationist, third rail (SSI-Medicare)” movement happened years ago with the Tea Party movement. Tea Partiers were never doctrinaire conservatives. Trump is one of them and in many legislative districts, they hold sway. Conservatives are not isolationist and they understand the need to reform entitlements and fix our immigration problem. Tea Party positions are intransigent on all these fundamental issues. Therein lies the rift, predating Trump. Trump is with the Tea Partiers.
Some believe it to be. There are others though…
How is concealed carry a victory? Why do I need someone to tell me when/how I can exercise my God given, Cinstitutionally memorialized right?
That we admit Roe v Wade is anything but a tyrannical intrusion on the 10th Amemdment is a mystery? Nibbling at the edge of defeat does not equal victory.
The problem isn’t tax rates. The problem is the existence of the income tax. A huge progressive victory.
That these are considered victories demonstrates the least conservative of all is center right.
We can’t afford any more ‘victories’.
Ah, the all or nothing strategy. That does not build a winning coalition.
There is nothing to save. The conservative movement is the most incompetent and useless movement ever. What has it done so far to stop big government? The culture is leftist, the schools are a joke, the media is leftist, and Americans are becoming even more liberal. The country keeps drifting left.
This beating on Trump to save the conservative movement is getting tiring.
Which ones are those?
I will say that Reagan bending tax rates from70% to 40% is a pretty big win.
We’ve had one conservative in my lifetime. Do people really think we’ll have another real chance to vote for a conservative after 8 years of Hillary? Obama should have been an easy victory after 4. So all those 100% turn outs with 100% support in key urban districts were just strong minority support with no errors? The 100% media support for Democrats is just their good luck? Same with foundations, government unions, academia? It’s more disease than conspiracy. With a couple of Hillary appointments the Supreme Court is dead. The worst to happen is European type welfare states? Nonsense. Those countries are much smaller and highly homogeneous. They can agree on centralized control because they’re closer to a government run by people like themselves who share their views and they can change it. That can’t happen here. We will be decentralized and free, totalitarian or we disintegrate. We are prosperous, well fed, enjoy lots of stuff, we won’t rebel. We’ll complain and pretend it’s still democratic and we’ll send checks then complain when either our guy wasn’t really a conservative or he loses. Those who might rebel are employed and have kids. Our totalitarianism won’t have gulags, just a little reeducation and therapy for those of us who need it. We’ll stagnate, but we’re so rich that won’t be painful. This is what fascism would have looked like if it hadn’t been run by madmen.
I have heard this argument. But if Trump is not conservative, how will his presidency destroy conservatism? Surely, the conservatives will oppose any moves they dislike? So what else is new? But I do not mean to trivialize your argument, only understand it better. HOW does the Trump regime destroy conservatism? Do you mean that whatever he puts in place will prevent conservative solutions later on? The result you describe is terrifying.
Stopping Hitler and Stalin in the name of capitalist, liberal democracy (not leftism) seems like a victory. (Not that conservatives did it alone, but it was a conservative thing to do.) Of course, nothing is permanent and the bastards are back. If you mean one victory by that minority of Americans who call themselves conservatives, well no.
This is exactly correct.
And that is coming, I fear. Why should we be exempt from reality?
And the Republicans will get the blame because the thought workers are all Democrats, just about, no?
I think the logic is that by running as a Republican Trump will be associated with Conservatism and that will ruin the movement in the eyes of the voter because he will ruin the brand.
Time to get over this anti Trump self absorption . I was warning folks here about Trump when he was dismissed as a joke. Of course he’s not a conservative. The RNC, Jeb Bush, big donors and Fox news gave us Trump. Now he is the only thing standing between us and Hillary. I wish it were otherwise, but these are our choices. The never Trumps and the Republican establishment are contributing to the media frenzy that Trump is some kind of mad man. Well he seems to have personality problems, but he isn’t Hillary and he isn’t a Democrat. The madness, the collective insanity is to ignore what we learned about the far left in the twentieth century. Hillary is an existential threat to the Republic. Trump is not.
Some of the loss will be because the conservative pundits tried to make him lose
Mostly because conservatism has always been a minority voice (though a strong one) in the Republican party. It’s kept the party from running full tilt leftward in the cause of winning elections no matter the cost. The establishment played along because we had somewhat of an outsized effect within the party because we’re active and work. Now with Trump a new strong minority voice has been heard, and the establishment for the most part has gone along with it. It’s not exactly a leftward lurch, but it’s certainly a very different direction than conservatism has always tried to steer the party. I don’t see conservatism taking root again within the party and therefore having no vehicle going forward should Trump win and make this the new Republican party.
I have already said them, so let me repeat. However, it is hard to accept good faith from you, when you say thing like “I suggest you reivew” and then don’t apologize for it. I don’t really trust you are asking a question in good faith.
The GOP could revamp the whole budget process in the House, to kill the Omnibus and do a department by department, or program by program budget. Take all year as needed. The Senate and POTUS would have to agree. There is no fillibuster for financial bills, and if the house sticks to its guns it would work.
Second, the House changes the number of members. It passes a rule stating on the next election, there will be more members based on the ratio at the time of the revolution. Republicans control most of the State Houses, so the gerrymandering would let the GOP increase control of the House. If anyone else balks, the House says “We control the rules for our own branch, and no one else does”
It’s not anti Trump self absorption. It’s pro-American, pro-conservative, pro-constitutional absorption.
Is Hillary worse than the destruction of conservatism or having it relegated to minor 4th or 5th party status?
If Trump means the end of conservatism which is the only thing holding back destruction even now then he is also an existential threat to the Republic, only with a giant red R stamped on the front.