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.
The Tragedy of 2016
Hillary Clinton’s speech about Donald Trump and the alt-right is excoriating. She didn’t need to lie, spin, or exaggerate. All she needed to do was describe Trump and the company he keeps. She did so competently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP6Q-OEXm4k
The odds seem to me overwhelmingly high that she’ll be elected. She may well be working with a Democratic Congress. GOP primary voters handed her the only candidate in the firmament whom she could handily trounce.
Midway through, she says, “The last thing we need in the situation room is a loose cannon who cannot tell the difference — or doesn’t care to — between fact and fiction. And who buys so easily into racially tinged rumors.” Any other candidate would have been able to keep the focus on Clinton’s own inability to distinguish between fact and fiction. But Clinton’s species of dishonesty pales in comparison. Hers is the typical self-serving dishonesty of all politicians, magnified. Trump’s is that of a man living in a malign fantasy world. He seems to believe his own lies. They’re dangerous lies to believe.
And what a tragedy. The Republican Party will not easily recover from this. GOP primary voters have in effect left us with a one-party state. The party with which we’re left is full of rotten ideas, but this election won’t be about that. It will — properly — be about keeping a loose cannon who can’t tell between fact and fiction out of the White House.
I’ve read the Democratic Platform through. The word “investment” is used 74 times. In almost all cases, it’s a euphemism for “increased federal spending.”
We need an economy that prioritizes long-term investment over short-term profit-seeking.
The Democratic Party believes that supporting workers through higher wages, workplace protections, policies to balance work and family, and other investments will help rebuild the middle class for the 21st century.
We will increase investments to make quality childcare more affordable.
And we will fight for robust funding to end homelessness in our cities and counties once and for all, through targeted investments to provide the necessary outreach, social services, and housing options for all populations experiencing homelessness.
If we are serious about reversing the decline of the middle class, we need major federal investments to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put millions of Americans back to work in decent paying jobs in both the public and private sectors.
And we will protect public health and safety by modernizing drinking and wastewater systems. These investments will create secure, good-paying middle-class jobs today and will substantially increase demand for American-made steel and other products manufactured in the United States.
Democrats will make investments to spur the creation of millions of jobs for our young people.
Democrats will spur investment to power the rural economy.
And we will make investments in affordable housing near good jobs and good schools.
We will continue to work on a government-to-government basis to address chronic underfunding, and provide meaningful resources and financial investments that will empower American Indian tribes through increased economic development and infrastructure improvements on tribal lands.
We believe that by making those at the top and the largest corporations pay their fair share we can pay for ambitious progressive investments that create good-paying jobs and offer security to working families without adding to the debt.
Bold new investments by the federal government, coupled with states reinvesting in higher education and colleges holding the line on costs, will ensure that Americans of all backgrounds will be prepared for the jobs and economy of the future.
There is almost no discussion of the conditions that lead to private investment. There is not a single use of the phrase “national debt.” The word “debt” is used 21 times; of these, 13 involve promises to make college debt-free. In one case, it explains: “We believe that by making those at the top and the largest corporations pay their fair share we can pay for ambitious progressive investments that create good-paying jobs and offer security to working families without adding to the debt.” No hard numbers are on offer. There is the usual promise to make the shortfall appear by “[tackling] waste, fraud, and abuse.”
Suggesting that the Democrats haven’t learned a thing from experience, there’s this promise: “We must make sure that everyone has a fair shot at homeownership. We will keep the housing market robust and inclusive by supporting more first-time homebuyers and putting more Americans into the financial position to become sustainable homeowners.”
This election should have been about these ideas. Instead, it’s about keeping an outright lunatic away from the nuclear codes. “A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military,” she said. And she’s right.
Had the GOP leadership been braver, Paul Ryan would have given the speech Hillary Clinton gave. He could have defined conservatism in opposition to Trump. But he didn’t. The failure of the GOP leadership to repudiate Trump ensures that the GOP will be tainted by him, and in all likelihood unelectable, for years to come. The GOP was given a choice between Clinton and dishonor. They chose dishonor, and now we will have Clinton.
Published in General
Donald Trump is not “our” nominee. Ricochet is an ideological site, not a partisan one.
The fact that doing so might help Clinton does not compel us to ignore Trump’s failings. To do so is to betray principle for partisanship, something most of us found honorable until about two months ago.
A candidate for a job opening that I posted about 10 years ago filed an EEOC complaint when I hired another applicant. He was Black. I hired a Filipino who was more talented and had a superior background. According to Claire’s logic, I suppose it would be fair for Hillary to call me a racist along the same lines as her accusations against Trump. By the way, the EEOC did not find any evidence of racism in my case.
I would also alert Claire to a post from Dr. Paul Rahe based on his experience living in Palo Alto, CA. He made the point that the school district asked for many different forms of proof of address before admitting a student to the local Palo Alto public school. Clearly they don’t want “undesirables” enrolling in their schools. Lets add everyone in Palo Alto to Hillary and Claire’s list of racists alongside Trump and myself too. I could go on but I won’t. Clearly I take issue with Claire’s loose definition of racism and how she readily agrees with Hillary Clinton in characterizing Trump.
I don’t think Trump is a racist or a bigot. 99% of his supporters are not racists and bigots. But Trump only has himself to blame for not denouncing the racists and bigoted internet Trolls that attack anybody critical of hisself.
Trump is going to lose bigly in an election year the Republican had a good shot of winning. That’s not the fault of the NeverTrumpers, it is the fault of those that let this man become their nominee.
Looking at the speech itself I think Hillary has overplayed her hand here. If you want to persuade people there are some rules you should follow:
She has erred seriously on all 3 points and opened herself up to attacks in kind and to allowing Donald to show himself above and beyond. Her prior whisper campaign of portraying him as a racist was working, but by coming out declaring it openly she has pinned herself to that and now cannot backtrack.
She also failed by telling people what to think instead of just laying out a breadcrumb trail to get voters there on their own initiative. By declaring THE TRUTH, as it were, voters are going to be immediately skeptical that they are being browbeaten.
Just want to add to this. The company my husband works for (small manufacturing company) has been sued multiple times on charges of racism. I think exclusively for firing someone, and the someone claiming it was because he was black.
Their standard defense: I knew he was black when I hired him.
This post and your one above it are pretty insightful.
On another note, I’m worried about civil unrest – there is no like or not like button here – people are very shaken up on both sides and it is going to get dicey – I heard a story where they are bringing in 10 times the amount of “UN” observers during voting than last election…..
On a personal note, there is no comparison to Trump and the corruption of the Clintons – to let them back in the WH again, after 8 years of O is going to be devastating to our country.
Z how does a Presidential candidate screen throughout the entire nation all those who have publicly proclaimed support, but who might just have evil intentions in their hearts? Who is asking Hillary to do this impossible task?
On who will be blamed for the assumed loss, Trump was the reason for a loyalty pledge from the beginning of the primary. He gave it and then went out and won fair and square. So if he loses the General Election, we can all take the blame.
From the O/P:
I find this disturbing enough where I guess I feel compelled to be self-indulgent and make this about me briefly: I am not now nor have I ever been a NeverTrumper. I have, however, been regularly upset about his antics, and, more to the point, his foot dragging in response to campaign gaffes involving the alt.right. I’ve said so here.
That said, any equivalency scale that has the sheer and blatant corruption of HRC “paling” in comparison to Trump needs a very serious reality check. Lying. . . dishonesty. . . likely criminal behavior . . . occurring over a generation–all the while combined with a humiliating personal relationship for the sake of ambition–is essentially excused as “magnified” in comparison to the “dishonesty of all politicians,” but, after all, it’s “typical.”
This argument is rather noteworthy not merely for the fact that it’s misguided, but because it meets the “but look at Hillary” defense of Trump head-on. And fails to do so convincingly. Trump “believes his own lies” (whatever they are). This, we’re supposed to believe, makes Trump worse than someone who may not believe her own volume of lies, but keeps lying anyway.
Except, Claire, that no matter who ran against her, they would become the Greatest Evil Person Ever. When you run against a Democrat, you run against the candidate, the party, the media, Hollywood, Twitter, Facebook and Google. Given that, it should come as a surprise that Republicans get elected at all. (Note, they often do at the lower levels of government, but that’s because those races are small enough that they get ignored by the last five enemies on my list.)
This just might be the most disturbing and absurd comment of the year (not that the comment is absurd–the situation it describes–UN observers (from where? Nigeria? Venezuela?) monitoring US elections–is absurd). Is that really true?
I see that MoveOn has a petition, but I can’t find out much else.
If this is your attitude why bother to run a candidate at all?
Exactly. I was going through the comments with this in mind when I got to this one. It is amazing to me that Claire can make such a definitive statement and then rely almost solely on almost half-century old events, in which Trump is not even the principal, to support her weak premise. Not a way to get my attention.
Based on the evidence from the primaries, I think Ted Cruz was our best chance to win. Even if Trump wins, he will either be ineffective, or not conservative, and probably both, and the Democrats will win in 2020. I really don’t see anything worth salvaging in 2016. I’m looking forward to 2020.
right…. we will nominate an actual repulsive racist, morally repugnant, non-conservative, because whoever we nominate will face those allegations, why not just go ahead and support one. Thats a winning strategy for sure.
not convinced of that, but even if true, it would have given conservatives a ideologically consistent, morally acceptable candidate to vote for.
True enough but think of Boise State beating the Oklahoma Sooners about 10 years ago with a bunch of crazy trick plays. In a single game there may not be enough time to adjust far enough to win. The Sooners did a lot right in that game but Boise beat them to the quick. Sometimes that’s all it is.
That’s actually an interesting question. Does it help the Democrats when they don’t have to lie about their opponent? As it stands right now, Trump will probably be beaten significantly worse then Romney was (the nasty guy who wouldn’t bring Gatorade to his garbage man). So, I would guess that, yes, if we nominate a man that Democrats can trash without having to lie, it helps the Democrats.
To be fair though, there were many of us on this site who NEVER, believed that Hillary had a walk to the Presidency. I know that Peter and Rob said such things in their Pod Cast and I too saw it written in various posts but I always believed that to be people exporting their personal fears onto the circumstances. It was my belief then as now that 3/4’s of the people who sought the Republican nomination would be beating Hillary now or that the race would simply be too close to call. Trump is a terrible candidate, he was the wrong choice, he is not a Conservative, and is the very definition of a Republican in Name Only. I have said it before and the data supports it, Donald Trump is a 1964 Democrat who is in the Republican Party because the Democratic Party is so far left that there is no room left for these types of Democrats. He is conservative ONLY by comparison. I believe he is an excellent example of how the media CAN be beat but he is a lousy standard bearer of the party.
Lets stop it with the safe space stuff. People should be able to handle diverse opinions.
I should think it’s worth noting that Rubio’s campaign team was so inept they couldn’t produce a working microphone for a rally in his hometown, where his campaign headquarters was, on the eve of a must win battle. I keep bringing this up but read Tim Alberta’s post mortem. It does not paint a flattering picture of the campaign. Rubio also lost to Trump and Cruz despite a better media profile, friendlier conservative media pundits, higher spending by his campaign and more time spent in the contested states.
If Marco’s general campaign had been anything like his primary campaign he would have been ruthlessly crushed by the Clinton machine since she is essentially the same candidate as Trump: a scandal-plagued New York insider claiming to fight for the little guy with shady characters supporting their election campaign with a huge advantage in free media.
This assessment equally applies to every other candidate on “the deepest bench in Republican history.” Republicans and conservatives really need to stop using “what if’s” to decide what we need to do in order to win elections.
I do not require a safe space. I enjoy the varied opinions here. But it’s a bridge too far to log on and find on the Main Feed these posts titled “Why I’m Voting For Hillary” and “Wow Look What a Great Speech Hillary Made!” I am saying let’s stop being the DNC’s useful idiots. If I hadn’t just renewed my membership. I’d have let it lapse until after the election. It’s already depressing enough without THIS. Day after day.
Trump was/is a birther who lied about his supposedly privately hired investigator having found conclusive evidence. Trump goes after Ted Cruz’s father in the oswald conspiracy. Trump has made it easy for Hillary.
But he is. He IS our nominee. My comment stands. No more of this on the Main Feed, not during a membership drive. For pete’s sake.
Has a Republican denouncing racism or racist supporters ever worked? For crying out loud Romney was accused of wanting to put blacks “back in chains”.
There will always be somebody there somewhere the Republican needs to denounce, and if he does exactly what he’s told and denounces on cue, the narrative will just switch to “he only said that because he has to”.
We haven’t had a racially charged national ad since Willie Horton, so now we’re”dog whistling” whenever we talk about tax cuts.
In the meantime, as we nobly denounce our controversial supporters, Democrats are never required to do likewise.
And the result of our walking on racial eggshells: we’re amazed if ten percent of blacks vote for us as poor whites simultaneously feel we ignore them.
Playing defense has made no inroads into the black community whatsoever, and there’s no reason to believe it would have suddenly worked for Trump.
she is able to do both…. unfortunately
Praising the content of a Hillary Clinton speech crosses the boundary between diversity and perversity.
This assumes that for Democrats lying is harder than telling the truth.