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.
At What Point Does Voting for Trump Become Virtue-Signaling?
With the exception of his convention bounce, Trump has been behind Clinton from day one. His paths to victory are extremely narrow and the predictions markets have consistently favored a Clinton win. On a state-by-state basis, Trump’s chances look no better. It’s a little too early to say that he’s going to lose, but its likelihood is both high and rising.
So, barring some major change (which, again, I concede is still just possible) we’re rapidly approaching the date where we can say it’s over and Clinton’s won. And if we reach that point, a vote for Trump will simply be a matter of virtue-signaling — whether to yourself or others — one’s justified loathing for Hillary Clinton and will have precisely the same impact as voting for Gary Johnson or even Evan McMullin.
Now, one might say that it doesn’t matter and that we should still hold out hope even when the odds are gone … but that’s been one of the main complaints against NeverTrumpers for months.
If we’re going to go down fighting, I’d rather do it under a banner I can be proud of.
Published in General
There are Democrats that I like, certainly, but Leftists are all naive or misguided or malicious, sometimes a trifecta. Leftism grows from either ignorance or malevolence. Don’t you think that ascribing it to ignorance is the more benevolent of the evaluations? Benefit of the doubt and all that.
And any party that would nominate ’08 McCain clearly isn’t interested in many of the things that Trump stands for; while both adopt a lot of leftist views, the crossover between these views is surprisingly limited. Yet, those same primary voters supported both candidates. Trump represents different things to different people. Sasse got nominated by Republicans, and Ryan repeatedly so in landslides. Maine has endlessly renominated the Maine Ladies and also nominated LePage. Believing that parties who nominate candidate X agree with X on issue Y or desire personally trait Z is generally not a helpful path to understanding, although those parties will generally have substantial demographics who do support those things.
I agree that it’s kinder to think of people as ignorant than evil, but I find that most political questions that give rise to serious controversy have a sufficient degree of noise that it would be possible for a pretty informed person to come down on either side without malice.
Edit: In particular, I find it convincing that I’ve known specialists who found Democratic policies in their field to be appealing, and yet who appeared to be decent, patriotic, Americans and to be pretty deeply informed about their subject.
Not trying to gotcha, but what area(s) can you think of offhand?
Jonathan Gruber?
Off the top of my head, I’ve known labor economists who thought that the displacement of labor to minimum wages was marginal and outweighed by the benefits to those who see their incomes increased by the changes, environmentalists who thought that California’s environmental policies made a meaningful difference to a serious threat at an acceptable cost, and gun control advocates who believed that there was more fatal violence in America thanks to the easy availability of guns. In each case, I find different studies with different data more convincing or (particularly in a carbon context), have a different view about how effective we will be at dealing with this stuff in the future if it turns out to be particularly problematic.
I’m not familiar with a trump card in any of those contexts, though, that made the alternative position untenable by reasonable people of good will. That there are a lot of stupid jerks also holding those views doesn’t make people who aren’t otherwise such part of that group.
Gruber’s always seemed like a jerk to me, but it has not seemed to me that the correlation between the categories of “jerk” and “Democrat” has ever been 100%, with slippage in both directions.
Perhaps, but the trend seems clear, Republican primary voters at the national level want big-government central-planners.
I concede there may be some state-level Republicans who believe in limited-government, or it could just be that Ryan et al bring home the bacon.
The point is, Trump isn’t going to save the country from big-government central-planners by pursing a policy of big-government central-planning.
If you want big-government central-planning with a Red jersey, by all means, vote Trump. But don’t tell us we have to vote for the big-government central-planner to keep the big-government central-planner out of the White House.
Fixed it for you.
More accurate; sorry it makes less sense.
Sure, for the next four years.
But Trump tears out the brakes, so in the long-run the government will grow much bigger if Trump wins in November, much bigger.
Perhaps, if you say so, but then it will happen with (hopefully) fewer immigrants and more secure borders, and in spite of a Republican Congress for the next 2-to-4 years.
I’m willing to roll the dice on that.
By the way @asquared, do you actually think if Hillary is elected that the growth in government will NOT accelerate after she has spent 4 years in office?
Do you believe that “the brakes” will be applied?
Do you think the Republican Party and a message of smaller government will be stronger in appeal to America after Hillary’s incumbency?
Is losing winning?
That would be quite an argument if you do.
I believe nominating Trump means the Republicans don’t want to apply the brakes on the growth of government and the country loses either way.
OK, but Trump is the nominee. According to you government will grow, and that’s because the people have decided that small government is not that important.
Given the fidelity of Republicans over the years to that principle, which can best be described as lip service, the people certainly can be excused for not holding small government in high regard.
What about the question of immigration and all the associated issues, such a sanctuary cities, border enforcement, the depression of wages, the displacement of Americans in their own country, and the growth of multi-nationalism and inter-ethnic tensions?
No difference there? Unimportant?
(Reply when you can. I’ll read it in the morning.)
There can be merit in an opinion that still doesn’t win you over, yes. For example, regarding guns, gun-control and suicide-prevention advocates are not wrong when they say access to guns makes effective suicide easier. In fact, most deaths in America achieved through gunshot are suicides. And I think this is A-OK.
First, if people really do want to kill themselves, I am highly in favor of them choosing a method likely to work, rather than a method quite likely to leave them alive but at risk for serious complications, which risks leaving them even more miserable after the failed attempt than when they started. Moreover, I consider it the responsibility of individuals and families to make arrangements to keep the suicidal away from guns. I have heard some conservatives, staunch defenders of the 2nd A, nonetheless openly admit that owning a gun is not for them, sometimes because of mental-health issues. I know other conservatives who aren’t open about why they don’t own a gun, but privately avoid gun ownership for the same reason.
Besides, it’s kind of comforting to know that Americans are by and large decent-enough people, that, when they decide to kill someone with their guns, they’re usually killing themselves, not someone else.
So, I would agree with researchers who argue that taking away folks’ guns would result in fewer suicides, I just disagree with their claim that more suicides are an unacceptable price to pay for 2nd A rights.
That doesn’t seem like a somewhat broad brush? McCain and Bush both believe in entitlement reform and either McCain or Bush campaigned on spending cuts in every election from 2000 to 2012 (McCain in the 2000 primary), while Romney campaigned on them in 2012 and Dole in 1996. Before that, the previous elections also featured prominent national messages about cutting spending and increasing human freedom.
Ryan doesn’t particularly bring home bacon. Indeed, Wisconsin in general gets well below the average in terms of federal funding/ capita.
Of course not. He might do so by not nominating big government central planners to the Court, but evaluations the chances of that happening is pretty subjective and there are many other considerations at play.
Is it your understanding that this is what I was arguing? If so, I apologise; it is my position that reasonable people can differ about whether the correct vote this cycle is Trump, Clinton, Stein, McMullin, a write-in, or a spoiled ballot. Down ticket I become more prescriptive, but it sounds as if you’re comfortable with support for guys like Portman, Toomey, Heck, and such.
Midge puts my position well. I’d make the concession arguably more extensively; TNSTAAFL. This means that the positions that become points of contention at a serious level tend to involve trade offs. There are, for instance, specific people who are more or less inarguably benefitted by minimum wage hikes; those workers who have their wages increased and who keep their jobs. I feel that the job losses are a greater harm than the gains in income and that distorting the market leads to a raft of regrettable outcomes, but I believe that you can hold to the same factual claims as I do about the immediate impacts of the minimum wage and prefer some job losses combined with many wage hikes to the status quo.
One of my proudest moments in the primary campaign this cycle was listening to Rubio talking about the way that abortion involves conflicting rights, with his view being that the right to life was absolutely fundamental and should be protected over the mother’s right to autonomy, but that that didn’t mean that he dismissed the concerns of those who thought that female freedom was important. (Obviously, he was a good deal more eloquent than I am). That doesn’t mean that they’re not wrong, but it does mean that they’re not necessarily awful people (in the Life context, I don’t think that ignorance is generally a persuasive option, since few people are persuaded by facts that are unknown to a reasonably informed middle schooler, so malignancy would be the only option).
@asquared wrote, “There will be no party who believes in a government limited by our written constitution.”
There will be the Libertarian party! Yes, they will be fighting against Democratic and Republican parties protecting the filth of central planning. The forces of liberty need a Hercules to clean out our Aegean Stables.
I agree that Trump’s primary success is a data point in this direction. Do you believe that the renomination of Pat McCrory, who has been pretty good at bringing spending down in North Carolina, is a contrary data point? How about Rand Paul?
Watch the end of this interview to see Johnson saying that he does not believe that he should be limited by our written constitution. Listen to this “town hall” from minute 46 to hear the Libertarian Party calling for massively greater central planning than either of the two major parties.
If you don’t want to listen, here’s the key part, including a recognition that this is not a small l libertarian view.
“I have to say, I think we have a national emergency in the number of male black youths who are unemployed without prospects. They’re four times as likely to be incarcerated if they have intersection with law enforcement. They’re educational opportunities are not there. We have to get them into education and just concentrate the power of the government trying to make sure that there are jobs available for them. It’s a national emergency and when there’s a national emergency the government has to respond. Libertarian or no libertarian.”
It may be that we need a Herculese to clean out the Augean Stables, but if so, Johnson/ Weld is not that figure but the Nemean Lion; anyone fighting seriously for liberty will have to gut them and turn them into a coat before they move on to the task of redirecting the rivers Alpheus and Peneus.
Agree, @James of England, Johnson and Weld are not the best candidates that Libertarians nominated. I preferred Austin Petersen instead. This third party is the Americans last best hope before the USA sinks deeper into the quicksand of Euro-socialism.
Sadly, historically, no people have turned back their governance from tyrannical central planning to republican representation after they tasted the fruits of their neighbors’ produces.
I meant their final positions, not the many, many sub-arguments that lead to a conclusion. I might have been painting with too broad of a brush for your taste by calling them ignorant, but that’s understandable in a comment format, I think. Asking me for an explanation is too, of course.
So under my shorthand ‘ignorance’ you can put ‘bad judgement’, which would include those that have all the facts (anything but technically ignorant) but can’t seem to arrange them logically or give them the appropriate weight (which are two other forms of ignorance). Because of that their conclusions are skewed.
In light of that, I think the following stands;
“…but Leftists are all naive or misguided or malicious, sometimes a trifecta. Leftism grows from either ignorance or malevolence.”
How is a party that promises more government than the two major parties a better hope? Recall that they are currently running not to win this race, which they acknowledge requiring 15%, double their current polling. Rather, their purpose in running is to get the $100m in public money that comes with a 5% share.
Whether or not they make it, they are warriors for, and not against, big government, promising a 39% sales tax, reduced individual rights, and more spending on everything from a new Social Security benefit to more police and more roads.
If they flip flopped and came out for liberty, they would still not represent a hope for small government (it’s not like they could win), but at the moment their poisonous impact for the limited government movement is unadulterated even by the intent to cut. While I would agree that all are flawed, candidates with superior commitments to freedom include McMullin, Clinton, and Trump.
We voted in Harding and then Coolidge after Wilson got in (thanks to third partyism). It can be done. The key step is finding and defending the sort of warriors for liberty who actuality support liberty and who may be able to do something about it. The Senate race in Pennsylvania might be a good place to focus; Harding was able to undo Wilson’s damage because of the strong presence of his party in the senate and we’ll need that in 2021.
I think Leftists are wrong about something (their political opinions), but needn’t be naive, misguided, or malicious people in general. I know some Leftists who are astonishingly wise about other areas of life (and other Leftists who definitely aren’t). I agree that Leftists do not give some facts the appropriate weight because they are Leftists. (Though I’m aware that, from their perspective, I’m the one not giving the facts the appropriate weight.)
Now, here, I am using Leftist to describe people with Leftists political opinions in general, even if they’re not very Leftist, or politics isn’t really such a big part of their lives. Folks who are professional Leftists and nothing else do not get the same benefit of the doubt from me.
I’m not saying that is your argument, but it is the argument of those EverTrumpers who argue that country is doomed unless we elect Trump.
I just can’t get that excited about voting for a guy who thinks he is smart enough to centrally-plan the economy, he most definitely is not smart enough.
I would listen to them more if they acknowledged something like “there is a 90% chance the country is doomed with Trump getting elected and a 95% chance the country is doomed with Clinton getting elected. So there is a 1/20 chance Trump is better than Clinton.”
I think spread is closer than that, probably more like 1/100. Regardless, I can’t stand the “Trump is outer only chance at salvation” argument. He isn’t, at best, he will drive our country off the cliff of national destruction at a point slightly to the right off where it would otherwise go off the edge.
If you want me to vote for Trump (which I’m willing to consider), talk to me about how good Trump will be, not how bad Hillary will be. Convince me the probability of destruction with Trump is much lower than Clinton, and it makes my vote easier.
We’re discussing politics here, aren’t we? When I said ‘Leftism’ I wasn’t referring to, say, handedness. I myself am left-handed and as far as I know it only means I’m a little smarter and more talented than those not so blessed.
I wasn’t referring to handedness either. Our family is blessed with many talented lefties in the handedness department, and even us righties tend toward ambidexterity more than is considered usual, I hear. I am a little surprised that the number of Leftists (in the political sense) you’ve met who aren’t also worthless about the rest of life seems so close to zero.
Do you suppose the experience of meeting profoundly worthy people who are also profoundly wrong about something is based more on luck and exposure, or on the meeter’s attitude?
Given where you live, James might actually advise you to vote Stein!
I don’t want you to vote for Trump (I don’t want you not to vote for Trump, either; I’m just not particularly interested in which of the reasonable choices (McMullin/ Trump/ Clinton/ Stein/ write-in/ spoiled ballot) you take).
I am interested in your not giving up on the Republican Party, the lone party of limited government in America and the reason that America is not like other countries. If you split the country into federal and state competencies, and legislative and executive competencies, I’m interested in encouraging you to support limited government in 3/4 of them. In the remaining 1/4, there are no obvious wrong non-Johnson answers and I’m not going to try to push you one way or another.