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.
Can Conservative Punditry Rise to the Greater Challenge? Can Trump?
Last week, Ricochet was rocked by a post from member @matt.corbett, “Two Kinds of Principled Punditry.” I would like to highlight a portion of his work that I found particularly cogent and expand on it, not as a rebuttal, but as a point of departure for my own thoughts:
Any professional commentator who laid down the NeverTrump gauntlet and stuck to it has, until November 9th, an alignment of professional interest with Hillary Clinton and diametrically opposed professional interest to the Republican Party’s nominee for President of the United States. This is plain fact. Even if one’s opposition to Trump was purely tactical in the sense of being predicated on the prediction he would lose disastrously, then it is in one’s interest that said disastrous loss actually come to pass now that the die is cast. It is always in the interest of a pundit to be proven right. That’s how one acquires credibility, the coin of the pundit realm. What hurts one’s credibility is denying this reality.
This is what frustrates those of us who are concerned about the consequences of failing to elect the GOP nominee in 2016. An opinion of a pundit, even if sincere, contains a heavy dose of self-interest. Just as an auto maker may sincerely believe that it builds a superior product, the purpose of its advertising is to sell cars. A rational consumer reads ads not to buy a car, but to learn about it. He may find value in those ads, but ads are, at best, a source of useful information. His decision to purchase a given maker’s car will be based on factors beyond the scope of those ads, based, primarily, on internally generated needs or goals.
Likewise, adopting a pundit’s narrowly crafted argument without recognizing that his argument might not cast light on a broader question is shortchanging one’s own intellect. Conservative defending conservatism is a good thing, but we face bigger problems in 2016. The notion that conservatives can sit-out this election for the sake of conservatism is wishful thinking. There is no good reason to believe that the conservative movement will gain the respect of non-ideological Americans by retreating from the Leftist challenge of 2016. Nor is there cause to expect conservatives to emerge from the 2016 rubble with greater influence within the GOP, or that conservatism-in-a-time capsule will serve as anything more than a historical artifact. An Clinton presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for America. A conservativism that remains garrisoned in the face of an all-out attack from the Left will lose credibility.
Whereas pundits often become vested in a position (either pro- or anti-Trump), the rest of us are free to adjust our positions to meet the greater threat: accelerating dominance of Leftism in America. Many Ricochet conservatives — and the majority of Republicans nationwide — have decided to support Trump’s candidacy in the general election only after opposing Trump’s campaign for the GOP nomination. This is entirely consistent with our conservative principles because these are two entirely different questions. We do not think Trump’s inadequacy as a standard-bearer for conservatism provides a rationale for abandoning a GOP Congressional majority in which conservatives have built considerable standing and influence over the past six years. We’d rather see conservatives empowered to govern. We’ve witnessed how a Democrat president setting the national agenda places intense pressure on congressional conservatives to yield to GOP moderates in the service of accommodating the Democrats.
During the primaries, many conservative pundits jumped headlong into a scorched-earth campaign against Trump, performing their duty valiantly and deserving our appreciation. It was a noble cause, but it failed. As a result, they are now boxed in by a “primaries” position that cannot credibly be unwound to face the general election. They have, essentially, taken themselves out of the game. Their NeverTrump “primaries” strategy deprived them of the flexibility needed to champion a full-throated challenge to our ideological opponent in the general election.
That said, I am confident that these pundits recognize that a Clinton presidency is clearly a greater threat to the country (and to conservatism) than a Trump presidency would be. The problem is that Trump’s antics over several months have made it impossible for anyone to speak favorably of him. But Trump’s campaign has clearly evolved over the past few weeks. Trump’s recent manifestation of campaign competence, if it continues, provides pundits an opportunity to credibly cast off their NeverTrump burden and take a fresh look at Conservatives’ principal challenge.
An increasingly competitive Trump campaign is contributing to a tightening of the race. Improving electoral prospects have the potential to undermine NeverTrump in at least two ways. First, it undermines the “my vote (and my punditry) doesn’t matter anyway” argument because in competitive states those votes will matter. Second, as the likelihood of a Trump victory increases, pundits will begin to recalculate their positions based on matt.corbett’s dictum: “It is always in the interest of a pundit to be proven right.”
Pundits are certainly capable of making the argument that a Republican presidency — even if led by a flawed president — is the least bad option for Conservatives. But conditions are not yet ripe. Many NeverTrumpers point out that it is up to Donald Trump to convince them if he wants their votes. This is undoubtedly true. Pundits will be needed to serve an intermediary role, but responsibility for moving the pundits rests on Trump’s shoulders. He will need to do more in order to trigger a cascade of support that can bring a GOP victory. Precisely what Trump must do to free the pundits is unclear to me, though suggestions would be welcome in the comments.
Published in General
Spot on. Pundits who continue to trash Trump are just lobbing artillery shells at their own side to the benefit of Hillary.
I continue to ask, since pundits have a choice of which targets they shoot at, why at least 75% of their copy is not directed at Hillary. Attacking one target does not mean you like all those you chose not to shoot at that day.
Continuing to leave Hillary untouched indicates to me they are supporters of her victory. Supporting Gary Johnson means they are stoned to the gills or just disingenuous.
While #EverTrumpers continue going after Republicans who criticize Trump, Trump has spent his weekend criticizing Republicans:
He gave himself a couple of good weeks by staying on message while at the same time that Hillary was getting battered by e-mail revelations. Is he wandering off again? Will he again afford Hillary relief by shooting himself in the foot?
Really not that hard, it’s where I am (without the influence). The message can be, “Trump is still bad, but Hillary and her gang is worse, so no matter how unqualified Trump may be, it is better to elect him than someone surrounded by competent politicians who mean to do us harm.”.
Going after Flake was just good fun. The clown Flake became a Democrat on the Sunday shows. McCain is so far holding fire on Trump. Flake is off the res.
So he swatted down Flake. I doubt the voters care, other than die hard Flakes.
Meanwhile, he is speaking in a black church in Detroit. If he does that in Pittsburgh and Philly, he may get PA in a squeaker.
I see him focusing on Michigan and PA and Ohio , with NC and Virginia next tier focus.
He has a real tough guy on ground game in Bosse. So far, it’s moving the right way.
Good for him. If more Republicans follow his lead, we will make inroads with African Americans. Conservatives have a lot to offer people, including blacks. School choice, a growing economy, stronger families, and effective self-defense are just a few.
The horse is long dead; you can stop beating it.
The pundits that have decided to not sell their souls are far more beneficial to the public and to conservatives than those that are selling a bill of goods that everyone knows has spoiled. I honestly believe no one, other than people like us, care what George Will, Jonah Goldberg, and various writers at National Review or The Weekly Standard think about Trump.
If anything the election has been clarifying in who is in it for themselves and who really believes in conservative ideals.
The only reason Trump is going after Flake is because Flake has refused to back Trump and has spoken out against him. Trump doesn’t have ideological disputes or disputes about principle. I’d bet a week’s pay (easy for me to say since I’m retired) that he has no clue what Flake’s voting record is or whether he’s been a good, bad, or indifferent Senator for Arizona. He’s only launching at Flake because he hasn’t given him the deference he thinks he’s due. Everyone knows it because that’s his MO. His Twitter wars do little more than make him look small and unpresidential. All he’s doing is driving away voters and giving Hillary more ammunition to use against him. There are so many ways in which Trump could take the high road and appear bigger than his critics. Going to Detroit is a great way. Sending out petty tweets is a really bad one.
And in case I sound flippant, because rico has obviously put a lot of thought into the article, I don’t mean to disparage with my remarks. I just wonder, why do we care if pundits don’t get in line? Why does there need to be uniformity of thought? A plurality voted for a nominee that the majority of the party doesn’t like. There are going to be people that can’t stomach it. The people that are most likely to not be able to stomach it are the ones that take principled positions for a living.
I, for one, have a lot of respect for someone like Jonah standing by the things he’s written because he believes it to be right as opposed to just some words he wrote to get a paycheck at the time.
I, too, respect Jonah for his insightful writing, and I wouldn’t expect him to toe a party line. I realize that it is not the mission of pundits such as he to rally the troops for election day. If the current state of affairs were to change then there might be reason for him to modify his position — not to renounce his beliefs about Trump as a person, but possibly to prefer Trump to the alternative.
Were that to happen, Goldberg, et al. are capable of articulating that complex calculus to their readership (particularly those having difficulty stomaching Trump). But it won’t happen unless and until Trump first demonstrates a sufficient degree of competence and stability, and his candidacy becomes truly viable. Therefore, improvement in the polls would likely precede the pundits.
This hits a little closer to home than I’d otherwise care to acknowledge; suffice to say, I think it’s true. However, it’s also true for everyone who has stated that — for various reasons — it’s literally impossible for Trump to lose their votes. Just as Trump has no incentive to attempt to woo a devoted NeverTrump, he has no reason to work to EverTrump concerns because he knows he’s not going to lose you. We’re in self-imposed exile of a sort; you’re in self-imposed prison of a sort.
As I said in Matt’s Post, it would have been smarter for all of us to indicate our preferences while allowing for at least the possibility of conversion. Alas, it’s rather late for that.
Shorter version: the smart thing is a situation like this is to advertise your persuadability: “Trump can earn my support if he does X” and “Trump can lose my support if he does Y.” When we say our minds are made up, we lose our influence.
For those who have not yet seen my coldly Machiavellian calculus: I am voting for Hillary (and hope she wins) because she is so very awful and evil that the country is more likely to split apart under her presidency.
I am sure our national problems (the enormous and metastasized debt, the permanent underclass, the “Sodom and Granola” approach of nature-worshippers) cannot be meaningfully addressed by either Clinton or Trump. They might be solvable in the event of #Texit.
The country is in profound trouble, and the feces will, at some point, hit the spinning blades. If the nation either defaults on its debt (Trump) or hyperinflates (Clinton), it will be rightly seen as a national catastrophe. The only way I can see to avoid it is for some states to devolve from Washington.
Then I suggest you listen closer. I understand and accept that many folks see it as a clear choice, but many of us do not.
I honestly — truly — do no know which of the two of them would be more harmful to the nation. It’s like asking whether I’d stand a better chance against a lion or a tiger in a gladiatorial exhibition; it’s an extremely close call, I can argue it either way, and I’m unlikely to be happy with the results afterwards either way.
I think NeverTrump is foolishness. For all their complaining about the awfulness of Hillary, their NeverTrump pronouncements serve Hillary’s campaign.
After years of trashing Obama, they have been busy for four months providing support to Team Obama as they work to elevate his chosen successor.
As the election draws near, NeverTrump pundits keep defending themselves against NeverHillary by doubling down on speculative worry about what Trump might do or how Trump might fail. In this they brush aside the certainty of what Hillary will do and how Hillary will cause America to fail.
They keep complaining about how far left Trump is, which completely ignores the fact that Trump is the most conservative candidate that can win.
By trashing Trump they feed the Left’s campaign for Hillary. They give aid and comfort to the Treason Party.
These are not conservative actions.
Not sure why you are so confident of this. I think many believe the threats are similar in magnitude even if the specific dangers differ. Some, I expect, entertain the idea that a Trump presidency could be more harmful.
You seem unwilling to accept that some conservatives see Trump as a genuine danger, one effectively equal to (and potentially greater than) that posed by Clinton… especially when considering that Trump’s harm might well be carried out in the name of the Republican party rather than being opposed by it.
You obviously weigh the risks differently, but I believe it’s shortsighted to ascribe your assessment to others.
EDIT: Didn’t see that Tom already addressed this in #13 above.
And yet again, #NeverTrump places supporting Trump as a moral failing. The OP in no way made not supporting Trump a moral failing, but a strategy. Is it possible for #NeverTrump to acknowledge that, or does the moral castigation go on forever?
That is what I mean when I say not making it moral. Here we have it cast rationally. Thank you.
Obviously, I think your metaphor is wrong, but that is two men looking at the same facts and reaching different conclusions. Nothing moral about it.
Gold Medal.
I certainly sympathize with that position, but it is a terrible risk. I do not want to live like the Venezuelans. I do believe that Venezuela has been a model for certain democrats, not just as an idealistic exercise in hand holding and socialism, but in how to tear apart a prosperous and free nation.
If Hillary becomes president and if we do descend into a Venezuelan mess, do you think she will ever go hungry? Not on your life. She and her cronies will always have wealth and their Huma to get them their hot toddies at night.
Me and mine will suffer. I do not want to descend into hell before restoring our freedom. It may eventually come to pass, but I’d rather avoid that step.
It’s very clear to me that both are horrible. The important difference is that no one in government supports Trump. He’ll be impeached and convicted. Hillary will not.
There doesn’t need to be uniformity of thought, but there should be a uniform awareness of outcome. What is the best case scenario for #NeverTrump? What is the goal they hope to accomplish, a rebuilding of the party based around the transition from Goldwater to Reagan? That took 16 years, and in the meantime, 90% of the big-government programs conservatives now oppose became law. What will happen in the next 16 years, with Hillary appointing three Supreme Court justices?
I hear, over and over and over again, that yes, Hillary is bad, but Trump MIGHT be bad.
Is is not might. One is certain, the other is not. As long as there is a chance for better outcome, I will fight.
No, the death of conservatism — the one thing standing between absolute destruction of this nation by the leftists — is the biggest problem we face, and not just in 2016 but pretty much all the time. The Republican party is not being helpful in this by nominating a non-conservative.
We’re not sitting it out. We’re actively opposing non-conservative candidates and actively supporting conservative candidates.
Wait, what? Where do you get the idea that we are abandoning Congressional majorities? Should Trump win we’ll need them more than ever because Republicans in Congress will have to be the opposition party to their own party’s president and his non-conservative ideas.
There is no problem for which “ergo Trump” ever enters my mind, not even Hillary.
I don’t like Trump as a guy, I certainly did not want Trump as the Republican nominee for President, but I am not a NeverTrump and will vote against a Hillary Clinton Presidency by voting for Donald Trump.
Since Trumps nomination I assumed this election was a coronation of Hillary, now I’m not so sure.
With every passing day the awfulness of Hillary Clinton is becoming impossible to gloss over, and the (D)’s only response is to attempt to make Trump even more awful, but after you go full Racist/Fascist/Dictator/Hitler in July, where do you take your Trump is awful schtick in August, September, October….
To me the NeverTrump thing was a well principled, easily argued position, which was something of a clever indulgence(hey look how principled a Conservative I am, going against my own team when we have no chance to win).
I am starting to believe Hillary can lose, and now it’s time for the NeverTrumps to use their superhuman intellect and infallible reasoning to convince themselves and those they may influence to find a reason to vote for Donald Trump.
I’m having trouble even being sold on the chance.
Note:
Personal attack.But Dad! He did it first! I was just getting him back! Whaa whaa! I’m a little baby sucking my thumb!
You people act like children.Trump is a damn buffoon. Choosing him over Hillary is like asking to be punched in the mouth instead of the nose.I was contemplating this yesterday while on a drive. I understand and fully endorse absolute hatred and opposition to Clinton both as a person and for president. The question becomes what is the most effective way to give life to that hatred and oppose her. It should be obvious that the Republican nominee is the answer to that question, but with Trump it isn’t, and that is an enormous problem.
I would argue differently than Tom. Hillary is worse in the short term, but Trump is worse in the long term.
But….given the choice….the Dentist and would be cheaper than the Plastic Surgeon
I know I’m going to be unhappy with the results because Trump my 17th choice of the 17 choices we had for GOP nominee.
But there is unhappiness, and then there is annihilation. Hillary seeks nothing less than the destruction of the GOP and conservatives as an effective voice in American politics.
I strongly disagree. In ethics, there’s this fundamental principle of consistent means and ends. Even if we agree on devolving power to the states, it’s a wild gamble that the election of Hillary Clinton will result in that end. And, in the meantime, you’ve voted for possibly the most corrupt, most unqualified (disqualified given her handling of TS information) candidate in American history.
I love you, iWe, but I find your position indefensible.