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
For a Real politician, a person speaking against you is violating the highest principle, that of winning. Once the game is on, the ideology that needs to be attended to is winning.
Flake was out of bounds, playing for Hillary’s team. You swat such crap down. Lord save us from principled losers.
It’s about time the GOP had a guy who would punch the opposition in the mouth, especially when they take GOP money and then try and destroy the party in the general election.
Always shoot the traitors first.
Some say they will support Hillary because she will be so awful that maybe we’ll break up. That is simply not the way politics and power works. It’s organic, it grows, replaces, deepens and while this centralization rent extracting process is how civilization end, first they stagnate, rot then die or are conquered. Breaking up is rare and happens with rapid growth and change, not stagnation.
So you see no possible upside to a Trump win, bringing in a team of Sessions, Giuliani, Gingrich, Kudlow , Bolton and more into the White House? You see your caricature of Trump doing the Presidency all by himself with no staff, no advisors no support of any kind?
I see Hillary as the equivalent of sending my grandchildren to re-education camps to save the planet for the elites while they live in a 7th century existence. Hillary will rule with the thousand of minions in all the agencies, use the IRS as a terror weapon and sell the USA for cash to any dictator with a checkbook. I see that a approaching 100% certainty.
I see a decent chance Trump with the advisors he already has doing more good than not.
To me, conservative politics has been moribund and dying for a decade, due to snobbery and lack of connection to the electorate.
Trump may be the last chance for conservative thought to have a place in politics, since I view his advisors as reasonably conservative and Trump as a pragmatist.
Has anyone ever said that? It is far from impossible for Trump to lose my vote. All he would have to do is act like the #Never caricature of him that is constantly portrayed. (By the way, was there a focus group you guys sponsored that said the word buffoon would be effective and not make the user look pompous?)
If Trump does half the things the fever dream of the #NeverEvers have said he would, I would never vote for him.
Since I have determined he is not a racist, a fascist, a national socialist, an Alt-Right nutcase, an instinctive liberal who believes in the Progressive agenda heart and soul , he has my vote.
The second I see him shouting in Italian on a balcony and talking about invading Ethiopia, I’m gone.
I am quite sure that the nation’s current course will lead to disaster. Neither of the candidates will change its course – neither has even suggested it! And so the only question is what will minimize the pain in the long run. #Texit would.
Nothing in the future is a sure thing. But if there has ever been a person who could inspire #Texit/Devolution, Hillary is it.
Consider, if you would, Brexit. It happened precisely under the conditions in which you say breaking up does not happen.
How does any person with children help Clinton? What moral or ethical calculus enables one to existentially risk our country and their well being?
And please don’t answer by telling us again, for the billionth time, that your “principled” position has no clear link to our upcoming binary decision. God help us all if that amoral miscreant Hillary, Satan’s manifestation, is put in power as the leader of the erstwhile free world.
The calculating pundits can’t have it both ways. They crave and live by the influence of their speech, but then at this critical juncture, they claim to have no general influence, so aren’t responsible for helping foist Hillary on us.
Maybe they should strike their flimsy tent, if for no other reason than to honor the recent passing of one of the most important conservative voices of the last several decades. She, by the way, used the last bits of her powerful intellect and wit to make the conservative case for Trump. I, along with many, will miss Phyllis Schlafly. She made a difference, from Goldwater to Trump, with Reagan sandwiched in the middle.
Read her last book, then reply to this comment or Rico’s cogent analysis.
Suffice it to say that I have enormous issues with both Trump and Hillary. Both could cause significant damage, short and long term. However, after considerable reflection, here is what I found to be the deciding factor: Trump is impeachable, irrespective of which party controls Congress, and Hillary is not.
At times (often times…) it seems this is Trump’s agenda as well.
This is true for every R v. D contest. I don’t see how it becomes decisive this time.
I am almost through praying in the garden for this cup to pass. Not quite but almost.
President Hillary will very likely be better on foreign policy than His Wonderfulness Barry I but she will be utterly pernicious in the scope and range of federal control. The MSM et al are already brazenly all in and will offer as much cover as they can while she fumbles from crisis to scandal until she becomes even more hated and is ousted after one term. However, she will have deferred enough bad consequences that her GOP successor will be blamed and the ratchet will continue leftward once again.
President Trump is an unknown. He could become small, petty, isolated and impulsive and a failure–like Obama. And the MSM could then apply lightning to the ever-undead corpse of the amnesiac left to arise to victory again. Or, President Trump could delegate much to terrific, incredible, seasoned people who give him great counsel (on the rare occasion he does not already know the answer) and steer a productive course to the lasting chagrin of the Washington Post. Not screwing up healthcare, not over-regulating, not declaring culture war on the majority of Americans and not indulging fantasies about global bad guys would be economically and psychologically uplifting but maybe not enough to forestall the bigger decisions required.
If it is all going to crash and burn, who do we want to blame?
I will be in the garden if anybody needs me.
I don’t have citations from members, but I’ve heard from people repeatedly that it would be (practically) impossible for Trump to lose their vote because Clinton is that bad. Dennis Prager has said as much several times.
To be clear, Clinton is so bad that the argument is defensible.
Fair enough. Point taken . Hillary does make it hard to just allow her to walk into Empresshood. Like I said, Trump would have to prove he is worse, and that is a long and high bar.
With respect to the editors, my statement may be considered a personal attack, but it is meant to point out the childish nature of defending Trump’s attack on Flake by saying that Flake did it first. My kids do this all the time. The one kids comes crying about something that the other did. “Why did you do that?” I ask. “Because she did so an so!” Ah, the old “get-back.” It solves nothing. But Trump supporters seem to love it when Trump responds to some slight with childish attacks. Ergo, they act like children.
Yeah…
SO, let me understand this. If a guy sucker punches you, you smile and take it? Just to avoid the “He hit me first?”
Some of us punch back. Flake came out pro Hillary. That is a sucker punch. You take the SOB out. It is a media war. If Trump had obsessed with it, you might be approaching a point. He fired back and moved on to campaign.
No response at all is as bad as excessive response.
Because this time, whichever candidate is elected will need to be impeached.
I am almost through praying in the garden for this cup to pass. Not quite but almost.
President Hillary will very likely be better on foreign policy than His Wonderfulness Barry
Ty Woods and Glen Doherty were unavailable for comment.
Perhaps I’ve not given proper consideration to the idea that every person coming into the oval office stands on the precipice of impeachment. It really should be our sword of Damocles for presidents.
And there’s the reason why I am pro-Trump and not Never Trump. There is “Often Times” and then there is “All The Time”. With one choice, there is no doubt to the outcome. With Trump, we’ve seen this last month that he’s capable of listening to reason and doing the things needed to win.
I cannot allow someone who let people die in Benghazi into the White House. I just can’t. Others may say, “Well, I did my part, I voted for Cruz/Rubio/Jeb!/Perry in the primaries, so the choices we have now are not my fault, so I’m not playing.”
Voting for one of the 16 other candidates is a choice you have made (past tense). It’s over and done with. There is one more choice to be made, and that choice will be made whether you like the available choices or not. “Often”, “Maybe”, “Perhaps” and “Unlikely” are not certain.
Hillary is certain.
“This is childish” or — better yet — “This is a childish argument” makes the same point while focusing the disagreement on the substance, rather than the person.
This made me laugh out loud for real. Thanks for the humor.
That is Tomish, or better yet, That is a Tomish thing to say. ;)
PS: This post might have been PITish, and if so, I am sorry, but the humor bug bit me. I blame TKC.
More and more I think a vote for Trump is a statement about Hillary, but any other action is a statement about Trump. /Sigh. One day I’ll be able to cast a vote for rather than against.
I am not holding my breath on that one.
We do that in the primaries, or at least we should, which has been part of the problem this election. In the past, the Iowa Straw Poll cleared out most of the never-was’s from the might-be’s, but this year, we ended up with two crowded stages for months on end, and we ended up not liking the results.
I don’t like the results. I also don’t like spending time on the elliptical. The essence of being an adult, however, is doing the things you don’t like to do in order to do what’s best.
My lawyers will be in touch. I have an alibi. The dog did it. I had a flat tire. I forgot.
You are not alone. She was a fighter for the cause, who dealt with the reality, not the theory. A good woman who deserves our thanks.
I still fear that Trump’s effect on conservatism is what’s worst. I suppose an argument can be made for conservatives to bide our time through a Trump presidency (as some have argued we must do through a Clinton presidency) then assert our ideas in a more receptive environment, but that relies on the very unreliable Republicans in Congress to hold the line until a new assault can be mounted. To quote Spin, “It’s clear to me, based on the choices we have for President, that I should have spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocaine powder.”
I am still perplexed why you assume Trump would reject conservative policy proposals. If they work, they can be sold. If you cannot sell it, get out of the policy game, you are in over your head.
Conservatives taking their ball and going home in a Trump administration shows they have no confidence in their ideas, and really do no think they would work.
Policy is much harder when you have to do something than just pontificate.