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
And what makes you think Trump will accept them?
If they work, why would he not? You really think he would prefer things that do not deliver results?
This is a guy who made promises and wants action to show he delivered, not some ‘promise them one thing and ignore them later’ pol.
I know the type and I am betting he wants two big things- closing the border and kicking the economy in the ass to get rapid job growth. He wants results by the end of his first year.
Now, if conservatives are so clueless they cannot figure out how to do that, what good are they?
The contention isn’t that he doesn’t want these things; rather, it is that he doesn’t know how to accomplish them. I suppose this is where “the best people” come in, but since he’s been divorced from conservatism his whole life how will he know who those people are?
He took Giuliani and Sessions to meet with the Mexican President, He has said Gingrich will have a key role , Kudlow is already on board, It looks like Bolton, Flynn are there. I would call that a heckuva start on a staff. Ben Carson is working with him. Rick Perry is all in.
The job of a leader is to define goals, not detail the methods. Read Drucker. The best executive I ever worked for took ten years to get it in my head that definition of goals was the most critical job of a leader.
You want how to? That is for staff.
I certainly accept the concerns about Trump, and that risk assessments vary from person to person. My focus in the OP is on pundits, particularly those who we recognize as thought leaders. I find it hard to believe that these pundits are satisfied with NeverTrump as their closing argument in this election. For one thing, pretty much their entire audience already agrees with their critique of Trump and Trumpism from the conservative POV. There’s nothing left to say about that.
I think they want to see Hillary defeated above all else, but they are frustrated that their fully-justified revulsion to her opponent has them somewhat boxed in.
The problem is, there are still at least three factions of GOP not on that list.
Don’t see a problem with Trump holding meeting with NR and saying, look, I get it. I can learn from my mistakes, can you accept that and let’s move on? If I don’t, call me out on it. When I was learning how to move about in Latin America, I trusted my teachers to help me learn Costa Rican culture. That’s how you learn not just a foreign language, but learn another culture. And Trump is not part of conservative culture.
Yet. But he’s trying. He’s trying REAL HARD to be the Reagan. :D
I wonder how many “candidates” have realized that running for president can be remunerative? I think that was part of what kept Kucinich running on the D side. Trump has been accused of running a personally profitable campaign organization. I mean, even if all you get is campaign donations picking up your personal living expenses, and then make those luxurious, it is a great hobby.
Iwould bet my life on your sincerity here. I just think conservatism would be better off fighting in the main event. We can choose to hoard our assets in the hope of preservation, but what we really need over the long run is more Americans supportive of conservative ideals. Congress can partner with Trump on certain issues (tax policy, deregulation, reform of VA, CIA, and other federal agencies) that can win more voters to our POV. [word limit]
[cont’d] I agree that Congress can and should stand in opposition to Trump when necessary. But without a Republican president, congressional conservatives will lose by attrition — labelled as obstructionist, and bludgeoned by the full array of progressive forces in politics, media, and culture.
The idea is to get solutions, not peace in the valley of scribbling conservatives. I frankly do not care if NR and Trump ever patch up relations, just like I do not care if he is good friends with the Hooterville Post Intelligencer editorial board and chicken pluckers.
The Bush dynasty has declared war and they will retire to Kennebunkport to rule in exile.
Ted Cruz has some choices. So far he has not chosen wisely.
I prefer the conservatives not on that list.
If NR wants to play, they better get humble fast and offer up ideas. If Trump wins and gets Giuliani , Gingrich, Flynn, Bolton, Kudlow rolling hot, I expect NR’s plans of being conservatism in exile will look like the treehouse club that it really is.
Well, they’ll get that anyway, at least from the media, academia, and pop culture — but that’s always been part of our fight.
This alone is much more persuasive than the man has ever been on his own behalf. If Trump can be limited to setting goals “build a wall, jobs!, government reform” and leave it to these kinds of people to accomplish those goals, then there is a sliver of hope for conservatism and the country. All that said, what happens when these people disagree with him? His behavior in the campaign leaves a lot to be desired, but it is less disqualifying than Hillary’s whole public career.
I have heard constantly that “personnel is policy”. I would think that applies to anyone.
That is how a CEO works. They assemble a team, give them goals and then track progress. Trump employees will tell you that is how they are managed. I checked through personal sources and that is what I got. Media reports tell the same story.
Trump does not say that because to him it is like breathing. That is how you get things done. Only bad bosses hire talent and then cripple them by trying to do it for them.
Reagan knew that. He set a goal to win the cold war. He did. You think he micro managed all the details?
I have been there, done that. That is why I have less fear than most about a Trump administration based on the team he is assembling. Giuliani, Gingrich, Kudlow, all class acts who get stuff done. Flynn looks top notch. I expect Perry, who was my first choice, to be there in some capacity.
Pence is a pleasant surprise for me.
True, and that’s why conservatives need to be active in the political arena, where we can demonstrate conservatism in action, as opposed to being defined by our enemies while we are in exile.
Rico, thanks for the shout-out
At the most basic level, once you’ve said, “Donald Trump is a threat to the Republic” then you are essentially locked into your position. There’s really no way to go back on a statement like that. People who have done so have looked like fools (e.g. Rick Perry). The basic issue is credibility. One of the overriding problems in politics nowadays is that the level of cynicism has gotten to the point that no one believes that people in politics themselves believe what they are saying. When you say something like “Donald Trump is a threat to the Republic” and then a few months later say, “Welp, he won the nomination fair and square, time to get in line and support him” then anyone who listens to you must either conclude that you either value partisanship over the security of the Republic, or (more likely) that you were not being serious with your first statement, in which case you are willing to cry wolf over something as fundamental as the security of the Republic. In either case you have revealed yourself to be someone who is not worth listening to.
The entire question of “how do we get the pundits to come around?” is actually premised on that level of cynicism- the idea that they weren’t being serious during primary season.
1/
This here is exactly the point of disagreement. The entire basis of being #NeverTrump was that you disputed this very point. You have made the assumption that the level and type of objection to Trump during the primaries was just a pose, which is a fairly cynical assumption and one that indicates you have a pretty low opinion of the pundits in question.
If you (or Trump) wants to change the views of the NeverTrumpers, then you have to convince them that a Trump presidency would actually be better than a Clinton one. The primary argument I’ve seen is “duh, isn’t that obvious?” which is one I don’t find very convincing. It’s not obvious to me, and if you take #NeverTrump pundits at their word, it’s not obvious to them either. Rule #1 of effective communication is know your audience, and in this case that means making an argument that doesn’t assume the conclusion.
2/
KP, I think that’s all he’s ever done in business. Conservatives should have been doing their best all along to be the ones advising him, and accomplishing the goals.
Nah. You just have to recognize that Hillary is a greater threat to the republic. Trump is a threat. His success at drumming up support through crude insults and childish behavior is a symptom of a decayed electorate and he will only worsen it. Our only hope is to keep Hillary out of office and pray that somehow we can get rid of him without supporting the likes of Boehner and McConnell.
In other words, we’re doomed with Trump. But we’re more doomed with Clinton.
The problem with “Trump’s antics” has been that they have largely supported the impression of “This guy is just too irresponsible to be entrusted with the presidency,” which was/is a major pillar of the “Trump is a threat to the Republic” argument. His problem now is that it’s borderline impossible for him to undo in 2 months the impression he has spent 13 creating. As far as converting the pundits, it’s too late, and arguing that he’s finally gotten his campaign house in order (on his third cycle of personnel turnover) is pretty thin gruel as an argument as to how effective he would be in charge of the Executive branch. Some problems are just not fixable. “Looking presidential” for three days just doesn’t cut it.
From the perspective of Trump’s campaign, the framing should be “I’m trying to prove the pundits wrong” rather than “I’m trying to convince them”. He gets a lot of mileage out of taking umbrage against condescension, and at this point making the pundits part of that is the only sensible path for him on this front.
3/3
It’s funny you should make this point (ie: “If you(or Trump) want to change the views of NeverTrumpers, then you have to convince them that a Trump Presidency would actually be better than a Clinton one.”)
Because I was thinking the nearly exact same point only it would be: If you want to convince the Trump voters that the NeverTrump position is more compelling and therefore nobody should vote for Trump, then you need to convince Trump voters that the Hillary Clinton Presidency would actually be better(or at least not any worse?) than a Trump one.
My position is that a Clinton Presidency would be significantly worse, even if a Trump Presidency does become something of a carnival/circus/clusterschtoop….which is very possible.
I never made such an assumption. In fact, I’ve stated quite the opposite in the OP. I believe that pundits’ opposition to Trump in the primaries was entirely sincere. I also believe that they recognize the importance of defeating HRC. They need Trump to raise his credibility as a candidate in order to break their ambivalence on which candidate to argue for in the general election. If Trump is a sure loser, they have every incentive to double down on NeverTrump. If the race becomes competitive, then the larger issue of defeating Hillary becomes real. I’d bet that some pundits are “praying” for Trump to open up that opportunity, and free them to make the case for electing the flawed GOP candidate over the national disaster of an HRC presidency.
Just to clarify, I’m not talking about a “conversion” of the punditry. I agree with you that Trump cannot win their respect. I’m also not suggesting that Trump is — or should be — trying to win over the pundits. I’m suggesting that pundits’ pre-existing opposition to an HRC White House can break through the NeverTrump barrier if Trump can build some kind of credibility as an alternative to HRC. Jonah Goldberg has hinted at this before and I believe it to be true.
The only opposition to Hillary that counts is opposition that leads to a victory by some other candidate.
The only candidate with any sort of a chance to succeed is Trump.
So, of course, Trump is the most conservative candidate who can win.
(I agree that Trump is not a conservative. I am Rabble Alliance all the way; Trump was my seventeenth choice. But the threat to American law, culture and values from Hillary is overwhelming.)
Then you have not been reading Ricochet, where we have stated repeatedly several reasons to expect a Trump Administration to be less damaging to the U.S.A. than a Hillary Administration. We have not been devoid of serious reasoning, both as to why Trump could do less damage and why Hillary could do greater damage. You evidently are not convinced because you have not been paying attention.
And regarding effective communication, Trump’s audience is the low-information voters, not the NeverTrump pundits.
This is indeed true. I have not been reading Ricochet, I just joined last week
Ya gotta lotta catchin up to do.
Matt Corbett, welcome to Ricochet.
So, since you have not been reading Ricochet but are well aware of the NeverTrump arguments, do you have any other sources of conservative thought that are not thoroughly NeverTrump?
Where do you go for news? Especially, political news about the presidential race that goes beyond the horse-race superficials?
I am confident that Ricochet can do a lot to inform you, since your other sources have been letting you down.