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.
Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ is Going to Go!
My husband, my youngest daughter, and I had lunch with an old friend yesterday. He and I were known to have heated arguments back when we were more politically in-sync, which, I daresay, we both enjoyed immensely. While he still adheres to atheistic liberalism, I’ve converted both religiously and politically. Paradoxically, our conversations seem to be more measured and substantive, although I still win 99 percent of the disputes – just ask me.
In the course of our conversation, he cracked a joke about selecting swimwear and potentially looking good in a burkini. This led to a discussion of France’s somewhat feeble attempts to push back against the assertion of Muslim culture by banning the veil and, now, the controversial initiative to ban the burkini. Our friend asserted there are only two realistic approaches to take on the cultural tensions extant when Muslims move into western societies: 1) Try to retain the western values of pluralism and religious tolerance in an open society while “leaving the door open for compromises,” or 2) Expel the alien ideological element and combat it wherever it is found. I demurred.
There is a third option, which is the course we’re currently pursuing: the West can simply lie down and die.
Something I said really touched a nerve, because our friend became very animated and heatedly asked me, “You really believe, in a hundred years, the West will be overrun?” He was absolutely confident that what we’re witnessing in the way of cultural jihad (from Islamic supremacists on one side and leftists on the other) is not a trend and I’m dead wrong to believe Western Civilization is vulnerable.
That was before I informed him about Sharia courts given the authority to settle civil disputes in Great Britain and many municipalities in Canada (because the Jews and the Catholics already had them, so Muslims must have them too!), and the abrogation of the Anglo common-law tradition. Neither was he aware of the video taken (by a very brave youngster, I assume) in the madrassa in Great Britain where high school students recite the punishments for homosexuality (throw them off a high place, and then stone them) and apostasy (kill them). H/t: @pseudodionysius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEm4xuBhqg
Still, he insisted, I’m wrong to think the West is dying. Unfortunately, our time together was short and I had to leave, but I parted with this thought: In order to sustain a culture, the people must understand and love their heritage (Westerners are either ignorant or ashamed), must live by its values (we’re increasingly secular and relativistic), and even be willing to die for its principles. Most westerners are too soft to assert the superiority of our culture, with the exception being Christians and conservatives. <mic drop>
Now, how is any of this relevant to the 2016 Election (because every worthwhile discussion must be related to Trump vs Clinton)? The real contest is between Christianity and its two mortal enemies: Islam and leftism. They know it and most Christians (who are not also leftists) know it. NeverTrumpers? Not so much.
Why do I assert this? After mentally replaying my conversation with our friend and trying to discover the pattern that would explain the NeverTrump position, I noticed that the NeverTrumpers align almost identically with secular “conservatives” who are soft on social/cultural issues like abortion and SSM. On these subjects, they largely agree with the anti-Christian Left.
I don’t mean to suggest NeverTrumpers are themselves anti-Christian, only that their unfamiliarity with the Christian religious tradition may amke them unaware of the danger of their alliance with the Left to Christianity and, therefore, Western Civilization.
Published in GeneralLet nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things are passing away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things
Whoever has God lacks nothing;
God alone suffices.
— St. Teresa of Avila
Well, the Chief, @jongabriel, is a Christian NeverTrump, and if Mods count among “staff”, @mikerapkoch is, I believe, another counterexample. (I was never NeverTrump, but am probably not going to vote Trump.)
I think you’re right it touches on a cultural divide, but not so much ignorant of or disdainful toward Christianity vs well-versed in and appreciative of it.
A lot of Ricochet seems sexually “purple” – that is, they mix traits of both “red” sex and “blue” sex. Purple sex is, at its most rigorous, the most rigorous of both worlds: the blue horror of unwed pregnancy and penchant for forming stable marriages plus the red religious taboos against premarital sex, abortion, and divorce (with taboos against premarital sex and divorce, alas, honored in red culture so often in the breach). Laxer purple is possible – but even when it’s laxer, purple sexuality still seems fairly disciplined overall: more morally/religiously censorious than blue sexuality, and less chaotic than red.
Additionally, I get the sense that Ricochetians have a fairly mixed perspective on end-of-life care that isn’t well-described by saying one side rejoices in death, the other in life. We have folks committed to refusing lifesaving measures to the fullest extent the Catholic church will allow, a Christian doctor who claimed that, under certain circumstances, his own plan for coping with certain diagnoses really would be a bullet to the head…
We are this strange mix, and it does seem strange to me to see it as a clear divide between Christian and anti-Christian. Our secularists and agnostics (especially those on staff) strike me as generally pretty respectful of Christianity. We have, I think, a lot of what I hope you would consider in-between cases, whether among Trump supporters, NeverTrumpers, or those still in between on Trump, too.
If Hillary wins and goes through with her proposed increase in Muslim immigrants, it will be a very long haul to get our country back, but we can do it. It will be messy though.
Certainty of death, small chance of success, what are we waiting for?
If we continue on our present course the Left will destroy freedom in the US. Regarding Islam the Left will crush them; because an all powerful State can’t tolerate any challenge to their power.
Please, not this argument. I would think that after all these months of Ricochet Trump voters telling Ricochet non-Trump voters that they are voting for Hillary, it would be obvious that it is not a convincing argument.
And there is good data to believe that it practically always makes mathematical sense to vote your conscience.
https://fee.org/articles/how-not-to-waste-your-vote-a-mathematical-analysis/
So how do you explain said PTB’s support for previous candidates who had stronger records on these matters than Donald Trump?
As I read this post I thought of Jean RasPaul’s The Camp of the Saints, on pages 215-216 (1975). But, Balam Xoc, assured us, “It is tempting to think of compromise and accommodation, but we would only be swallowed up and lost to ourselves. that is the lesson I have learned, and I will not ignore it for the sake of our present safety…the shadow of risk does hang over our lives, but we cannot allow it to darken our hopes for the future. We must not.” (See, Daniel Peters, Tikal: a novel about the Maya, 309, 1983)
Yes, but how many lifetimes is that?
What Ltd said.
That applies to the membership, as well. I was raised a Southern Baptist in Texas. The two Ricos with whom I almost always agree, both of whom have a knack for writing what I am thinking (only more clearly than I could), are a devout Mormon and an Orthodox Jew.
And yet they say the Left is where the diversity is….
WC, Although I usually find you to be pretty open-minded and fair-minded, you go off of those rails here. There is no shortage of #nevertrumpers here on Ricochet, who have explained their position ad nauseum. When you say that you are “trying to discover the pattern that would explain the NeverTrump position,” you are telling me that you either haven’t listened to our position, or you don’t believe us when we speak. I respectfully request that you assume enough good faith on our part to believe our stated reasons for being #nevertrump, which are the exact opposite of what you speculate must be the reasons. I happen to believe that Trump would be the most destructive leader ever of western values and western civilization. I think I’m just looking at a little longer time frame than you are.
There are Trump supporters here who say that one term of Hillary will be the end of the Republic. If the Republic can’t survive another term of a Democratic President, then I guess it is doomed, because Democrats win the White House about half the time. But if we accept that this is an ongoing battle of ideas, that has decades of fighting yet ahead, then we should consider whether Trump is who we want as the spokesperson for the ideas of conservatism. It is my assessment that Trump neither believes in, or understands, those ideas. Which makes him a very poor spokesperson indeed.
I remember her making that statement – some things you don’t forget. Obama has systematically removed the boundaries, or has attempted, that the Church has maintained as a wall against raging secularism which leads to everything we are now seeing. We’ve been told to be ashamed, we must change – Hillary will keep the status quo. The two generations before us do not understand past history or care for the benefits of religious life – there is a powerful purging taking place. It is spiritual and the consequences are beyond dire. The Church protects all under the same banner – the government does not. The weak, the sick in mind, body and soul are protected by the Church. You will fall through the cracks depending on government – every family has experienced this. Russia just banned proselytizing in the public square – why? China is becoming more hard-lined – Islam the same – This is no time to sit on the sidelines and worry about offending someone.
Hurry it up, SMOD, willya? I’ve even got the pastel pink t-shirt, Doshgarn it!
Religion is not the dividing line on trump. It’s not even useful as a generalization.
There are different reasons people oppose Trump. I’m not sure about what I’ll do, and I even agree with his positions that cause the worst histrionics. Tougher border enforcement, more deportations, block whole groups of immigrants that could include terrorists, keep nukes in the table when talking about a fight, don’t worry so much about collateral damage when attacking terrorists, encourage Japan to develop nukes to contain NK …
I’m not bothered by most of these things giving many never trumpers the vapors.
I have a problem with the idea of voting for someone of such low character. I’ve considered the idea of lesser of two evils before, but I always assumed one side would present some decent character. I don’t need perfection.
Trump has bragged about adultery. He’s well known for cheating contractors out of money. He managed companies into bankruptcies that caused losss for plenty of other people yet he managed to come out OK. Plenty of lies and reversals during the campaign. There are no clear principles guiding him unless you count “winning”.
That being said, I think he would be better than Clinton. He may even do some good. The problem with the lesser of two evils is that they both are actually evil this time. As bad as other nominees candidates have been, you could usually understand their guiding principles.
Great post and well written, except for the baffling conclusion. It’s genuinely bizarre to assert that people who refuse to align themselves with a man who aligns himself with the cultural Left are themselves aligning with the cultural Left. Trump has the same inclinations as our current President on SSM and abortion, the same as Mrs. Clinton. On these issues all of them are at least a shade to the left of that famously squishy Rob Long. It’s the Manhattan country clubbers who refuse to get into bed with the actual Manhattan country clubber? Really?
We certainly tell ourselves the stories we want to believe.
Apropos the Never Trump Ricochetti , re: Long and most especially Charen, a little Western navel gazing they can engage in;
The choice between Hillary and Trump is……Binary, get over it already.
‘Binary’; a theory, hypothesized by Leibnizt(sp) of the Electorate of Saxony in the late 17th century.
(From memory btw………..”benefits of a Classical education”…Hans Gruber ;)…………….)
Good point, Tom.
Reminds me… some of the NeverTrumpers among the membership whom Trumpers find most irritating are very strong Christians and pro-life advocates.
Many other NeverTrumpers, like @ryanm, @merinasmith, @franksoto, and those who’ve already chimed in on this thread, are also traditional, pro-life Christians. Additionally, some of us who were never NeverTrump, but “you can bet your bippy we won’t consider voting Trump unless the race is close in our state”, like @amyschley and me, are also traditional Christians.
I admit to not being as hardcore on life and traditional-marriage issues as some would like – I am a pessimist, for one thing – but I’m still on your side on these issues, WC, especially relative to the wider culture, even though it’s not to your degree, and I would find it passing strange for someone who talked up chastity for the purpose of building strong marriages (in addition to its spiritual purposes) as much as I did to be considered anti-traditional-marriage.
As is often the case, reading through the comments I find someone who said what I think at least as well as I would have. I agree 100% that being soft on religion does not go with being “NeverTrump;” it is, very nearly, the absolute opposite. If anything, I’ve been saddened for the sake of Christianity in America that so many prominent evangelical leaders are supporting such a tarnished man for National leadership.
BTW, as a non-Christian, it is a bit obnoxious to hear that I must identify with, nay adopt even, Christianity to be a social conservative. We are very much fellow travelers, but that kind of rhetoric chases away religiously observant and politically conservative Jews and moderate Muslims, not to mention socially and politically conservative Libertarians, Agnostics, and Atheists.
So thrice-divorced pro-choicer Donald Trump is the solution to promote Christian values?
And I’m curious which “West” you think is dying.
You seem to think that the Western values of Christianity are dying under an onslaught dangerous foreign customs on law and dress. And somehow Donald Trump is the solution.
I look at the anti-refugee, anti-immigrant, anti-trade, and anti-freedom sentiment in the US and Europe and I think that our Western values of classical liberalism are dying. And I see Donald Trump as part of the problem.
My state has a less-than-one-percent chance of flipping the election, and that less-than-one-percent share is divided up among millions of voters. Even with in-state races, the odds of my vote being the deciding vote are minuscule, now divide that by roughly a thousand.
@jamesofengland, no anti-Trumper he, and very well-versed in the horse-race aspects of politics, agrees with me that the odds are probably better of my vote working to bring the Green Party to the popular-vote threshold it needs to receive funding to split the Left than they are of my vote being decisive between Trump and Hillary.
Johnson is likely this time around to reach the pop-vote-threshold needed to split the Right – sure, the LP bleeds of some folks who’d otherwise vote Dem, but we know the LP is still more likely to bleed votes from the Right than from anywhere else. No matter which President/Emperor is elected this November, the struggle against Leftism won’t be over, and, given the likelihood of the Right being split, it is very much in the Right’s interest to also see the Left split.
Do you want to tell me now about that binary choice I have?
Just saying it over and over doesn’t make it so.
Ronald Reagan says hi.
Reagan was divorced one time and he figured out he was pro-life long before he ran for President.
Libertarians: making the perfect the enemy of the good since…well…forever.
Trump has been divorced twice, not three times. And there is no reason to believe his pro-life conversion is any less sincere than Reagan’s.
And besides, you wouldn’t have voted for Reagan anyway.
The NYT:
Okay then.
Familiarity with the Christian religious tradition, classical liberalism, and American Exceptionalism would be nice, but apparently in this cycle these are not conservative concerns.
I could reply with an equally nasty retort about conservatives, but I’m an individualist, so I don’t believing making nasty sweeping generalizations about groups of people.
I apologize, folks. It was poor timing on my part. I intend to get back to EB, Tom, and Larry among others, but I’m facing a busy day. Please be patient.
[Citation needed.]