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.
Confessions of a Reluctant Trumper
Having exuberantly joined the Communist Party of the United States in 1925, Whittaker Chambers became dismayed both with Stalin’s show trials and purges as well as with the hideous realities of collectivism before finally breaking faith in 1938. “I know that I’m leaving the winning side for the losing side,” he wrote of his decision to join with the West, to which he would later add, in a letter to his friend Ralph de Toledano:
It’s the realization … that this side is in its plight because of its stupidity, and cannot get out it because of its stupidity, and cannot help anybody … because of its stupidity — it’s that that’s killing us. And the stupidity of well-meaning friends is far more destructive than the malicious mischief of outright enemies. When you have to face the fact that they cannot, simply are unable, to act like grownups, then you know that it’s hopeless and all that we have tried to do is for nothing.
“So we’re doomed,” the antagonist might ask, “because too many of our fellow citizens can recite the names of all 15 American Idol winners but can’t name three people who signed the Declaration of Independence, and wouldn’t know the Federalist Papers from Federal Express?” Well, yes, there’s that part of it to be sure, but Chambers was reaching for a deeper point, as K. Alan Snyder observed several years ago over at First Principles. “He seems to have taken to heart the Christian doctrine of man’s depravity,” writes Snyder. Or, as Tolenado himself observed, “the struggle was no longer between Communism and Western civilization, but one in which Western civilization was destroying itself by betraying its heritage.”
As proof of the everlasting relevance of Chambers’ point, I offer as Exhibits A and B, the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees. And while acknowledging that the choices in this election are not binary, though with the understanding that the results will in fact be so, I will cast my vote for Donald Trump, though I suspect that I too am joining the losing side.
To be sure, I’m not suggesting that Mr. Trump will lose the election. On the contrary, while both candidates possess superhuman powers of self destruction, Trump seems increasingly adept and stylistically nimble while Clinton’s stodgy and stunted delivery of yesterday’s dusty and failed big-government prescriptions is about as inspiring as a toothache. So while it is still possible that Trump could win the election, the larger point is the arrested civic development of too many voters, combined with the willingness of too many in political and media circles to intellectually prostitute themselves that resulted in the elevation of these nominees in the first place.
For those of us still yearning for a genuine conservative and constitutionalist option, we had one viable alternative to Trump, and yet there were those on our own side who chose at the defining moment to take a polemical tire iron to him and then bemoan the rise of the eventual nominee.
Mr. Trump’s deviations from conservative orthodoxy and the animating convictions of the Founders are as well known as his departures from basic decency during the Republican primaries. Never mind the historical reality that increases in the minimum wage result in more jobs lost, or that a new entitlement of paid maternity leave is unaffordable, or that expanding an already imploding Medicaid program betrays a Venezuelan level of policy understanding. The fact is that these ideas, usually emanating from the left, have no place either in the Constitution or in the conservative lexicon, and Mr. Trump’s cheerleaders at Fox News and elsewhere do him no favors by refusing to urge that he make a course correction.
There are a few subjects, however, on which Mr. Trump seems more in sync with the imperatives of the moment. He is correct, in my opinion, when he maintains that border control is essential to national sovereignty and safety, even as securing one’s doors at night is essential to the peace and protection of family and home. His insistence on a robust and powerful military underscores America’s experience that weakness not only invites aggression, it nearly guarantees it. His eager display of a list of impeccably credentialed originalist jurists to fill judicial vacancies is comforting and contrasts nicely against the sort of statist enablers who would populate America’s courts in a Hillary Clinton administration.
And it is here, where the potential damage a Trump administration could inflict with tariff hikes and entitlement expansions that would make Bernie Sanders’ socialist heart flutter must be compared with dead-certain catastrophe of Hillary Clinton’s immigration initiatives which would spawn millions of new government-dependent citizens who would cement a permanent Democrat party majority and a foreign policy of weak-kneed vacillation in which Iran gets the bomb, ISIS gets a de facto welcome mat, and America gets attacked.
“But what difference does it make if, as you say, the die has been cast and yours is the losing side,” asks the antagonist? To which I answer: Perhaps precious little. A Trump win would be little more than a holding action for a finite period of time — a slowing in the descent of a trajectory that was set in 2008 and locked in in 2012. But I must try.
As for those who simply cannot bring themselves to cast a vote for Donald Trump, they will get no quarrel from me. Faced with a candidate who has spent decades supporting leftist policies and candidates with his words and finances, who even now instinctively lurches leftward on important issues, who has demonstrated a troubling lack of intellectual and philosophical curiosity about the Constitution or the detailed policies inherent in the job he seeks, and who gleefully trafficked in the sleaziest kind of personal slander and character assassination against his primary opponents that we’ve seen in generations, it is little wonder that there are many who cannot support the man.
Similarly, I find nothing troubling in the recommendation to “vote your conscience,” which is precisely what I will do while respecting those whose conscience leads them to a different conclusion. Reluctantly, and only because I see certain and immediate doom both in Mrs. Clinton’s congenital corruption and her Alinsky-like policies, I will move in Donald Trump’s direction. But I won’t march in formation. Which is to say that I won’t suspend my critical faculties nor check my principles and convictions at the door. When he swerves left or reverts to ugly and half-witted personal slurs, I will criticize him as vigorously as I do when Harry Reid reverts to similar form.
Several years ago, I don’t remember exactly when, Sean Hannity played a nice little gag on his audience. For the better part of his syndicated radio program one day, he pretended to switch ideological sides, saying at one point that he had encountered a homeless person while on his way to work, and he was just tired of it all and thought that liberals had the most compassionate ideas after all. He even fielded a call from someone doing a remarkable impersonation of Al Gore, who called to congratulate him on his sudden conversion.
Oh how his apoplectic callers raged and protested until finally, toward the end of the program, he confessed that it was all a joke and solemnly pledged that he would never abandon his conservative principles because to do so would be to jettison his credibility with his beloved audience. Then along came a Trump. These days, the host that I’ve listened to from my days in military uniform to my days driving an 18-wheeler across the country, who used to rail against new and unaffordable entitlement programs and minimum wage hikes that cost jobs, now makes excuses for them when they emanate from The Donald.
If Mitch McConnell, who bears a great deal of responsibility for the rise of Donald Trump, had suggested a hike in the minimum wage, or federally funded maternity leave, or an expansion of Medicaid, Sean’s head would have exploded on live radio. These days, however, he lashes out and hurls bombastic threats toward all who practice the ideological consistency he once pledged to his audience, while repeatedly criticizing Ted Cruz and others for abrogating their own pledges.
Speaking of which, does anyone reading these words doubt that if Harry Reid, who has a history of making baseless and absurd charges against people on the right, had suggested that a conservative candidate’s father had been involved in the assassination of a United States President, Sean Hannity would be demanding proof? Does anyone dispute that if Sean had a chance to confront Reid on such a malicious lie, that Reid would be lucky to emerge from the interview with a single shred of respectability? And yet, when Donald Trump trafficked in such a tinfoil hat absurdity, Sean inexplicably suspended his own standards of honest skepticism and, verily, now demands that others do likewise.
If I had been invited to the Hannity household for Thanksgiving dinner, and responded to the invitation by lying, loudly and repeatedly, about Sean’s parents, suggesting they were complicit in a murder, would Sean rescind the dinner invitation? Dignity and respect for the truth suggests that he would, but applying his current criteria, I suppose I could justifiably call him out for breaking his word. A candidate for president who requires these sorts of contortions and intellectual gymnastics of his most ardent followers is a lamentable person, and were Donald Trump’s opponent almost anyone other than a congenital liar like Hillary Clinton, I would not be able to vote for him.
And for the record, those who feel it is somehow necessary to trash conservative scholars and those who are educated and well versed in conservative philosophy and history in order to wave rhetorical pom-poms for a candidate who is by temperament and history neither conservative nor particularly versed in constitutional governance, forfeit their right to argue from a position of conservative principle with any credibility.
Jonah Goldberg, whom I’ve had the pleasure of meeting, is neither arrogant nor snobbish, as Sean maintains, but rather, a gracious and engaging gentleman blessed with a powerful mind and impeccable intellectual honesty. While I differ with him on a few particulars (I don’t believe he thinks the nation has reached the precipice of disaster just yet while I think we’ve throttled right over it like Wile E. Coyote in one of those Warner Brothers cartoons) I respect his opinion and recognize that we will need people of similar knowledge and capacity in the days ahead.
So, recalling how the US made common cause with a grisly killer like Stalin when WWII raged and the fate of the world required such an alliance, I will make common cause with Donald Trump in the hope that our rate of descent can be slowed just enough to give my grandkids a chance. I judge it an act of necessity, but not necessarily reputable. As Whittaker Chambers wrote with such moving eloquence from the very center of despair itself, “Like Noah, I just hammer away at the Ark, keeping an eye on the historical weather. It is written: And the Flood destroyed them all. For even God gets bored, I suppose.”
Published in General
Very true. I am not there yet, and may never be. Trump is SO awful, so appallingly unfit for office, and such a betrayal of what I thought were our core principles . . . and yet Hillary is an obvious nightmare. What a horrible choice we’ve been given. In any case, Dave’s piece is certainly more persuasive than are those which accuse us #NeverTrumpers of moral preening or of being closet Hillary fans. To the latter, I’m inclined to respond with something that would violate the Code of Conduct.
Devil’s Advocate: It could be argued that if we hold the line on this issue even when “our guy” is in charge it will prevent the Democrats from using partisanship as a smokescreen.
Great post, @davecarter. Thank you. I very much appreciate the nuance.
@ Grey Lady: There is no doubt that in terms of personal satisfaction, a Hillary humiliation would make my November 9th a little more pleasant. But I’ve got to be strong and think of the country, which means thinking of conservative constitutionalism for the long run.
Others (including my wife) think that a Trump win is better in the long run, but thoughtful NeverTrumpers, like so many in this thread, take the view that a Trump win will take an extra generation to recover from, not just some years.
It could but that would be tricky, wouldn’t it? How could that be pulled off?
I fully agree. In fact, I’m trying to decide whether it’s better for conservatism to actually have a hobbled, weakened Hillary with virtually no mandate and facing a more hostile Congress than a Donald, where Republicans will feel obliged to move forward his agenda (such as it will be).
I don’t think that the aggression against NeverTrumpers is coming from ReluctantTrumpers. I think that it is coming from EnthusiasticTrumpers.
The EnthusiasticTrumpers are enduring aggression and sometimes scorn, as well, but it comes from both NeverTrumpers and ReluctantTrumpers.
I’ve waited before commenting on this thread to see whether any EnthusiasticTrumpers would take issue with the very harsh things that the OP said about Trump. They have not done so.
This is interesting information about the EnthusiasticTrumper psyche, which I’ll have to think through further. Their attitude seems to be that they don’t mind criticism or even insult directed at Trump, so long as the insulter gets on the bandwagon, however reluctantly.
I feel no such obligation, and I would hope we would encourage our representatives likewise. Electing Trump (i.e., not electing Clinton) does not have to mean endorsing him. There were plenty of conservatives who voted for W and then criticized and opposed him on many issues. Why this belief that we will be obligated to not oppose Trump?
That much I agree with, @ Richard Finley. If Trump manages to squeak in, I expect to oppose almost everything he proposes, and hope to be able to impress upon GOP leaders that I will not tolerate them giving him any kind of a pass that is not based upon the (rare) nugget of good that he might propose.
And especially must they oppose his likely penchant for ruling by decree, like Obama and Putin.
And Clinton.
I don’t know why GOP leaders would feel pressured to listen to voters who voted for Trump to not do as Trump says. He will say those “losers” have no power at all without him, and he will trade away their agenda to “make a deal” with Democrats to get what he wants. (At least that’s what I think.)
So I say I understand putting your faith in the idea that maybe he will do something you support whereas you know Hillary won’t. But believing the people who could not stop Trump’s nomination will be an effective check on whatever he concocts in the country’s most powerful office seems like wishful thinking only.
Plus his supporters (the “Enthusiastic,” if you want) care about *him* and not his *policies*. This allows *him* a great deal of power in his own right. That should be recognized by “Reluctants.”
Lois, I have a question: Are you listening to what Trump is saying as he campaigns? He’s giving speeches and holding rallies every day. He’s campaigning in black venues more than any Republican since Jack Kemp. Have you heard what he says he wants to do?
Or have you decided a while ago that you know everything there is to know about him? Of course, a lot of people have been really wrong about what Trump’s going to do since June, 2015 – haven’t they?
I’m not sure if my opinion of Trump himself–or whether or not he goes to black churches–is any way relevant to determining if Republicans in Congress could serve as a check to a President Trump veering into places Republicans who voted for him would not like him to go.
Rather, someone else suggested that if Trump went a wonky way, it would be made clear to Republicans lower down on the totem poll that such behavior “would not be tolerated.”
I just kinda shrug at that as wishful thinking. Once one is at the top of the totem poll, one is at the top of the totem poll.
President Obama did not need individual actors in his party in Congress to love him to move them where he wanted them to go. He simply went.
But yes. Of course I listen to the Donald. And yes. I made up my mind about his fitness a long time ago.
The Enthusiastics have certainly been more openly combative, but the Reluctants can be more than a little passive aggressive. The Enthusiastics have written the Nevers off entirely, and those fights tend to be more about policy differences than specifically about the election. It’s the Reluctants who are more likely to post apocalyptic scenarios where Hillary Clinton dismantles the American Republic brick by brick. The Reluctants are the ones who post lists of all the horrible things Hillary Clinton will do under the assumption that the Nevers either don’t know, haven’t considered, or possibly are even okay with them. It’s this implicit (and sometimes not-so-implicit) questioning of our intelligence, patriotism, and/or conservatism that is the cause of the current animosity.
I’ve been listening to what Trump is saying. The big problem is that I don’t trust him. His positions on many issues have been all over the map, and on others he has seriously departed from conservative ideas.
For me, I think that the biggest problem has been Trump’s use of Left-wing talking points. This is most evident when he has talked about the Iraq war and Putin.
It’s not just that I disagree with him. It’s that he has used the false, misleading, and infuriating rhetoric of the opposition. This leads me to doubt everything else that he says.
He has been doing much better over the past 4-6 weeks. I’ve generally reacted favorably to his speeches and statements about economic policy (except foreign trade), law-and-order, terrorism, and immigration. (His switch on immigration was a bit infuriating, as this was the key issue on which he lambasted Rubio and Cruz, before ultimately adopting their basic position.)
But I haven’t yet reached a reasonable level of trust, so I remain undecided about whether to vote for Trump.
I will not be voting for Clinton.
Hillary is running for a four year term also Blondie. ;-)
Seriously, just because she gets one term doesn’t make her second much more likely as she will still be a horrible candidate and the GOP may not nominate an old democrat themselves. Besides…..I wouldn’t take a bet that she will live to a second term.
You’re breaking MY heart MJ! Nah not really, you’re a good man. :)
Of course you realize if we maintain majorities in Congress then Hillary can’t do any of that. Heck, Obama couldn’t do it when he HAD majorities in both and most (or all) of his efforts along those lines using executive orders have been overturned by the Supreme Court. Presidents don’t make laws. The question is what would “dealmaker” recently democrat Trump work out with his “good friends” Reid and Pelosi running a democrat controlled congress? This is where the unknown may be worse than the known…..
AGREED. This did far more to convince me than all of the a NeverTrump is a ForHillary non-sense. I recently moved from Arizona to North Carolina, my vote matters more here.
FWIW, here is another thing I am thinking. Both major party nominees will be horrifically bad Presidents, we simply don’t have the option of having a good (or even mediocre) President. And bad Presidents have electoral consequences, so I’m assuming both would be one term Presidents. So the real question should be, what happens in 2018, not just 2020. Even if we lose the Senate this year, a Clinton Presidency would ensure a Republican Congress and Senate in 2020 (as it did in 1994 and 2010, the first Congressional election after an extremist Democrat won the presidency), a Trump presidency would ensure a Democratic Congress and Senate in 2020 and give the White House to another hard-core lefty in 2020.
So, the question is, which would you rather be in control of in 2020, both houses of Congress which can block the White House from achieving anything meaningful for the the next 2 years and setting the Republicans up for potential control of everything in 2020, or the White House for two more years and the give control of everything to Democrats in 2020.
The problem is, most people don’t seem to care about the Executive Branch or Congress, they believe the only benefit of the Presidency is the ability to appoint the people to the body that actually runs our Country, the Supreme Court. In which case, our country is lost no matter what, so it really doesn’t matter.
Ha! You have a point here.
Not my city per se, which is well-run, notwithstanding the DWP’s incompetence at finalizing permission to start my solar power system. But then it’s a bedroom community famous for its conservative history, now dominated by hump-busting immigrants who are realizing the American Dream. Perhaps a bedroom-city run by entrepeneurs who have grown up in some nasty countries isn’t the best place to look for enthusiasm in this election. I’d bet the mortgage money that the one sign endorsing the female candidate did not belong to any of our first-generation citizens.
The greater megalopolis is a different story, but fortunately not as bad as those further north in our state.
I agree. So the real decision whether to turn back toward liberty or not has already been made and we are in free-fall toward anti-liberty. At this point in history, all primary voters in one party gleefully voted for some shade of socialism while 40% of the other party proved themselves almost as ignorant (…in my humble opinion). And the bottom of the cliff is the final answer regardless.
That said, my question is: what is the preferred option? 1) The fasted path to rock bottom or 2) A softer landing delayed by a decade or so.
My answer to this focuses on whether the struggles associated with the rebirth of whatever it is that will rise from the ashes will be dumped, along with all the other IOUs from the Progressive Degradation of America, on a later generation or if it is best to take that on ourselves. …
(continued)
(continued)
Furthermore, I worry that after another half-generation or more so much of the population under 50, whether through public education and/or immigration without assimilation, will no longer have the genetic code for what would pass for rugged individualism in these modern times. Delayed collapse may very well reduce the chances for liberty anew on these shores.
(For the record, I don’t actually pretend to know which candidate will lead to either path. Anyone who tells you they do i[s] [probably] a fool. For me, deciding on who to vote for is a rather fruitless exercise.)
[Edited for politeness.]
Of course you realize that you’re like a brother to me, and it’s only fair that I should advise my brother to put down the moonshine, or at least wait until I can have a swig too so we can level the playing field,…or un-level it to make it more fun. Meanwhile, a few points:
Then again, I’ve driven a little over 500 miles today and need to get some rest. Now, where’s that mason jar….
Very interesting point! I see where you’re coming from on this, and I sympathize a great deal. My instinct is to do what I can during the emergency, but I see your point. Certainly worth thinking about, and I appreciate you bringing this perspective to light.
Right on @asquared right on.
You know if I’m drinkin I get chatty so let me take another swing at this one……
The fact is Obama hasn’t done as much on immigration as he likes to brag about and actually comes under quite a bit of criticism from “pro-immigrant” groups for making empty promises to them. I don’t think the R’s in congress have given him anything in regards to most or all of his horrible immigration “reforms”, hence the executive orders that have been repeatedly over ruled. As far as the refugees he is heedlessly and recklessly forcing on us….I believe that would come under foreign policy where yes, the executive has much much more leeway and is a huge concern.
I’m not really sure who wins your “weakness abroad and iron fist at home” arguement. We pretty much know what HRC will be at home but I don’t necessarily think she will be as weak and I would say “anti-American” abroad as Obama has been. Trump seems to be completely ignorant about foreign policy so I suppose our interests will suddenly parallel Russia’s in most areas? Domestically he brags about being as iron fisted as they come. Neither would seem trustworthy to hold the reigns of power if you happen to be a political enemy I bet.
Republicans in Congress will find a way to feel obliged to move Hillary’s agenda. In part, it’s because they agree with it. The one part they mostly agree with is getting rid of tea partiers and freedom caucus types.