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.
To Trump or Not to Trump: A Response
As all of Ricochet will be shocked to learn I disagreed strongly with EJHill’s recent post regarding what he sees as the binary choice before us this cycle. I don’t have much to add here that I didn’t already express in the comments of that post, but I would like to point everyone to a piece by Ricochet alumna Rachel Lu:
So here’s the situation as I understand it. We have a lot of deeply alienated conservative voters who, strangely enough, actually supported conservative principles that now seem to have been carelessly jettisoned. Some are sufficiently upset that they’ve left the party or at least declared they won’t vote for Trump. Those people could make the difference in the election.
What are we doing to win them back? Heaping on the blistering scorn! It’s a pretty great strategy. Hurled insults rarely fail to appease disgruntled voters.
I lied when I said I didn’t understand. I do. What we’re seeing is a lot of poison-pen personal therapy. Everyone is angry, and ranting in public is a great stress reliever in times of political turmoil.
Nevertheless, if you want to win this presidential election, I recommend investing in a stress ball, and dialing back the printed scorn. Maybe Trump supporters aren’t the only voters in America who like feeling respected? Here are some suggestions from a Never Trump conservative for talking more constructively with conservative voters who truly loathe our nominee.
Rachel proceeds to lay out five techniques that would assist Trump supporters in their efforts to win back disaffected conservatives, but it is number 2 that I find the most valuable:
2. Don’t Try to Nice Up Donald Trump
Aggressive efforts to rehabilitate Trump may have helped him make headway with less-engaged voters. It’s not going to work on Never Trumps. They tend to feel the rehabilitation effort has already deeply compromised the conservative movement.
Consider how this might look to a person who truly loathes Trump. He watches as friends or favorite writers dip their toes gingerly into the Trump tank (because he’s better than Hillary!). A week later the same person decides Trump isn’t really so bad at all. Six weeks later he might be crowing about Trump’s Ciceronian statesmanship and heartfelt love of the common man.
We’ve seen many sad and desperate attempts to project wildly unrealistic visions onto the mogul. Everyone’s clutching at the thinnest straws to prove Trump is what they want him to be. Never Trumps aren’t buying it. This is a man who has spent most of his life selling people out and taking people in (not in a hospitable way). To say he is untrustworthy and of established bad character is something of a comical understatement.
Have our conservative allies forgotten that, or do they just not care? It’s excruciating to see people you respect become so deeply deluded. (Whenever I say something even mildly sympathetic to Trump, I get messages from alarmed readers effectively begging me not to go to the Dark Side. I understand how they feel.)
Even if you don’t agree with Never Trumpers’ evaluation of Trump (and Trumpism), you should at least be able to appreciate there are many non-ridiculous reason for distrusting both. Such an acknowledgement will earn you some credibility; downplaying the awful will not.
It is the slow creeping way that I have seen many of my former allies move from rejection, to acceptance to cheerleader that has been the most disheartening element of this particular cycle and I think Rachel hits the nail squarely on the head here.
The one thing to keep in mind is that despite its unfortunate moniker very few people are actually #NeverTrump. Human beings are persuadable on almost every issue, the problem is that we have just given up trying. I can attest that even I can be persuaded off strongly held positions. After an immensely enjoyable two days in San Francisco with @JamesofEngland (#MiniRicoMeetup, Hi @peterrobinson!!), I have been thoroughly convinced not to vote for Gary Johnson – who I previously held as the only ethically un-compromised candidate in the election. This was accomplished through patience, relevant facts about the candidate in question and mutual respect. I learned a lot of lessons over the last two days – the primary being that patience is more persuasive than righteousness. A lesson I should have learned long ago – thank you Ricochet!
Published in General
Please don’t. Let’s talk movies instead. Ricochet is apparently empty of arts talk.
That’s not my argument. As a reluctant Trumper I’ve always argued that most of our Congressmen are feckin’ full of feck. I think that the Congressional feck level is currently at a 21st century high, and that it would be a shame to watch it melt away while we wait for our ideal candidate.
You don’t have to buy into the mistaken “feckless” argument in order to support Trump. You get to assess that yourself. I see him as someone whose pen can facilitate some great legislation from a feckful Congress.
I dare you to craft a mashup of those two themes into one post.
Jaime, your’re a bore.Trump may ignite a resurgence of patriotism, and that is his big sin? Don’t expect a reply…Are we conservatives first and Americans second?
You have described the conflict in an immature manner.What exactly is more important than the health of our country? Conservatism is an idea, not a goal.Not really. James and I attended an event there. No official Meetup.
You continue to argue as if the choice is within the primaries. Wake Up!
I don’t think I’ve had the chance to recommend Mr. James Poulos new book about America here, so here’s my pitch. This conversation has reminded me of one of his arguments, America is turning into a nation of political scientists-lawyers. Everyone knows his rights & clamors for them. Practically, how does that secure rights or perpetuate at least the clamoring for rights? Well, friendship–which is akin to citizenship–is sacrificed for membership.
Here’s how that plays out on Ricochet, that I’ve seen. You’ll often see guy number two answer to guy number one’s speech as though he were not a real human being, but an agent of a political or economic force that has to be withstood, not to say quashed. Enlisting on one side or another of a coalition takes precedence, even in conversations among members to anything common–supposedly, Ricochet is sorta-kinda like a community!
Making sure everyone’s told who’s wrong & who’s right, who deserves to win & what they’ll do to the losers–that’s the membership stuff that replaces what’s supposed to be a kind of friendship.
My friends here tell me, you weren’t around for 2012, you shoulda seen that: There’ll be blood in the streets & then quiet & then we’ll begin to grow again. I hope so. I just wish people who argue loudly felt the need to live up to the Ricochet hype more–it’s good hype!
How much do you think Richard Nixon damaged Republicanism? And by this I mean the Republican Party brand. I think history shows that Nixon harmed the Republican Party to a great extent.
What saved it? Mostly a man named Ronald Reagan, who called for bold colors (much bolder then Nixon was willing to follow) instead of pale pastels. Even in defeat in 1976 Reagan helped inspire people.
But what really helped Reagan, was something called “the Nixon Problem”. Forgotten now by in large, but what it was, was conservatives rising up against Nixon in 72. At the time great conservative minds stood up against Nixon, and disconnected conservative support form Nixon.
Believing that Nixon was:
1. Too statist
2. Not trustworthy
The American Conservative Union, Young Americans for Freedom, Human Events, and other big hitters from then refused to support him, and really disconnected the movement from Nixon.
What this did, was make it so once Nixon fell, conservatism as a whole was not that affected by it. In many ways by standing on principle in 72, the conservative movement disconnected itself from Nixon, which allowed conservatism to be disconnected from Nixon and Watergate.
Whether Nixon or McGovern was “worse” didn’t really matter. Conservatism survived because it was principled.
There is no hope for America if conservatism is crippled.
His point is that either we get Trump or Clinton. Truth.
Your irrelevant question reveals either your cowardice or blindness in the face of reality.And, election fraud is a factor. Can’t cash a check or enter the DOJ without picture ID. Meh.Yes. Conservatism is the defense of God given natural rights. Politically for conservatives the end of politics is the individual human being. It’s the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, that states clearly that defending these rights are above any government.
America, as it currently stands, is only moral and therefor defensible because it upholds these natural rights. It’s philosophy of government is in that way conservative. Once that’s gone, America is not worthy of defending.
Now don’t get me wrong, the US is far from losing that, but once it’s gone the only choice moral men and women have is to reestablish it, even if that means fighting the government that uses the name “United States of America”. I only care about “the nation” so long as it exist to defend the natural rights of the citizenry, beyond that there is nothing moral about the state.
Ahhh, the good old days. When ’twas a policy issue that tore us apart. I think the absurdity of the situations we find ourselves in lends a level of sport to today’s debate. Its fun to argue on principle. Arguments on morality?
I am drawn to these because they are tantalizing and intellectually entertaining. I actively avoided the others because there was no joy, visceral or otherwise, in pressing the argument.
Have I got a link for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOb2zOiJi2U
His energy pitch starts around 20:30
His ernegy plan starts around 24:30
To many people seem to follow the notion of “my country right or wrong”. Well no, that isn’t the American ideal. We’ve fought two wars (The Revolution, and the Civil War) fighting over that very thing.
The people do not exist to support the country. The country exist to defend the rights of the people, and only once it does that do some parts of the people bother to support and defend the country.
If the nation every truly reaches the point where it forgets that, (and I’m not talking about now despite apocalyptic talk we get by some) than the country is no longer worth defending, and the people have an obligation to begin again.
Well then, we better start making a better case than we have been for the last few years. Right now all we seem to be saying to the masses is we’re for a smaller government which tells the voters little. We need to be way more specific and and in simple language the Pittsburgh Steelers fans can understand.
Seconding Titus here – what about those Samurai?
The question was hardly irrelevant. It was seeking clarification on a point specifically made to counter his own argument.
So on top of calling him a bore, you add coward and ignorant to the list. That seems to reinforce the point made in the original post pretty well.
The flip side of smaller government is bigger individual citizens. And liberty.
Ricochet is not a fact-free zone. When people make statements, it makes sense to ask them about evidence.
I applaud Mr. Lockett for the energy required to ask that question–especially because the numbers are astounding if you think about it.
As for the name calling–it is deeply reprehensible. Mr. Lockett was not hounding this guy, but he’s treated as if he had been & was in need of a strong rebuff.
What you arrogantly refuse to understand Trinityis for #NeverTrump, this is not an argument about what degree of evil are we willing to support. The argument is, neither of these two people are worthy of our support, and therefor we will not give support (moral or political) to either of them.If we are going to live by your standards though, that we “must face reality”, history teaches us that if we must have evil it is better to have that evil be a head of the opposition party not our own. Which is called the Hamilton Rule.
For if only any enemy of liberty is going to lead the country, it’s better to have the evil face clearly against us, so there is no confusion about how to overcome it.
Frankly the more #AlwaysTrump, attempts to bully #NeverTrump the more likely it’s going to cause some of us to simply support Clinton, in order for the lines to clearly be drawn. Most of us don’t do that now, largely because of our principles, principles that the #AlwaysTrump people want us to break, falsely believing it means we will vote for the Me Too Republican if we do.
It’s terrible, in short, & seems gratuitous.
Yes, it truly wouldn’t hurt to have less name calling.
Trinity has had a burr under his saddle with me for a while, at this point I don’t expect anything to be done, but it would behoove him to realize that the only person that came off poorly in that exchange was him.I think I understand the arguments being made against a Trump presidency, and I suppose I agree on many levels. For me the issue is immigration. Or more specifically, recruiting new Democrat voters. There was an article this week somewhere detailing how naturalization was being sped up ahead of the election. I think it’s probably already too late to stop, but assuredly Hillary will finish the process. Once the blue wall has 270 electoral votes, we’ll basically have a one party system for a very long time. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-texas-become-another-brick-in-the-democrats-blue-wall/2016/07/20/08b55f5e-4de0-11e6-a422-83ab49ed5e6a_story.html?utm_term=.21c624aae32a
@trinitywaters, you have thus far directly insulted another member multiple times so far. Desist.
If the GOP can lose Texas, it can lose anything. The ‘importing Democrat voters’ spur to action is as likely to increase Dem voter numbers relative to GOP as to decrease it.
There’s got to be some other way to think about what’s got to be done. Here’s another long, complicated story about Texas–the GOP is too blind or incompetent, to speak briefly & cuttingly, to take care of the metropolises of Texas. This does not seem to have to do with migration from Mexico.
Your comment is non-responsive. Clarification, indeed. Dr. Robert posed a simple choice. You assume too much, maybe. Word smithing is fun and clever, but at the end of this process we either get
Thunder Rodent Thighs,the leader of all things inimical to personal freedom, or we get Trump. Chooseand quit prevaricating.OK… The amazing thing about Seven Samurai isn’t the film itself, but the myth it created… Mercenaries hired to save a town… Per the Los Angeles Times…
Sounds like a tale worth retelling. But is the retelling any good?