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.
Trumpalooza (Limited Edition)
In our latest Need to Know, Mona Charen and I talk about Election 2016 and related catastrophes. Despite all that talk, my fingers itch, and I would like to do some writing.
Trumpsters like to compare themselves to Brexiteers, understandably. In August, their candidate tweeted out, “They will soon be calling me MR. BREXIT!” But it occurs to me that they are like Remainers, in one important respect.
Remainers launched what their opponents called “Operation Fear.” They campaigned on fear. They forecast all sorts of doom, should voters opt to leave the EU. It was 24/7 scaremongering.
What do I hear from Trump and his army? “This is the last election we’ll ever have. It’s now or never for America. If you fail to elect Donald J. Trump, America is over.”
I have been against Hillary Clinton for 25 years. Have written and cried against her. Even questioned her once. (She looked at me like she could kill me.) I was against her when Donald Trump was funding her, praising her, and insisting that she be the trophy guest at his wedding, in the first pew.
Yet I think America could survive her. Maybe even more easily than it could survive him.
***
Character used to be a huge part of conservatism. “Character is king,” people said. “Character is destiny.”
This year, however, conservatives, many of them, turned their backs on character. Character was a luxury we could not afford, in these parlous times.
They also turned their backs on conservatism – a conservative worldview. “No box-checking,” they said. “This is no time for box-checking. No time for philosophical purity.”
What did that leave? Electability. Trump may not have character, and he may not be a conservative, but, by golly, he can win. He fights. He’s a winner. And he’s going to show the rest of you chumps how to win.
Romney was a loser. Too polite, too much a gentleman. He let the Democrats walk all over him. Not this time, not with our great orange brute.
Okay. How’s that working out for you? Feel like a winner?
Conservatives – again, many of them – sacrificed character and conservatism, and it looks like they won’t get the win, either. Hillary Clinton was very beatable this year. Is beatable. But with DJT?
Also, if you won with Trump, what would you win? A statist authoritarian whose mental and emotional problems make him a danger around the button? That’s the win?
Thanks.
***
A prediction: After the election, Trump talkers – Trump boosters, Trump advocates – will revert to their former role of conservative commissar. Pre-Trump, they were the ideological enforcers. They were always on the hunt for heretics. They scoured the land for infidelity and disobedience. If you veered one inch from conservative orthodoxy (as they defined it), you were consigned to darkness.
Everyone was a “RINO.” Remember that? Everyone was a tool of the “establishment.”
Then Trump came along. (A genuine RINO.) And it was, “Conservatism, conshmervatism. Hey, no box-checking, dude. Stop harshing my mellow. Dontcha wanna win? What are you, some kind of ideologue? Politics is not for the dogmatic, you know.”
Post-Trump, they will resume their former role, I’m afraid. Keep an eye on it.
***
Eric Cantor was considered insufficiently conservative for Congress. He was a RINO who had to go. Compared with Donald Trump, he is the reincarnation of Russell Kirk. Cantor has more conservatism in a follicle of his hair than Trump has in … than exists, probably, in all of Trump Tower.
***
All of my life, I’ve heard conservatives talk about virtue, family values, and morality. I don’t want to hear a peep from them on those things for the rest of my life. Not after seeing what they have done this cycle – covering for, excusing, papering over Donald J. Trump.
Once upon a time, Henry Hyde was my favorite politician. Indeed, he was pretty much my favorite person in public life. I used to say, “If I had to appoint someone president of the United States, I would appoint either Henry Hyde or Bill Bennett.”
I met Hyde once, in a hallway on the Hill. Gushed all over him.
During Lewinsky days, there was a very bad story about him and another man’s family. No need to go into details now. But it was pretty lousy. And I mentioned around the office that I felt sorry about Hyde.
I had always known that it was stupid to have heroes in politics. That mortals were mortals. That boys would be boys. “Put not your trust in princes.” “Cease ye from man whose breath is in his nostrils.” Blah blah blah. But still: Hyde was kind of a blow.
A colleague of mine mocked me, for being a square. He said that it was ridiculous for my opinion of Hyde to be affected. Who’d I think I was, Cotton Mather? In answer, I said something like this:
We all get to pick what we value. What we admire, what we disdain. What we consider important, what we consider less so. We all have our priorities. I can’t pick for you, and you can’t pick for me. It’s an individual thing.
Many, many women have accused Trump of assaulting them, sexually. They seem credible to me. And we have Trump’s testimony: about what his m.o. is. The women’s testimony conforms to Trump’s own.
Either this matters or it doesn’t. Either this is a big deal or it isn’t. I can’t decide for you, and you can’t decide for me. It’s a matter of conscience, taste, etc.
Some conservatives are aghast. Some are blasé. Some are a little in between. I hear, “Yeah, I’m not too cool with sexual assault. I feel kind of bad for the women. But, you know, the Supreme Court. And Hillary. #NeverHillary. Sometimes you have to swallow a little assault, for the greater good.”
Oh, what a miserable year. For eons, the Left has said that the Right is a bunch of hypocrites. I always argued against it. I won’t anymore.
In my view, the “conservative movement” has forfeit its right to talk about morality or character in politics ever again.
***
The alliance between the Republican party and Putin’s Kremlin is a rather curious thing. The Russian strongman is the GOP’s best friend – doing all he can to elect the Republican nominee. He’s doing a lot more than Paul Ryan, for example.
But I caution Republicans against falling in love: Putin may be your friend for the moment, but he’s no friend of America, or of democracy.
It’s interesting to read Team Hillary’s e-mails. (Thanks, Vlad!) Some of them make me like Hillary better, frankly (or dislike her less). She is friendlier to trade in private than she is on the stump. But I was thinking not long ago: I wish Vlad would switch sides, just for a day or two. Because it would be a pleasure to read Team Trump’s e-mails: Corey, Ivanka, Manafort, Kellyanne, Eric, Donald Jr., Bannon, Hannity, Laura, Ann, Newt, the Donald himself …
That could be some juicy reading.
***
I learned a lot from this eye-opening piece by James Kirchick. It’s about Trump’s support on the left. There’s a lot of it, and it makes sense. Especially in the realm of foreign policy.
One of the things I learned from Jamie is that, in 2013, Trump praised Putin for knocking President Obama. What had gotten Vlad’s goat? Obama had spoken of America as an exceptional nation.
Interesting. Conservatives have long knocked Obama for not acknowledging or respecting America as an exceptional nation.
Trump was 100 percent with Putin. The term “American exceptionalism,” said Trump, is “very insulting, and Putin really put it to him about that.”
More Trump:
… if you’re in Russia, you don’t want to hear that America is exceptional. And if you’re in many other countries, whether it’s Germany or other places, you don’t want to hear about “American exceptionalism,” because you think you’re exceptional. So I can see that being very insulting to the world.
And that’s basically what Putin was saying, is that, you know, you use a term like “American exceptionalism,” and frankly, the way our country is being treated right now by Russia and Syria and lots of other places and with all the mistakes we’ve made over the years, like Iraq and so many others, it’s sort of a hard term to use. But other nations and other countries don’t want to hear about “American exceptionalism.” They’re insulted by it. And that’s what Putin was saying.
Very nice. And I can understand it from a poli-sci prof at Brown (in different language). But from the man who, three years later, would become the Republican presidential nominee?
The embrace of Donald J. Trump by American conservatives – millions and millions of them, intellectuals and rank ’n’ file – is one of the damnedest things I ever saw.
***
Is it dangerous for Trump to claim that the election is rigged? Well, it is certainly standard – standard for him. That’s the same thing he said during the primaries and caucuses, when he was losing ground. The elections are rigged, the system is rigged. Then he came back to win it all, of course – win the nomination.
Apparently, the idea of losing is so intolerable to him, he must claim he is cheated. He can never lose, you see; he can only be cheated. I believe this mindset is dangerous in a leader, but that’s a different discussion.
Back to my earlier question: Is it dangerous for Trump to claim that the election is rigged? Dangerous to our democracy? Well, I think of a wolf-crying problem. Sometimes, in some places, elections are rigged. And there may be some serious rigging in our future. (Just play with me here.) What will people say then? They could well mutter, or snort, “That’s what Trump said.”
The rigging of an election is a serious charge. You’d better have a leg to stand on.
***
I have some more questions: When Trump talks about international bankers and a dark plot against American sovereignty and all that – does he know what he is doing? Does he know the anti-Semitic baggage of such talk, or is he innocent of it?
When he said, earlier on, “America First,” did he know the history?
I don’t think so, really. I don’t think he’s anti-Semitic (though he certainly attracts that kind of support). I think he is simply ignorant and demagogic. But I don’t really know.
***
By the way, I have never really gotten a straight and satisfying answer on something: When Trump and his folk talk about “globalism,” what do they mean? Trade? Alliances? Something else? Does “globalism” play the role – the odorous role – that “cosmopolitanism” once did? WTF?
“America First” is posited against “globalism.” Trump and his spokesmen will often say, “We’re for America First, not globalism.” I wonder whether they know what they are saying.
***
I was thinking last week about poor John Edwards. He was too early. The bar is so much lower now. I guess Trump folk would say he was the victim of “moral preening.”
That’s what I often hear: that if you object to Trump’s behavior, you are “morally preening.”
***
One of his defenses against the sexual accusations against him is, I would never have, she’s far too ugly.
I imagine this has sway with some. And not with others.
***
You know who was really too early? Gary Hart. That ride on Monkey Business – it seems positively quaint. Autres temps, autres mœurs.
***
A final question for you: If Trump loses the election, how long before he is back in the Democratic party? Six months? Less? Before Inauguration Day? To ponder …
Published in General
Jay, I think you are using the language of rights loosely here. Duties don’t disappear because we fail to fulfill them.
Conservatives, many of them, despise Trump, are heartbroken about this election year, and yet may vote for this disgraceful clown with noses pinched.
They forfeit nothing.
I look forward to next month, when the battle lines are formed: NeverTrump and ReluctantTrump vs. AlwaysTrump.
I’m glad I’m not the only person who comments here when they’re drunk.I think I can make more sense, though.
I used to listen to your podcast and read every NR column you wrote, online and in print. Now I don’t and the simple reason is that your tone has become tainted by a tendency to make your points sound like condescending judgment against those like me who see politics as a fight between unredeemably bad and sometimes bad. While I respect you because of my long past readership, I just can’t stand listening to you in print or on air anymore.
Guess what I’m doing after this is over. I’m checking out, no more money, no more effort, no nothing. I’m more sick of you failed intellectuals than I am the dude I have to vote for to retain my manhood as I see it. So add it to your equation.
Even with my nose pinched, Trump and Hillary smell the same to me, like a dying republic. I will vote for Evan McMullin. Of all the alternatives, he is the only one worth my vote.
Jay, I usually read your columns and met you on the 2008 NR Cruise but you are wrong here and NR has damaged its brand, perhaps fatally. Trump raised issues of critical importance to voters that NO ONE ELSE did. Has ONE “Conservative Republican” raised issues about Illegal Immigration or Muslim Immigration, we would not be talking about Trump. NO ONE DID !
They all seem to be beholden to the donor class which wants unlimited immigration and is profiting from the disastrous ZIRP and stock market bubble.
Talk to me after the election. I have serious business now.
Love this, Mr. Nordlinger. Like an extended Impromptus. I agree with every point.
Conservatism Inc’s Giddiness Affirmed by Publiius Decius Mus
Enjoy the National Review Cruise
Well, Jay, Ion may not listen to and read you anymore, but I do. You have articulated extremely well what I think and how I feel about this election and its manifest horrors. Thank you.
Latest John Derbyshire column can be found here.
Well…. Bye.
Guess you missed the whole GOP stopping Bush’s immigration push thing huh?
What’s happened since? The immigration debate stopped being about law and order, as well as the threat of Islamic terrorism, and instead has become about “white ID politics” with people crying about the death of “white culture”.
That’s what Trump has brought to this debate, and why he has crippled any chance of real immigration enforcement for the foreseeable future. His sons go on white supremacist podcast, Trump himself retweets white nationalist mantras, and he’s given such hope to the alt right that David Duke is running for the Senate again. Trump’s done more damage to the cause of immigration, than Joe McCarthy did to anti-communism.
I guess you’ve been a little too busy to be reading your Wikileaks memos. Oh, well.
Yup, just conspiracy theorizing. Move along.
Trump raised issues of critical importance to voters that NO ONE ELSE did. Has ONE “Conservative Republican” raised issues about Illegal Immigration or Muslim Immigration, we would not be talking about Trump. NO ONE DID !
Yes, they did. I’ve been a subscriber to National Review and the Weekly Standard and those are, indeed, topics that have come up long before Trump. I listen to a number of talk shows, and those topics came up there long before Trump.
I was hoping you could tell us a little more about Victoria’s Secret – Victoria Nuland Clinton’s Hawk-In-Waiting
But, again, enjoy the veal.
Oh, Jay. I said this until I was exhausted during the primaries. Anybody else could beat her! Wise up, voters!
Alas. Every time I read this now, I have to go through the stages of grief all over again.
Huh?
I remember it. I remember Bush and the entire weight of the establishment pushing down on the people who opposed his amnesty/open borders scheme, pushed back by an intense effort from rank-and-file Americans. I remember senator Sam Brownback, mocked as senator “Sam Switchback,” because he changed his vote for Bush’s amnesty scheme after it had lost.
Guess you missed all that, huh?
No it hasn’t. You endorse a slur. But of course you do, nevertrumper.
Hogwash. There never was any chance of real immigration enforcement, because the people in charge of the GOP- supposedly the law-and-order party- would never accept any real “immigration enforcement,” regardless of actual US law, because it threatened their endless gravy train of low-wage workers.
Hence, Trump. And, hence, the well-deserved end of the worthless backstabbing betraying gop.
Enjoy your time roasting in Hell, gop.
Since that’s exactly what I was talking about, and how the GOP Congress pushed against Bush I’m not sure what you are complaining about exactly? The GOP stopped Bush’s push.
But thanks for repeating my point using different words.
I simply do not understand the claim that nobody brought these matters up. They have been under nearly constant discussion on talk radio and in magazines such as NR and TWS for years. The fact that are not HOLLERED in ALL CAPS does not mean they have been avoided.
Americans are feeling bullied, so they chose a bully. Notice I didn’t say Repulicans – I haven’t crunched the numbers but it seems as though Trump did better in open primary states, I am guessing he got a lot of Dems’ votes
I am sorry Trump is the nominee and I hope someday we find out why. My suspicions are that the GOP threw all their weight behind Bush, it starved the other candidates of money, leaving a huge vacuum for the candidate getting all the free press
whatever Jay. I’m left with two choices and I’ll vote for Trump and sleep well that night.
On a personal note, this is what I call a “gorilla in the mist” post. You have a lot to say about Trump voters but my impression is you’ve only observed them and made conclusions. I didn’t get the impression you understand them. Call anytime, I’d be happy to explain my thoughts on the matter.
I am going to disagree with Jay, however, on the idea that the Republican party, per se, is to blame for Trump. The party did what it was supposed to do, obligated to do, and nominated the one who had a plurality of votes, despite his being a colossal schmuck. This, despite the constant howls from the Trumpians that the GOP establishment was going to find some way to torpedo him. I wish they had. But the party played by the rules. I wish they hadn’t.
You’re a mensch Jay, and your analysis this year has turned me from a casual fan to a super fan. I can’t imagine the horror show of Trump vitriol that must be your poor inbox, my condolences. Keep up the great work.
That is exactly what they want.
Don’t give it to them.
Thanks. I missed that one. As usual, he hits the nail right on its head.
And in the primary ? Did you hear one say anything about it except that we need “reform” meaning open borders ? I didn’t. And I was listening.
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/50860.html
In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, Wilson conceded that “Trump is still a very powerful force right now” because he appeals to part of the of the conservative base that Wilson said was activated by his “nativist” message. Wilson insisted that the donor class “can’t just sit back on the sidelines and say, ‘oh well, don’t worry, this will all work itself out.’”
“They’re still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump,” Wilson said. “And that’s a fact.”
Well said, Jay.
I am sorry Trump is the nominee and I hope someday we find out why. My suspicions are that the GOP threw all their weight behind Bush, it starved the other candidates of money, leaving a huge vacuum for the candidate getting all the free press
I don’t think there’s any one reason for the rise of Trump, but rather a number of factors which all combined to make his nomination possible. Maybe it was different here in Minnesota, being a state that is usually going to go to the Democrats, but I truly never got the impression that the GOP threw all of their weight behind Bush — if anything, I sensed a lot of reluctance due to a kind of Bush fatigue. I do think that Bush and his PACs were wrong to focus such vast sums of money trying to destroy Rubio, and, well, the circular firing squad had the result one could expect. I also think that in today’s culture, celebrity counts for a LOT. Many people would rather go with the guy they see on TV on a reality show than some geek who talks about fiscal policy. Entertainment is fun, accounting is boring.
Also, in anxious times, fraught with a pervading sense that we’re atomized and fractured, some people will look for a Messiah. Trump clearly is that for a lot of people, and he promoted himself as such, for example saying that he was the only man who could fix things.
And in the primary ? Did you hear one say anything about it except that we need “reform” meaning open borders ?
The term “reform” doesn’t mean much without details. It can be a euphemism for open borders when used by, say, Hillary, but doesn’t necessarily mean that when used by different conservatives and politicians. To assume that it only means “open borders” is simply not accurate.
The party did what it was supposed to do, obligated to do, and nominated the one who had a plurality of votes, despite his being a colossal schmuck.
Yup, I’m afraid you’re right (sigh…). Still, I wish the RNC would have made releasing tax returns and submitting to a vetting process be a requisite for anyone seeking the nomination. Given the man’s insecurities, it might have stopped him, as I suspect he isn’t worth nearly as much as he has been claiming, and would probably not want that known for a fact (it might damage his brand).