The Case For Trump

 

hillary_clinton_philadelphia_rally_4-20-16_croppedAt National Review, Ricochet contributor Victor Davis Hanson lays out the case for supporting the Republican nominee. It is long, detailed, well-argued and convincing, exactly what you would expect from this gifted classicist and historian.

The ancient idea of tragic irony can sometimes be described as an outcome unfortunately contrary to what should have been expected. Many of us did not vote in the primaries for Trump, because we did not believe that he was sufficiently conservative or, given his polarizing demeanor, that he could win the presidency even if he were.

The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.

Well worth the read. A powerful argument. Hanson skillfully stitches together four months of Ricochet conversations posted by the deplorable Rabble. Honorary membership to Dr. Hanson for this masterpiece!

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 60 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    In before the thread goes off the rails.

    Which is probably at Comment #4.

    • #1
  2. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Austin Murrey:In before the thread goes off the rails.

    Which is probably at Comment #4.

    In the immortal words of John F’ng Kerry ….

    kerrybunnysalute1

    Bring It On!

    • #2
  3. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Is not the present course of projecting weakness while insulting Vladimir Putin — the Russian reset of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — the inverse of speaking softly while carrying a big stick?

    • #3
  4. Tony Sells Inactive
    Tony Sells
    @TonySells

    As I start to type, this could be comment 4.  Let the derailment begin.

    If being down 7 points three weeks from the election to the worst democratic nominee  in 40 years was our best chance, then conservatism has no chance at all.  You are rearranging the deck chairs at this point.

    The truth is that about 10 of the other candidates would have beaten Hillary soundly.

    We picked our weakest candidate for the White House.  Live and learn.

    • #4
  5. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    The tragic irony of Trump is that he was led to believe that he was a great politician because of the medias saturating coverage of him during the primaries. Now that same coverage is proving to be his undoing as it exposes his worst aspects to an audience that is less receptive (in fact down right repulsed by them) than the Republican primary electorate.

    The fact that some three weeks away from the election the argument VDH is making is that conservatives should vote for Trump is indication of Trumps poor general election standing. Trump is still trying to win over conservatives, but has lost everyone else, which means he will lose the election.

    • #5
  6. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    I sure hope that commenters here take the time, and yes it does require some time, to actally read VDH’s essay. I don’t know that the “conservative” television/radio/internet punditry and inside-the-beltway establishment could put together that cogent an argument. They would rather wring their hands in horror. My concern is that it comes too late to undo the effects of said pundits’ and insiders’ preening and pontificating on the meme-reading, sky-is-falling, special-snowflake electorate.

    • #6
  7. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    9thDistrictNeighbor:I sure hope that commenters here take the time, and yes it does require some time, to actally read VDH’s essay. I don’t know that the “conservative” television/radio/internet punditry and inside-the-beltway establishment could put together that cogent an argument. They would rather wring their hands in horror. My concern is that it comes too late to undo the effects of said pundits’ and insiders’ preening and pontificating on the meme-reading, sky-is-falling, special-snowflake electorate.

     

    • #7
  8. She Member
    She
    @She

    Valiuth:Trump is still trying to win over conservatives, but has lost everyone else, which means he will lose the election.

    I think this is incorrect in two important ways:  first, I don’t think Trump has lost, nor will he ever lose, his core group of supporters who have been with him since day one (at least, not if those in my family are anything to go by).  Second, I don’t think Trump is trying to win over conservatives at all.  He’s taken a stab at rounding up folks who are primarily worried about the Supreme Court by publishing his “list.”  Everyone assumes that this ‘list’ was a sop to “conservatives,” but I’m not even sure that’s working out as intended.

    But it’s  something that was easy for him to do, that had a tangible outcome he can point to, and that, in between now and the time that he has to act on the matter (if he’s elected), he can forget about, and go back to doing what he likes best.

     

    I don’t see any evidence, in almost everything he says and does, that he’s courting anyone other than those who’ve already decided to vote for him.  His outreach to those who aren’t likely to, which is along the lines of you’re not going to vote for me anyway so it doesn’t matter, (he said something like this to someone in a town hall meeting a few weeks ago), or “what do you have to lose,” (ummm, let me think . . . .), or “only I can fix this,” or “I’d like [the Republicans to hold the Senate], but I don’t mind being a free agent either,” doesn’t convince me that he’s trying to grow the tent.  Sure, he may have brought (some) people in from other demographics, but not enough, apparently, to win.

    Because I do think you’re right about one thing.  I think he’s going to lose.  Bigly.

    UPDATE:  The point I wanted to make, and then lost track of somewhere in the middle of a meandering subordinate clause, is that VDH can make all the arguments he wants to as to why people who aren’t instinctively supporting him should vote for Trump, but Trump himself hasn’t cogently made those arguments himself.  Until he does (and it’s awfully late in the game), it’s hard for me to understand why people should take VDH on faith.

    • #8
  9. livingthehighlife Inactive
    livingthehighlife
    @livingthehighlife

    here-we-go-again

    • #9
  10. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    I think it should be Trump’s job to convince conservatives to vote for him, not VDH.

    She: UPDATE: The point I wanted to make, and then lost track of somewhere in the middle of a meandering subordinate clause, is that VDH can make all the arguments he wants to as to why people who aren’t instinctively supporting him should vote for Trump, but Trump himself hasn’t cogently made those arguments himself. Until he does (and it’s awfully late in the game), it’s hard for me to understand why people should take VDH on faith.

    Well I just realized my point was already made but I agree.  Conservatives aren’t that hard a sell on voting for the Republican ticket because they felt like even if it wasn’t a “conservative” party, it was where they had a voice.  Trump’s party bragged about crushing conservative critics, shut them out and shut them up at the convention, and the candidate picked fights with conservative pundits instead of trying to find common ground.  Lord knows VDH is far smarter than I but his candidate isn’t.

    • #10
  11. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Trump is not after conservatives.  His goal is to pick up Democrats that the Democrat party left behind in its leftward sprint to Obama and beyond.  Every time the Democrats lurch left they take their base with them but to some people enough is enough and they just drop out of politics since neither party represents them.  Trump is trying to pick up those people.

    • #11
  12. Crabby Appleton Inactive
    Crabby Appleton
    @CrabbyAppleton

    ” Concretevol

    I think it should be Trump’s job to convince conservatives to vote for him, not VDH. ”

    You are correct, sir!

    I’m a yuge fan of VDH.  I’ve read and enjoyed most of his books, essays, and histories (even “The Other Greeks”!) but he doesn’t convince me  to vote for the Republican nominee.  Instead of the candidate convincing me as he must he  has done exactly the opposite.  His personal deportment, his rhetorical stupidities, and the character, nature and quality of the people with whom he surrounds himself are deeply disturbing.  I am old and I have a conception of the nature, character, qualifications, and capabilities of the President which is the complete opposite of Trump and of Bill Clinton’s wife.  I will vote for neither of them come election day.

    • #12
  13. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    I’m happy that Trump and his supporters are still marooned in the delusion that he has some kind of a chance to win.  I want them to stay there, and it now seems like they will – right up until the election, and possibly after the election.

    That’s good, because if Trump actually realizes he is going to lose, then he is going to lash out at whoever he blames for his loss, and there is a good chance that it will be Republicans who he blames.  He could spend the last couple of weeks before the election campaigning against Republican Congressional candidates.  He has already done plenty to cost us the Senate, and maybe the House, but he could do more.

    Trump could possibly blame someone else.  Maybe his fury will be directed at the media, or Carlos Slim, or whoever.  The only one who is safe from Trump’s fury is Trump himself.  He will never take any responsibility for his coming loss, and will never realize that his loss is entirely because he is an ignorant, arrogant, degenerate.

    • #13
  14. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Larry3435:I’m happy that Trump and his supporters are still marooned in the delusion that he has some kind of a chance to win. I want them to stay there, and it now seems like they will – right up until the election, and possibly after the election.

    That’s good, because if Trump actually realizes he is going to lose, then he is going to lash out at whoever he blames for his loss, and there is a good chance that it will be Republicans who he blames. He could spend the last couple of weeks before the election campaigning against Republican Congressional candidates. He has already done plenty to cost us the Senate, and maybe the House, but he could do more.

    Trump could possibly blame someone else. Maybe his fury will be directed at the media, or Carlos Slim, or whoever. The only one who is safe from Trump’s fury is Trump himself. He will never take any responsibility for his coming loss, and will never realize that his loss is entirely because he is an ignorant, arrogant, degenerate.

    And I’m thrilled that Larry thinks that by referring to his opponents as delusional he’ll accomplish something other than convince himself how smart and snarky he is.

    • #14
  15. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Martel: And I’m thrilled that Larry thinks that by referring to his opponents as delusional he’ll accomplish something other than convince himself how smart and snarky he is.

    Oh, you don’t have to be particularly smart to see the obvious.  I know that Trump is going to lose for the same reason I knew that Obamacare was going to ruin the healthcare system, and for the same reason I know that we are never going to pay off a $19 trillion dollar debt.  Because it’s just obvious.  And the English word for failing to see the obvious is a “delusion.”

    But, if I’m wrong, imagine how snarky you can be when you tell me “I told you so.”  I almost regret that I won’t get to see that comment.  It would be entertaining, I’m sure.

    • #15
  16. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    VDH: Conservatives who sit out the election de facto vote for Clinton, in the manner that Sanders’s liberal supporters, should they stay home, become votes for Trump.

    This is simply not true. There is a large mathematical difference between voting for Clinton and voting for either Johnson or McMullin. Voting for Clinton means that you are willing to (help) tip a state toward her while voting third party means you’re unwilling to (help) tip the state toward him.

    Put it the other way: it’s one matter if a liberal disgusted with Clinton votes for Jill Stein; it’s quite another if they decide to vote for Trump, yes? Same difference.

    • #16
  17. Pseudodionysius Inactive
    Pseudodionysius
    @Pseudodionysius

    • #17
  18. Viator Inactive
    Viator
    @Viator

    Didn’t we just cover this with Caligula or Godwin’s law?

    • #18
  19. Viator Inactive
    Viator
    @Viator

    “too many conservative pundits buy into and accept the New York Times and CNN narratives, with a feeling that they need to be appeased because they actually are right, or smarter.  The mainstream has worked its magic on too many conservatives and Republicans, putting our spokesmen on the continual defensive and cowing them into a political inferiority complex.  Too many of us think what they think is more important than what the customers at the Tin Lizzy Tavern think.  This is yet another example of the “conservative Stockholm Syndrome.”

    But the language of the editorial boards and mainstream news organizations is, in fact, a new language.  Sophisticated.  Dominant.  But new.  And to many, the language of Donald Trump is at once unsophisticated, common, and yet, when not vulgar, refreshing from a political candidate. ”

    http://amgreatness.com/2016/10/17/trumps-resilience-americas/

    • #19
  20. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Columbo: The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.

    I’m going to have to come back when I’ve had time to read the whole thing but this paragraph I find baffling.  I mean I literally can’t understand a word of it.  Beginning with “The irony”

    What irony? What is he talking about?

    • #20
  21. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    Casey:

    Columbo: The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.

    I’m going to have to come back when I’ve had time to read the whole thing but this paragraph I find baffling. I mean I literally can’t understand a word of it. Beginning with “The irony”

    What irony? What is he talking about?

    Irony….that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.  Suffice it to say, since Trump is the only candidate that could possibly be losing to Hillary at this point the rest of the statement is pure nonsense.  lol   Kasich (son of a postman) would be mopping the floor with her right now for God’s sake.

    • #21
  22. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Casey:

    Columbo: The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.

    I’m going to have to come back when I’ve had time to read the whole thing but this paragraph I find baffling. I mean I literally can’t understand a word of it. Beginning with “The irony”

    What irony? What is he talking about?

    I would prefer that Dr. Hanson explain it himself here or in a podcast. However, I believe that the irony is that Donald Trump is not a conservative. And because of this fact, and his boorish, arrogant and disgraceful personal conduct, the conservative commentariat is up in arms with his candidacy. And are willing to fight tooth and nail against him winning the Presidency as a Republican.

    And the irony … DJT, the nonconservative candidate of change (it back), could indeed “usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency and Supreme Court in nearly a century.”

    • #22
  23. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Concretevol:

    Casey:

    Columbo: The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.

    I’m going to have to come back when I’ve had time to read the whole thing but this paragraph I find baffling. I mean I literally can’t understand a word of it. Beginning with “The irony”

    What irony? What is he talking about?

    Irony….that word doesn’t mean what you think it means. Suffice it to say, since Trump is the only candidate that could possibly be losing to Hillary at this point the rest of the statement is pure nonsense. lol Kasich (son of a postman) would be mopping the floor with her right now for God’s sake.

    This is part of VDH’s point. That is the conventional wisdom. Sure, buffoonish and egotistical Donald Trump makes the personal attacks on himself easy. However, if it were Kasich (seriously?), Cruz or other candidate, the democrat media/military industrial complex would have already made them into a knuckle-dragging Attila the Hun and they wouldn’t be fighting back like DJT. Remember Romney’s binders of women, dog on the car and how he fired employees with cancer and made them die?

    • #23
  24. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Larry3435:I’m happy that Trump and his supporters are still marooned in the delusion that he has some kind of a chance to win. I want them to stay there, and it now seems like they will – right up until the election, and possibly after the election.

     

    Ya know Larry. You convinced me.

    I’m just going to stay home on election day.

    Thanks for saving me the effort.

    • #24
  25. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Concretevol:

    Irony….that word doesn’t mean what you think it means. Suffice it to say, since Trump is the only candidate that could possibly be losing to Hillary at this point the rest of the statement is pure nonsense. lol Kasich (son of a postman) would be mopping the floor with her right now…

    Dr. Hanson …

    Trumpism was no fluke. During the primaries, a solid conservative governor, Scott Walker, at times seemed a deer in the headlights on illegal immigration. A charismatic Marco Rubio fell into robotic recitations of boilerplate. A decent Jeb Bush’s characterization of illegal immigration as “an act of love” was no gaffe but seemed a window into his own privilege. Multi-talented Ted Cruz convinced few that he was the elder Cato. Rand Paul reminded us why we would not vote for Ron Paul. Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry demonstrated how successful governors might not inspire the country. Chris Christie played the bully boy one too many times. The inspired outsiders, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, never quite got beyond being inspired outsiders. Campaigning is like war: It often involves a tragic correction to early mistaken appraisals of relative strength and weakness formed in calmer times. Casualties pile up to prove what should have been known but went unrecognized before blows fell: in this case, that in his energetic harnessing of popular anger, Trump, my own least favorite in the field, was the more effective candidate in gauging the mood of the times.

    • #25
  26. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    I don’t know what to say.  I “upvoted” this because it deserved to be read. I’ve also been in the tank for VDH, but I honestly think that this is the worst (most sloppy) piece of his that I’ve ever read.  It’s lame to say I don’t even know where to start with points of disagreement, but I really don’t have 2-3 hours without getting paid.

    • #26
  27. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    Columbo: They would rather wring their hands in horror.

    Yes.  Here is another pretty good piece on the same topic.

     

    http://dailypundit.com/2016/10/17/the-unequally-terrible-election/

    • #27
  28. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    Concretevol: Trump’s party bragged about crushing conservative critics, shut them out and shut them up at the convention, and the candidate picked fights with conservative pundits instead of trying to find common ground.

    So Cruz pulling his stunt at the convention was “reaching out?”

    I guess I came back to Ricochet too soon.

    • #28
  29. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    VDH: Conservatives who sit out the election de facto vote for Clinton, in the manner that Sanders’s liberal supporters, should they stay home, become votes for Trump.

    This is simply not true. There is a large mathematical difference between voting for Clinton and voting for either Johnson or McMullin. Voting for Clinton means that you are willing to (help) tip a state toward her while voting third party means you’re unwilling to (help) tip the state toward him.

    Put it the other way: it’s one matter if a liberal disgusted with Clinton votes for Jill Stein; it’s quite another if they decide to vote for Trump, yes? Same difference.

    This debate is probably at the core of a high percentage of the conversations on Ricochet. Is a sit out vote or a 3rd Party protest vote a vote for Clinton?

    Personally, I rather have a podcast where Dr. Hanson debates this with one of the regular NeverTrump contributors … say Mona C for instance. That would be Pay For View.

    However, I’ll have a go at it until that gets scheduled. And firstly, let’s throw out those who are voting in a Blue state where they self-proclaim their vote doesn’t matter anyway. Let’s confine our discussion to voters in states where it could matter.

    When I’ve crossed swords with NT’s, I’ve noticed

    [to be continued … word limit reached]

    • #29
  30. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    When I’ve debated with NT’s, I’ve noticed several things. First, they are very angry when this concept of their NT position is alleged to help or be a ‘vote for’ Hillary. It is a heated reaction. A second thing is that when pushed, there is an acknowledgement that they aren’t all that concerned about a HRC administration and even argue that a Trump administration would likely be as bad or worse. So this vote or non-vote still doesn’t matter. The third item is a sense of a need to inflict “payback”. ‘I’ll make you pay for Trump winning the primary’. No matter that a NeverHillary was for a different candidate in the primary. A fall back positon is not allowed.

    Let’s start with the ambivalence to an HRC administration. Dr. Hanson:

    Nor is the election a choice even between four more years of liberalism and a return of conservatism; it’s an effort to halt the fundamental transformation of the country. A likely two-term Clinton presidency would complete a 16-year institutionalization of serial progressive abuse of the Constitution, outdoing even the twelve years of the imperial Roosevelt administration. The WikiLeaks revelations suggest an emboldened Hillary Clinton, who feels that a 2016 victory will reify her utopian dreams of a new intercontinental America of open borders and open markets, from Chile to Alaska, in the manner of the European Union expanse from the Aegean to the Baltic.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.