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.
The Case For Trump
At 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
In before the thread goes off the rails.
Which is probably at Comment #4.
In the immortal words of John F’ng Kerry ….
Bring It On!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think it should be Trump’s job to convince conservatives to vote for him, not VDH.
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.
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.
” 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.
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.
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.
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.
Didn’t we just cover this with Caligula or Godwin’s law?
“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/
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.
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.”
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?
Ya know Larry. You convinced me.
I’m just going to stay home on election day.
Thanks for saving me the effort.
Dr. Hanson …
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.
Yes. Here is another pretty good piece on the same topic.
http://dailypundit.com/2016/10/17/the-unequally-terrible-election/
So Cruz pulling his stunt at the convention was “reaching out?”
I guess I came back to Ricochet too soon.
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]
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: