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.
Never Say Never Again
The great irony of politics is that it rewards loyalty with neglect and heaps attention on the uncommitted. Saying your vote can be counted on is a guaranteed way to get ignored, while letting it be known that you’re willing to deal (for the right price, of course) means people will fawn over you. It’s not a good system, it’s just the one we’re stuck us with.
If conservatives ever knew this, we forgot it completely when Donald Trump strode onto the political stage. As I describe in a piece on The Federalist, very nearly all of us — NeverTrumpers, Trumpkins, and ReluctantTrumpers alike — overcommitted ourselves at the outset, losing whatever degree of influence or control we might have had over the Republican nominee.
As a practical matter, the [NeverTrump] strategy was an abject failure. It persuaded too few Republicans to deny Trump the nomination. Additionally, the movement’s habit of offering opposition without alternative made it seem stubborn and childish on the one hand, while its elite nature—at least, in its early stages—gave it the air of a frustrated parent falling back on a because-I-said-so defense. […] The smarter—though, more difficult—move for Trump opponents would have been to state that they could not support Donald Trump under current circumstances, and to offer a brief explanation of how they could be persuaded to change their minds.
It needn’t have been likely that Trump would meet these conditions, so long as it were possible. Nor would it have required critics to pull their punches. “I will never support Donald Trump for president,” and “I cannot support Donald Trump for president now because of reason x,” are dissimilar only insofar as one’s future standards or Donald Trump’s behavior are likely to change. If the former is secure, then offering an incentive for good behavior would only have been to NeverTrumpers’ advantage.
But it’s not just the NeverTrumps who overcommitted themselves. Dennis Prager — who opposed Trump throughout the primaries but who argues that conservatives became morally obliged to support him once he became the nominee — provides an almost perfect example of the dangers of telling a candidate that it’s all-but-impossible for them to lose your vote:
There is nothing inherently wrong with Prager’s judgement that, given the stakes, it’s best to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. But [arguing] that Clinton’s awfulness obliges one to vote for Trump removes any possibility of influence over the candidate. Though Prager has continued to criticize Trump regularly, it should come as little surprise that the candidate has taken so little heed; if NeverTrumpers have locked themselves out of negotiations, Prager and those like him have locked themselves in.
If you want to know who’s to blame for our current mess, the person who stares back at you from the mirror is probably a good starting point.
Published in General
If you think this then you don’t really understand the opposing position.
I understand the opposing position quite well. I am not impressed with it at all. I find it very self-serving and for want of any better adjective “Lazy”.
Regards,
Jim
I was born in 1983, but I suspect one important difference here is that the scurrilous things they said about Reagan were false.
You claimed not to be “lecturing” us, but that last paragraph reads like a disapproving father scolding his teenage son.
Well gosh. When you put it that way, I have no choice but to change my mind!On second thought, sarcasm was not the best way to respond.You understand the opposing position so well that you find it “not all that credible”. You’ve also stated, “If you honestly look at the facts you should vote for Trump” .
A belief that anyone who disagrees with you is either self-serving, lazy, dishonest, or uninformed does not give the strong impression that you really know what they believe and why.
I disagree with your assessment. I have argued the NT side is tactically and strategically wrong, but it is a far cry from telling someone they are wrong about something to calling their position lazy or self serving. We have hashed out the pros and cons of this election for months here, all of the evidence has been dissected, probed, and thrashed out, and since so much of it is subjective in nature it ultimately has been weighted differently by different people.
To call it self serving, OK fine we could argue that one just on the grounds that it is a criticism that could equally be leveled at us.
But to call it lazy? That is both making it personal and reading motive and activity (or lack thereof) against plain evidence otherwise. It is declaring that the NT side has done nothing more than reflexive flinching when, in fact, they have argued their own case here at great length for months. It is not at all right to dismiss that and declare it lazy.
Mark,
You know about as much whether the claims against Trump were true as were against Reagan. Both involved people ginning up resentment rather than dealing with truly important policy distinctions. If you watched the last debate, you can not possibly think that Hillary Clinton isn’t a social democrat hyper-spender who harbors every extreme social position (late term abortion..etc.) Trump is a classic free market proponent. Trump has weaknesses but in none of them could you point to Clinton being a better choice.
Meanwhile, as you discuss coping a feel till the end of time, Hillary is patently guilty of a major scam to the tune of billions, breaching National Security to cover her fraudulent scheme, and destroying evidence, lying to Congress, obstructing Justice. Weiner may link her and Bill to a sex scandal involving underage prostitution that will make Trump look like a boy scout.
I’m not lecturing. Time is up and we are down to it. Everything counts.
Regards,
Jim
Maybe Reagan was a B-movie actor, but he was an A-grade president--one of the best our country has ever had, certainly the best we have had in the modern era, post-WW II. And, by the way, he was a conservative if that means anything to you. And, Jim, how would you know
what I know about Reagan and what was said about him in the 1980s. I was of age then and politically aware. If you are trying to start a “whispering campaign” against him now you can save your breath, plus you’re about three decades too late. The rest…well I don’t even know what you mean or are referring to.
How magnanimous of you to grant me the right to make up my mind and vote my conscience. I will write-in McMullin proudly, thank you very much.
(Disclaimer: the following is a joke in bad taste and should not be taken as serious commentary or responsible moderating, but it’s Friday and I’ve had a bad week, and stupid wordplay is a weakness of mine)
Could you compromise and write in McMuffin instead? Sort of split the difference?
(We now apologize for the interruption and return you to your regular programming while your neighborhood moderator goes and self flagellates for a few minutes while giggling).
Ahahahaha!
TMI, Skip. TMI.
(Similar disclaimer.)
I dunno. I’m still Mullin it over.
Sure, for you: McMuffin. Now hold the line for two more jokes: Trump and Hillary.
Please save the response (this is not directed to you Skipsul): “Hillary is no joke, no laughing matter, she represents the end of all life as we know it, the sum of all fears, the final ring of Dante’s inferno, if you vote for anyone but Trump you are actually endorsing her, promoting her, electing her, enabling her, in fact, I will call you John Effing Podesta from this point forward. Binary choice. Lesser of two evils. Supreme Court. Supreme Court. SUPREME COURT-T-T-T-T.”
I get it. I get it. Don’t agree but I get it.
Good thing his name’s not Mulligan or this election would have an entirely different spin.
Ah, come one, at least set it up where Hillary and Trump walk into a bar. It could be in Dante’s 3rd level.
If only these guys were still doing election videos.
I thought we were interested in facts.
Mr. Consevative,
If you vote McMullin I doubt you will qualify as a conservative. Only you could confound what I say and play it that I am besmirching Reagan. I am trying to get you to grasp how shallow your hold on being conservative is and how much it depends on illusions after the fact and not on hard reality.
In 1980 Reagan was running against Carter. I didn’t listen to nonsense about Reagan being a movie actor and therefore unqualified. I voted for Reagan twice. You are falling for empty character assassinations of Trump while you help to get Hillary Rodham Clinton elected. She is much worse than Carter. Nice job Mr. Conservative.
Regards,
Jim
Proof that you truly don’t understand the anti-Trump position.
Jim, considering we spend a good chunk of time on this site arguing about what conservatism even means, and still cannot agree on its boundaries even when we are nearly all calling ourselves conservatives, how could you claim that he would not be a conservative? Further, the entire premise of withholding a vote for Trump is that he would do more damage to conservatism and / or the Republican party/brand and / or the nation itself, if elected, than would Hillary. You do not have to agree with that assessment, but it is the honest conclusion arrived at by many here and it does not make them any less conservative than you for holding that view.
Note:
Please avoid name-calling. Thank you.Mark,
Proof how easily you are manipulated by Dem propaganda. Gosh, it took so much leg work to sit on that cheap audio tape and then have the MSM media scream like banshees. For this tawdry bit of nothing, we are ready to throw the towel in and yield the White House for another eight years. This isn’t being a conservative [redacted].
Regards,
Jim
Trump and Reagan could not be more different. Reagan’s first big speech was a defense of conservatism in general and Barry Goldwater’s candidacy for president in particular. Trump, during the 1st Republican presidential debate in 2015, praised socialized medicine as practiced in Scotland and in Canada.
Trump donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, Harry Reid’s 2010 US Senate campaign and Terry MacAuliffe’s 2013 campaign for governor of Virginia. Reagan never donated money to Jimmy Carter or Ted Kennedy or George McGovern.
Also, Reagan was governor of America’s most populous state, California, for eight years. Reagan defeated Pat Brown, the liberal Democrat governor of California in 1966. Trump? Trump’s too busy calling for the impeachment of Republican presidents (George W. Bush) and praising Nancy Pelosi to bother defeating any Democrat politicians.
Do you really think that tape is the totality of the case against Trump?
This pathetic.Tom, make your own excuses, but I don’t need one. I’m not the one on the ledge.Kudos to you @jamesgawron for having the tenacity to fight out this thread. Especially since you had little support. MFR as a moderator was disappointing to me as she constantly edited your comments while ignoring many others (not that I like her editing anyone’s comments). It appears you have lost your patience with the never ending thrashing by #nevertrumpers and finally just had to go out swinging. I respect you for that. Midge addressed you as Gawron, your last name, on numerous occasions. Unless she is a close friend of yours, and she might be, calling someone by their last name can, and I think was, a sign of disrespect. You handled that well. I just wanted to thank you for your efforts…publicly.
So, thanks James Gawron
I do not edit anybody’s comments, @cdor, nor does any other Moderator on Ricochet, so please reserve your disappointment in me for the things a Mod actually does do, which are outlined in this guide.
Correct. The only people with the ability to edit comments are editors.
I asked Midge this question, but it is better asked of you. Are there any editors at Ricochet who are not nevertrumpers?
There are not: Neither Claire, nor I, nor Jon are voting for Trump.
If you don’t mind, I’m curious what you think should have been done about this. Should we have hired another editor for the sake of balance, regardless of whether there was need or means? Or should one of us have been fired, simply to make room for a Trump supporter? Maybe we should have ditched either Epstein or Yoo from Lawtalk, as I believe they’re both NeverTrump, too.
Sorry I’m late to the party.
Count every aspersion cast upon Trump as true. Then multiply it by…what…7.6? Then multiply it by 10.
He’s still better than HRC. Punto.
Sometimes, there is no good vs. evil. Sometimes, there are no good choices and only bad vs. worse.
Stand.