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
All I’m trying to do is find out if you have a line. Because that would at least get EverTrumpers to admit that people can have lines that can be crossed. That would at least foster some understanding between us – for NeverTrump that line was crossed. Whether you agree with the reasoning behind it it would at least stop the accusations of bad faith and vitriol from flying about.
Well, Trump didn’t rape a 5 year old at the podium now did he? I don’t understand this question. yes there is something a candidate can to which I will no longer vote for them. So far Trump has not done anything that will lead me to not vote for him over Hillary. Right now hypotheticals are irrelavant.
Note:
Comment works without the insult.You’re both fools.This is a binary choice. We get HRC or we get DJT. HRC is so infinitely worse than any candidate in memory, so dangerous for America and for our freedoms, that failure to man up and hold your nose and vote for Trump is deplorable.
Jamie,
This is a childish argument. I didn’t say Hillary is “bad”. I said she has already exhibited proven behaviors that should have made (any adult) commit to keeping her out of the White House. With this, you respond with absurd hypotheticals about Trump’s possible behaviors. This isn’t even a strawman argument this is irrational.
Regards,
Jim
Gosh, Doc, I wish you’d tell us how you REALLY feel. I don’t think insults are necessary.
Hypotheticals can be tendentious, but for the purpose of inquiring into whether other people do have a line that can be crossed, and where it is, they are reasonable. No point in calling it irrational.
Seconding this.
Thank you. So lines can exist. Is it so beyond the realm of possibility that Trump has crossed that line for some of us?
https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_key_staff_and_advisors,_2016
So there is no line Trump could cross that would get you to not vote for him? I’m not saying vote for Hillary, but just not vote for Trump.
I agree that HRC is infinitely worse than any candidate in memory and so dangerous for America and for our freedoms, it’s just that I think Trump is also infinitely worse than any candidate in memory and dangerous for America and for our freedoms, so where I disagree is when you say that the choice is obvious. I think Clinton will cause more harm to the country in the next four years, but I think Trump will cause more harm to the country in the longer term.
If my vote displeases you, let me provide you with a complete list of how that will affect my life or decision:
1)
If Murphy and Bush don’t have access to large mirrors for this purpose, I’d be happy to buy them each one.
My point is not that we’re all equally guilty: Some folks have more to answer for than others and I’d put Murphy and Jeb high on the list of people who have a lot to answer for.
I am, however, pushing back against the notion that (most) of us have nothing to apologize for. That includes me, and it includes you.
I hate to be the “won’t someone please think of the children” person here in Springfield–but perhaps we could avoid hypothetical pederasty in our arguments against moral equivalence?
I liked the first paragraph of this article. It reminds me of a good friend that was mad because he couldn’t get the free set of pots and pans at the bank because he already had an account. It was for new customers only. While he threatened to close his account and open about 5 new ones, he didn’t. He actually liked his banker, and the pots and pans were cheap. General Elections are about the uncommitted/undecided, new customer etc. Only they don’t get the pots and pans either. We are talking about politicians. The bank can use its own assets to purchase and give away pots and pans. Politicians have to use force to take something from one person to give to another. It is harder.
This is my thinking exactly. There was a phrase during the Bush administration, “Personnel is policy.” A President isn’t a magic man we choose to run the country. He is the head of a team, of which each member will set the policies that govern us.
So #NeverTrumpers, what do you think Hillary’s team will look like?
Agreed, but so is it’s-all-but-impossible-for-Trump-to-lose-my-vote.
Well Tom, I enjoyed your article but I’m gonna go ahead and leave this wagon circle of a thread with my scalp.
Note:
Personal attack.Jamie,
This isn’t an argument this is just you reciting your very first false statement. To call you a troll in this would be to compliment.Regards,
Jim
Answer to both questions: I don’t care!
There’s an old story about two Buddhist monks on a journey. When they come to a stream, and see a young lady standing there, worried that she doesn’t know how to get across, the younger monk ignores her, strides right by, and walks through the stream by himself.
The older, wiser, monk picks her up and carries her over on his back. When they get to the other side of the stream, he puts her down, and she runs off.
The monks continue their journey, with steam coming out of the younger monk’s ears. Finally, he erupts in anger at his companion: “How could you carry her like that? You know we can’t touch women! It’s against our way of life!”
The older monk quietly responds: “I put the woman down at the river’s edge a long time ago. Why are you still carrying her on your back?”
My point is (thanks for asking), that this should have been a cakewalk, a doddle, as easy as falling off a log, for Donald Trump.
But because neither he, nor many of his supporters, can get that woman* off their backs, it’s not.
*Of course, this is a metaphor. Substitute whatever thing, or combination of things, you like: Seventeen contenders, Jeb!, Murphy, the GOPe, Kevin Williamson, Robert Zubrin, Glenn Beck, the shiny-objet-du-jour, and so on.
Knock it off.
There’s plenty of irritating sniping from both sides going on here right now. Calling each other worse than trolls is not going to help. And often self-styled trollhunters risk being perceived as trolls themselves.
Immediately after getting the nomination, Trump began his planned move to the left. He was talking about deals, picking justices off his “list”, waffling on the wall, waffling on guns, etc. He tried to woo Berniecrats and failed. Who was left? Never Trumpers. That’s who you have to thank for the Gettysburg Speech. Thank you #NeverTrumpers!
Jim I’m honestly trying to help you understand my position. I have a line for candidates that is not relative to who they are running against. I’m assuming that you do too. By getting you to recognize that such lines exist you will at least understand where some of us are coming from. Why won’t you answer my question?
No, just that there is precious little time to concentrate one’s intellect and help save our country. I can’t say it any better than Mr. Gawron.
Tom,
Strategy was for eighteen months ago. We have five days. Given what has transpired, I think it prudent not to try to imagine the finer points of “We Must Keep Hillary Clinton Out of the White House”. We will be forced momentarily to allow Donald J. Trump’s Id, Ego, and Super-Ego free reign. On November 9th, assuming the catastrophe of Hillary Clinton in the White House hasn’t transpired, I will entertain whatever strategy you have to “contain” Trump. Until then, not so much.
Regards,
Jim
Tom,
I hope this was not you but some other editor because such a very minor rebuking comment on what is a repeated meme not an argument is hardly a personal attack. It was just a statement of fact.
Regards,
Jim
Not saying “never” doesn’t require one to pull punches. From elsewhere the piece:
I’m not going to commit myself. ;)