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
Breaking in here from an extraordinarily busy week IRL to state that I disagree on this point rather strongly, especially in light of the way Jamie jumped right to the theoretical rape scenario.
It is falling back on a ridiculous, unrealistic, and abhorrent hyperbole in an attempt to shame an answer out of others. Relying on this tactic is beyond tendentious, it is damnably insulting, both because of the silly scenario’s inherent nature, and because it is a childish gotcha question that serves no point beyond moral opprobrium and attempting to shame someone into a position because of something that not only has never actually happened, but never will happen.
Jamie,
Trust me, I don’t need you to remind me of moral relativism. I suspect I could teach you some deep fundamentals about a moral foundational way of thinking. We don’t have the time here. You are taking your position to an absurd extreme. Richard Nixon was impeached for much much less than Hillary Clinton is already obviously guilty and there is more to come.
Our responsibility to the republic is to keep the proven present danger away from power. At this point (six days from the election) it is not our duty to speculate on the possible moral shortcomings of the other candidate.
Regards,
Jim
Why I called it tendentious. Tendentious was not a term of approval.
I do take statements about what is “(ir)rational” or “(il)logical” pretty literally from Gawron, though, who I understand is pretty literal-minded himself, like me in that respect.
I asked straight out if there was anything Trump could do that would convince them not to vote for them. This question was called juvenile and ridiculous. I resorted to the absurd to draw out the point, a technique that is not unknown to anyone with an understanding of the history of political argument. I get it, a lot of you don’t want to admit that there is a point at which any candidate becomes unacceptable regardless of who their opponent is because then you would have to admit that NeverTrumpers have a valid point.
It is even more our duty to not speculate on the moral shortcomings of fellow members.
You aren’t arguing the same thing I am. I agree with you that Hillary is awful. Stipulated. Where can I sign my bloody, god damned, affidavit to that effect? What you don’t seem to understand, or refuse to understand, or willing wish to impute bad faith to me, is that in my estimation Trump is beyond the pale too.
Why is this so mother flipping difficult for you to understand?
Hi Midge,
You didn’t happen to notice my comment #21 about “tough customers” did you.
Regards,
Jim
Flattering me in this matter doesn’t appreciably change much, unfortunately.
I read that but the point I was making (trying to make, not very well) with the Braveheart reference was this: What good would it have done for conservatives to say “I cannot support Trump now because of his tariffs/trade policy, adoration of Putin and other tyrants, extreme language aimed at immigrants (I’m ok with the wall), failure to respect (or endeavor to understand) constitutional boundaries, promotion of Planned Parenthood, flouting/ridicule of social conservative values, fostering of cult-like following at rallys, threats to First Amendment freedoms, and advocacy of violence.”
Midge,
No. I don’t think our duty to our fellow members rises above that which we have to the republic. I wasn’t making even a comment on Jamie’s moral status at all. I was strictly referring to the quality of his arguments. Also, I wasn’t flattering you. I was attempting to bring a little levity into the discussion.
Regards,
Jim
Now you are putting words in our mouths too and divining our intentions.
This is deeply insulting.
This is also trying to turn this post into something it is not – a defense of your own position on the basis of its victimhood.
Do you honestly think we do not understand your position? Is attacking our moral character by ridiculous hyperbole the way to defend your position?
Have we not made our own positions abundantly clear over these months? Have you not done the same?
You telling me I’m a “tough customer”? Sorry, that’s flattery, honey.
Sometimes men can’t help it, they just flatter the womenfolk without even realizing they’re doing it. Even without even knowing what the womenfolk look like. I understand.
You guys are all smarter than me, but I am with Jamie here, Skipsul. The absurd example is not an insult. It is a plea for the other side to offer some concrete example of where the line can be drawn. Trump’s claim that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose followers is also extreme, but he was clearly saying there is no line. Jamie is just asking for verification–is there no line? Was Trump’s boast right?
You might want to actually read the comments on this thread before attacking me, Mr. Moderator. It was not I that started commenting on this thread defending a certain position. I reacted to others who did.
Good point. We will never put together a winning coalition unless we are willing to let the past be the past and focus on finding the common ground we can agree upon.
Additionally, I think everyone on Ricochet have heard all arguments for why to vote or not to vote for Trump and will make up their mind one way or another. Furthermore, the more aggressive the argument, the less likely it is to have any impact.
Personally, I am going to throw a very reluctant vote on Trump (mainly because I will feel guilty every time bad things happen the next 4 years if Hillary wins) and then focus on how to contain Trump’s bad ideas and enjoy the good ones. A good start is to vote for the best people down-ticket. Next step will be to try to contribute positively to the post-election discussion on how to unite and move forward.
Jamie,
This isn’t about awful. She has broken the law in the extreme while in high office. She is disqualified from the White House and even that is an understatement. Most of the felonies she is guilty of require that the offender never be allowed to hold any government job again.
Complaints about Trump’s hyperbole are in no way comparable to this.
Regards,
Jim
Yep.
Here Skip let me help you:
This is the first comment that referenced an affirmitive case against Hillary outside the scope of the OP: http://ricochet.com/385551/never-say-never/#comment-3571489
Here is my response: http://ricochet.com/385551/never-say-never/#comment-3571496
If you’re going to attack me at least get your facts straight mate.
My namesake once remarked, “You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.” Pretty extreme, but with a similar purpose as Jamie had–asking is there no line that Democrats will not cross in order to appease the Communists and maintain “peace at any costs.” Jamie is asking if there is no line that Republicans will not cross to appease Trump.
I agreed. Stipulated. Do you have that affidavit for me to sign?
Guess what? Trump has committed acts that are heinous and disqualifying too.
I have a line. They both crossed it. Do you understand?
Here’s what annoys me. I know they have such a line. I credit them with a lot more than they credit NeverTrump with. I’m just trying to get them to see that we all have lines that can be crossed. For them Trump hasn’t crossed that line – I’m fine with that. I’ve tried to convince them otherwise and haven’t been successful – that’s politics. I’m just asking for a little reciprocal introspection – you know, the point of Toms piece at The Federalist!
Jamie, isn’t there a point when it’s time to move on? Does someone need to “win” this discussion? The rest of us can see what’s happening, can see both your points of view. I have a Skype call to make. When I come back, I hope everyone will have taken a deep breath and moved on. Tom has given us a fascinating topic to explore.
Midge,
Why Midge you have me pegged right away. I was responding to your intellect and references to a Bayesian way of thinking. I suppose I could have just responded by coldly demanding you stick to a proper coefficient of determination. Harrumph.
Regards,
Jim
It would have made (y)our opposition easier to present as principled rather than stubbornness. It would have put the onus more on Trump.
I find it highly emblematic of this election that Tom’s article, a call to stop looking for the splinters in others’ eyes and to notice the beam in our own (to borrow a phrase) so that we can end up in a better place in the future, ended up in name calling and blame casting on all sides.
Sexual assault on children and Nazis. Is this really what you guys think passes as intelligent, civil conversation?
Seem to remember a rule proposed for this phenomenon… wait for it… wait for it…
But some of us look in the mirror and only see perfection. So it must be everyone else that’s at fault. ;-)