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
Yabbut not everyone on Ricochet’s a vampire.
Yes, “Never” may not have been a great idea if you want influence, Tom.
Living,
When I look in the mirror there is this old guy staring back at me. Can’t figure how he got in my bathroom.
Regards,
Jim
good analysis She. It feels like we’re all rolling the dice this election though in some ways.
This is almost always the case.
Agree. Very good point. Let’s make the last 5 days better. Hopefully we will all be reasonable and accept that different people on Ricochet will have different take on how good/bad Trump is and instead focus on Hillary’s unacceptability and what we can do to function well and as united as possible post election regardless of who wins.
I wouldn’t say this is a “system” nor an aspect peculiar to politics. It’s simply a reflection of the fact that people understand the concept of maximizing the marginal value of scarce resources. In a war, armies commit soldiers and materiel to take areas which appear ripe for taking. They don’t sit back and patrol their own hinterlands, and they don’t overreach into unconquerable territory. Each of those is a suboptimal use of resources.
That only works up to a point – for one, it only applies to anyone in the public eye, since I don’t think my own neverTrumpiness would ever be known, felt, or considered by the campaign. I mean, I haven’t signed a petition or anything like that, and I’m not a registered Republican.
But the second point is that I think this would be true of a McCain-style nomination – force him to be more conservative by neither supporting nor promising to swear off support. But Trump is so far from meeting my minimal qualifications for president at this point – and has sunk lower in my esteem with each passing week – that even the duplicitous Hillary might be a less bad option now. And at the risk of unifying a contentious thread of commenters on all sides against me, if I was in a swing state today I’d probably vote Clinton.
There was actually no need to discuss the public rape of a child. Not on this thread or any other. You are a smart guy, there are plenty of of absurd hypothetical arguments you could have used.
Imagine you’re a guest at a dinner party with a group of seemingly nice people you don’t know… how would you handle yourself?
I guess we don’t need this section of the CoC any more.
As you point out, it would have to be a group action, a large group, to have the possibility of having an effect. Of course, even if the group would cooperate, it is too late.
She,
Should have been?? Look we’ve got five days before someone who makes Richard Nixon look like a boy scout gets to take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for the next four (probably eight) years. Whatever energy we have left, ought be used in preventing that event not discussing should’ve, could’ve, would’ve. Trump can be a tone deaf shm*ck. Meanwhile, what about Lady Macbeth?
Regards,
Jim
Tom, its going to take pieces like this one, and like Pete Spiliakos’ writing over at First Things, to reconcile the divide in conservatism…..or, even, to participate in its re-founding. In fact a new, no doubt somewhat different, conservatism is precisely what is needed to staunch our societal bleeding in this moment.
During the past year or so on Ricochet, I’ve said a couple of times that this election contains a deep irony: the wing of the conservative movement that had serious, substantive policy proposals to address many of Donald Trump’s stoutest constituents’ worries–the “Sam’s Club Republicans” and blue dog Democrats–were the Reformicons….the wing of the party that was considered too moderate to be trusted by the talk radio wing of the party (just as Trump is not a conventional conservative). But now that a candidate appears who does appeal to those very constituents on some of the same issues that Reformicons highlighted, the cultural and educational background of the Reformicons makes his more crass habits anathema–and they become “NeverTrump” in spite of their agreements. And, meanwhile, the wing of the party most likely last election to lambast the Reformicons, the most ardent on talk radio, are backing Trump to the hilt.
If this paradox isn’t interesting to you, conservative intellectuals on both sides of this divide, then you’re missing something central to the crisis of our country and to the practical politics of our moment.
I think you’re mostly right here but to say that it is solely the “crass habits” that make the reformicons NeverTrump is giving short shrift to the substantive policy disagreements they have with Trump.
Jamie,
You don’t have a line that Trump crossed that comes anywhere near Hillary Clinton’s disqualifying crimes. This argument doesn’t work. Do you understand?
Regards,
Jim
That’s true, but on some of the issues where they have disagreed, the Reformicons have also missed some crucial things. Three areas where they have missed something substantial: immigration and its meaning (not economic, civic); defense (who concretely bears the burdens of “world leadership” at the moment); what it takes to run a candidacy in teetering-if-not-post-constitutional order.
My line isn’t relative I’m afraid.
What is wrong with you! That is disgusting.
The reformicons are by no means perfect, I have substantive disagreements with them on certain policies, but I think they oppose Trump on conservative policy grounds more so than on personality – that’s an important distinction especially for a movement so heavily focused on policy ideas.
Tom: I thought that we were not to use “Trumpkins.” I once suggested “Trumpeters” for enthusiastic Trump supporters, but it didn’t catch on. Maybe “EverTrumper” would work.
Jamie,
OK, is your line transcendental in nature? It doesn’t seem to be based on Law or Fact.
Regards,
Jim
I think Trumpters is pretty clever.
I was going for clarity and trying to avoid my usual “Trump supporters,” which is just awkward. In retrospect, I “Trumpeter” might have been better.
But if conservatives had made such a challenge, and even if Trump HAD agreed to moderate his views or adopt conservative positions, I really would have no basis to believe he would follow through on his word. There may have been some strategic reason to be a maybetrumper rather than nevertrumper, but I don’t think I could have ever done so honestly. Trump is just too thoroughly anti-conservative and of such poor character for me to ever see supporting him. (Although I am loving seeing Hillary’s demise.)
I accept no blame for the current mess.
I opposed Trump in the primaries, rather vigorously, but I thought that the more vehement NeverTrumpers were taking things too far. I understood their frustration, but thought their tactics unwise.
I was an undecided MaybeTrumper until about 2 weeks ago, voicing significant criticism of Trump, while trying to be balanced in recognizing some good ideas that he put forward (including tax and regulatory policy). I kept an open mind, both to arguments from Trump himself and many others (VDH, Prager and Klavan were particularly helpful to me).
I ultimately made my decision that Trump was the lesser of two weevils, and voted for him as a ReluctantTrumper.
No, it is not.
See what I mean about you not treating others as if they are operating in good faith?
Here’s one way my line could be violated by both candidates:
I would prefer it if my candidate wasn’t a race baiting identity politician – both candidates fail.
How about another:
I would prefer it if the candidate I vote for didn’t attempt to defraud his or her fellow citizens in order to enrich themselves – both candidates fail.
Or another:
I would prefer it if the candidate I vote for didn’t engage in or enable sexual assault – both candidates fail.
Now before you object – I understand that you do not calculate things this way. I only ask that you see that I do. Hillary crossed your line. Both Hillary and Trump have crossed mine.
I realize that my chosen metaphor may be getting in the way of my broader point. This was a mistake on my part. Why don’t you all substitute this one instead:
If Trump committed murder on 5th Ave, would that cause you to rethink your vote even if his opponent was Hillary?
I, for one opinion, prefer NeverHillary.
Considering both that he did not, and moreover would not, and that if he did he’d be arrested, tried, and jailed, it is still an analogy beyond the pale.