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.
Admit it: Trump’s Victory Is a Win for Conservatives
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).
Conservatives should be the first to recognize that Donald Trump’s victory was a win for them. Indeed, many forward-looking former NeverTrumpers have welcomed the electoral outcome. And yet, a few of the usual suspects still seem fixated on the fact that Trump is not one of us; and they are only tentatively accepting the proposition that Trump’s victory is preferable to that other of the two possible outcomes.
I sense that some of our colleagues are carefully positioning themselves and patiently biding their time in preparation to pounce. For the new President will certainly violate some conservative principle at some point, and those violations will certainly deserve clusters of posts asserting his assault on conservatism. We’ll be treated to dissertations on the damage that the Orange Populist has wrought on the “conservative brand.”
I get it that the “I told you so!” card is one of the most sought after cards in the deck; and I truly appreciate that many here are devoted to defending conservatism in its purest forms. But none of that moves conservatism forward in the real world. Sen. Mike Lee (R–UT) presents some surprising ideas on the importance of populism, and I’d like to zero in on this particular passage from the most principled of principled conservatives:
The chief political weakness of conservatism is its difficulty identifying problems that are appropriate for political correction. Conservatism’s view of human nature and history teaches us that problems are inevitable in this world and that attempts to use government to solve them often only make things worse.
This insight actually makes us good at finding solutions.
…
Populists, on the other hand, have an uncanny knack for identifying social problems. It’s when pressed for solutions that populists tend to reveal their characteristic weakness. Unable to draw on a coherent philosophy, populists can tend toward inconsistent or unserious proposals.
The rough terms of a successful partnership seem obvious. Populism identifies the problems; conservatism develops the solutions…
There is much to debate in Lee’s piece, but I’d like to pick up on this simple proposition and suggest that our primary focus right now should be exploiting the many opportunities that lie before us in the wake of our populist ally’s crushing defeat of the Democrats.
By all accounts, the Democratic Party a decrepit wreck. Breathe in the feeble despair over the popular vote. The Pelosi reaffirmation confirms that the party is a slave to its progressive instincts, obliviously doubling-down on identity politics at a time when its political potency has been buried under the rubble of a collapsed blue wall.
Let’s face it: Trump’s electoral strategy was a tremendous success. He not only won the election, but he decimated conservatives’ archenemy, attacking the leftist vision for America built by Pelosi/Reid/Obama, propped up by the media, and finally repudiated by an exhausted nation. The Clinton machine was “destined” to hold the corrupt, lawless Democrat coalition together long enough for demography to determine the arc of history. Thanks to Trump, the Obama phenomenon, including most of his administrative legacy as well as his Leftist rhetoric, can be deposited in that dustbin designated for debunked ideologies.
Populist Trump defeated candidate Clinton, but he also discredited the progressive support infrastructure throughout the media and academia. It is now abundantly clear that none of the conservative candidates could have delivered this kind of defeat to progressivism. Trump’s victory was decisive, and not merely partisan. It provides the greatest opportunity in decades to enact conservative reforms. He’s bringing serious people with conservative ambitions into his administration. Let’s get to work.
Published in Politics
I too am thankful for the Constitution. But why would anyone operate within the bounds of a constitution that didn’t exist?
Why even posit such a scenario?
Yet they do. Written constitutionalism is a relatively new gimmick in government, and I don’t mean that in a bad way when it comes to ours. It’s not an absolute bulwark against anything, but it helps reinforce the boundaries between good and bad behavior that do exist, whether or not they are written down in a constitution.
If you would have been paying attention in the last year, you certainly shouldn’t be surprised, with all the people explaining that’s Trump’s MO… start bigger and more general, move towards smaller and more specific. Astonishingly, the same strategy he recommends in his best-selling book.
Are they not operating within the bounds of an unwritten constitution? Don’t unwritten constitutions exist? @leigh is positing “a land with no constitution.”
I think the left and the TruCons are both going to be playing the same game for a while. Watching someone successful, and jumping on the smaller percentage of things gotten wrong. I think most people will start to ignore both.
Don’t be such a sourpuss!
I’m in San Francisco, and people called in sick over the election results. We literally had a group hug the next day. I wore a safety pin, pledging my life, fortune, and sacred honor to protect innocents against the neonazi hordes apparently surrounding the city!
You better believe it was a victory for conservatives!
Mike Pence, your transition team can contact this man here by typing @tkc1101 !
It’s the same make believe land where Trump appoints his sister to the Supreme Court, his entire family to the Cabinet, and pushes the Red Button just to watch the world die!
When Reagan was running they told me he would start a nuclear war. I voted for him and never got one. I think they lie about that stuff.
Nobody, probably. That’s why we have one, because the Founders knew that and they wanted to control people like Trump.
Because my point is that the Constitution has a significant impact on how Trump governs, and I think that’s what many #NeverTrumpers missed.
Basically, if I follow you correctly, you find that point irrelevant because you disagree with the #NeverTrump analysis altogether and believe they should admit that events have proven them wrong — is that a fair summary?
I don’t agree. I believe the #NeverTrump criticisms of Trump’s minimal commitment to conservative principle, his style of leadership, and his personal character were well taken and valid and have not been disproven. I believe they erred in evaluating Trump in isolation, rather than Trump as President of the United States and stuck with Congress and the Supreme Court and re-election to think about.
To put what I’m getting at more simply, I do not believe #NeverTrumpers erred in seeing in Trump exactly the kind of politician the Founders considered dangerous. What they missed is that — because of that — he’s also exactly the kind of politician the Founders built our political system around. Which means he’s much less dangerous in our context than he might be had they been less wise.
And a thought exercise considering what might have been does no harm; it should only make us appreciate their wisdom more.
I wasn’t surprised, as I noted. I’m not really surprised at a single decision he’s taken thus far, though that’ll change if he does put Romney at State — I wouldn’t have seen that one coming. (Nikki Haley at the UN — as opposed to some domestic role — does have me a little puzzled).
It shouldn’t. Because it’s meaningless. Had the election been based on it, both campaigns would have been run entirely differently. Also, millions of conservatives in California who stayed home knowing their votes don’t matter would have turned out. In addition, though, everyone knows that in all likelihood, millions of her votes were dead people or illegals. It is utterly devoid of meaning. Not that the Dems will admit it.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment here. This has been apparent to all/most of us who voted for Trump in the general despite opposing him in the primaries. It is the constraints imposed by the Constitution that emboldened us to elect him. Now, those constraints provide confidence that we can explore the numerous positive changes his administration can bring.
So, other than my optimism and your “dictator” imagery, I think we’re pretty much in agreement.
Moreover because it was meaningless many people who would have been “reluctant Trump” in Ohio or Pennsylvania were “never Trump” in California and New York, and even Texas and Utah. It’s hard to estimate how large that number was, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was sizable.
I don’t know that we disagree on the optimism. I’m cautiously optimistic from a policy standpoint. If you have a problem with my “dictator imagery” I think you’re missing that I’m not using the word “dictator” as a comparison to anyone, I’m using it as a technical term with no connotation intended. Some rulers hold a lot more power than an American president, and Trump seems likely to be more dangerous with such powers than, say, Scott Walker would be. I don’t see why you have a problem with that observation if you basically agree with my assessment of Trump.
Some conservatives who saw Trump that way underestimated the Constitution. That’s all I’m really saying. They saw “dictator Trump,” not a president-elect who needs Preibus, McConnell, Ryan, and a bunch of swing voters and queasy Republicans to get anything he wants and win re-election.
FWIW, I had no problem with “reluctant” Trump voters, and my decision to go the other way was carefully considered and in no small part strategic.
Not to be facetious, but who won and who lost exactly what? My “spin” is that the citizenry won.
Exactly why we don’t have her.
Well, if you’re criticizing Evan McMullin I’ll enthusiastically join you.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/white-house-hopeful-evan-mcmullin-on-donald-trump-i-know-a-dictator-when-i-see-one-2016-10-04
I didn’t have him specifically in mind but yes, he’s making exactly the mistake I’m pointing out — forgetting that the #1 trait of a dictator is “someone who holds absolute power” and forgetting that our political system works to squelch would-be dictators.
No, I can’t say it’s a win for Conservatives. Since when do conservative dictate to business? I am getting sick of Trump already. Just sick of all the crowing. Beginning to long for the lecturing of Obama over the constant media circus.
For a couple of weeks it’s been fun watching the left melt down, but now, I’m just sick of the hypocrisy.
This is not conservative, this is hubris.
Trump stole my Party, and there is no place that stands up for what is right anywhere. It’s about winning.
Yuck.
By the way McMullin is looking pretty smart right now.
And…
Just once in my life I wish a good guy could win. Just once.
Who?
Sorry, I don’t think any person who validates the Left’s view of Republican voters as racist is smart or praiseworthy; its at least as bad as the gross hypocrisy exhibited by former free-market supporters who now attack anyone who criticizes Trump on that basis. The only relevant difference between McMullin and Trump was that only one of the jerks was in a position to stop Hillary.
I wish a good person would have won, too, but that wasn’t an option this year.
That’s how I felt about Ron Johnson. He just deserved to be re-elected: solidly conservative, decent, boringly focused on actual work rather than showboating, and behind by double digits for months. The NRCC gave up on him, but by a few days before the election he’d narrowed it to one point, but everyone expected him to fall just short — but he won. With something like 70,000 votes more than Trump at that. It was just deeply satisfying — it was right.
I think we’re both getting away from her original meaning. Maybe let her explain. (Maybe she already did and I haven’t been keeping up.)
I did… if you’re interested, see 70 and 76.
She has, and we seem to be in accord.
I remember hearing of the Bush administration going to court to prevent a small meatpacking company from testing every single one of its animals for mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy.)
WSJ story here, just to show that I’m not making this up.
So there’s your answer.
Precedents matter, and history matters. If you want to successfully argue against Trump and the Carrier deal you must pretend George W. Bush was never president.
Protip: This won’t work. It didn’t work before the election, and it won’t work now. Too many people remember him and his administration, and not fondly.
And Egbert McMuffin deserves nothing but contempt.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/03/what-exactly-is-the-nevertrumpumpkins-problem/