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.
Why We Push Back
Peggy Noonan had a good write up on WSJ a couple days ago…
The Trump Wars of the past 18 months do not now go away. Now it becomes the Trump Civil War, every day, with Democrats trying to get rid of him and half the country pushing back. To reduce it to the essentials: As long as Mr. Trump’s party holds the House, it will be a standoff. If the Democrats take the House, they will move to oust him.
Because we are divided. We are two nations, maybe more.
Normally a new president has someone backing him up, someone publicly behind him. Mr. Obama had the mainstream media—the big broadcast networks, big newspapers, activists and intellectuals, pundits and columnists of the left—the whole shebang. He had a unified, passionate party. Mr. Trump in comparison has almost nothing. The mainstream legacy media oppose him, even hate him, and will not let up. The columnists, thinkers and magazines of the right were mostly NeverTrump; some came reluctantly to support him. His party is split or splitting. The new president has gradations of sympathy, respect or support from exactly one cable news channel, and some websites.
It should be understood on Ricochet that the readers here aren’t the typical, everyday, go with the flow Conservatives. We are thinkers and nerds, challengers and questioners. It should go without saying that when one of our political leaders strays, either from the vision he set forth in his campaign or from our Constitution, that we will be critical. This has been our Modus andOperi since I was in college and has been used against us by liberal media for at least just as long.
And yet, in the face of Trump, all of those things have become uncertain, when they really aren’t uncertain. It has become necessary to ostensibly declare “I WILL criticize when he does something I don’t like.” Of course you will. We all will. Its what we do on Ricochet, after all. Even the ones who are EverTrump will criticize if he turns away from his promises.
But the Reluctant and Pro-Trump knows something that the anti-Trump doesn’t — that to declare your intent like this weakens your alliance. You have declared yourself a weak point, ripe for turning. We are on tentative ground with a common opposition — those rioters aren’t just unhappy with Trump, they are unhappy with all of us. They wish to use the government against us.
To the world, we should be presenting a unified face. Even if it isn’t for Trump, he is the one leading and positioned against the illiberal Left, so for now, he is an ally to all conservatives, even those who were NeverTrump.
Published in General
The point is unity in the face of the deranged and dangerous opposition, not among ourselves. Yes, you surely can complain.
Look, we all know that when NeverTrump members harass Trump-supporters and go passive-aggressive, the Rabble have no trouble immediately recognize what’s going on, no matter how much those NeverTrumps appeal to passion, patriotism and clear-eyed sight of reality. These kind of tactics do play both ways, and I don’t have to like them going either way. What’s frustrated me the most lately is when those on the same side of the Trump divide appear to actually be doing it to their own.
I was musing with a friend the other day, about those who want reconciliation. We had both had family members who were strong advocates for reconciliation and solidarity, as long as the solidarity was on their terms – something which never quite works out, does it? Reflecting on this, I mused, “If you want reconciliation, but on your terms only, you don’t want reconciliation, you want something else.”
It seems to me that real reconciliation, real unity, especially among those as independent-minded – and quite frankly stubborn (myself included) :-) – as Ricochetians benefits from recognizing that others will approach solidarity on their own terms. God alone gets reconciliation wholly on His terms, and even He came to us in Jesus Christ.
If I nattered on about how excessively fond I am of so many of the Rabble around here, it would just sound soppy. So I won’t. Even a firebrand like BallDiamondBall was someone I was personally fond of, and wanted to be in solidarity with. Yet some personalities – irrespective of ideology, it seems – are attracted to pushing the limits, prone to testing others “by fire”, a kind of test which, not surprisingly, tends to find others falsely and unnecessarily wanting. Whichever ways that kind of “testing others” goes, I don’t have to like it, or desist in my belief that solidarity would be better served by other means.
And I believe she voted for Obama. I lost a lot of the admiration I used to have for her, though I still do think she’s a wonderful writer. I very much agree with her that now we should be circling the wagons and presenting a united face. This is what the Democrats always do. I mean Bill Clinton could have been caught in bed with a German shepherd and a young boy, and every last one of them would have said “Oh well, that’s his private life. It doesn’t affect his job.” (Really? When he’s being serviced under the desk WHILE on the phone sending our boys into harm’s way in Bosnia?)
Oh, yeah. I’m all about the Ricochet Rabble Alliance even if they aren’t fond of me. I love the passion, optimism, witness, and creativity that has been display with their work here. It’s just now how I see things, but it’s also the reason I went out of my way to post stuff like this during the campaign cycle.
@midge
I am curious who these pickup artist hard sell folks are. It seems , given your writings that they are are source of discord , and since you have official capacity, it would be important you indicate just who you are talking about.
Adjudicating the CoC is difficult and such lack of clarity does not help. If you make an accusation, it would help with concrete examples.
If you believe I have been engaged in a hard sell, it would be good to know. I have made many posts explaining my decisions when it was extremely unpopular and sure to draw significant ‘hard sell’ opposition.
I have been informed recently to go elsewhere on several occasions, specifically the site operated by BDB. That seemed like a hard sell. It also seemed like a CoC violation, but that is obviously a judgement call.
So in the interest of future writing, just who, in the mind of an official of the site, represents these ‘hard sell’ people ?
For the benefit of the officials, the Rabble Alliance was created to preserve membership on this site despite the editorial direction. You are welcome, although it was probably not the membership your other more vocal members wished to stay.
Personally, it is a bit embarrassing to be a member of a site that is still pumping out the “Trump is Hitler ” comments in the podcasts, even at this date. Talk about ‘hard sell’.
I don’t quite follow you.
Granted I wasn’t really “NeverTrump.” I had major, major problems with his leadership and decided not to reward it with my vote, confident that my decision wouldn’t make Clinton president. My point was made to my satisfaction, and if he leaves behind the worst aspects of his campaign he can earn my vote next time. To declare in advance that I intend to say the truth weakens the alliance only if that ally cannot handle truth. My intention to criticize Trump when he deserves it isn’t just for him; that’s how I think I should regard any political leader. That was my attitude towards Obama. It’s my attitude towards my governor — who was my first-choice presidential candidate — and frankly I believe he and the state legislature govern better because they know conservative media in this state are prepared to lean on them from time to time.
Hear, hear!
Indeed, William Kristol just said that it is profoundly depressing and vulgar to hear an American president proclaim America first … because Hitler?!
This is a fine reply, MFR; well stated and not worth any nitpicking on my part. It seems to me, though, that the point of this particular post was an argument for cohesion in the face of the enemy. We all understand who the enemy is now, and they are relentless. We will never achieve solidarity within our ranks, and I’d be disappointed if we did. Sheeple, and all that.
Various subsets of the Ricochetians, a term I like BTW, will always express themselves in the variety of manners all humans use. If some are hard-hitting, well, they just are. If some can’t take a punch, I’m sorry. If some keep an unhelpful attitude beyond its expiration date, stop reading. If some are simply wrong about facts, simply and kindly point it out. If some insult you, graciously point that out and then probably disengage. Questions usually lead to more interesting dialogue, but sometimes ya just gotta throw a snowball. Let’s just not put gravel in the snowball, eh?
As I am an avowed Rabbler, I like that you are fond of dissent, but want to keep it neighborly.
Thanks for that link, Publius! The mood and attitude were so different then. And, someday on the Member Feed, I’ll write about how and why I’m a Rabbler. May be that you’ll be surprised. HDAHA
Thank you, Trinity!
This was what I hoped to communicate!
@rightangles Oh I agree with you completely about we need to unite behind Trump. I was reacting to this quote in the article
She’s saying he has no support among the usual suspects of the elite media and NYC, DC crowd. But I disagree with her in that he has no support he has the most important support that any leader can have and it’s that of the people, if he loses that he’s finished. The media elite crowd needs to look to the people as to why they support him or they will die in their bubble.
It should be I’ll stand with him until he does something I don’t like, then I’ll criticize, voice my displeasure, and move on.
In the kind of work that tries to gain “assets” in the form of informants and the like, they exploit a perceived discontent with the organization they identify with and begin emotional appeals to the person in an attempt to turn their allegiance from that organization to another – whether that organization is a country, a crime operation, or a business.
It isn’t about not voicing discontent. I am a person that bangs on about the Truth on quite a regular basis, but I also try quite hard to exercise discretion in how I express that truth or my opinion. Voicing such oppositional views within hearing of someone who would like to destroy my group is asking for trouble and facilitates divisiveness. I want to say that we are all a part of an organization (political party, Ricochet, political philosophy) that we can hold private debate and discussion and criticism of policies without fear of retaliation. However, I dislike the idea of airing our dirty laundry (our lack of unity) for democrats and leftists to gawk at, publicize, spread, and mock.
@leigh – as a wife, I do not agree with everything my husband does… and well he knows it. But heaven help me if I EVER discussed those disagreements in acrimonious terms with another man (not because of what my husband would do, but because I find that to be incredibly wrong). I discuss those things with my mother and her alone in an attempt to find peace within our family disagreements.
It is also the same as being parents who have a disagreement concerning kids. You do not let your kids see your disagreement. That doesn’t mean you don’t talk about your disagreement, just that some audiences are not appropriate for hearing that disagreement.
I stopped by to read Ricochet and drink a cup of coffee — something I’ve done for a lot of years — and then I found that someone put sugar in my coffee. A LOT of sugar. And I just stopped by to complain.
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down…
Well! I happen to like sugar! Lots of it! Harumpf!
I couldn’t agree more with you here.
But my fellow Americans aren’t my children, nor President Trump’s either. If I’m discussing politics, I think I generally owe them the full truth of my view of the situation — not pulling punches lest I inadvertently undermine my own side. And, in fact, letting those who might somewhat disagree see that you have an objective view of the situation can build some level of trust.
All things are public these days, so in public policy debates it is nearly impossible to discuss disagreements only among ourselves. That said, I agree it’s not generally profitable for a conservative to go to a liberal media outlet solely to criticize the President. Do it with real purpose. If you want to go on MSNBC and say “yeah, I agree the president’s wrong on this and that’s why you should want to roll back the federal government” — go for it.
I also think there are different roles for different people. I don’t think Paul Ryan should be fact-checking the President at every opportunity, for instance.
Do we? That’s what I’m not convinced about. I’m still not sure what we’re going to see out of a Trump administration. If he gets us involved in some destructive trade war that puts the country back into recession, then what? This could very well play out as an administration that does a tap dance on the Constitution in an effort to just pick different winners and losers than the last people running the show.
So, sure, we’re still on the opposite side of the street from the progressives, but this administration could turn out to have a lot in common with them. We just don’t know yet.
Going back to my previous post, I think part of the problem here is that it isn’t just “our” dirty laundry. This is the President of the United States. If he has dirty laundry, it’s all of our problem. I’m not fond of having the left enjoy that, but such it is.
I’m American before I am partisan, in short. That’s not usually a conflict, since my political choices are simply working out what I believe to be best for the country. But sometimes one must go back to square one.
Our dirty laundry is our internal disagreements and divisiveness. This is our dirty laundry.
All of us view Trump differently and with varying shades of likes and dislikes. We all disagree on some level with what makes good policy and what doesn’t. Yet many of us still find a way to defend each other (Midge defending BDB in a previous comment).
Like it or not, Trump is at the head. And I am not advocating complete silence on disagreement. I guess the most I can actually ask for is wisdom in how, when, or why we voice disagreement, being mindful of not being divisive.
Except those “internal” disagreements are on public matters. Maybe I should be specific: anything that is going to come to a vote in Congress is something conservatives should talk about freely. So is any public statement by the president himself or by his press secretary.
Sure, and I’ve done that myself.
And I think that’s fair, to ask for wisdom — I can agree with that better than with the way you’ve framed it in the OP. But I’ll still make this distinction: I see Trump as the legitimate head of state, but I don’t look to him as my conservative leader. I don’t trust him to that extent. That doesn’t mean I view him as an opponent: I’m not bitterly partisan about it and may even vote for him next time around.
Why? What has he done to deserve my support?
Sorry, I assumed you would know what I meant. Darn! Writing is so easy, too.
The enemy I intended to identify, as I’ll kindly remind you, is not a Trump or Cruz or Pence or etc. who missteps to our displeasure. It is the party of death, nihilism, socialism, fascism, racism and dead-eyed power, represented ably by the manifestations of Satan known as Obama, Clinton, Soros, Kerry, Schumer, Lewis, Reid, Pelosi, Madonna, etc.
You have to remember who the real enemy is, or you are screwed.
Nothing. Play the hand you’re dealt.
Sometimes the best move is to fold.
You’ve read enough of what I posted around here to know that you have to write small words in large font for me to understand anything. Puppets are optional, but can also help me understand things. :)
I’m just not sure how much I can trust Trump to defend my rights especially during a time when we’re seeing a sharp increase of Christian persecution globally. I don’t know what side he’s on because I don’t know what, if any, core beliefs he has.
Two other thoughts. One, on wisdom — I said any public matter is fair game above, but I’ll make a distinction: there are some issues that are more like internal disagreements than others, and strategy fights — as opposed to substance — don’t need to happen on MSNBC. On substance, talk conservatism wherever possible.
More important: I can live with Trump on policy. I’m most deeply troubled by his leadership style, by what he has already done and may yet do to the political culture. Those criticisms are the ones that generally most irritate his most loyal supporters, not least because they often hear it from the Left too. The liberals — naturally enough — can see things in Trump that they didn’t in Obama, and they usually state it in exaggerated form. So I understand the irritation. But I can’t simply ignore it when the president says or does things I believe are damaging merely to preserve unity. There are long-term consequences, and how conservatives react to Trump will influence an entire new generation of leadership (and even perhaps his own behavior). That matters beyond this round of policy battles.
And frankly, real unity requires unifying leadership, and many criticisms are really just asking him to provide that rather than picking petty fights. You’re right to ask conservatives to show wisdom in how they deal with this lightning-rod of a president, and there are always nitpicking critics. But the ultimate responsibility will rest with the President.
Oh wow, could never discuss with my mother – would be far worse than grousing about something to another man!
Spousal loyalty is special, though, and I wouldn’t expect Ricochetians to take the analogy too closely.
That said, there are things I just won’t say out of Ricochet loyalty, and I find that, unsurprisingly, I get heat for my choices when another member would have chosen a different division between the sayable and the unsayable. It’s hardly surprising that people have differing ideas on what should be left unsaid to honor loyalty to one another other around here, and so not surprising when members become frustrated with each other for disagreeing over what’s the proper way to sort the sayable from the unsayable.
Are you requesting, then, that R>’s Editors focus on making this the first priority when choosing what to promote to the Main Feed, while discussion on the Member Feed remains far more free-wheeling?
I know the Editors already do consider this factor, but of course there’s disagreement on how to determine this factor.
I think so.
The original post was far more general than this specific question is meant for. I do know that Trump has aligned himself with us against the Leftists. This is clear to me, though not others. He has aligned himself with American citizens against “globalists”. I know some think that is all about trade, but others think it goes beyond that. I know that attacking the people on your side is unhelpful and is detrimental. I do also know that in a free society, we have a right to speak and criticize our leaders. I also want open debate. I had the sense that we were all still supportive of Bush even if he did things we didn’t like and criticizing his specific actions didn’t come off as attacking him.
I do understand some around here absolutely detest Trump with a loathing that is beyond description. Others are far more reserved in their dislike. I am having a hard time determining what exactly it is I want. Perhaps those who are so vehemently opposed to find some peace and decide if they are still in this with the rest of this uneasy alliance or not.