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.
Jonah Remains Unconvinced
Author’s note: This post was written one week ago but not published until today.
Recently, I found myself in the odd position of mildly criticizing one of our own. Jonah Goldberg is bright, engaging, and really more fun to read than almost anyone else on the right. However, I am incapable of giving a blanket endorsement to anybody. I don’t think Jonah would fault me. In fact, that is why he is so tough on Trump. I made it clear in my recent post, “Jonah Has Tweet Envy,” that I wasn’t demanding he cease criticism of Trump or was I questioning his loyalty to conservatism. I think the way I phrased it was that his analysis was shallow and his style counter-productive. I predicted blowback from this criticism in the form of a battalion of straw men launched at me and “my kind.” In Jonah’s defense, he did nothing like that. Instead, he seemed to be responding with an interesting new proposition of his own that clarified why he sees Trump in an extremely negative light.
When conservatives said “Let Reagan be Reagan,” they were referring to a core philosophy that Reagan had developed over decades of study and political combat. When people said “Let Trump be Trump,” they meant let Trump’s id run free. The former was about staying true to an ideology, the latter about giving free rein to a glandular style that refused to be locked into a doctrine or even notions of consistency. That’s why saying “Let Trump be Trump” is almost literally the opposite of saying “Let Reagan be Reagan.”
Although I never used the analogy or the phrases of “Let Reagan be Reagan” and “Let Trump be Trump,” it is certainly a reasonable response to my piece. The proposition that, “’Let Trump be Trump’ is almost literally the opposite of saying ‘Let Reagan be Reagan,’” should require a response from me. Here goes.
The idea that Ronald Reagan was seen in a glowing conservative light when he was elected in 1980 is what I would call 20/20 hindsight. We know now more than 35 years later how groundbreaking and successful Reagan’s presidency was. However, in 1980 this was anything but obvious. Remember, the difference that got Reagan elected was the Reagan Democrats voting for him. I was one of them. Being of a consistent philosophical bent (what Jonah thinks of as all important) I first changed my registration in 1980 and Reagan was the first Republican I voted for.
That was the easy part. My parents had evidenced their complete disdain as they couldn’t believe anybody could vote for “a B-movie actor for president.” I didn’t have the heart to tell them that to me he wasn’t a B-movie actor. The B movies were eliminated by television in the 1950s. I would come home from elementary school and turn the TV on in the late 1950s. My two favorites were “The Lone Ranger” and “Death Valley Days.” On “Death Valley Days,” a former B-movie actor had taken over as the announcer. He wore his cowboy hat jauntily to one side and was really pretty good at his job. You see Jonah, in 1980 I was voting to make the announcer from “Death Valley Days” the President of the United States. Better not to mention this to Mom and Dad.
The real reason for my voting for Reagan can be summed up in two words: Jimmy Carter. Carter’s insane obsession with the environment which resulted in the destruction of an already soft American economy was just stupid. His capacity to imagine Communism as a positive force in the world was frightening. He was the first American President to undermine the State of Israel.
Understanding all of this at a philosophical level and knowing from my very recent experience at university that these attitudes were endemic to the left and would be endemic from now on in the Democratic party, I made my decision to make a clean break. Ronald Reagan was not a plus. He was, in fact, an extreme negative. First, there was the seriousness issue. I really did think of him as the announcer from “Death Valley Days.” However, watching the industrial heartland of America being wrecked because those who were its assumed defenders had been seduced by a hopeless ideology was way too painful for me to ignore. The Carter Administration needed to end before it did any more damage. I closed my eyes and voted Republican for the first time. Then Reagan won.
I had no idea what to expect. The next thing I know, Edward Teller was on television describing “Star Wars.” If Reagan was a bad joke to my parents, Edward Teller was Satan himself. (The Satan in Judaism is not exactly Christianity’s Satan. Close, but not exactly.) I face-palmed and cried, “What have I done?” As if to answer this very question the Soviet Union collapsed under the pressure of Reagan and Star Wars. Western Civilization moved upward and into the light. After that, I didn’t worry so much. I knew that it wasn’t just that the Democrats were wrong but that much of conservatism was right.
Thus, for this Reagan Democrat, Ronald Reagan represented anything but a “core philosophy that Reagan had developed over decades of study and political combat.” He was a blind gamble to get rid of the Carter insanity. After the fact, I realized that there was a good reason to be conservative and as idiosyncratic as Reagan was, he got the job done. All’s well that ends well.
Now, what of Trump? Jonah is right that Trump is a very different case than Reagan. However, Obama-Hillary is a very different case than Carter. Carter represented the new left-wing ideology. Obsessive about the environment, blind to the threat by Marxism, and incapable of understanding the economy enough to break the malaise.
Obama-Hillary represented something even worse. Oh, of course, they doubled down on the left-wing ideology. However, it was the identity politics, victim-mongering, and deconstructionism that was new. If Jimmy Carter said something absurd you could debate him and win. If Obama-Hillary said something absurd and you made that point in a debate, you were a racist or a sexist. Obama-Hillary had perfected playing the race and gender cards to a science. A fawning, brainless, spineless media ensured that this fuzzy act could be maintained against all odds ad infinitum. Thus a clearly defined ideology became useless in attacking this bizarre cult-like gang of idiots who now covered Washington DC like some sort of bleach-resistant fungus.
In short, I don’t think even Reagan could have defeated Obama-Hillary and the transgendered, victim-mongering, sexual-schizophrenic Democrat loonies. Little did anyone, least of all me, know that there was a strange orange-haired being in the universe that had the odd characteristic of killing the fungus that was growing all over Washington DC. His very presence seemed to damage the up until then unstoppable fungal growth. Jonah, rather than continue to wildly rip the strange orange creature that neither you nor I fully understand, we should give thanks to a beneficent G-d who has heard our prayers and delivered us from the scourge of Obama-Hillary. Some things are just beyond our ability to predict or control.
Let Trump be Trump and let the fungus among us continue to die.
Good Shabbos.
Published in General
Amen.
Evening Jim,
Your observation about Jonah could be applied to many critics of Trump. The choice between Trump and Clinton was in its own way as easy as the choice between Reagan and Carter. In a way Carter was a gift to conservatives, without Carter’s poor choices and mistaken understanding about the nature of our adversaries, and double digit inflation, Reagan might not have been elected. Reagan was both mocked as an “amiable dunce” and evil. In response to Reagan’s “evil empire” speech, Anthony Lewis of the “Times” described the speech as “sectarian, outrageous, simplistic, primitive–the only word for it”. And that “For a President to attack those who disagree with his politics a ungodly is terribly dangerous.” Historian, Henry Steele Commager asserted that, “It was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I have read them all”. Here is that pleasant Tip O’Neill on Reagan, “The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generation of America…He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.” Edmund Morris noted that Reagan was variously perceived as either the archetypal American naif or a “binary-minded simpleton” who thought all issues could be reduced to check boxes marked YES or NO.” The above information on Reagan is paraphrased from “God and Ronald Reagan” by Paul Kengor, Ph.D.
Jonah among many critics seem to have forgotten the criticism of Reagan, and more unfortunately, they seem to have lost the ability to measure hazard. Trump’s presidency could have many areas where conservatives will be disappointed however the country would be much worse off had Clinton won; the blindness to the depth of this difference causes Jonah’s opinion to have little value. Even on “Special Report”, he is more focused on delivering a zinger about Trump than on saying anything of merit. The “Never Trumpers” appear to have no way to self correct this lack of insight.
Carter at least woke up a bit after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. There no evidence that any event, however terrible, could wake up Obama or HRC to the nature of the ROP.
I don’t see Trump having the same lasting effect that Reagan had on you and turning democratic voters into conservatives permanently. As you said, when you voted for Reagan that it wasn’t because of his core philosophy, it was mostly against Carter.
With Trump, we will not learn in the coming years that he had spent years studying and having a solid basis on his philosophy, and have an intellectual basis long after he is gone. In fact as Jonah said, Trump doesn’t have a philosophy. When the folks like you open that door to Trump’s philosophy, there won’t be anything there. Nothing will anchor those former democratic voters who voted for Trump to vote republican, much less convert to conservatism.
You may not have known about the intellectual bonafides of Reagan, but plenty of folks did. Buckley of course did, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and many others were in the Reagan camp early. My guess is that on your journey toward conservatism that you read some of these folks and listened to Reagan, and that made you a conservative. What does Trump have to offer in that vain?
Carter gets a bad rap. He was, for all intents and purposes, a standard issue post war Democrat. A politician with limited skill and little influence with Congress.
Oh, I have given up on Jonah and I was a fan and bought his books. I have even met him on an NRO cruise. It was interesting to me to learn he was a big guy, like Mark Steyn. Politics seems to be a small man’s field. Jonah and Bill Kristol are all dead to me. They are not just wrong but have joined the other side; the Deep State side. Kristol even admitted it. I remember Reagan very well and remember that Bob Dole fought his tax cut and succeeded in losing the Senate for him in 1982.
Trump is no political genius but he has skills that many politicians, especially like Paul Ryan who has never held a real job, do not understand.
I’ll take my chances on him.
I think the post is fair. I just want to point out a few things about Trump.
He does have a somewhat defined history. Back before the election one of the Ricochet podcasts had, I think, Larry Arnn ( president of Hillsdale College). In the podcast, Arnn makes a good point, that I also have seen evidence of independently, that Trump does have a at least one aspect where he is steadfast. Rule of law.
Basically, one area where Trump has been constant over time is that he supports everything being done by the book so to speak. Trump makes very good points about doing things legally and enforcing the laws.
This area of rule of law is one of the areas that most concerns me about American politics. Things like the IRS scandal, executive actions to not implement laws etc. are all areas of deep concern to me. Trump represented a different view on that than most which I highly desired.
One example I have is an old video of Trump testifying to congress about some real estate issue in NY. He may have made argument for government intervention, which was not good, but he also described the root issue that was most important. The government had made promises and laws about some investment/tax/accounting rules, and then changed them. This caused a lot of havoc for long term investment, which real estate is.
Trump’s honesty about the truth of politics is refreshing. He doesn’t pretend that things like money influencing politics don’t happen etc.
So, while Trump does indeed have many negatives, he also has positives for some which I assume is just like Reagan. I am not saying that Trump is the new Reagan nor that Trump will ultimately have as great of an effect, though it is possible on both accounts I suspect.
Unemployment rate in 1982 was 7.8 % and GDP shrank by 1.9%.
We were in a recession that started in 1981. The Volker recession that killed inflation.
That’s true. But the opposition to the tax cut led Reagan to reduce it. I think it ended up being 5% in year 1 and 10% in years 2 and 3. It started out being 10% in all 3 years. The original plan kicked in faster and would probably have reduced the severity of the Volker recession.
Nice Post.
I was serving in Germany and my Commander-In-Chief was Jimmy Carter. People in the USA did not understand that when the world wasn’t hating us, they were laughing at us. The world knew Carter was a weakling, and the USA was weak with him in charge.
I can forgive him for being an idiot on the Economy, an idiot on Social Issues and even worse on most other things, but I will never forgive him for making the USA look weak.
Carter had the ability to learn. He learned enough to go against the leftist 1978 Congress and hire Volker to tame inflation. He learned that we had to have a better military and began to rebuild the post-Vietnam military. I respect that. Obama never learned anything
Yes and it lost the Senate. Dole was the last “root canal Republican.” Gingrich called them “tax collectors for the welfare state.”
Did you just compare Trump to Agent Orange?
Brilliant.
Reagan visited the country I was posted to in 1972 or 73. I was appalled that his q and a merely lifted short paragraphs, word for word, from the speech he had just given which was too simple for my inchoate tastes. He fell asleep during our briefing even though we’d been warned to keep it short or that might happened, but a blow hard from Washington wanted to push some irrelevant program and Gov Reagan fell asleep. The speech was the same one he gave around the country and it was simple straight forward and conservate, the Reagan we all came to know. By the time he was elected I voted for him enthusiastically because it was clear that the Democrat party had gone off the rails, and liberalism was driving the economy into the ground and putting the nation at risk and I’d grown up a little. Reagan was still giving the same speech and gave every indication of actually believing it. Simple is good if it’s the right simple and it was unambiguously conservative. He was known as a Conservative and the Democrat hatred and Republican establishment disdain was proof. Trump tapped into something the way Reagan did. People know when things are going sour. He is not a conservative so now it’s conservative intellectuals who have disdain, but if he keeps getting big things right he’s the man we need. He only has three more big things to do domestically. Reform taxes drastically, move healthcare to the market and deregulate with a chainsaw not a scalpel. He’s relying too heavily on Congress instead of leading. Reagan would have been selling his program to the people and giving Congress the outlines of what it had to do. Trump doesn’t seem to understand that Congress can occasionally do the right thing, but it can’t undo the wrong things because too many interests build up around them. To lead in the right direction one must have a coherent set of principles. The right principles are conservative. Limited government, decentralization, the rule of law, markets. Anything else is just place holding for the progressive juggernaut that will return to complete their destruction. My fear early on was that Trump would just show the Democrats how to be a post cold war progressive. Fortunately they’re still too stupid to learn and Trump is neither conservative or progressive. My hope is that Trump will see that conservative principles work and that its up to him to put them in place.
One can only be loyal to conservatism by criticizing Trump.
Reagan conservatism is opposite Obama liberalism because they are opposing philosophies. Reagan conservatism and Trumpism are opposite because one is a philosophy and one isn’t. Trumpism is also opposite Obama liberalism for the same reason.
Trump is a “get ‘er done” kind of guy. But the ‘er is always up for grabs.
That’s not a knock on Trump. That’s the mood of modern society. Someone decides bathroom policy matters and everyone jumps on ‘er. Anyone who questions ‘er is standing in the way of getting done.
Conservatism is about evaluating the ‘er. Trumpism is about the getting done.
To paraphrase James’s OP, Jonah’s jaundiced view of Trump has made his observations about Trump and the political events which lead our country to elect a political novice nearly worthless. Reagan was not elected because of his conservative philosophy, he was elected because he was not Carter. Trump, in part, was elected because he was not Clinton and because Trump identified more with Joe the plumber than with George Will.
We are now seeing that the coverage of Trump has been over 90% negative, the most one sided in the modern age. We expect this in that we are seeing the media with their masks of objectivity removed. When Jonah and other analysts are nearly as negative, they loose their ability to inform us.
Trump’s presidency has many positive aspects for conservatives. The bureaucracy’s growth and lack of accountability will be slowed and it will cease being weaponized against conservatives. The federal government will not grow at the rate it would have. The Mideast is much better since Trump is not enamored with the Muslim Brotherhood and Trump has sent a warning shot into Syria. Also, Trump unlike any other political leader, has properly labeled the media as the enemy.
People tend to forget this.
Disaffected Democrats and independents were the margin of victory.
Doesn’t really matter if people remember or forget this. It only matters that Reagan did indeed have a philosophy that informed his actions.
What people reject today is having a philosophy to guide one’s actions. That makes one rigid and ideological.
No, it didn’t. The Republicans gained control of the Senate in 1980 and didn’t lose it until 1986. In 1982 there was no change in the composition of the 54 seat Senate majority
Jonah Goldberg supported Evan McMullin for president. Not a hint of humility on his part since the election. Just a continuous portrayal of himself as the lonely voice of True Conservatism.
Mr. Goldberg was personally criticized by Trump and he can’t extricate himself from that fact. He wants him to fail. Please stop acting like you are an impartial observer.
Indecipherable relationship between Trump and conservatism. What are you trying to say?
Too much winning?
I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
I like Jonah, his Liberal Fascism and The Tyranny of Cliches made me smarter, and I thank him for that.
I would also posit that since Trump became POTUS, Jonah’s position is “I’ll criticize him when he’s wrong, and praise him when he’s right.”
That’s an honorable position.
My criticism of him and other Never-Trumpers is this: Donald J. Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Choose. Who would you rather see chosen as President?
It was a binary option, punto. TS//SAP data going collateral dirty internet unsecured on a private server is all I need to know. So, with this binary option, I’m all in. Screw it, let Trump be Trump. It’ll never be as bad as HRC being HRC as POTUS.
Agree, Jonah continues to be a head-shaking disappointment. I might take issue with your statement that “Trump is no political genius”, look at where he is, the job he’s doing, the policies he’s pushing, and perhaps most important the people he’s hired. I’m prepared to say that Trump is in fact a political genius. Let Trump be Trump, the punditry on the right need to stop biting at his heels and join us in celebrating some long awaited wins.
He does give him praise once in a while, but almost always with a snarky insult tossed in, it comes off as petty to me.
Yes, or he gives credit to other people while praising him. I don’t feel like looking up his columns right now, (it is a glorious Sunday and I only wanted to post the Quote Of The Day and get out in this day) but I remember Jonah saying the Tomahawk strike was a Win, but he had McMaster to thank for that… as if all other Presidents have done everything completely on their own without any help from their Cabinet.
I’ve liked Jonah for many years, but not so much lately. I understand his bad feelings – I can’t imagine how Not Fun it is to be publicly insulted by the President – so maybe he can throw shade on the Democrats, instead? Does he have to focus solely on the President?
Exactly, Jonah said he would praise Trump when he did well and criticize him we he did not do well. Trump has shifted his views towards Jonah’s more traditional conservative positions, and instead of praising him, Jonah has criticized him for betraying Trump supporters. George Will is doing the same. I’ve read Jonah for many years. I’ve been a huge fan of his. I am truly surprised and disappointed at his disingenuous spin. He painted himself into a corner early on Trump, and now he can’t be trusted to be fair.
Edit: Speaking of Reagan, whatever happened to the 80/20 friendship? More like ‘my way or the highway’.
Change the name to Obama and its the same situation