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.
What Is the End-Game for NeverTrumpers?
This question has been growing in my mind as the cacophony of from the hysterical Left (sorry for the redundancy) rises to a crescendo. As I follow people like Jonah Goldberg, David French, and Mona Charen — to name the few who seem to be tenaciously critical of Trump but whom I respect tremendously — I really want to ask them a few questions. I won’t get their replies here so maybe others of a like mind can answer for this perspective.
What is it that you are trying to accomplish at this point? I get, first of all, why you didn’t want Trump to be the nominee. I did not want that either. I supported almost anyone else in the field over him except for, maybe, Jeb! and, later, Kasich. I really did not want him. But once it happened, the choice became overwhelmingly obvious. Everyone gets that. What I don’t understand is why, at this point in time, do you seem to take an active anti-Trump stance? Do you think that we will somehow come out in good shape if the Left brings down this administration? So you think that the distraction will be out of the way and we can go back to being respected by the Media? Do you see Pence taking over and then the Leftist mob will have their bloodthirst slaked?
Furthermore, didn’t Trump represent an unexpected opportunity? Wasn’t it possible that, blemishes and all, Trump was a blunt instrument that represented an opening for moving the ball downfield in a way that a more traditional politician never could? I hate that I am speaking in the past tense but I am starting to feel that we have let an opportunity slip through our fingers. By not closing ranks behind him, I fear that we are letting him get surrounded by the barbarian horde while we watch “safely” from the ramparts. After he is vanquished, the siege will commence and what will we do then?
Published in General
There are really two questions that though related are distinct that this brings up for me. First, given what we know now, ie the evidence as it stands do I think it strong enough to justify impeachment? The second question is do I think given what we know now is there a chance that there will be found evidence that will justify an impeachment? To the first question I say, no. There is not enough evidence in my opinion that would warrant in my judgement impeachment. To the second question I would answer, maybe? I think there is enough smoke to justify an investigation at least by the press. This investigation doesn’t mean any impeachable offense will be found but I am open to being convinced.
Now on a separate not I would like to say that at least for my part, putting aside my own dislike of Trump my criticisms of him in all of these matters is that he has acted stupidly and hurt his own arguments at least as I see things. These criticisms are really independent of whether his actions were legal or not, correct or not. I don’t know if firing Comey was right, I don’t know if sharing the intelligence was prudent. I do know that Trump has made a hash of his justifications and explanations for these two things. I see no reason not to call it a strike if he swings and misses.
Like I have said. Trump should shut up and not tweet. He isn’t helping himself.
I totally agree. What we are seeing is a street fight where a bunch of thugs have jumped someone and are beating him to death while we play innocent bystander. Some of the bystanders look on in horror and shock while others smile as they watch the blood pouring onto the street from the victim’s wounds. Very few are trying to pull the bullies off.
Wait…Trump is the bully, right? Or do I have it backward?
Umbra said it already, but that isn’t the question. At least, I have yet to be asked it. The question is really, “Is he doing a good job? Is he fulfilling his campaign promises? Is he pursuing an agenda you agree with? What do you think of his nominations? What about immigration? Foreign policy?” Etc. Etc. Etc. So it isn’t one question, it’s a multitude of questions, that are asked and answered over and over again as we discuss and wrassle with the issues.
What you seem to be suggesting by framing it that way is that anyone who should dare level criticism at Trump in anyway is somehow colluding with the left to get him impeached. And that simply is not the case.
If you read my full comment, you would have seen that I very deliberately and clearly said that I am not asking anyone to agree with everything that Trump does. I am not asking anyone not to criticize. You don’t have to like his tweets, or his cabinet choices, or his policies.
I didn’t like Trump during the primaries. I didn’t like him at all. He was at the bottom of my list. But now he is president, and he won fair and square.
But the people who are trying to remove him are willing to use methods low and foul.
I am getting very worried. Every time I look at Facebook or at the media, I see people salivating at the idea of impeachment, of moving in for the kill. They don’t just want Trump’s blood; they are talking about Pence, too. Pence is somehow “implicated” in whatever vague crime is in their imaginations.
And then I come on Ricochet and I find even here in some people a sort of “well, it wouldn’t be so bad if they somehow got rid of Trump.” There’s a post right now by Cato Rand that fantasizes about removing Trump from office. Because he has a personal preference to Pence. Because he thinks that Trump is unfit for office.
But to remove a president is not something to be undertaken lightly. If Trump is not guilty of something heinous, then removing him would rip the country apart. It would destroy us, totally.
I didn’t read the OP here by Polyphemus as meaning that no one could ever disagree with Trump. I read the OP as pleading with Ricochet members to help keep Trump from getting impeached. The hint is in the title. What is the end-game?
Define NeverTrump: is it someone who didn’t vote for Trump, or does it include people who hated him but voted for him because Hillary was the alternative?
I was very much NeverTrump, but when push came to shove I voted for him for 3 reasons: my state flipping to him was a path for McMullin, he wasn’t Hillary, and the Supreme Court. At best I am hoping for half of what I want from him over the next 4 years.
I consider myself ReluctantTrump now. He’s President, and I deal with reality, so for the next 4 years (or less if he’s impeached) I am hoping for Conservative agendas to get passed. That means small government, free trade economics, socially conservative/state’s rights legislation, and a strong foreign policy. That’s Reagan. If you aren’t on board with most of those issues, you aren’t a Conservative.
My end game isn’t to impeach Trump; it is to hold Trump’s feet to the fire whenever he strays from the Conservative path to do what I can to make him enact Conservative policies.
My end game for Trump Voters is far more militant. I classify Trump Voters as those who voted for him in the primaries. I have nothing but disdain for the Trump Voter, but I feel nothing but pity for those who had to choose between Trump and Hillary. Trump Voters aren’t on my side. They ruined a great opportunity to get a real Conservative in the White House and stuck us with a RINO. They betrayed us. I hope Trump Voters have a miserable 4 years defending every self inflicted political wound. This is what they signed up for. And if Trump is unable to pull out of this downward spiral I hope they get used to LOSING. I hope they come to regret their primary vote. I’m not interested in reconciliation with Trump Voters- they’ll find no forgiveness here. I want them to recognize they were wrong, accept it, and never vote that way again.
The problems the conservative movement currently face are numerous.
[1] A hostile culture. The media is opposed to conservatism. So, is academia and much of the entertainment industry. AARP opposes entitlement reform. The list goes on and on.
[2] A divided base. Among those 60 million or so who voted for Trump and the Republican candidates for US House and US Senate, many are opposed to illegal immigration but also opposed to entitlement reform. Many who support entitlement reform are opposed to cracking down on illegal immigration.
[3] A divided political leadership. The Republican congressional majority consists of conservatives like Ted Cruz but also moderates like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John McCain and Lindsay Graham.
[4] A large Left-Wing base. The Democrat party can nominate someone on the very far Left of their party and count on near unanimous support from their base. Perhaps Bernie Sanders, who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, would have been a stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton.
[5] An unprepared, ill-informed, impulsive leader of the Republican party named Donald J. Trump. I feel most positive about the Trump administration when someone like Jeff Sessions or Nikki Haley is speaking on its behalf. I feel most negative about the Trump administration when Trump opens his mouth or makes use of his twitter account.
If we had a Cruz administration or a Rubio administration or a Walker administration or a Pence administration, challenges [1] through [4] would still exist. But challenge [5] would either not exist at all or be a much smaller challenge.
If Trump can’t control his emotions, if Trump can’t learn how to limit the damage he is doing to himself and his administration, he should resign. If Trump is unwilling to resign, the Republican congress should consider impeaching Trump, though that seems very unlikely and hopefully unnecessary.
All of them would have lost to Hillary.
No, actually all of them would have not only won the electoral college (as Trump did). They all would have won the popular vote.
And people wonder why the Left is winning the war.
The reason why the Left is winning the war is because the narrative of the Left is more emotionally appealing even though it is intellectually bankrupt. Since most voters form their political views based on emotions, conservatism will always face an uphill battle.
Trump makes this problem worse by being the political klutz that he is. If we could replace Trump with a Pence, a Walker, a Cruz, a Rubio, it would be of great help to the conservative cause. Unfortunately, Trump isn’t going anywhere. So, conservatives might as well hope that Trump’s clumsiness and cluelessness doesn’t sink the conservative agenda.
They are all too polite to have won that election.
But somehow the polite Marco Rubio received more votes in Florida in his US Senate race than did Donald Trump even as Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, spent most of 2016 reeling from discussion of how she failed to safeguard classified information as Secretary of State.
Millions of Americans were willing to vote Republican, any Republican except Donald Trump.
State race, not national. I think the voters who turned Pennsylvania, for example, would have sat out the election instead of voting for Rubio. No way Rubio gets the frustrated blue collar voters energized.
Pat Toomey won the Pennsylvania US Senate race. Toomey also received more votes than Trump. Same with Ron Johnson in Wisconsin.
It’s time conservatives realized that Trump was a bad choice. We should dump him and welcome President Mike Pence. At least Pence isn’t a moron like Trump.
And your proposed mechanism for that is?
What the Democrats are doing and saying is news of the Day, what Trump is not doing to further his agenda is as well. Trump wont get out of his own way, but our side is adding to the frenzy by piling on and by rewarding the Democrats and the media for their hysterical frenzy. Trump lacks style, doesn’t have a tight communications team, is just strange, but the Democrats are trying to burn the house down because they lost. It’s only because they lost. Conservative fastidiousness is not a strategy.
NeverTrump means, you would never support Donald Trump in the election. “Never” includes voting. If you voted for Trump, but didn’t want to, that makes you ReluctantTrump, not NeverTrump.
NeverTrumpers had a number of alternatives to voting for Trump that they considered: voting for nobody, voting for a third party candidate, voting for Hillary (disgusting, I know, but some people did argue for it), etc. The key thing is, they did not vote for Donald Trump.
Most GOP candidates don’t start totally avoidable scandals by firing FBI directors in a temper tantrum and then undercut their own staff while they’re out trying to mop up the PR mess.
And how is that Trumpian backbone working toward getting Obamacare repealed and tax reform passed? Oh wait, it isn’t, because Trumpian backbone is totally orthogonal to actually accomplishing things.
This I subscribe to in lieu of the idealist approach promoted by many NeverTrumpers. I think the disruption created against our Statists(many of whom are supported by the NeverTrumpers) by Trump has some chance at least of moving us back to a point where some of that idealism can be put under consideration once again. The idealists are not helping remove the Statists but they feel good about their principles.
Trump could resign or the House could impeach Trump and the Senate could vote to remove Trump from office with a two-thirds vote.
It’s in the Constitution.
I don’t follow his writings, but when he fills in on Three Martini Lunch he comes across as pretty even handed.
I’d like to suggest a different point of view. The Trump voters didn’t betray us. They don’t entirely agree with us. By “us,” I mean the middle of the traditional conservative coalition, and I think that you mean the same thing. Perhaps we should consider alternative perspectives:
I agree with just about everything you wrote. But allowing someone as unserious and reckless as Trump to lead the Republican party is likely to be a gift for the Democrats.
Since when did handing classified information to the Russians become something conservatives and Republicans were proud of? One strong argument Republicans had against Hillary Clinton was that she allowed classified information to be unsecured.
Also, during Trump’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress earlier in the year, Trump advocated an idea from the Ivanka Trump playbook: Mandatory paid family leave. This is not good for conservatism.
Also, Trump recently said that he thinks Australia’s single payer health care system is something America should aspire to.
We need to read the writing on the wall. The Ivanka Trump wing of the Trump White House is rising. Now would be a good time for the Republicans to boot Trump out of office and replace him with Pence.
Pence is much less likely to pull an Ivanka and support Mandatory Paid family leave or to pull a Donald and praise single payer health care.
I think your comment touches on an important divide:
On the one hand, the “disruptists” worry that the “principlists” aren’t helping remove the Statists, but mainly just grooving on their principles. On the other hand, the “priciplists” worry that the “disruptists” aren’t helping remove the Statists, either, but mainly just grooving on the disruption.
Which will get more done, rallying around disruption and an us-vs-them mentality in a zero-sum culture war, or a different approach – an approach which is less warlike not because those who embrace it groove on being “cucked” or effete “Leftist lapdogs”, but because they honestly believe it will work better?
As a result, both “disruptist” and “principlist” strategists share an understandably symmetric worry about each other: each worries that the other guy’s strategy is more about feeling good than about getting stuff done. Even worse, it’s easy to conflate disagreement on how to accomplish their common goals with having different goals to begin with.
Odd then that some wish failure for Trump’s presidency. Do the “Never Trumpers” think our opponents will merely smile indulgently? And those having trouble finding employment can continue to just sit on the sidelines?
I don’t recall wishing for the collapse of America during the oppressive Democrat presidencies of LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, nor Barrack Obama.
My wish would be a “loyal opposition” as opposed to hatred.
(May I add that my “foreigner” reference was to foreign to our normal political discourse, not birthplace. My apologies to those offended.)
Among those Ricochetians who have considered themselves at some point “never Trump” conservatives, only a very few seem to think that the failure of Trump’s presidency would be a good thing. Many agree that, much as they might prefer Pence to Trump, the processes leading to a Pence presidency could be very corrosive and do more harm than good. The few who are rooting for Trump to be forcibly removed from office so that Pence can take over stand out because of their rarity and the extremity of their opinion on this.
And perhaps the loyal opposition would get understandably frustrated if the Trump supporters so scathingly critical of them seemed to ignore their loyal opposition, then, as if “hatred” were the only kind of opposition which existed, when it’s not?
A frustrated loyal opposition would work harder – with alternative proposals – not devolve into fantasy and mythical conspiracies.
Trump may not be Ronald Reagan, but he isn’t Hillary either.