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
I like the way you have expressed this. Many of us don’t like all of what is going on and certainly feel some of it is unnecessary but there is a need to prevail. So we get into things that are distasteful but not nearly as much so as the other side would have it.
It never hurts to take a “chill pill”. Trump, The Democrats, Talk Radio, FoxNews, CNN, are all drama queens. The last three are so because they are in the entertainment business. The drama of the news is what they sell. The sensationalism, over the top speculation, and accusations are part of an unconscious ploy to drive up viewership and keep them tuned in. 24 hour news is driven by crisis coverage. When there is a crisis everyone naturally tunes in to know what is happening. But a real crisis is rare and unpredictable. But, if you cover a regular issue like it is a crisis (Breaking: President could be impeached, Breaking: Democrats try to over throw Trump) you can generate some of that energy and interest in what is otherwise a mid to low rank issue in terms of emergency. So that explains the media the only difference between them being their target audience, which dictates the kind of crisis they present.
The Democrats are desperate and delusional still coming to grips with their own inadequacies as a party they are lashing out and clinging to fantastical thinking. Also on the part of leadership, this craze is a money raising scheme. Unable to accomplish anything substantial to please their base all they have to show their commitment is the level of hyperbole they inject into their public statements.
Trump, alas I think is a publicity hound. From his days in the tabloids to his days as a reality-TV star Trump is always pleased to be in the headlines. He thinks conflict is good for ratings and ratings are good for the brand. He enjoys melodrama especially about himself and so feeds it, consciously or unconsciously. He doesn’t seem to realize that as President melodrama is bad. It raises doubts, paralyzes your friends, and emboldens your political enemies. Not to mention it makes the country look weak and ill managed. The ideal presidency is smooth and turbulence free.
The combination of all of these I think creates an ideal environment for a positively reinforcing loop of melodrama and overreaction.
I was never quite a Never Trumper, but I was willing to be critical of Trump during the campaign, which to his supporters on this site is the same thing.
Trump now seems determined to fulfill my worst fears of his Presidency after an admittedly good period of being President-elect and the first month being President (meaning Gorsuch and his cabinet picks). Tax reform is dead. Obamacare repeal is dead, so we are on an unavoidable path to government-run single-payer health-care. Even if we get a wall paid for by Mexico, Tump will keep his promise that it will have a “great big beautiful door” in it, rendering the wall ineffective.
I think the best we can hope for is that the Republicans keep at least one house of Congress after the 2018 midterms and Trump decides that his version of winning is best exemplified by doing the true outsider thing and not running for re-election and he endorses Mike Pence (or someone equally good) as his successor, and the Republicans win the White House and both houses of Congress in 2020
The next best thing we can hope for is that Trump destroys what is left of the Reublican party, which gets split in two. Hopefully this happens very quickly (by 2020) and the central planning wing of the Republican party led by Trump can peel off enough of the central planning Democrats that we create a major shake-up of the current major parties so that we can actually have a major political party that believes in capitalism and economic freedom.
I’m not holding my breath. Even if Trump doesn’t run in 2020, he is likely to endorse one of his life-long lefty Democrat relatives (Jared, Ivanka, Eric, or Donald jr) rather than anyone remotely conservative. If the Reublican party does explode, I fear a generation of Democratic domination of the US govt, not a quick realignment of the major parties
In other words, I fear the nation is doomed. But I thought it was doomed a long time. Trump won’t cause the nation’s downfall, he will just accelerate it.
Oh, ok. I forgot to read the whole comment. That’s why I don’t see it the same as you.
I’m pleased you ended with this because I have difficulty deciding that failures like the ACA Repeal and TaxReform (although not yet conclusive) go more to Trump than to the Republican Party. The founding principles are what made this nation great and their restoration is what can make America great again. The establishment Republican Party is not up to that, I should say doesn’t believe it and won’t try.
I think the big problem is that Donald Trump does not believe in limited government, which is why Donald Trump has said that he opposes any reform of Medicare and Social Security, even as these large entitlement programs are ready to bankrupt the United States.
Trump supports single payer health care. So, why would any conservative look to Trump as someone who would save the country. Trump wants to socialize the country, which is why Trump advocated, in his speech to a joint session of Congress, in favor of mandatory paid family leave.
Some people think of Trump as a Constitutional conservative. They are delusional.
Those failures absolutely do not fall solely on Trump, but I also think he deserves a lot of blame for handling the process so inanely. He is trying to run the government and the economy like he ran the business with his name on the top. He wants to give orders and have everyone jump. He never took the time to understand how our government actually works. For all his vaunted “deal making,” he didn’t even bother to try. He thought insulting or threatening people on twitter was all it took. At best, the Republican party can be blamed for not allowing Trump to be dictactor, but did any conservative actually want Trump to be dictator (I accept that many of his most ardent supporters actually did want him to be dictator, but those people are not conservative.)
If he wants to be a successful President, he needs to learn to manage the process, not issue dictates.
Trump absolutely does not believe in the founding principles and he is absolutely not a path for returning to them.
Never met one. Can you refer me to just one?
Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter.
Read Cooke’s Conservatarian Manifesto.
Do you have a source where any of these have said they believe Trump is a Constitutional conservative? What you may be missing in your assessment (I call myself a Constitutional conservative) is the fact that is not why Trump is supported. He is supported to disrupt the status quo since conservative principles are of little value when not in play and the GOPe in recent memory has insured that is the case. Trump has a base of people who really like him augmented by those (like me) who hope his time as POTUS will provide some opportunities for retrenchment of at least some conservative directions (court appointments, regulatory reform to help small business, devolvement of public education back to state control are possibles). I think 4 months is too short a period to assess this. We need to get the White House in something resembling normal mode. There is disagreement among many here at Ricochet as to exactly what and who is the source of all the flak coming Trump’s way. I’m still doubting whether any of those celebrities you named actually think Trump is a Constitutional conservative.
I like the sound of this fantasy, but assuming that fantasy could actually happen, is capitalism and economic freedom enough for a winning electoral coalition?
I mean, the reason we have this mess called “conservatism” to begin with is because economic freedom, socially religious types, and anti-Communists needed to get in the same car to get to… wherever we’ve been going since Barry Goldwater to the present day.
I don’t know, but right now we don’t have the option of voting for a party that supports economic freedom. We will never know if such a party will be electorally successful until we try. If such a party isn’t successful electorally, then the country is already finsished. That knowledge is, in and of itself, useful.
So, if everyone agrees that Trump is not a constitutional conservative, then why aren’t constitutional conservatives (like you and me) allowed to say that we prefer Mike Pence over Donald Trump?
Donald Trump has recently voiced support for single payer health care, as he did during the 1st Republican presidential debate.
Donald Trump advocated, during his speech to a joint session of Congress, mandatory paid family leave.
You say that it is the GOPe that is at fault. But it seems that the GOPe has, so far, refused to cooperate with Trump in his quest for mandatory paid family leave. The GOPe has, so far, refused to agree with Trump on single payer health care.
Mike Pence, when he was a member of the US House of Representatives during the years of President George W. Bush, voted against the Medicare Part D (prescription drug) entitlement expansion.
Trump has said that he opposes reforming Medicare and Social Security even as these programs are on course to bankrupt the United States of America. GOPe members like Paul Ryan have actually submitted legislation which would reform Medicare and Social Security.
So, I think this idea that the GOPe is always wrong and Donald Trump is always right is an overly simplistic way of looking at our present political situation.
Given these facts, Mike Pence should be preferred over Donald Trump by any constitutional conservative.
I think most any Constitutional conservatives would prefer Mike Pence over Donald Trump, at least in most circumstances, and they are certainly allowed to say that. But Trump was elected and that is where we stand and there is no way available for ‘us’ to change that. I’d like to get what I can out of what we got.
As to ‘single payer healthcare’ and ‘mandatory paid family leave’ I’ve heard Trump mention support for them but has he pushed for them? I’m not aware that he has. The lack of GOPe support for these makes sense to me but does not relieve them of their past progressive ventures.
I know that Trump has expressed little interest in reforming Social Security and Medicare which I am okay with but I’m sure for different reasons. He needs some wins and those are not the battles needed now, save them for later. He may even change his mind.
Your conclusion, that Pence should be favored over Trump, is understandable. I guess you could push for Pence to primary Trump in 2020.
Or pressure Trump to resign or if it is found that Trump has committed an impeachable offense, remove Trump from office via the impeachment mechanism.
The bottom line is this: Criticizing Trump is not equivalent to betraying the cause of conservatism. Accusing someone of being part of the Never Trump cabal or part of the GOPe is an act of intellectual laziness.
I think, @spiral9399, Bob has a point when he says “that is where we stand and there is no way available for ‘us’ to change that”. It needn’t necessarily be because there’s literally no way. But conservatives understandably worry that any transition from Trump to Pence before Trump’s term is up would likely be so costly and corrosive that it would undermine the advantages of having Pence instead of Trump.
“I prefer Pence to Trump” doesn’t have much context. Is it a preference that means in the abstract, not counting the cost of the transition? Or is it a preference that includes the cost of transition? It seems quite reasonable to hold the former preference but not the latter; and it’s, if not reasonable, understandable for Trump supporters to worry the latter is what’s meant whenever they hear it.
It is true that there would be a “transition cost” to move from a President Trump to a President Pence.
But it seems that many Trump supporters are attempting to use the existence of this transition cost as a means of forcing conservatives to silence themselves when they might want to speak out.
Also, if we were to discover tomorrow that Trump had committed an impeachable offence, this would not necessarily be bad for conservatism if conservatives were capable of recognizing the advantages of a Pence presidency over a Trump presidency.
The constant use of terms “GOPe” and “NeverTrumpers” and “establishment’ is simply a way of convincing conservatives that supporting Trump is their only option, no matter how badly Trump governs. This isn’t sustainable.
No question, TM.
GOPe and Establishment were in use well before Trump’s rise. I don’t care if you criticize Trump but talk of removal is way beyond criticism.
Have faith. There’s still time to accomplish much, but it will never happen if our party continues to splinter and endanger Republican control of Congress in 2018.
@spiral9399, I understand your concerns about how criticism of Trump is perceived.
Many supporters and detractors of Trump alike seem to agree there’s something risk-preferring about a Trump presidency, though they differ in their assessment of whether preferring this particular type of risk is a good thing.
Even when we prefer risk – even when we’re convinced that risk is our only hope – awareness of risk creates a level of arousal which tends to heighten our perception of threat. I think this results in both Trump supporters and Trump critics seeing more threat in disagreement than they might otherwise. So you get conversations like the following:
A: I prefer Pence to Trump.
B: Are you nuts? Have you no regard for the transition costs?
A: I never said I didn’t. But you treat any criticism of Trump as reckless disregard for that cost. You want to muzzle legitimate criticism.
B: No I don’t. You’re just using that as an excuse.
A: Yes you do. You’re just using your excuse that I’m using it as an excuse as an excuse.
And so it goes…
It is understandably frustrating for both sides.