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.
Are We in a Cold Civil War?
Definition of Cold War: A conflict over ideological differences carried on by methods short of sustained overt military action and usually without breaking off diplomatic relations.
Today at Townhall.com, Dennis Prager (link) attempts to explain the anti-Trump perspective which continues to come from otherwise “right-of-center” conservatives. He summarizes:
I have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today.
The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake.
I agree with Prager and other Happy Warriors that we are indeed at war with the Left. And like it has been with Islamists*, “they” (the Left and Islamists) have been at war with “us” (conservatives) for a long time even though we have not been at war with them. That changed with the election of President Trump (warts and all).
2016 ushered in a “fighter caucus” to oppose this ideology of the Left. Make no mistake, this is a war, an “existential battle for preserving our nation.” The American ideal of self-government, limited government, personal responsibility, the defense of our national borders coalesced into a phrase … Make America Great Again. America. Not “European-style socialism.” The America that President’s Reagan, Bush I & II and others were proud to extol on Memorial Day for its singular role in preserving freedom in the world. Make America Great Again indeed! More Prager:
America was doomed if a Democrat had been elected president. With the Supreme Court and hundreds of additional federal judgeships in the balance; with the Democrats’ relentless push toward European-style socialism — completely undoing the unique American value of limited government; the misuse of the government to suppress conservative speech; the continuing degradation of our universities and high schools; the weakening of the American military; and so much more, America, as envisioned by the Founders, would have been lost, perhaps irreversibly. The “fundamental transformation” that candidate Barack Obama promised in 2008 would have been completed by Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Senator Ted Cruz and yes, Donald Trump, most closely appealed to this segment of the traditional GOP electorate in the GOP POTUS primary. The others seemed to be more of the same old, same old, get along Kabuki Theater as so artfully practiced by Mssrs. Boehner, McConnell, McCain and Romney. See the prophetic Senate speech by Senator Cruz in September, 2015 …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aimgwzV-77U
We are in a civil war for the continued existence of the American ‘Way Of Life’. If you deny it or would rather side with Tom Perez than Donald Trump (you are either with us, or you are against us” [GWB]), you are blinded by the unfortunate narcissism of the person whom occupies the Oval Office.
So, like him on a personal basis or not, he is the one who is fighting the right fight against the European-style socialism of the Democrat party and their sycophants of the mainstream media. He is the one engaged in this Cold Civil War to restore the greatness of the American Ideal again. Allow me to introduce Dr. Hanson, writing today at National Review (for now?) to provide the closing argument:
Donald Trump has been given a great gift in that his gaffes are seen by most Americans in the context of an obsessed and unhinged Democratic-media nexus. He is pitted against a new fusion party of media elites and aging political functionaries, who all believe that America should operate on their norms, the norms of Washington, New York, Hollywood, and Malibu — all places that symbolize, to most Americans, exactly how the country has gone wrong.
‘* “Islamist” as used means the desire to impose Sharia law and the annihilation of non-Muslims.
Yes.
Indeed. I’d say most of the vocal NT’s here would agree in what Dennis says about them. They don’t believe there’s an existential civil war going on. I do, therein lies the basis of the rift.
The segments to whom Trump appealed and to whom Cruz appealed overlapped but were not quite the same; many NeverTrumpers were, at sometime, Cruz supporters, including me.
Certainly, the segments were not quite the same. Many Cruz supporters, including me, didn’t really think Trump would win the primary, and were hoping that Rubio, Kasich and others would coalesce around Cruz to put him over the top. When that didn’t happen and Trump won the GOP nomination, the realists, like Dennis Prager, “vigorously supported him once he won the nomination”.
Thank you, but that’s not addressing my point.
If:
Where this analysis is fundamentally flawed (and thus, much of what follows) is the assumption that the nation was “doomed” if a Democrat had been elected.
If that is the case, is the only possible path forward to forestall that doom the perpetual election of Republican Presidents and Congressional majorities? If no, it does seem likely that doom is inevitable because of the incompetent management of the Trump administration along with the monomania of The Freedom caucus – they being the current largest obstacle preventing serious legislation from moving forward.
Perhaps we ought to be careful to not engage in the rhetorical excess of the left with their constant appeals to crises and the moral equivalent of war. Prager is too smart to continue to make this point.
I think you’re just making Prager’s point:
The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake.
Isn’t this his main point. I believe as Prager does and my thinking about an odd man as president was easy compared to a dem. Perhaps if a bundle o judges and a major haircut to government and the welfare state happen then I won’t feel this sense of impending doom in 3-7 years come election time. Trump’s win was the biggest sigh of relief I’ve ever had politically and it was with full knowledge of his numerous foibles. The sigh was that the civil war shifted in my favor.
This article should be upfront. It explains how people on similar sides can get at each others’ throats….still.
Prager’s description of the way each side sees things is probably correct, that doesn’t mean that his statement that we are at the war with the left is true.
I agree with you, but this doesn’t address the first point which is how each faction views the struggle. Prager can be entirely correct on how people view things while getting the underlying thesis entirely wrong.
Thank you for clarifying your point which I missed the first time. I understand it better now.
I am certainly not as wise and understanding (nor as kind and gentle) as Mr. Prager. Here is what he has offered as other possibilities for reasons some of these Cruz supporters did not support the Party’s nominee (like the candidate promised he would):
Perfect. You win the contest for PosterBoy of Prager’s first point.
5. They fundamentally disagree with the President on issues they value most.
Even more so than the binary choice offered by the party of the Left, whom they opposed so vehemently?
I think that’s part of it. Here’s a way I thought about it (this may be the first time I’ve written this):
Given the above, it was perfectly rational for Bob and Susan to 1) Come to very different conclusions about Trump during the election and to 2) Each have been very frustrated by the other’s decision.
And here’s a way I thought about it ….
And nobody is getting free trade from any of these people or countries. I’m for it, but it’s not going to dominate my priorities because purity is not going to happen.
I could only stand to listen to a few minutes of Ted Cruz’s windy speech. It’s a perfect example of why senators have rarely been elected president in the last century: mostly they speak to hear the sound of their wonderfully sonorous voices.
However, the YouTube link in the OP led me to a page that contained the following Ted Cruz video, which was supposed to illustrate Cruz’s wonderful abilities of persuasion. Unlike that speech on the Senate floor, this was a one-on-one with a farmer in Iowa during the primaries entitled Watch Ted Cruz Get Ambushed By Angry Iowa Farmer, Then Turn Him Around. Also, unlike the Senate speech, give-and-take was required for Mr. Cruz to persuade this farmer from open hostility to, at best, lukewarm support. This took over seven minutes of one-on-one persuasion to maybe gain one vote. You don’t need to do the math to realize that this is not scalable to winning 60 or 70 million votes, or even a few million swing votes.
Too many Republican candidates have been of the Ted Cruz type, especially those promoted by the
GOPeconventional elements of the party. The Democrats learned this lesson long ago. For better or worse, careful and reasoned explanations that wade deeply into policy and philosophy are not persuasive to the vast majority of voters. Even if they were, such methods are not practical at the wholesale level, which is the level required to win an election above the municipal. In particular, the abstract idea of limited government does not sell. I’m as big a fan of von Hayek as anyone while understanding that only the converted respond to his carefully constructed arguments.The GOP party apparatchiki still don’t get it. The values we wish to advance have to be promoted in a more practical and mundane way. I realize that they think they’re doing this but they really need to absorb the ideas of modern cognitive science such as the work of Kahneman and Tversky. In short, Democrats appeal to System 1, Republicans to System 2.
This is less a civil war than it is a disagreement over methods and tactics: a cognitive rather than an ideological disagreement.
David French echoed somewhat similar themes in his Memorial Day piece yesterday. It’s one of his best in recent memory. French quotes Secretary Mattis as saying that he worries more about the disunity on the home front than Russia or ISIS.
I follow your logic and understand your position. There’s a lot of merit to it.
Do you understand my point?
Meh. David French is a NeverTrump Elite (TM). He’s probably never been out of NYC and doesn’t know anyone who’s ever served their country.
Update: This is sarcastic.
To the extent that I have issues with Trump, it isn’t because I don’t believe that there is a “war” with the left. It’s because I believe that, to date, his modus operandi is, at least on the margin, helping the left win that war. That’s decidedly different than Prager’s formulation.
You had me for one or two seconds. :)
Absolutely. I follow your logic and understand your position. There is merit and reality to it as well.
Related to this, I will echo Dr. L in comment #20 ….
That, and also along with docL, I could not be more disappointed in “candidate” Cruz. On screen, in person and as a personable voice for a leader of conservatism … he was a dud.
You think The Freedom Caucus is more of an obstacle to reform & limited government than ‘The Tuesday Group”? “Serious Legislation” like that last CR and the 1st and 2nd version of Obamacare Repeal & Replace?
“Serious Legislation” on Amnesty again vs. funding a border wall/fence/barrier?
Prager needs to reread Liberal Fascism. Invoking war to push a political agenda is the first step toward tyranny.
So we’re in agreement that Prager’s list is incomplete? Good.
I think @drlorentz makes some excellent points regarding the GOP’s failure to meet people where they are and to fail to address their deepest concerns. Trump, in contrast, is generally brilliant at this sort of thing and that can be hugely advantageous. There’s a lot for conservatives to learn about what to do from Trump’s example, both in terms of what to do and what not to do.
Yeah but…