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 I Will Never Abandon Trump
Lately there’s been a lot of talk among pundits on what it would take for Trump’s base to abandon him. For me, the answer is: nothing. I feel I must support Trump, regardless of what he does, because I fear what would happen if he got impeached. That’s not to say I don’t criticize Trump from time to time. But said criticism has no bearing on my generic support for him.
Ever since World War II, American elites have tried to build this narrative that democracy is about impersonal public policy, not power/status competition between groups. If you believe that policy is all that matters, than of course there won’t be any consequences to impeaching Trump, certainly not for his base. He’ll just be replaced by Pence, and things will go on mostly as they have before.
This is completely absurd. Trump’s base is socially vulnerable, much more so than I think any of us want to admit. Impeaching Trump would be a complete disaster. At the very least we would see a rash of suicides. The discrimination working-class white people face could intensify, especially in employment. The nihilism that’s been growing in the middle and upper middle classes for 50 years could start to spiral out of control. And that’s before we get to the rioting which, let’s be honest, would be intense.
If you don’t believe me, just look at what happened to Christians after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. Liberals went on a judicial jihad to persecute them. The status of Christians fell so low that the courts actually ruled that Trump’s travel ban’s prioritization of religious minorities was unconstitutional. Yes, Christians are dying en masse in Middle Eastern countries, but apparently we can’t do anything about it because, well, the First Amendment prohibits it. Go figure.
Elite coups have consequences. Politics is not a dispassionate fight over public policy, but a struggle between groups. The consequences of impeaching Trump would be just too dire for me to abandon my generic support for the man, and I don’t think there’s anything Trump could that would change that.
Published in General
Perhaps you should get some more patience then. After all it is a virtue.
You don’t have to convince me. I’m more on the open borders side.
I have mixed feelings, but I would probably have a merit system like Australia’s.
Open borders and mixed feelings? How about suicidal and indifference? What is it you love about this country that you would have it become no different than a third world nation? That is what you are advocating for, in my belief.
Almost no one is open boarders. It’s not helpful to throw around rhetoric like that. It’s like calling people racist. To say that someone is obviously “suicidal” attempts to shut down debate, belittles their intelligence, assumes you hold more information than they do, and that they are logically impaired. I like to think we try not to do those things here.
To clarify, I mean I have mixed feelings about how to fix our immigration system–the best approach to making it sane–but I think I prefer a merit system like Australia’s.
Then I’d follow that up with Mike’s comment on rhetoric.
And, btw, I don’t even know what Donald Trump’s plan for reform is, as I don’t exactly have anything to consider from him beyond “build a wall” and “deport people.” I certainly have mixed feelings on those proposals.
Before you get too excited by that statement, I think actually enforcing laws is great, but Trump’s most ardent supporters now say that his “wall” was more metaphorical, so we’re left with his promise to “deport people.”
I’m absolutely fine with his targeting violent criminals for deportation–and pushing to pass Kate’s Law–but I think Trump has narrowed what “deport people” means and his rhetoric has always been hyperbolic and impractical for the bigger group of illegals, sooo I’m not totally clear on his big goals for even illegal immigrants at this point.
If you know what he’s planning for immigration beyond “a wall” and “deport,” let me know. I’ll consider what I think about what he wants to do for the bigger system. Until I hear anything, I am torn about how to address what are currently very real problems for legal immigrants, and I–frankly–don’t have very high hopes at all that there will be any positive reforms to that nonsensical system during this administration’s tenure.
I’d love to be wrong because the current system is stupid, but I haven’t hear much about that to make me feel legal immigration reform, which is not the same thing as stopping illegal immigration, is in any way a priority for this president.
“You don’t have to convince me. I’m more on the open borders side.”
It wasn’t my rhetoric. I was replying to the statement above. So go get all “unhelpful rhetoric” with yourselves. Wasn’t that statement made by Mike H. ?At least Lois Lane clarified her “mixed feelings” comment. Maybe Mike H can as well. But when you make a statement, it’s pretty hypocritical to get all self righteous about having it questioned. If I misunderstood, I am sorry.
I was defending Lois. All she did was express openness to more liberal immigration. Declaring that is indifference to suicide and turning us into a 3rd world country is… unhelpful.
If you want to use unhelpful rhetoric to argue with me because I take a radical position, that’s fine. I’m use to it. But it’s not fair to do that with someone taking a more moderate position or just because they didn’t reject “open borders” strongly enough for your tastes.
I’m just sick of seeing anyone who thinks our immigration laws should be less restrictive and more sane to be treated like they’re me.
But this is only tangentially related to what this thread is about. I’d rather get back to discussing the challenges lower class whites face.
I agree with @josepheagar to the extent they face enough issues in today’s economy without also being berated for not being sufficiently “upper middle class” or whatever it is that they don’t express that supposedly makes them a lower class of human.
Thanks for your reply. I guess we are all moderates in our own minds. BTW did you click the embedded link in my original response? It is an article by Mark Steyn that ties this post and the horrific killing in Minneapolis with immigration.
I just read most of it. A lot of the reason jobs are automating is because you don’t have to pay robots a minimum wage. It upsets me when the left creates a problem and then the right responds by making things worse.
The left (and most of the right) agree there should be a welfare state. This is used for justification to restrict immigration. I think this is unfair to everyone. It’s true that no one should have to pay for someone else, but this is being used to justify restricting the vast majority who are productive workers.
When something bad is done by an immigrant, it’s used to smear all immigrants and used to restrict similar innocent people, even if as a group immigrants commit less crime than natives. People say things like “if that person wasn’t here, [bad thing] wouldn’t have happened.” While superficially true, it proves too much. (If we deported all the men, even citizens, there would be practically no murder.) People tend to have something called anti-foreign bias. And then people claim “well that’s just human nature.” Which is again true, but civilization has eliminated the practice of plenty of things that are human nature because we realize how it can be immoral and leads to worse outcomes. Rarely do we use human nature to excuse wrongdoing.
I see skepticism about immigration as a flawed part of human nature that people are still allowed to indulge in — it’s celebrated. It will continue for the foreseeable future but I hope as time goes on more people will realize much of the bias against people not from your country is no longer necessary.
I agree with this. It should be the other way around. No welfare state and few restrictions on immigration but not open borders. Since we are not a third world country where we allow people to die in the streets, anyone emigrating would need to demonstrate how they will be self-sustaining.
Yeah, I just find it sort of strange that people think it’s OK to let people die in the streets as long as it’s a street where they can’t see them.
Someone you know who thinks this is OK?
I think most people wouldn’t think it’s “OK” for someone to die in the street, but if the option is that or allowing them to immigrate (and work) in a first world country they’d believe they were under no obligation to let them in and that the moral fault would lie solely with their home country.
Certainly, the home country deserves the blame for restricting the economy to the extent it stops the person from earning a living, but I think it’s flawed logic to believe that denying them entry into a functioning economy is justifiable. Since that justification often sound like “because otherwise we would feel obligated to take care of them,” it ends up looking a lot like a preference for people dieing in a street far away.
I think correct morality is that you’re not obligated to prevent them from dying in the street, but you are obligated not to stand in their way when they try to save themselves.
A better approach might be instead of the rest of the world’s governments and people doing all they can to undermine the society that has produced the highest standard of living and, at one point the best place for those seeking individual liberty, to have the United States rule over all the rest of the world and then we will have the responsibility to take care of all those who are now dying in their streets. Could we get them to adopt this approach?
So how many immigrants live in your house @mikeh? If this nation belonged only to you, you could most certainly share it with whomever you like. But it doesn’t. So spare me your moral hubris. I don’t presume that I have a right to share that which doesn’t belong to me. As a citizen we decide by voting who we share our country with. All other countries also rightfully do the same. As has been stated many times…a welfare nation with open borders is a nation on a suicidal death spiral. Of course, soon enough, that nation will become such a c**p hole the no one will want to immigrate.
Ha! If we could convince them without killing millions of people, it would probably make the world a much better place. Even though the US isn’t the best in most metrics, it’s a vast improvement over a large majority of countries.
There’s another position popular among libertarian that is derided a lot that can loosely be called a form of “passivism,” that basically comes down to if you’re going to go to war and kill a bunch of people you better be pretty sure what comes after is going to be much better than the status quo. Most wars in human history don’t meet this metric. Most other people think it’s obvious folly, but there’s an interesting consequence of the logic in that, if the US is hell bent on going to war somewhere, the country they’re fighting should just give up and be ruled by the US. It’s not like their lives would get worse as a result, but people have this pride that usually means a bunch of people have to die unnecessarily, and for likely worse outcomes.
Would you like to name one you think is a better candidate to rule the world?
I don’t know why it’s hubris to share my opinion about objective morality. I’m not saying you’re a bad person for not believing my position is obvious. It’s just the conclusion I’ve come to. I think it’s right, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t open to debate.
The House analogy is a popular one. The people who believe it tend not to be convinced by the arguments I find convincing. If the house analogy is not true, there are many consequences that can be unsettling, but I do believe it’s defeated by carrying other more fundamental intuitions to their logical conclusion. But this would require an extensive response I don’t have the time or interest getting into at the moment.
But as a consequence, you believe you have the right to deny a willing employer from hiring a willing employee, or a willing landlord from renting to a willing tenant. That seems like an example of taking something that doesn’t belong to you. A much larger taking then having to share the country with another person.
Even though the part about the process is true, it doesn’t obviously follow that it’s the right way to do things.
If this would be the consequence of open borders, then it would overcome the presumption in favor of it. Interestingly, there is a lot of data suggesting this wouldn’t actually happen. Even if this consequence were true, a large amount of immigration would still be justified as long as it doesn’t cause severe negative consequences.
Maybe (free of Chinese influence) Hong Kong or Singapore? If there systems would be scalable. Not that they would have the resources to “rule,” but this is all a fantasy anyway.
I’m not saying the US is bad. It might be the best all around winner. It just tends to be not quite the best in any particular subject, save for a couple big things like free speech, lack of prejudice, cultural appropriation, and I’m sure a couple others I can’t think of off the top of my head..
Who was it who complained about unhelpful rhetoric?
Really?
How’s that Obamacare repeal coming?
How’s that tax reform coming?
How’s that trillion dollar infrastructure plan coming?
How’s the wall coming?
People die in the streets in places where there are systems or resources (public or private) to take care of them. It’s like starvation. People don’t starve to death in countries where there are food. Even the homeless don’t starve to death in America.
How are women or children or the elderly or the disabled coming from a third-world country supposed to demonstrate how they’re going to be self sustaining? This is America, after all. Pretty much everybody is self sustaining. Nobody starves to death. Only the mentally ill and addicts live on the streets.
That being said, do we really need to put up barriers like making someone demonstrate how they will be self-sustaining?
Isn’t it reasonable to assume that people will make it work? Isn’t it reasonable to let the huddles masses yearning to breathe free, the ones with the will and fortitude and industriousness to leave their homes and risk everything and come all the way to America, enter our country and make lives here?
Patience, man; have patience.
Obamacare is complicated. They are working on it. It is a heavy lift, and the fact that we have some really liberal Republicans isn’t helping. Tax reform is still in negotiations; you didn’t think it was going to go quickly, did you? The infrastructure plan is something we need, but I am hoping that they use some really creative accounting in order to come up to that trillion figure. The wall is coming; in the meantime illegals are arriving at a much lower rate, so maybe we can work on it over time.
Learn some patience.
http://ricochet.com/442791/impatience/
I don’t understand. Your President, Donald Trump, the man who “exceeded the expectations of even his most ardent fans,” told us that it was easy. That he was the one who could fix things. That we were “gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning,” and beg to not win so much.
Did I misunderstand him? Because this doesn’t look like winning to me. It looks like losing. It looks like he is not “exceed[ing] the expectations of even his most ardent fans.” It actually looks like the complete opposite of that.
Singapore is fairly authoritarian, isn’t it? Can’t you be caned for chewing gum?
I don’t believe in open borders, but your point about taking from an employer who can’t hire the best employee or taking a tenant from a landlord, etc., is a very good one.
That said, while I appreciate the earlier defense, @mattwhite ‘s comment on rhetoric is a fair one. It’s quite a leap to jump to people being okay with other people dying in foreign streets if they want to control immigration.
Yeah, that was really poorly worded. I must be fallible or something. I tried to walk it back later after I realized how bad it sounded. It would be more accurate to say that people don’t realize the unintended consequences of their actions and that they are at least partially culpable when they don’t allow someone to save themselves simply because they were born to the wrong parents.
I hear what you’re saying–and I understand what you mean–but I do not accept the culpability here as you have framed it.
Life is an imperfect series of trade-offs… a weighing of imperfect choices. You create a binary scenario in which a person’s only chance for salvation is entry into the United States, and only Americans are denying that person any chance for a better life when those Americans decide to control the American border. That’s a massive oversimplification of the world.
I think our immigration system is silly and stupid and even asinine. But I do not feel culpable in the misery (often) created by corrupt regimes abroad because I think we should have an immigration system that considers American needs before the needs of other peoples who–for certain–were not as lucky as Americans when it came to the “birth lottery”.
I mean… Consider these questions:
Should I consider myself culpable when a person who applies for a job in my company loses his house after I decided to hire a different person I thought was better suited for the job I needed done? Am I culpable in the first guy’s homelessness because I didn’t employ him? I didn’t give him the opportunity to earn the money he needed to appease the bank?
You must say yes, I think, if employing the same sort of logic you’ve used to make me culpable for someone else’s dying in another country simply because he/she wasn’t allowed into the United States….
Right. The benefit of oversimplification is that it lets us harness our deepest intuitions. What it does in this case is establish a presumption in favor of allowing immigration. So, it seems reasonable to let people go and do what they want as a first approximation. Then you can start applying other constraints and see if it overcomes that presumption.
Skeptics already try to make these arguments, and in most cases, the data tend to show that the assumptions are either incorrect or the order of magnitude of the effect is much smaller than people assume.
So, having failed to overcome the burden of proof on the merits, eventually people fall back on what I’ll call “the appeal to the social contract.” That, even if immigrants are perfectly lovely people who would only benefit themselves and the country as a whole, it doesn’t matter, because voting.
Which is unfortunate, because it seems to show that people just don’t like the idea of immigrants and they don’t really care about the benefits of them. Immigration skeptics tend to exacerbate negatives and ignore positives. This is what I meant by anti-foreign bias.
Of course not. You would only be culpable if you prevented him from getting a job from another company.
Think of it this way. You are competing with someone to get a job. You wouldn’t think it’s ethical to slash the tires of your competitor so they would miss the interview.
Immigration restrictions is like slashing the tires of your competition. You’re preventing them from doing things that you would think would be wrong to stop a native from doing.
Like my aunts and uncles and some of their kids? Why should they have to suffer eternally slack labor markets (and the chronic, health-destroying stress that creates), so people from other countries can get ahead?
Just wait until your uncles lose their jobs, then end up in the hospital for life-threatening gastrointestional problems brought on by stress. That happened to two of mine.