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.
Trump. What Else?
I’ve been a Ricochet member for years (love the podcasts!) but this is my first post. Please be gentle. This article inspired a bit of political stream of consciousness in my head that I wanted to write down.
I’m not a Trump fan. I don’t think I’ve made that a secret to anyone who knows me–and thanks to social media, to several people who don’t know me. I don’t think that he’s evil incarnate, or that he is an existential threat to civilization; I don’t think he’s a racist (although he has–intentionally or unintentionally–played into some scary white nationalist stuff). I just think he’s an uncurious, philandering, serial-exaggerating (okay, lying), anti-intellectual, big government-supporting, insecure, hubristic, vainglorious buffoon. I mean, who gives himself a “10 out of 10” on anything? Humility is a virtue, Mr. President. Try it on for size some time. “I have the best hurricane response. It’s tremendous. No other president has ever responded to a hurricane, if you want to know the truth. It’s yuge.” Etc., etc.
Those of us on the center-right who haven’t embraced Trump find ourselves in a weird space. (My favorite is when a Trump fan accuses me of being a RINO, when Trump was a Republican for what, five minutes before he announced?) Occasionally he does something that I support without reservation (Neil Gorsuch, anyone?). Then he says things that make me cringe. Then he says things that make me think that he has never really had any serious thoughts about serious issues, that he has no under-riding, guiding philosophy of life. I could be wrong; I only report what I observe.
I’m a conservative, not a populist; a patriot, not a nationalist. Populism and nationalism are dangerous impulses.
I also sometimes think that my friends on the left have learned nothing from 2016, and that they may as well be actively working for the Trump 2020 campaign. The whole #takeaknee thing comes to mind. At first, I thought Mr. Trump was foolish to pick a fight with the NFL, but he seems to have won this battle in the culture wars.
I’d like to post more often, and be involved in more conversations. Thanks for reading.
Published in Politics
I’m not a populist, because I don’t necessarily believe what the public wants is what is best for the nation. And I’m kinda fond of the idea of representative government, especially one where the structures are designed to inhibit change, because you never know if you are a wolf or a sheep. As in what’s on the menu. All that stated, I have concerns about a society where ideas broadly supported by the public are characterized by one party as heartless fascism and by the other as impractical and unconservative. (Except come election time of course)
As to the patriotism vice nationalism issue. I’ve finally had to accept that calling Americans nationalists is not just a criticism, it’s an insult, a code word for fascists. Americans don’t do blood and soil nationalism. There hasn’t been that type of popular social movement since the 1840s. Americans have said “my country right or wrong” but they also say “with liberty and justice for all”.
Except the part where things were better. They weren’t. If Obama made things “better” and drove the economy so things thrived a lot of his opposition would have faded.
Is your view of GW Bush’s presidency coloured by the responsibility (I guess?) he bore for allowing the GFC to happen?
If not (and honestly I think that would be unfair), I’m going to suggest perhaps a little confirmation bias in allocating responsibility for not driving a recovery from that as fast as you would have liked to Obama. Reasonable?
One of Goldberg’s new podcasts discusses this topic and his criticism of the National Review cover story on “Benign Nationalism”
I’m sure there is a snarky comment to be had about the challenges of a Trump supporter observing a spat between Jonah Goldberg and the National Review.
Agree with the second part. As for the first: the former revels character, and the latter indicates the general direction is policies will take. The latter is much more consequential. The former puts a lot of people in the curious, and perhaps unprecedented, position of supporting the administration, but not the man.
Doesn’t matter if the end result is salutary, but it’s just weird. “That guy I don’t respect at all did another good thing that will help the country in years to come.”
And welcome!
Another case in point: in order to score points and bully a ridiculous and vicious clown of a Dem Congresswoman, Trump gave up the perfect response to the army widow incident (that Kelly later gave so brilliantly).
Trump should have said “of course I noted (in awe) how our brave soldiers willingly volunteer for things that the vast majority of us could not, and that is part of what makes their sacrifice so hard to accept. That’s what is commonly said, and I concur with every bit of both halves of the sentiment.”
But no. He had to make the more aggressive (and stupid and false) claim that the Clown was lying, and that he never said any such thing. That plays into the media’s sickness, and makes their job of mis-characterizing what he did say so much easier, because the thing that was said “must” have been pretty awful, if Trump is denying that he even said it.
Kelly’s awesome presentation was supportive of Trump, yes, but inevitably showed that Trump was the liar, thus cutting away some of the high ground that Trump could easily have occupied. Kelly focused on the rightness of what Trump obviously did say, crammed it back down the media’s collective throats, but in the process had to admit that it wasn’t the words used that the Clown and the media got wrong, but the grotesque pretense (that none of them believed for a moment) that there was some dark meaning to those words.
Another case in point: in order to score points and bully a ridiculous and vicious clown of a Dem Congresswoman, Trump gave up the perfect response to the army widow incident (that Kelly later gave so brilliantly).
Trump should have said “of course I noted (in awe) how our brave soldiers willingly volunteer for things that the vast majority of us could not, and that is part of what makes their sacrifice so hard to accept. That’s what is commonly said, and I concur with every bit of both halves of the sentiment.”
But no. He had to make the more aggressive (and stupid and false) claim that the Clown was lying, and that he never said any such thing. That plays into the media’s sickness, and makes their job of mis-characterizing what he did say so much easier, because the thing that was said “must” have been pretty awful, if Trump is denying that he even said it.
Kelly’s awesome presentation was supportive of Trump, yes, but inevitably showed that Trump was the liar, thus cutting away some of the high ground that Trump could easily have occupied. Kelly focused on the rightness of what Trump obviously did say, crammed it back down the media’s collective throats, but in the process had to admit that it wasn’t the words used that the Clown and the media got wrong, but the grotesque pretense (that none of them believed for a moment) that there was some dark meaning to those words.
Trump’s mouth is digging himself a hole that his achievements might not stack high enough to see him out of.
I hope you do.
My views on the President are essentially identical to those you’ve expressed. I refrain from criticizing him more than I do simply because I think he receives enough unwarranted criticism from the press already. (Similarly, I would probably have criticized President Obama less if the press had done its job during his tenure in office.)
Good post, Jeff.
— H.
I can’t stand the man and he’s a terrible communicator. I welcome all comers to potlucks on my deck though I do insist on decorum while on the deck. He fails that test and would be asked politely to leave if he crossed the line a few times (I’ve done it before).
But his actions are almost all good. Not his words, certainly not his tweets; his actions. It goes far beyond Gorsuch though that was a good, no a great, start. And his nominations down the line will remake the Judiciary in good ways.
His EOs reversing some of the damage President Obama caused are not perfect but are good steps in the right direction. Yes, I’d like to see Congress make those things permanent, as permanent as things can be made, but they don’t like to do their job as it threatens their re-elect ability.
His backing down of the petty Tyrant in North Korea was sorely needed. He didn’t speak particularly well but his actions were on the mark.
There is a pretty long list of actions being taken that line up pretty well with my Conservatarian philosophy. Closer than, for instance, either Bush. I’m pleasantly surprised by that and happy to be so.
So, since I’m more interested in what a President does than what he says or even how well he says it my bottom line is I’m well pleased so far. Still can’t stand the man. Would love to vote for someone who knows how to complete a sentence. But, for now, he’s doing about 300 times better than expected by me.
You’re a lightweight in the hate department, @JcTPatriot. The people in my Facebook feed not only hate Trump, they hate his family, they hate his daughter, they hate his daughter’s clothing line, they hate stores that sell his daughter’s clothing line, they hate people who shop at the stores that sell his daughter’s clothing line, etc. If you want to be a leftist hater in 2017 America, you need to step up your game.
What in your note is “bad”?
All his achievements so far will evaporate with the next Democratic president.
Which is why Trump needs to exert some effort to understand how the legislative process works. Tweeting insults at McConnell is not how you get laws passed that he can sign. Trump clearly does not understand that.
Of course, it may very well be that Trump would prefer to have Schumer and Pelosi in charge of the Senate and House. He seems quite chummy with those two.
My sentiments are similar. I was never impressed by Trump during the primaries and couldn’t imagine supporting him. (Rubio/Haley!) But when he won, I was willing to give him a chance. I remarked at the time that I hoped for success but expected failure.
He has delivered on two items: Gorsuch and Keystone XL. Pretty much everything else has been “a disaster. Sad!”
Isn’t it time we had a president who can work with both sides of the aisle? Why is that a sin?
You haven’t been paying any attention to the huge gains he’s made for American business in this country by ridding us of numerous costly regulations promulgated by Obama, not to mention backing us out of the costly Paris Accords.
OK.
Now tell me why that makes him worse than a.) any Democrat politician or b.) 90% of Republican politicians.
I was as close to ‘NeverTrump’ one could be without actually being one. I’ve since become a fairly strong (albeit still skeptical and wary) Trump supporter; partly due to the totality of Trump’s actions to date, but mostly by default when comparing him to most of the rest of the GOP. Its been said before, but ‘Trump fights’-specifically, on behalf of the people who voted for him, especially on cultural issues, which the Left has made into the most important arena of politics. He might sometimes do so in less than optimal fashion, and it might even be insincere pandering to maintain his support and thereby feed his ego…..I don’t care, because that’s still more than we’re getting from the rest of the GOP.
Perhaps the main reason many oppose him today is the average voter wants to be verbally made love to by the usual smooth politicians who will promise anything for a vote. How dare someone come along and risk alienating a group by refusing to play the political correctness game.
Working both sides is fine. Preferring the other party to have a majority in Congress isn’t.
Do you think Trump would accomplish more of his agenda if Democrats controlled both houses of Congress?
That “What Else?” just makes me sigh.
If you genuinely believe he would prefer for the Dems to have a majority, there is really no point in continuing this conversation.
Read up the page. I said it seemed like he wanted the Dems in charge and you said isn’t that great. You could have said he didn’t think that, but your impulse is always to say anything Trump does is the best possible thing that is possible to do because Trump did it.
You are taking my post out of context and rewriting it. I said, “Isn’t it time we had a president who can work with both sides of the aisle? Why is that a sin.” And, you’re quite right that I do support Trump. 51% of us on this site support him, according to our last poll, and 49% do not; therefore, there are plenty who see the negative and are happy to point it out. So be it.
I might be, but I don’t think I am.
I will praise Trump when he does good things and criticize when he does stupid things. I recognize that most people on Ricochet won’t do one of those things. Which one they won’t do varies by individual.
With Trump, I have learned, though he talks a lot, you have to judge him by what he does as a matter of policy. So far it has been excellent. Far better than I feared when I felt compelled to throw my vote away. Some presidents talk a good game but do not act. Others are destructive in both speech and policy (like Obama). At this point, anyway, I have liked what I have seen.
I have been hearing that for almost a year now, and there is something I have realized about that “promise” you folks like to make. What is convenient for you is that if you never look for “good things” you never have to “praise” them. So all you have to do is watch CNN or any other MSM outlet and they will supply you with a never-ending supply of “stupid things” that you can criticize, whether they are true or not.
Nearly all of my Posts on Ricochet are Trump “wins” – I don’t catch you “praising” them very often.
EDIT: This isn’t just about you, personally. This is about all of you who make that “promise” to Ricochet.
Except that the hole isn’t consequential (it’s mostly because of him living in your head rent free) and the achievements might actually help the country.
Most of the left thinks we don’t like him because he’s black even though I have always hated reds and that fact drives all my opinions in politics.
Exactamundo!