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
Moderator Note:
Edited for CoC compliance.NTsalso, remember) in condemning his use of Twitter. The only possible explanation for this odd coalition is that he’s effective and they don’t like him being effective — that is where they are united. They simply cannot allow him to be successful in any significant way.If you answer only one of these please answer number 1 above. It’s the most important.
First, no, it doesn’t alarm me that Trump-haters dislike his tweeting and I do too. I don’t form my opinions based on theirs.
“The only possible explanation for this odd coalition is that he’s effective and they don’t like him being effective”
Well, I’m opposed to his tweeting, and I don’t think it makes him effective. So there’s obviously at least one more reason people might not like him tweeting, other than that they fear it makes him effective.
Look, I’m a little old-fashioned. I do think that the President shouldn’t stoop to vulgarity and petty squabbles in cryptic, semi-literate 140 character bursts. If you want to argue that Twitter gives him a direct pipeline to the people, that’s fine: that’s a valid argument. But that doesn’t mean that what gets tweeted has to be childish and distracting. Sure, use the new medium — but use it in a thoughtful and effective way.
I’ve said many times that I care little about what President Trump says, and very much about what he does. That still goes: I can live with his tweeting — I have no choice anyway. But I want him to get stuff done, and I believe that all the fuss and uncertainty he kicks up with his ill-considered outbursts makes it harder for his supporters and allies, and gives the media even more fodder for their hatefest. Just let John Kelly approve his tweets for him, and that will work for me.
And if he really gets stuff done, I’ll take back my criticism — after he gets it done. That includes:
If he does all that, I’ll praise him for the genius of his tweets.
Trump was chosen for this antidote to the disaster that is the modern unprofessional media that we have. Trump didn’t make it this way — he has found a way out of the Republican lock box with the media and I want him to continue.
How can you say this?
Let’s start with the campaign: did it help him then? I think it was essential and the magic technique that he discovered and used brilliantly. And I repeat: he used this because it was one of the only ways to deal with the media. He knew that they were the problem for Republican candidates and America.
They invent fodder — he should never make decisions on this way of thinking. This is the essential problem that he identified early on.
Larry, we can debate endlessly why we have Trump, and whether another Republican might have won instead.
But, again, even if one accepts — as I’m willing to do — that Twitter is a new and unique way for a President to circumvent a hostile press, that doesn’t mean that every way of using Twitter is wise or productive. It’s my contention that the President hurts the conservative cause when he distracts with Twitter. You and I can disagree about that (and we do). I’m not going to pretend that I can prove that his often inarticulate belligerence will ultimately be less productive than a more serious Twitter presence. But I suspect it is.
This might have had a bigger impact than his tweets
It’s all relative, right? He’s the President. He can tweet hard-hitting, thoughtful, aggressive, critical comments about important things. He can take down the press by pointing out its blatant dishonesty, and by calling attention to its omissions. He could do that while being entirely truthful and clear, and while attacking targets worthy of his attention. That would achieve what we want — taking down the biased press — while still allowing the Congress to rally around him and support him, and without giving the press a credible basis for portraying him as dishonest and lacking in self-control.
He could do that.
The fact that he’s attacking the press is good. That doesn’t mean that he’s doing it right, or that what he’s doing won’t ultimately do more harm than good. Do you see that? The choice shouldn’t have to be the bad old Republican ways versus the bad new Trump ways. There’s a third way. Unfortunately, that would require that President Trump become someone he isn’t, someone presidential.
Look, I voted for him. I remain thankful that he won. The thought of the nation in Democratic hands is terrifying. But that doesn’t mean that, just because it’s Trump, it’s got to be good.
Yes. I think it’s a mistake to overlook the fact that candidate Trump was a gaudy and vulgar reality television star, widely believed to be a joke candidate, and so given a huge boost by a press that thought he’d do nothing except embarrass the Republicans. The left was begging him to get in the race, and to get the nomination.
Genius? Or pop-cultural stardom and an ideological vacuousness that allowed him to convincingly sell a populist message of questionable economic merit?
I kind of suspect the latter.
[ Mandatory disclaimer: Yes, I voted for him. Yes, I’d do it again in a heartbeat. I opposed him all the way through the primaries, but anything except Obama was better than Clinton, and I was ecstatic to get Trump. But he makes me crazy every day. ]
But, his “free media” was obtained by his use of the media and their lack of self control. This proves my point that it was the media that he dealt with and recognized as the 800 lb. gorilla to deal with. He had their number. Twitter is all of a piece with this.
Nevermind. Facts are irrelevant in the face of “everything Trump does is 8 dimensional chess genius” argument.
I apologize for bothering to present facts.
I think an equally plausible suggestion is the one I put forth: he was already a highly visible reality television star and glamorous millionaire, and the press was eager for him to be in the race because they thought he’d embarrass us.
I hear everything you’re saying, Larry, and I can’t prove you’re wrong — but you can’t prove you’re right. We have no way of knowing exactly why he got the coverage he did, or how things would be different if he were a more … dignified individual. All we have are our more-or-less educated guesses. And we disagree. And I don’t think it’s obvious which of us (if either) is right.
Eight dimensional chess? Or drunken lawn darts.
You decide. ;)
I think you are wrong on this. Elections are not debates — the left nowadays especially does not debate anything. It attacks without debate. It attacks and that’s all it does and it works. Your ideas for how it should be done simply are wrong on this. Republicans lose when they think it’s a debate.
In fact, what the left is good at and we all fall for it is to pretend to set up a logical set of statements that we think is really what they think. They are not wedded to their statements as most politicians and intellectuals are. They just jump to another point rather than fight and stand. What’s happened in recent years is that through their dominance in the media (why should this most important single thing be ignored or denied?) they simply do not have to debate and we are stupid to not fight in a way that deals with this. Trump has found a way through this Gordian knot and he’s willing to say and do things that get the job done.
You are pretending that he did not orchestrate that “free media” — that they just gave it to him. The extremes shown in your graph are a stark proof that he knows what he’s doing with them.
And I think that, for all our apparently irreconcilable differences on this point, you and I are on the same side. And President Trump is going to do exactly what President Trump wants — he never listens to me. So let’s keep working for the good and hoping for the best.
He dominates the news cycle — completely dominates it — for over 100 weeks now. I’m sorry that graph and that domination is not an accident. It’s not and it’s silly to pretend it’s complicated.
Whatever you say. Only someone as brilliant as you can understand the brilliance of Trump.
There is no point in discussing further.
It’s not brilliance on Trump’s part — it is a tactic, it is a ploy. It won’t work forever but it is to be hoped that he will learn as he goes along. I applaud all his attacks on the media — we need all the help on that point that we can get.
What could an 8 dimensional chess player like Trump possibly learn from mere mortals?
Besides, since he is perfection, any change could only be for the worse.
A third-rate intellect armed with a fourth-rate vocabulary ran against a fifth-rate Democrat.
How many reality TV shows run four years … with the same cast?
But now that this tactic has been invented, anybody can use it. It will be normal for politicians to bypass the press, and questions, by using social media.
What happens when somebody you disagree with uses it? Is the Trump base the only group in America with a grievance? I think you’ll find it isn’t.
I think you’re right about that, Larry. I also think that our side ought to win a debate if the other side isn’t even debating. The only reason that we wouldn’t win the debate under those circumstances is if the electorate isn’t interested in a debate of ideas, but only cares about personalities. Perhaps they don’t care about ideas. Maybe you’re right that the only thing that matters is how much media time one gets, with negative media being just as helpful as positive media. If that is the case then, if I may quote the President, “sad.”
Trump won’t be duplicated and this tactic will cause defenses to be developed. The system will heal itself. Don’t worry you’ll get your status quo pretty soon and things can keep going down the hole like before.
Good idea — let’s all become Libertarians and have our principles and run nothing but Optician offices.
Never said that and never thought that and I think you should read what I did say.
Trump is unique and won’t be copycatted. His presidency did point out who on the right side consider winning as lower down in the priorities. This tells us all about what’s been going on for too long in this country.
If the Trump victory were in fact largely a result of “this tactic,” then I would be inclined to agree with you, Zafar. But I don’t believe it. I think candidate Trump enjoyed enormous press coverage for two reasons: he was a well-known and gaudy reality television star, and he was an embarrassment (and still is, in many ways) to Republicans — an embarrassment the press mistakenly believed would cost Republicans the election.
I think the lessons that will be taken from the 2016 election include:
I hope the right learns something from it, but I haven’t figured out, yet, what that might be — other than the “run a celebrity” part.
The other lessons are these:
It’s not a tactic that is easy to duplicate — one has to have other aspects of Trump, too: 1) thick skin, 2) grit, 3) determination and 4) a desire to win. Republicans are not chosen for these absolutely necessary attributes. Instead they are mostly chosen so that other Republicans aren’t embarrassed — whatever that means at any one time.
I love that making “the mistake of giving scads of free airtime” to someone. The one thing Trump revealed is that the weakness in the media is that they have a bunch of easily triggered responses and they don’t have any self control to stop “giving scads of free airtime” to things that they are invested in and also those that get them mad.
That’s an interesting question, Larry — and, despite your apparent confidence, it is a question, and one about which you and I probably disagree.
I believe that, during the campaign, the media believed that giving candidate Trump enormous coverage worked in their favor, and against the interests of Republicans. Trump was widely seen as unelectable, an embarrassment and a liability for Republicans. Pushing him toward the nomination looked like an obviously winning strategy for a left-leaning media.
Now that President Trump is in office, preventing him from getting things done looks like a winning strategy for the left, which hopes to regain one or both houses of Congress next year. Whether Trump or the press is torn down faster remains to be seen; neither is coming off well in the current mud-slinging.
As for being “easily triggered,” it would seem that both sides are cursed with that shortcoming. While I think it does everyone a disservice, it again remains to be seen, come election day 2018, who suffers more as a result of the lack of self-control.
(Larry, isn’t it nice that you and I can disagree about this in a gentlemanly fashion?)