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.
Learning to Love the Political Wilderness (or, Who Doesn’t Like Camping?)
I have deep respect for Ramesh Ponnuru, one of the sharpest and most knowledgeable of conservative commentators. Nevertheless, I disagreed almost totally with this recent column at Bloomberg View, in which he suggests that anti-Trump Republicans have rendered themselves futile and irrelevant through their inability to get on the same page. I can summarize the column most efficiently by quoting the final paragraph first:
The major point of agreement among Trump’s conservative critics is an important one: They think that he doesn’t have the character to lead the country well. But that agreement is not a substitute for having a clear and unified sense of where they want the Republican Party, and the country, to go. They don’t have that, and they don’t even seem to see how quixotic it makes their dream of wresting the party back from the man who is their common enemy.
Everything before that, as you might expect, is a sketch of the wildly diverse views of anti-Trump commentators, who disagree about gun control, immigration, tax reform, and even how to refer to themselves.
Obviously, Ramesh is right that Trump-opposed conservatives have a wide range of views on other issues (and even on the question of why Trump rose in the first place). But I don’t see why this should be regarded either as a failure or as a problem.
Anti-Trump Republicans cannot wrest the party back from Trump. His consolidation of the base is, at the moment, much too strong. I think that’s very unfortunate, not only because he’s corrupt, unfit for office, and an embarrassment to the nation, but also because he’s really not that popular. Trump can’t easily be ditched because a substantial portion of the base adores him, and those are unpromising conditions for a revolution, especially when the majority of its politicians and pundits have already invested in his slimy brand. But he’s distasteful enough to the rest of America that he could easily be the millstone that drags the GOP down. Bummer.
Before we despair though, we should note that populist politics is volatile. Trump himself is very volatile. Also, the man is old. This moment will pass. In the meanwhile, I’ve always found the wilderness to be rather a good place for hashing out important arguments and developing ideas. Parties in power are forced to focus most energies on the practicalities of the present moment. If you aren’t (for the present moment) empowered to do much anyway, the pressure to perform is lifted, and you can afford to think in wider circles. That’s why to me it seems like potentially a good thing that the “wilderness-dwellers” of the present moment are in disagreement on several topics that could really use a good hashing-out.
So, for instance, Ramesh points out that anti-Trump conservatives are in disagreement over gun control. Bret Stephens, Max Boot, and Charlie Sykes are pressing for more sweeping gun control measures, while David French and Erick Erickson are totally opposed to that. To me, this division seems rather intriguing. I myself think an intra-conservative gun control discussion could be rather fascinating. There are some very deep moral questions at the heart of it. On the one hand, our Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and personal self-defense holds a significant place in our rugged-individualist, anti-nanny-state American tradition. Also, the practical difficulties of confiscating hundreds of thousands of firearms are daunting, to put it mildly. On the other hand, I think it’s hard to deny that Americans are considerably more likely to die violently in comparison to citizens of other equally-developed countries, mainly because we own so many guns. In light of that, it’s not strange that many Americans would really prefer at this point to step back from that element of our tradition. Setting all of that on the table could be beneficial, even if there aren’t any ready-to-hand solutions at the present time.
Then there is immigration. In mainstream Republican circles, the immigration hawks are strongly ascendant, but anti-Trump conservatives are more divided. Again, I see this as potential fodder for a fascinating and (maybe?) fruitful debate. I myself think the amnesty-plus-enforcement track pretty clearly the right way to go in general, but of course, that doesn’t really clear up all the deeper questions. I sometimes think that the arguments of Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam (who we might call moderate immigration hawks) make pretty good sense. But I also think their presentation tends to exaggerate the objective significance of this issue while underplaying the extent to which immigration hawkishness is really driven by nativist angst far more than any objective appreciation of the impact immigrants have on American life. I understand why that offends writers like Stephens and Jennifer Rubin, who are repulsed by the ugliness of some of those currents. Nativism is not one of our prouder American traditions. Underneath all of this is still a further question: how do we balance our nation’s “melting pot” history against the realities of a world in which travel and communication are much easier than they used to be (making border control far more necessary)? It seems to me like the stage is set for some great discussions.
At some point, you have to come out of the clouds (or wilderness) if you hope to have a real impact on national policy. But considering the dramatic and shocking nature of the Trumpian take-over, I think it’s a little much to expect anti-Trump conservatives to have drawn up a counter-platform already. For the present, there’s something to be said just for articulating Trump’s defects from a conservative perspective. These last few weeks, as the Democrats have been working through their regrets from the Clinton years, I find myself wondering: Would it have mattered if there had been a more significant contingent of anti-Clinton Democrats who refused to sanction the corruption and turpitude of the Clinton White House?
Perhaps not. Maybe our major parties have such tremendous momentum at this point that dissenters will inevitably be assimilated, or else marginalized into insignificance. On the other hand, maybe it would have been helpful to have a stubborn contingent of NeverClintons on the left. Maybe such a group could have salvaged a bit of the honor of the Democratic Party, explored some new ideas, or groomed a few interesting candidates for further down the road. Maybe if liberals had been planting more seeds back then, the left wouldn’t have found itself rolling into 2016 with the baggage-laden, tone-deaf, geriatric Hillary at the helm. We all knew she was a dreadful candidate, but still, they ran her, because the Democrats had long since given up fighting Clintonian corruption, and frankly, they didn’t have anyone else.
As Ramesh correctly points out, “no to Trump” is not a substitute for a full political platform. An interesting starting point, though? It could be.
Published in General
I fail to see how my comment lead to that response.
You shouldn’t put yourself in the role of being Rachel’s spokesperson. Her comment was sufficiently murky, strange or just plain wrong-headed on it’s own and deserves clarification from Rachel herself.
Anne asked a fair question; describing a Constitutional right as a “tradition” is strange, and someone who has spent the amount of time that Rachel has spent in conservative circles should know better. You are grasping at straws here, Tom.
The “bad blood” line.
Unfollowing. I’ve said my peace.
Can, at some point, the people who don’t like Trump actually celebrate some of the wins?
That might be true on Ricochet, but I don’t think it’s true in general. I mean, part of the reason I felt moved to respond to Ramesh is because I read most of the people he mentioned, along with other anti-Trumpers at NRO, TWS, Commentary, sometimes places like National Affairs and Modern Era… and I feel like they’re already writing interesting things and having good conversations. After the insane free-fall period, I feel like things “stabilized” to the point where some pretty conversations (the alt-Trump right?) are becoming possible. And that’s a good in itself.
So when Ramesh writes this thing implying that the anti-Trump conservatives are a muddy mess because they haven’t all forged some common platform, I’m inclined to say, “Wow, you don’t ask much. A day has gone by, and we haven’t rebuilt Rome! Failure!”
I think it’s good these lines of thought are developing, even if the immediate electoral-politics application is unclear at this precise moment.
Unlike you, @tommeyer, I quote fully that which I am talking about and responding to:
Annefy: Why would you want to get all the guns even if there was some good, peaceful way to do so?
And the 2nd amendment has been reduced to a “tradition” you respect ?
You complain about bad blood on this thread, you certainly have done nothing to mitigate it.
The term “anti-Trump” is apparently now a violation of the Coc, just so you know :)
FWIW – I don’t love camping. I love having camped. I really love room service and a view of the Pacific Ocean from a terrace on just about any of the Hawaiian Islands.
I just totally loved his piece and thought it was spot on. I think the [redacted] conservatives are losers, in that their point of view, lost.
Good.
On the gun topic. I’m not advocating a gun grab. Honestly, I haven’t heard any suggestions for “disarming” America that seem Constitutional or practical, so maybe good solutions really aren’t available, at least right now. But I do genuinely appreciate seeing conservatives talking seriously about some of the things that are bad about the Second Amendment and its aftermath. (And yes, there are good and admirable things about a pro-self-defense culture too.)
I do think that considerably more people die violently here because Americans own so many guns. That’s almost been taboo to say on the right, but I think the discussion is more honest if we can frankly discuss the ramifications of that possibility.
Because without guns, people don’t get murdered?
https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-04.htm
You are being incredibly vague here, Rachel. I have asked a couple times now what your suggestions are, or what suggestions you have heard from other people that you find interesting, but you just keep making these vague pronouncements. Don’t you think your readers deserve some specifics?
I am pretty sure I have a God given right to life, liberty and to pursue life as I see fit. I don’t see having a “conversation” about those rights. I don’t see having a “conversation” about my right to free speech. Yet, it is OK to discuss my right to own a firearm? Why is it this one right is subject to debate?
For the record, I don’t think felons should lose their right to vote or own a firearm. I think God given rights are just that. As it stands, the only conversation I am willing to have is why the Federal Government does not force States to recongnize each other’s CCW just like a DL or Marriage.
Millions. Maybe even tens of millions.
Heck, let’s just get to it. The Left, and part of the right in power, wants to go get the guns. Let’s just get the party started and see how it goes.
I agree. The Full Faith and Credit, is Full Faith. (Article IV section 1) I often wondered about this myself. If you can drive across state lines, without getting a new license in each state you cross, why does someone get arrested in NJ for forgetting their gun is in the car from Pennsylvania? (having the proper permits in Pennsylvania)
I disagree about felons. I dont think they should own a gun for a probationary period after release, but I think their should be a rehabilitation process where their gun rights could be restored.
I’m sorry but this explanation is even more problematic than your earlier comment. Let’s examine what you’re saying here.
Good solutions for what, exactly? Confiscating guns that Americans have a right to own? Decreasing the number of legally-owned firearms? Help me out here.
What are some of the things specifically that are bad about the 2nd Amendment? Do you believe that owning a firearm is only for self-defense or to protect one’s family? Was the 2nd Amendment also intended to protect citizens from their own government if that government became tyrannical?
I don’t think it’s taboo to say it. It’s just probably unwise and uninformed to say it. Most gun crime is committed by people who either have possession of a stolen gun or because of a prior criminal record have gotten their hands on guns that they aren’t legally allowed to have. Diminishing the 2nd Amendment rights of legal gun owners doesn’t bring down deaths by firearms it will only serve to increase them.
I’m not crusading against the 1st Amendment. I respect the Constitution and I respect tradition.
I also share the widespread view that there’s no good, peaceful way to take away Free Speech from all the people who Hate Trump. Or even most of them.
I am not advocating the Hate Trump people shut up. Honestly, I haven’t heard any suggestions for shutting up Hate Trump people that seem Constitutional or practical, so maybe good solutions really aren’t available.
But I do genuinely appreciate seeing Pro-Trump people talking seriously about some of the things that are bad about the 1st Amendment and its aftermath (of the November election.)
Makes sense now why people are upset with you, Rachel?
Infringing, not diminishing.
That comment earned a giggle.
I rather thing that some of the movement that cannot be named on Ricochet would just as soon be able to shut up pro-Trump people.
I have read somewhere that licensed gun owners are the single lowest criminal demographic cohort in American society.
Actually, it’s not.
We have asked people to stop using the term “Nevertrump” as a pejorative or insult directed at other people, just as we have asked people to stop using “Trumpkins” and similar insults.
Now that I have said the real forbidden word I expect to be stoned.
Rachel rhetoric is fueled by hate. How is Trump corrupt? Has he used the IRS to target his political opponents? Has he funneled settlement funds to political groups he agrees with? It seems to Trump has kept every promise he made politically.
Actually it’s hundreds of millions. So you’re wrong too, though not as wrong as me.
I’m just not a mathy person and sometimes say thousands when I mean millions. Yeah, potentially quite confusing, I know.
300 million existed in 2009 in America. Good luck with gun grabbing. Giving the state the power kick down doors and sacrifice the right of rebellion is insane.
Yep!
If you count all guns, yes. Most bans bruited thus far have focussed almost exclusively on “assault rifles” (not that there is any agreed definition of what that is) – and those numbers are in the tens of millions.
Remember the gun banners always start with “just a few really scary types” and lie that they’ll never ever come after “legitimate sporting weapons”.