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 think I’ve been pretty patient about answering questions on this thread. And actually the open borders one was answered in the OP, when I said I see amnesty-plus-enforcement as the way to go. (So, no on open borders.) Having said that, just posting something to Ricochet should not be seen as a volunteering to answer questions all day on every topic under the sun. If you’re really interested in getting more on my views on a variety of issues, feel free to read my columns at NRO, the Federalist, the American Conservative and other sites. That would also presumably give you a clearer sense of “what goals I hope to achieve”.
I’m not suggesting that you are or ought to be so interested in my views as to want to spend the afternoon reading me. But it’s out there if you want it! It seems pretty unreasonable to me to imply that my views are vacuous or that I’ve ever been coy about what I think.
One final point, Judithann. I don’t agree at all that there’s any good justification for “fallout”. Of course, when I post something like this I know that will happen; there are going to be at least 20 or 30 comments, probably more, telling me I’m an out-of-touch elitists blah blah etc. I know this from experience, but I don’t grant that this is justified. If people disagree with me, they’re free to say what they think. But when they get rude and condescending, that’s bad behavior and they should feel ashamed of themselves. I mostly just ignore that kind of thing; again, it’s expected and I don’t like to let it stand in the way of potentially interesting discussions. But I haven’t wronged you or anyone here just by having a view you don’t share. And I don’t have to support Trump to be a conservative.
And it seems unreasonable to me to accuse someone who asks a clear question of being tribal. We are asking you very simple questions. We shouldn’t need to conduct a research project to find out what your views are. Making your views known and understood obviously isn’t a priority for you, and that is fine, but this is why people are rejecting conventional conservatives in favor of someone like Donald Trump, who is very straightforward and clear about what his views are.
Rachel, you have accused us of possibly being nativists. You have referred to Trump voters as “fans”, and when I asked you a simple question about what your political beliefs are, you accused me of being tribal. I find all of this very rude and very condescending.
So, in general, you are for what the administration has been doing.
Yes. My issue is with Trump himself, not his policies.
Right. No matter what he is able to do get done, you will still want him out of office. There is nothing he can do to satisfy you.
There is proof that the Uranium One story is true. The “proof” for the “Trump is in collusion with Russians” narrative comes down to those wanting proof saying, “So where is it?” and the answer always being “From unidentified sources.”
He could apologize for his Birtherism, and his serial violations of the Eleventh Commandment. He could act Presidential. He could release his taxes and prove that he is not in Russia’s pocket. He could agree with Ivana and believe in the women relative to Roy Moore. He could agree that he will follow the Rule of Law and will obey Court Orders. Those things would go a long way with me. The irony is that if Trump resigned, new President Pence would not have all of the above black marks.
If all of that is only “going a long way” for you, then I stand by my statement.
Have a Great Thanksgiving.
Tough times are tough. 25 years ago everyone seemed to be in a much better place, they didnt worry so much about their end, and could be generous because everyone was getting there. Now it seems everyone thinks that they’re not going to get there if everyone else does too – so now not only do they have to get theirs but they have to prevent others from getting some too. The generosity of spirit is definitely gone from any business transaction.
People seem to take offense if you hold them accountable to follow through on stuff.
The GOP is now in constant fear that if it stands up to Trump, his 30% fanatical base will abandon them and they will be relegated to a rump opposition party for the foreseeable future.
The party has transmogrified into something I no longer comprehend nor want any part of. They have sold their souls for a tax cut and a judge.
Ooooh. Immigration. Haters.
Mexico’s political establishment has long used the USA as a safety valve. Mexico’s poor, uneducated and even criminal were heading north and sending money south. Mexico’s own immigration policy was and remains strict.
Meanwhile, Mexico has been working on a modern educational infrastructure and economy.
Their policy paid off pretty well for them: Mexico dumped a bunch of restless and less educated citizens into the US where their consumption of various forms of public assistance is well above average; even so they send money home – which helps Mexico’s economy while depressing entry level wages in the U.S. Less now, but still going on.
Mexico also (for good reason) resents the Mexican-American war and its outcome.
The Mexican government has for years encouraged migrants they sent north to “occupy” the US Southwest and has promoted an agenda of reconquest which is now a noticeable player in the politics of California and other border states.
What’s happened in the last half century? 1965 was a pivotal year for immigration and racial politics in the U.S; LBJ got both the Voting Rights Act and the Immigration and Naturalization Act passed. And:
In tandem with the Democrat control of large U.S. cities and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which resulted in near permanent racial bloc gerrymandering,) this immigration has had a staggering effect on American politics.
(A digression: Playing fast and a little loose with the numbers, Is it significant that the 60 million or so abortions since Roe v Wade, the upper guesstimates of the number of legal and illegal immigrants arriving in the US in the same period plus their U.S. born children is… ~60 million.)
Both Democrat and all too many Republican politicians are why we don’t have voter ID and why many jurisdictions don’t clean up their voter rolls.
That matters. Non-citizens voting (see Loretta Sanchez’ 1997 victory in California,) voting felons and all around machine style voter fraud gave us Senator Al Franken who gave us Obamacare.
It’s not nativist to notice this. I’m glad that Rachel Lu thinks that some of the people who are worried by all this aren’t haters.
And as long as Republicans and conservatives foolishly insist on deploying logic to counter Leftist emotional rhetoric they’ll keep on arguing about the rules of equestrian pandybat when they’re on the losing side of a melee. And keep on – what’s that word?
Losing.
Making sure there are good plans in place when it all comes falling down.
Well, that put me in my place.
That would be a first