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.
“The Decline of Anti-Trumpism”
The problems with anti-Trumpism are concisely delineated . . . .in the New York Times. By David Brooks. Look! The sun has been blotted out! Pigs, aflight! Millions of them!
. . . the anti-Trump movement, of which I’m a proud member, seems to be getting dumber. It seems to be settling into a smug, fairy tale version of reality that filters out discordant information. More anti-Trumpers seem to be telling themselves a “Madness of King George” narrative: Trump is a semiliterate madman surrounded by sycophants who are morally, intellectually and psychologically inferior to people like us.
I’d like to think it’s possible to be fervently anti-Trump while also not reducing everything to a fairy tale.
He’s right, I think — with careful attention to the word “more.” Some Trump skeptics — and hello, you handsome lad in the mirror — have always been concerned about his lack of knowledge combined with his disinclination to learn, his word-salad replies to questions, and his instinctive demeaning of anyone who challenges his mastery of the issues. This is different than thinking he’s a pouty toddler with the IQ of a bucket of soup.
A lot of Trump supporters conflate the “Dumb crazy baby” anti-Trumpers with the skeptics, just as anti-Trump types conflate the Trump defenders with the airhorn MAGA supporters. I hate that. Which brings us to the next point:
The anti-Trump movement suffers from insularity. Most of the people who detest Trump don’t know anybody who works with him or supports him.
Well, I think it’s fair to say that most anti-Trump types don’t know anyone who works with him. I don’t know about the second point, since I don’t know who knows who, but I can think of a few anti-Trump pundit types who wouldn’t change their opinion of Trump no matter how many supporters they knew. Their opinions have to do with — well, Trump. Their opinions about the man won’t change because the man won’t change.
But this is a distinct issue from being anti-Trump administration, and this seems to be the sticking point I do not understand. If the end result of the administration’s policies is the advancement of conservative policies, then you have to balance that against the negative influence of the Trump Personality on politics — something that seems to me to be modern culture turned up to 11 with the Loudness button enabled — and consider whether the specific, quantifiable gains exceed the cost of having Trump as the means by which they were achieved. If the answer is no, then it’s possible your objections result from your inability to throttle your lack of respect for the man, and this colors your view of the larger scene.
More:
And if they do have friends and family members who admire Trump, they’ve learned not to talk about this subject. So they get most of their information about Trumpism from others who also detest Trumpism, which is always a recipe for epistemic closure.
Oh, I have conversations with Trump-supporting friends all the time; it’s fun. Most of my info about Trumpism comes from the President’s Twitter feed.
In every war, nations come to resemble their enemies, so I suppose it’s normal that the anti-Trump movement would come to resemble the pro-Trump movement. But it’s not good. I’ve noticed a lot of young people look at the monotonous daily hysteria of we anti-Trumpers and they find it silly.
Hmm. I don’t recall the Allies building gas chambers for the Axis troops, or Afghan UN troops cultivating poppy fields and forbidding the instruction of girls, but nevermind. I am also unsure how many young people Frum has interrogated about the monotonous daily hysteria. (“Young people,” especially worried woke 7-year-olds, are the cab drivers of modern political commentary.) But I find the daily hysteria silly, and I think Donald Trump’s public performances are generally ridiculous.
He concludes:
This isn’t just a struggle over a president. It’s a struggle over what rules we’re going to play by after Trump. Are we all going to descend permanently into the Trump standard of acceptable behavior?
I don’t think so. I think he’s a one-off.
Or, are we going to restore the distinction between excellence and mediocrity, truth and a lie?
Oh, those distinctions are just suddenly apparent now? You could find a lot of people who regarded the previous presidents as excellent mediocrities and mediocre excellences.
Are we going to insist on the difference between a genuine expert and an ill-informed blow hard?
I suspect not, because many of the former have been corrupted by agendas to the point where they don’t realize how they sound like the latter.
There’s a hierarchy of excellence in every sphere. There’s a huge difference between William F. Buckley and Sean Hannity, between the reporters at this newspaper and a rumor-spreader. Part of this struggle is to maintain those distinctions, not to contribute to their evisceration.
Note how he twinned reporters with Buckley. Okay: Buckley had a coherent, detailed political philosophy he advanced through his platform; is he saying NYT reporters are doing the same?
Published in General
It’s a full time job.
Yep. It’d be nice to have all hands on deck.
Agreed. The fact that we didn’t descend to the Nazi level of horrors is true, but that’s a pretty low bar to cross. Sticking with WWII, there’s a lot we did that was necessary but that we wish we didn’t have to do. (There are also some actions that probably weren’t necessary, but seemed so at the time.) No one should be comfortable with the levels of civilian casualties that were inflicted by firebombing cities and dropping atomic weapons, but then again we shouldn’t be happy about killing a single enemy combatant much less millions. War is ugly, awful, and sometimes absolutely necessary.
Also worth noting, the fact that we think of politics in terms of combat and enemies is itself a big problem. The people who disagree with me about Trump are not my enemies. They are my fellow citizens, my neighbors, and in some cases my friends. The tribalism that leads to thinking of politics as war is seriously detrimental to our continued success as a nation.
Could be true IF…..
If you believe that Trump is cause rather than effect. Trump is President because all the terrible things you believe about him were already true about the American electorate. He’s not “one-off” because nothing has happened or is likely to happen in Trump’s two terms to make We the People “one off”
You seem to think that most Trump-skeptic conservatives — or, at least, enough of them to matter — are itching to primary him in 2020. Sure, those people exist and they’re loud, but they strike me as a small minority of a small minority.
My preferred outcome of the next few years is that Trump learns to stop making an ass of himself on a regular basis, keeps working with Congress to churn out (generally) good policy, and is exonerated by the Russian probe. If he does something close to that, there won’t be a primary challenge and he’ll get marginally more votes in 2020, including from me.
I believe all those things will happen, though not to your satisfaction. Trump has grown some in the last year. He will probably continue to grow in the next 3 years. Again, probably not to your satisfaction.
If Trump does well, people will support him. Telling people to choose sides is generally a good way to get them to dig-in.
How about you stop telling me what I think?
Sorry, you are correct, I was thinking out loud. Should have withheld the satisfaction part.
Agreed. We all know why suspicions that others will be impossible to satisfy exist. But few of us have the knowledge of another’s soul necessary to make that suspicion a certainty, especially on the interwebs. And the costs to cohesion of assuming the suspicion is reality when it’s not are high.
It’s easier to make an informed decision that so-and-so is impossible to please if so-and-so is a family member. Maybe coworker. The more distance, the harder it is for this judgment to be informed. And note that this judgment also creates distance, so that error tends to be self-reinforcing.
He has a wife for that actually…
Thank you.
I don’t know about the people in your social circle, but in mine, even the Never-Trumpers had to begrudgingly admit he’s done good (they’ll never say “great”). The people I know who are still Never-Trumpers (very, very few) tend to either not believe, or dismiss any evidence I present them.
No, I would say the advancement of conservative policies doesn’t need to be balanced with his personality. We’re at a point in history where results are what counts, and so far, I’m pleased with what Trump has done. Now, if the Republicans in Congress can manage to get on board, they can accomplish a lot more. Passing the tax bill was a very good thing, but there is so much more that needs to be done.
Hear that, Republicans in Congress? We want more results, so stop wringing your hands about the man in the Oval Office and get to work!
Really off topic, but could not disagree more, particularly with regard to the atom bomb. It saved more lives (particularly civilian lives) than it cost. Recommend reading Paul Fussel’s Thank God for the Atom Bomb and James Hornfischer’s The Fleet at Flood Tide.
Also disagree that civilians are off-limits in total war. To achieve victory you don’t defeat an enemy’s army, you defeat the people’s will to fight.
Ya.
Nice article.
Brooks is a clown show because he doesn’t know what he is. He spends his time obsessing about silly things all the while thinking he’s serious. In many ways, he’s more deluded than the man he loathes.
Like you, I want the president and Congress to work together to enact conservative policy.
Like you, I’ve often been disappointed at Congress’s progress these past 12 months, though there have been some victories.
However, we appear to disagree that Congress is the only of those parties that needs to up its game in this regard.
Bingo. Killing civilians has to be considered as acceptable collateral damage ( barring other ways to easily win) or else you lose.
When losing means death for you, it changes perspectives.
I don’t hold that view. That’s the road to calling the supporters Deplorables. I think part of the electorate responded to a new style that kicked away the old polite norms, but even then they weren’t celebrating what I think are his deficiencies; they were setting them aside or finding explanations and justifications. A critic says “he doesn’t know anything about this issue,” and the supporters didn’t say “you’re right! And that’s fantastic!” They either said he’d surround himself with wise counsel, or he did know something about the issue.
I think he’s a one-off because his personality is unique. Celeb candidates who come along next will probably opt for the kinder-gentler routine. Oprah’s not going to mock him for needing Viagra.
Depends on your definition of ‘ass’ then. Mine would include enough politicians to exceed the word limit here. I’ve not seen much ass-like behavior from Trump if I compare it to what I’m seeing in the media and aforementioned pols.
I would also include those who would be willing to vote for a primary challenger not just the itchers in my category.
He’s already passed my tests long ago. The not-Hillary portion got him 70 points alone.
So there is a difference between us and it’s an important one. But true, you are not an hysterical anti-Trumper. Good for you. That doesn’t mean others won’t call out this buffet-style reserved acceptance as being unhelpful and often at odds with the idea of a reliable political ally. That’s different from a “purity” test. There is palpable mistrust when you outline your conditions and thus present fairly meaningless support. In the meantime there’s a real fight going on.
I voted for Trump but he was not my first pick. However, in hindsight, no one running could have accomplished what he has done and is doing. His silly Twitter malarkey is just smoke bombs, but who else would stand up to the UN, the Paris Accords, NK, Iran, ISIS, China, the Middle East problems, even Russia, with the “lets put our cards on the table and stop wasting our time, money and safety” and confront problems or else? Let’s give the people back their hard earned money, new jobs, and fix what’s broken. He isn’t a career politician, so he’s not going to care if the voters like him 10 years from now – he wants results. For how long have we been ignoring our borders, crime, drugs, closing up factories, and letting unbalanced trade deals stagnate growth? We’ve all realized now how many have been looking the other way, and worried about being a life long politician with good pay and benefits, but never writing a paycheck.
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen it there, but in my defense I wasn’t looking.
The problem is that Trump isn’t the be all and end all of government. So the theory that things happen despite him has yet to be falsified. Rather I think the reverse problem is far more pervelant. Many people on the right have invested into the idea that he is a supper genius, a very stable one at that, but to hold on to this view they have to ignore all his tweets, outburst, or make appeals to multi dimensional chess. I think despite all his worst tendencies enough people around him have done their jobs well (given the circumstance) that things have gone okay. Here is the question though to ponder. This has all worked because Republicans however narrowly control all branches of the government. If in 2018 this ends with a Democratic wave…what then. What will the Trump administration be if come next election the Trump administration is only his tweets? What then? A tax cut, some judges, and some deregulation I guess make all the nonesense seem like a good deal.
But if it turns out Trump is sinking the party electorally? The regulation reform can be undone by the next president, same with the immigration tightening, the corporate tax cuts can be repealed by a Democratic majority with reconciliation, and the individual rates are set to sunset. None of the justices look like they will die any time soon so he might not get another confirmation, and if the Dem’s win the Senate in 2018 they can filibuster until 2020 if they have too. What then?
Trump or the Republicans I don’t think have done anything to make their policies generally popular. All of this success now, can be undone in one or two elections. This is why I would not be so sanguine about this. Especially if Trump has just stumbled into the success by luck. Because then nothing is here to sustain any of this.
I guess like Wiley Coyote we better keep running and not look down, lest we realize we have just run off a cliff.
Dig in where? Into neutrality? Are you implying they already have a ‘side’?
If they get all snippy and react because they didn’t like the way you spoke to them, then they can’t be worth much as supporters. They will always go with whoever panders to them. This is not a subset of folks worth chasing around.
Franco, you have articulated my position exactly. Thank you – it’s really a rather excellent bit of thinking and writing on your part in order to do it. I’ve been trying to say this for the last 18 months but it’s been piecemeal and disjointed. Well done.
JamesL,
So Brooks has abandoned Frumy. Oh, such a dire falling out have we in the land of elite NY Times nudniks. Why it is a veritable bomb cyclone in a teacup. I have only one thing to say, “Gd save the King and so on.”
Regards,
Jim
I don’t actually think there is much of a difference in these descriptions. While the first might be more articulate and while the manner in which it’s delivered might be more reserved, it isn’t any more objectively true or even useful than the second. This is all personal assessment, and a strong case can be made in the opposite direction that Trump certainly does learn, that his manner of speaking has decently broad appeal, and that what you consider to be petulant demeaning of critics could be viewed as fierce and effective defense against opponents.
In fairness that’s true on the other end too: there’s not as much practical or logical difference between Trump defenders and MAGA hat wearers as some portray. In for a penny in for a pound is what it amounts to. Some are simply more enthusiastic and confident than others. Personally I’m still toward the less enthusiasm end, though I’ve been inching to the MAGA hat since spring 2016.
The difference between the poles is that the skeptic end is mostly dependent on character assessment while the defender/MAGA end is not. For me, I don’t much think of it in the terms you laid out, but on those terms I don’t think your assessment is anywhere near correct. That does not mean I believe his character is flawless or that character is unimportant. Of course not.
Even if there were more of a middle, though, I don’t think there’s any inherent value or virtue to it. After all, we all (including the left) complain about the “independents” and “middle grounders” and the “swing voters”. They’re usually just squishy or just plain uninformed. Haven’t we all seen and liked articles and comments along those lines from time to time?
Alternatively, maybe they’re tired of being told that their (supposedly) insufficient enthusiasm is tantamount to supporting the Democrats or demanding pampering.
Really, who can say?
Addendum:
And yes, the other shoe fits, too.
People should not have to endure being told that their (supposedly) insufficient criticism for the president is tantamount to toadying or being in the president’s thrall. When people make such accusations, they should get strong pushback.