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
I was just thinking the other day about what the Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol or George Will still use to justify their opposition to Trump. Before he took office they convinced themselves that he wouldn’t enact conservative policies, that he would “break the hearts” of conservatives. Now all they have left is their dislike for his personality. This inevitably ends up sounding sort of snobby. Reading Brooks’ piece makes it very clear, the way he talks about “excellence” and “mediocrity” and “blowhard” etc. It’s similar in some ways to the way Margaret Thatcher was viewed by old-school British conservatives. They saw her as representing a “grubby” type of conservatism more akin to American Reaganite conservatism. I’m not comparing Trump to Thatcher but rather the critics of both who, instead of putting results first, seemed to mostly covet the praise of elites on both sides of the political divide and were most concerned about their own images as the refined, adult and thoughtful leaders of the conservative movement.
Agreed 100%. I suggest re-orienting the Republican party towards the Blue Collar and working-class constituencies will be difficult, but absolutely necessary. The challenge will be how to align the interests of small-government conservative and libertarians with those who have become used to Government largesse. “Free money from the gummint” is as addictive as any illicit drug and ultimately as corrosive to one’s character.
Bob, do you think there are no substantive, policy-based criticisms made against the president?
I’m not arguing that the atom bomb wasn’t necessary. Not at all. I think it was the right decision and did save a considerable amount of lives, both American and Japanese. What I’m saying is that even though it was the right thing to do, that doesn’t make it a good thing. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed. It was just less bad than the alternative. This is not just an abstract topic for me. 20 years ago my job was to sit underground and monitor missiles with nuclear warheads hundreds of times more powerful than the ones we used in WWII, knowing that there was a possibility I’d have to launch those same missiles if the order came. Thank God (and I do), we never came close on my watch, but for obvious reasons I did give a lot of thought to what it meant.
The people’s “will to fight” is a different matter. There’s a fair amount of evidence that it doesn’t work that way. To defeat an enemy you destroy their ability to fight. Trying to destroy their “will” by attacking civilians is usually counterproductive and wasteful. There are exceptions, of course, but WWII probably wasn’t one of them. We didn’t defeat Germany any faster because we firebombed Dresden; at that point the affect on Germany’s war fighting and manufacturing ability was limited and it didn’t diminish enemy morale. On the contrary, it made the German people more resistant to surrender.
Not really. Not near enough to explain their dislike for him.
Sorry to be in such a disagreeable mode, but we can’t control what people say, but we can listen and judge. When people are absolutists I make a mental note and begin to discount what they say. I can only determine political reality by allying and listening to people I have come to trust. So I endure it gladly and use it to expose them as less than credible.
There are things I don’t like about some Trump’s policies but there’s not much I can do about it, and since the alternative to Trump in political reality would be some left wing Democrat I have to take it. I don’t like his position on the drug war and some of his rhetoric is scary. I am afraid he might become too authoritarian in some regards. I respect the police and law enforcement but he’s becoming a little too absolute for my taste in his constant praise, although I suspect he’s just counterbalancing recent despicable rhetoric.
If people are going to ambush police officers I’m going to defend them full-on. But that doesn’t mean I think all policemen are saints or that too many of them have an us vs them mentality. So my inner libertarian has been on hold ever since these random attacks on police began, along with the unfounded charges ( for the most part) of racism.
So it’s the same approach with Trump for me. In the face of this withering and completely unfair onslaught, I’m defending him. That is the meta-political requirement as I see it.
Hoping that clarifies things, Tom.
FIFY
But yes, those are exactly my concerns. Unless the GOP is successful with the biggest GOTV effort ever, then 2018 will set records for how many seats they lose in the House. Trump has yet to show he can be successful at growing his base and developing coattails.
Martin Van Buren followed Andrew Jackson, and they had wildly different styles.
Taft and Wilson were a lot of things, but neither had T.R.’s bluster.
Trump is a one-off in personality. Let’s hope he’s not a one-off in political legacy.
Errors all around.
The country will vote with its pocketbook and little else.
We get to see who’s right in 10 months.
If the GOP is smart they will make elections about local matters and economic ones.
If it’s a referendum on Trump , especially his numerous flaws, then you’re right.
If the population knows it’s bad for the country economically then I expect the GOP majorities to hold.
Indeed.
A bit, yes.
As I said before, this explains a lot.
At the end of last century, Democrats argued amicably over whether our party’s president was a complete idiot or an evil genius.
Now Republicans argue bitterly over whether our party’s president is a complete idiot or an evil genius.
I’m usually not one to complain, but shouldn’t we be getting some Soros funding for all of our hard work?
Predictions are hard, especially about the future. – Yogi Berra
You’re going to have to come up with something else if you’re going to disagree.
That’s a pretty large record. 63 seats from 2010 under the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama
I will be thrilled to be proven wrong. I do think you’re right when you say that “If the GOP is smart” they’ll focus on economic conditions and local issues. The problem there is we have a lot of evidence that the GOP doesn’t always do what is smart.
I suspect that you’re right about the President’s daily public performances, especially if you mean Twitter. I never pay any attention to what he says on Twitter. But then, I almost never pay any attention to what anyone says on Twitter, which I find to be a ludicrous and useless method of communication. The idea of limiting anything to 140 (or now, apparently, 280) characters, and expecting to get any meaningful communication out of such a forum, is silly.
I mean, it’s perhaps useful if you want to tell people when and where to meet for dinner or a movie. But to say anything serious? To the contrary, Twitter seems specifically designed to pander to the clever but misleading zinger. It is bad enough that this has characterized our Presidential debates for my entire lifetime. It’s tragic to apply such a rule to public discourse.
I have a couple of questions for you about the President’s public performances, Mr. Lileks. I saw his speeches in Saudi Arabia and Poland, and I thought that both were excellent. I thought that they were probably better, bolder, and more sensible than anything I heard from either President Bush (and that’s not a put-down, as I have great respect for both GHWB and GWB on international affairs). Did you see these, and if so, do you agree with my assessment?
I share some of your frustration with the more vocal anti-Trump folks on our side — I’m thinking of people like Richard Epstein, John Yoo, Mona Charon, and Jonah Goldberg. These are heroes of mine, whose opinions I deeply value, and I think that they’re a bit unhinged on the issue.
But I don’t think it’s either fair or helpful to lump all Trump skeptics into the RINO camp. I think that there are many Conservatives and Republicans of good faith for whom Trump’s abrasive and downright rude style, and his significant departure from Conservative principles on some key issues, were and are a legitimate source of serious concern. For example, I remain appalled by the “little Marco” comment and the slander about Ted Cruz’s father.
It was very difficult for me to ultimately decide to support Trump, and not just for matters of style, though the style and moral issues are also important. There was little reason to expect that Trump would govern anything like a Conservative, and real concern that he would seriously set back the cause.
I decided to take a chance and vote for him, principally because he generally campaigned on a solid Conservative platform during the general election. Oh, and because Hillary. I held out hope that he would generally govern as he campaigned, and that he would select a solid team to help.
After a year, the President has wildly exceeded my expectations on issue after issue after issue. Jim Mattes at Defense, crushing Isis. Hurrah! Neil Gorsuch on SCOTUS. Megadittos! Significant tax reform. Way to go! Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Hallelujah!
He even went to Riyadh and spoke against Islamic terror. And now the Saudis are letting their women drive. Read that last sentence again. The Saudis.
I wish that both my pro- and anti-Trump friends could focus more on this tremendous record of accomplishment, instead of sniping at each other.
I mean, maybe uncle Donald can be a bit kooky and rude, but can’t we enjoy the free Thanksgiving feast he’s giving us at Mar a Lago?
After an entire workday, it still says:
A quick follow up to my last. I may have given the impression that I think Epstein, Yoo, Charon, and Goldstein are “in the RINO camp.” I do not. They remain Conservative stalwarts, in my view.
It is quite possible you will be proven correct and the GOP suffers big losses in November, that is why every effort should be made to enact as much Conservative policy now in 2018, and at the very least that policy will remain in effect until January 2021.
Win now because you did win and have the votes, worry about losing tomorrow after you actually lose, then start thinking about how to win again.
The fact that kamikaze NT’s are still trying to fly their Zero’s into the SS Trump is baffling ….what is it they hope to achieve?
Trump’s Twitter feed is the real-life equivalent of Key & Peele’s sketch, “Luther, Obama’s anger translator.” It’s “Citizen Don’s” Archie Bunker outlet – spitting raspberries at the evening news from the comfy chair in the living room in Queens – not an instrument of policy by the DC-based newsmaker.
Unlike Obama’s feed, which was Pravda, Trump uses his like TMZ.
The Twitter Feed is the reality TV role Trump doesn’t want to stop playing. It’s his SuDoku.
There’s a little more to it than that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_compensation
That is easy. Get them decent jobs. The working class wants to work. The problem is our globalist elites prefer to employ the middle class in other countries.
Then the GOP will be happy. They seem to be more comfortable as the minority opposition party. That way they would have a good excuse on why they will not pass the legislation they promise.
Oh I do. Any criticism brings on the NT label with many supporters. There is still a faction that demands absolute approval of all things Trump, just as there are those whose only guiding principle is to be 180 degrees from whatever Trump says.
Willie Mays Hayes was much better at stealing bases. But then he was in Major League.
Not sure why, but ok.
I recommended The Fleet at Flood Tide for its account of the battles of Saipan and Okinawa, and the fate of the “non-combatants” on the islands (interestingly, the author only spends about 2 or 3 pages on the entirety of Iwo Jima – probably because there were no civilians there).
My father had two cousins killed during the war, both in the Pacific. One was lost at sea when the USS Indianapolis went down, and the other was lost in late 1944 when his LST was sunk by a kamikaze off the cost of the Philippines (he received a posthumous Silver Star). My dad himself was fortunate enough to not see combat, although he was at Clark Field for several months in late 1945 and early 1946. Two things stick in my mind that he told me about:
1: “The war had been over for months, but we still got shot at every single night”.
2: “I have never seen hatred like what I saw the Filipinos had for the Japs because of the occupation”.
It is impossible to understand the firebombing campaign against Japan and the atomic bombs outside of the context of the Kamikazes generally, and Saipan/Iwo Jima/Okinawa more specifically. We were expecting mass suicide attacks by both the military forces and civilians when invading the home islands. We we experiencing heavy losses and casualties from increasing suicide attacks, as well as experiencing mass civilian suicides as we invaded the islands closer to the Japan. There was ample evidence after the surrender of Japan of preparations for organized suicide attacks that would have taken hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives on both sides.
I would never know what Trump has tweeted except what I see reported by media and then that is reported on someplace I follow sometimes on the internet. And I’m a Trump supporter. I think if one only followed his tweets, one would likely be anti-Trump.