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.
First Principles: Why Are You Okay With This?
In another thread, the subject of John Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter came up. I said (I’ll admit, rather snarkily), that I suppose Edwards’ big mistake was having an affair with a staffer instead of a pornstar and not paying her hush money. If he had done that, then he would’ve gotten a pass from everybody.
But it does mystify me as to why the revelation of Donald Trump’s affair with a porn star, and then him paying her six figures in hush money a month before the election, is met with shrugs from conservatives.
Let me clarify something, I don’t care about “the media.” That progressives scream about such and such is of no interest to me. What is said on MSNBC is irrelevant to me.
I’ve spent 20 years listening to conservatives talk about Bill Clinton’s womanizing and what it said about his character and him as a man. I heard John Edwards excoriated for his affair with Rielle Hunter for the same reason. I thought they had a point.
What makes Donald Trump different? Why is this met with shrugs from his supporters?
I’ll admit I’m mystified. So I pose this question to the Trump supporters here on Ricochet, many of whom I know to be good and decent people:
State your general principle: What made what John Edwards did wrong but makes Donald Trump only shrug-worthy?
Published in General
Kennedy had an affair with Marilyn Monroe while pushing some stupid idiotic ideal of how madly in love with Jackie he was.
Ah, romance.
Disingenuousness.
Does Trump make it difficult for people to do conservative things? From what I see, he makes it easier.
Did Obama? From what I see, he caused a lot of frustration, especially with parents with kids in public schools.
What is it that @Midge has said? That the upper crust, while being financially in a position that negative behaviors don’t affect them, they largely maintain images of bourgeoisie values. They also tend to encourage the lower classes (who can’t financially weather the bad decisions) to make those bad decisions.
Trump doesn’t follow them, but he is supportive of those who do. Obama followed them and didn’t support those who do. There is a difference.
Obama’s affair on the campaign trail got sniffed and snuffed.
One of the few items about him I could care less about.
I mean that wife. Yuck.
I’m not sure where you’re getting this juicy tidbit – its not a story anywhere I’ve seen except Star Magazine at the grocery check out (not kidding).
I get the sense that you think you are contradicting me, but it seems to me that you are making my point for me. Perhaps I’m misreading you.
Fred, this was a gradual process. If you recall, the percentage of Trump support here at Ricochet was less than 5% when all the Republican field was still in the race. After Cruz dropped, there was then the move to either support Trump (several variations) or go somewhere else. Most of the new support had many reservations within their support and what those were depends on the nature of their conservatism. While this support was being nourished the other side got nastier, and specifically directed at Trump, not just as a candidate but as a person. This just continued and soon it became apparent that Trump was the ultimate nemesis for the Left and for GOPe who had gradually aligned with the Washington bureaucracy. this process has meant that each time you come back to present some variation of this perplexing question, Trump support among ‘principled’ conservatives has gotten stronger. It is because winning this battle is important and Trump is the only player who has shown he cares about winning and is capable of winning. And Trump’s performance just gets better with time. Nothing from his past before he was the Republican nominee is likely to erode support from anyone who is now supporting him. John Edwards was just your ordinary corrupt politician with nothing special to offer anyone.
Basically there are two sets of rules in politics – the legal ones and the moral ones. The legal ones are easy. They’re also fairer because they apply to everyone throughout the political spectrum. The moral ones are different. They are swords that often only cut one way.
It wasn’t always that way. Back in 1983 when Edwin Edwards was running for re-election as Governor of Louisiana he infamously quipped, “The only way I can lose this race is if I’m caught with a live boy or a dead girl!” That was an exaggeration. In reality the morality of America was painted across the country with a fairly even coat. It was something that both Republican and Democrats agreed upon.
Twenty years ago that started to change. Bill Clinton was scum. We knew it and cared. The left knew it, too. But they no longer cared. Gennifer, Juanita, Kathleen… pffft! He still gets elected. It was the economy, stupid.
Then comes 1995. Bob Packwood is a powerful Senator from the state of Oregon. He was chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance and he was accused of sexual assault and, during the investigation, obstructing justice. The Senate was on the verge of expelling him. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein were escorting him out and Mitch McConnell was holding the door.
Then comes Monica. And the perjury. And the parsing. And the meaning of “what ‘is’ is.” And the idea that “it’s only sex” and if the policy is right then everyone needs to strap on the presidential kneepads and render service. And Bill Clinton not only survives his enabling wife is elevated as well. To the Senate, to State, and nearly back to the White House. It is increasingly obvious that there are no longer a single set of moral rules. The sword now only cuts one way. It can’t be used to slay liberals, but only for conservatives to commit Seppuku.
But the crusher is worse. Throughout the Obama Administration we learned the law was no longer equal. Democrats could run guns, weaponize the IRS, run their own servers and skirt national security rules, and generally rewrite law by executive fiat. And there were no consequences, no accountability.
These are the “new” rules. You don’t have to like them and neither do I. The difference is there’s a bunch of us willing to play by them until the equilibrium can be restored. Otherwise it will be a rigged game for generations.
Your comment seemed to suggest you are critical of people who have taken seriously social conservative positions who then voted for Trump.
I was pointing out that there need not be a contradiction there. People who value social conservative positions would primarily want the freedom to execute those things for themselves without the state making it harder for them to do so – before seeking to encourage it among others.
Voting for Trump did that after 8 years of Obama who made taking conservative positions incredibly difficult.
I’m critical of people who tell me there is no room for me in the Republican party who voted for Trump, yes.
But I don’t think private morals impact your ability to be an effective President, regardless of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. It simply cannot be that private morals only impair Democrats ability to do the job.
@fredcole I am trying to figure out why you care so much about what two consenting adults do behind closed doors or about any other agreements entered into freely by both parties. Seems your libertarian sensibilities would have no problems with this. Best I can figure you just like calling the Trump fans hypocrites for bumps and giggles.
Each time he comes back it gets more difficult.
Never fear. Help is on the way:
Does that matter? This is the hated Trump. The word of an anonymous source that heard it from a guy that knew a girl is enough. Why raise the journalism standards now? Especially since we can call all his followers hypocrites.
I, for one, never criticized Bill Clinton for “womanizing”. Raping a woman, seducing an intern in the Oval Office? These are more serious matters than anything President Trump has been accused of. I think most of the conservatives who were lecturing about womanizing are now Never Trump. I am no hypocrite. I only want law, order, a secure border, and a prosperous economy. I wish one of the “acceptable” candidates could have offered me that. Alas, we have Trump. He checks the policy boxes, but he is who he is.
Ha that’s pretty funny coming from that wizened little James Bond villain.
It’s unfortunate that some of our most talented politicians have less than stellar personal lives; Newt Gingrich falls into this category as well. But it’s always been this way: the Founding Fathers were not all saints either. I would be more than happy to ignore the extra marital affairs of liberals, if they would ignore the extra marital affairs of conservatives, but they won’t. I don’t care about the personal lives of any politicians, but if we don’t attack them for their immorality, they will continue attacking us for ours, and then it will look like conservatives are the only ones who ever cheat. I wish we could all agree to just leave this issue off the table, because I don’t think that anyone actually cares.
Is there anyone who would argue that America would have been better off without Ben Franklin?
Moderator Note:
personal attacks[redacted]
If you repeat a rumor often enough, people will think it is true. I have no idea if this story is true or not, but until there’s more to this than rumor, I’m going to continue to ignore it, right there with the Russian prostitutes urinating on a bed.
[redacted]
And I very much consider myself a social conservative, which means first and foremost that I am pro-life; abortion is a much bigger deal than adultery is. @annefy has compared Trump with Schindler, and I think that is an apt comparison: both are unlikely heroes, men who were far from stellar in their personal lives yet succeeded in saving lives. Trump is the most pro-life President we have ever had.
Yes, indeed. Much more entertaining to hear him speak than to read his statements.
Soros “expects a Democratic landslide in 2018.” He can dream, can’t he? Fairy tales can come true…
Damn, for a split second I thought this was an ironic joke…
It’s about loyalty to tribe. I am pretty sure that if Donald Trump were still a Democrat and were president, you would see Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity hammer him on dozens of matters of personal character where they now defend him. And the left-wing media personalities would be defending Trump on the very things they are attacking him for now.
At least Ann Coulter was honest about were she stood when she said that she wouldn’t care if Donald Trump personally performed abortions in the White House basement, provided that he’s a hawk on immigration.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t care about either Edwards’s or Trump’s personal life.
Both of them acted like jerks in their private lives. In neither case is that directly relevant to their ability to govern. I think people have gotten far, far too caught up in the whole “character matters” argument. Yes, character matters, but it’s just one thing to take into consideration. Honestly, I don’t care if the President is a terrible husband, an awful friend, or a cheat at cards. All I care about is how well he does his job as President.
I was happy to see John Edwards taken down, but not because his infidelity warranted it. He was profoundly unqualified for the White House, and he represented an ideology I opposed, so anything that took him out of the race was OK with me. That’s part of the game.
On a personal level, I think Trump and Edwards are probably about equally loathsome. I’m not a fan of Trump, and I don’t find all of his personal behavior acceptable. I just don’t consider it relevant.
The funny thing is that I am a life long Democrat. Sexual exploitation in our leaders are resume enhancer. To be honest Trump is sort of a piker in this area.
While the affair and payment of hush hasn’t been proven, that is the wrong question, according to Trump’s standards.
According to Trump’s standards, when he alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was aligned with Lee Harvey Oswald, Trump wanted Cruz to disprove it.
According to Trump’s standards, when Trump argued his Birther nonsense, Trump wanted Obama to disprove it.
Therefore, it is Trump’s responsibility to disprove that he had an affair, and/or if he paid hush money. How to do that would be simple, all Trump has to do is to sign two waivers: first of any Nondisclosure Agrement so the porn Star can testify and show her financial records, and second of his attorney-client privilege so that Trump’s lawyer can be questioned under oath. (The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney.)
See #54 for an unserious answer.
We make points, and save the House and Senate if we cut Trump loose, and have President Pence carry out Conservative principles.
A large number of suburban and women voters said that they were voting for Democrats to send Republicans a message about Trump. They are going to keep sending that message until we stop enabling Trump, and hold him accountable.
Pence is an incredible Boy Scout. After Trump and Hillary, America needs a Boy Scout!
Which is fantasy. Republicans have never been rewarded for fragging our own. Democrats will tell you all sorts of things to get you to commit political suicide. We cut Bob Packwood loose and we were rewarded with Ron Wyden. Nice ethical trade, yes?
They give us such sound advice on the things we should do to “save” our party. Why, if you only nominated a John McCain, now there’s a guy we could vote for! Or you should nominate that straight arrow Romney. Why he was a terrific blue state governor. We’ll vote for him!
Before I address your challenge, your post’s title itself is a leading question that pre-supposes people actually are “OK” with “this”. Why go with that? You’re leading right off with a hostile question that implies moral condemnation for a position others aren’t necessarily taking. It invites hostile responses right out of the gate.
Now for your challenge:
Your challenge itself is also flawed. You present a false dilemma: defend Trump and condemn Edwards, then justify why. You pre-suppose a standard and demand others defend it. Frankly, I reject the challenge.
The new rules are all about winning and smack mouth – and if you can’t win, burn it down. The rules will be inevitably defined downwards; only cucks want to play nice. If there’s a cohort of temperate voices waiting to bring back decorum, they’ll be eaten alive: TruCon FredoCon EagleBleeders who pine for Hillary, and pearl-clutch because AmericanGreatness.com wrote a piece about how sometimes a guy on 5th avenue deserves to be shot.
Is it–is it because of traffic? Is it very bad? Are drivers sometimes exceedingly disrespectful, whereupon a man feels his honor is involved in a mishap?