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.
Against Never Trump … By Rich Lowry?
The title is provocative: The Never Trump Delusion.
And this time the writer can’t be distanced from the title. Because the author is the editor. The editor of National Review and the force behind the well-timed but glancingly effective December 2015 “Against Trump” edition that laid the foundation stones, wittingly or not, for the Never Trump movement amongst many conservative intellectuals. (Personally, I think the “Against Trump” edition was gutsy and helped to provide Rubio his one shot at the end zone, but he fumbled and repeatedly kick the ball in NH when hit by a New Jersey lineman.)
To be fair, Lowry was never truly Never Trump. His support was always seemingly waylaid by yet another appalling Trump stunt. Yet Lowry often emphasized that Trump’s populist and nationalist conservatism was far closer to the mainstream of Republican politics than many of his fellow pundits often pretended. At NR, he occupied a painful space with Michael Brendan Dougherty (one truly fine thinker and writer).
Lowry’s piece pulls few punches. And he should expect some haymakers in return.
Yes, he notes the carnival aspects of Trump, but he’s pretty squarely in support of Trumpism, praising the version prevailing today with fighting words for many of his own fine writers: “…usefully points the way beyond a tired Reagan nostalgia.” (Lowry can drop 500 words on you.)
And his verdict on outstanding Never Trumpers is pretty unsparing: “the coterie of critics on the right — loosely referred to as Never Trump — often sound like they are in denial.”
Lowry’s quick tour of recent GOP successes downgrades “textbook libertarian economics” and highlights the departures made from orthodoxy by Buckley, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush (he neglects W and gay marriage but then everyone does today, don’t they?).
One can share Lowry’s lament at Trump’s personal shortcomings and his hope for a “more fully thought-out and integrated conservative populism.”
Yet his conclusion is not likely to be shared by many at his own magazine (Lowry’s an outstanding editor and probably knows how to get his writers back to work on a holiday weekend):
But make no mistake: On immigration and China trade, Trump is closer to the national Republican consensus than his conservative detractors.
A realistic attitude to Trump involves acknowledging both his flaws and how he usefully departs from a tired Reagan nostalgia. By all means, criticize him when he’s wrong. But don’t pretend that he’s just going away, or that he’s a wild outlier in the contemporary GOP.
What says Ricochet?
Published in General
So — just how are you going to get “more of them” on your side? Prepared to start up a journalism college and only accept applicants on the right?
Mark Levin will blast anyone that uses a phrase such as that. I loved Dennis Miller’s radio show but he made similar comments now and then following the lead of many other conservatives, insider conservatives, or fake conservatives.
I didn’t tend to see what the big deal was, but now I tend to agree with Mark much more. Conservatives need a somewhat recent example to follow or think about. Yeah, Ronald Reagan didn’t encounter every problem we face today, but that does not mean the Constitution or the Bible should be disregarded either. Reagan wrote extensively as a former a Democrat about many different issues. Some of his recordings are quite popular on places like youtube.
Yes, he was one of the few recent presidents who identified with such patriotism. Perhaps this is more of a characteristic of someone who served in combat during World War II and witnessed the turmoil of the 1960s.
(cont.)
I’ve essentially always considered myself a conservative during my adult life, but I can’t much ever remember calling myself a Republican. I grew up in a conservative-leaning state without party registration and where about 90% of the voters in these areas alway asked for the Democrat ballot during the primary as the Republican Party was lucky ever to get just one person to run for most local offices. I think I remember Jay Nordlinger, also from National Review, saying that he always proudly identified as being a Republican, but that he felt that he had to abandon the party after Trump came along. Perhaps the thinkers who closely associated themselves with the Republican Party felt the most betrayal by the Trump nomination.
Before Trump came along, I used to think that most conservatives believed essentially the same thing (and perhaps falling in a three or four conservative factions). It seemed like there were writers who I used to agree with about 90% of the time. Now I don’t think I agree with anyone about anything more than say 70-75% of the the time. People are making up their own mind and being persuaded to look at issues in different ways in the Internet information age. That’s a good thing, as long as the information is accurate and not too conspiratorial.
I can understand people who dislike Trump. I just can’t understand the ones who dislike Trump so much more than Jeb!, Kasich, or even Marco Rubio.
It seems to me that one of Trump’s biggest problems is the same as George W. Bush and many congressional Republicans — a complete unwillingness to slow down government spending.
Even those putting the most charitable interpretation on Trump’s “good people” words (that he meant other people who were sad to see the monuments taken down, not the tiki-torch wielding amateur fascists) should be able to see how other reasonable Americans, acting in good faith, wouldn’t.
I can understand supporters inclining toward treating Trump charitably, but when charity toward Trump comes at the expense of charity toward everyone else, I balk. I’d rather folks treat each other charitably than treat each other uncharitably in their efforts to see that Trump gets the most charitable treatment of all.
Trump’s some far-off politician who has little reason to care whether ordinary people frame his every word and deed charitably – all he has to care about is not being so hated he becomes unelectable. It’s far more important that ordinary people treat each other charitably.
Which is annoying in (at least) two ways.
If desire for decency is proof of “Belmont status”, that implies Fishtowners don’t desire decency – a slander against Fishtowners. As Murray documented, Fishtown does struggle with decency, but not because it’s devoid of people desiring decency; rather, people aspiring to decency in Fishtown (and there are many) have less social capital to draw on to support their decency. Moreover, an insinuation that the class we’re born into determines whether we’re contemptible or not is itself contemptible. Heck, even the leftist ritual of “checking Belmont’s privilege” is more forgiving than simple contempt for Belmont.
Politics isn’t always decent. Politicians especially aren’t always decent. We can concede that – often ruefully. But delight in it as if the desire for decency were no more than a false front for oppressing Fishtown? No thanks.
Tearing down decency for supposedly oppressing the less privileged is an odious tactic of leftism. Even if we think this tactic is only being cynically deployed by the right to beat the leftists at their own game, we shouldn’t let it grow on us.
I do not see how people acting in good faith can still think that. Not after the followups and clarifications, though I didn’t really think those were needed either but I could at least see how people would want to get clarification.
Rubbish. If people act and interpret in good faith, then they would immediately know what he meant. But they are adept at hostile interpretations and that’s the game. So what’s left is you have to believe DJT is a monumental racist, or he was saying what everyone understood him to be saying.
Furthermore, it’s not as though the left- that is Democrats – don’t have sketchy, bigoted, racist, anti American supporters as well, and probably more of them in numbers. They don’t disavow them. Ever. Reverend Wright, anyone?
I’m done with electing Presidents who are moral scolds, and little more, as they systematically steal my freedom.
If they prioritize treating Trump with good faith over treating others with good faith, then yes. But that’s not what everyone does.
Not everyone centers their measure of good faith around interpreting Trump with good faith, which was roughly my point. Some may trust Trump less as part of preserving the good faith they have with others who aren’t Trump.
Well, it takes two to slam dance, right? At least.
Trump behaved like a goon during the primaries towards conservatives who supported the Iraq War, insulting and belittling their patriotism. Remember the South Carolina debate? Yet, he’s staffing his national security team almost exclusively with men and women who could have served in a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio administration and taking hawkish action in Syria and Ukraine that Bush might have balked at (I suspect Rubio might surprise those who imagine he’s weak and feckless).
I keep hearing as an article of faith that Trump never forgets a grudge. Hear it more as it becomes less and less credible.
Yet, it seems truer of the neoconservatives and more aggressive nationalists who still seem deeply wounded by Trump’s assaults and his personal swagger. This seems especially deep seated amongst the Kristol Kagan Boot crowd. (Though not Norman Podhoretz; God love him, you reach a certain age and don’t care what people think of you.)
Let’s not pretend that Trump’s harsh rhetoric against neoconservatives 2 years ago is a lone voice in the broad right of center universe. Ever listen to the reliably excellent Tom Woods Show when discussion moves to military spending and action? Gets pretty raw and insulting. CATO usually draws a more nuanced line, but not always.
“Neoconservative” is a very loaded term on the right for people outside the Trump base.
Whether you want to admit it or not POTUS has a history of saying a lot of racially insensitive stuff. That’s why he’s not given the benefit of the doubt on these things.
That the left refuses to hold their people to account has little to do with whether or not we should hold people on our side to a higher standard.
Of course, perhaps George H. W. Bush and Donald Trump took up the issue of patriotism as they are devoid of many other ideas, and they link on to the issue of patriotism as a way for a politician from a wealthy family to identify with the feelings of a typical middle to lower class American.
I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying here. On top of that, who is centering their measure of good faith around interpreting Trump in good faith? Regarding those who prioritize good faith with Trump lower than good faith with everyone else, it sounds like you might be using a definition of good faith which is different than mine. Good faith isn’t a competition or a scarce resource to be apportioned. Either you’re approaching something honestly or you’re not and how you approach it with Bob has no impact on how you approach it with Billy; what you’re describing sounds more like PR or politics than good faith.
Yes. And we knew it was a recipe for failure before, but DJT has demonstrated a valiant strategy that was more effective than I could have imagined. He simply doesn’t care what they say and is able to withstand the attacks with aplomb. It makes them insignificant (which is why they are sooo incensed) . Bush shrugged and pretended it didn’t matter. Not a good approach, because the narrative is never stopped or derailed. The media had carte blanche, and they took advantage of it. Bush had an outsized view of how his ‘above the fray’ position had influence on people. (And this is still what the Bushy contingent believes.)
The GOP will never be able to win over Trump voters again unless they adopt Trumpism. I know they hate that. Too bad. Sure, there’s some overlap of Republicans who pulled the lever for Trump who will happily vote for a Rubio, but not enough. The GOP establishment lost the 2016 election as much as HRC did. They lost the ability to convince us they were serious, and now there’s much more evidence.
We have seen the same kind of denial from this faction as from Hillary herself. Kristol is the Hillary of the right, except he’s only on the right when it comes to morals, demeanor and class. Policy-wise, he just has a lot of nuanced opinions, which he will gladly represss in exchange for pomp and circumstance.
I’ve been asking the question to our NeverTrump associates, “What’s the endgame?”
It appears that Lowry is smart enough to see the NeverTrump position is a political loser.
Even if we accept that Trump only meant to limit his support to those protecting monument for non-Nazi reasons, his comments and overall handling said something else as well. Namely he knows, or at least thinks, he will lose support amongst the Breitbart crowd (or whatever this group deserves to be called, alt-right?) for an unequivocal condemnation. He played the same game with David Duke. So I’m perfectly comfortable condemning him for that.
Yes, and I can see how, within a coalition, one faction might not take kindly to having its patriotism belittled by another faction, especially if that other faction ends up not being terribly different, policy-wise. Not everyone may be keen to normalize the tactic of getting the upper hand in a coalition by painting others in the coalition as unpatriotic.
Given Woods’s affiliation with the Mises Institute, maybe that’s not surprising. But MI is pretty fringe in some respects – not disconnected from what a friend of mine calls “blood-and-soil libertarianism”. Cato is more mainstream, and it shows.
A sometimes-lovable, sometimes-embarrassing feature of libertarianism is that it’s very tolerant of kooks and cranks. It’s not the only faction which is, of course. In fact, a generalized feature of kooks and cranks (not just on the right – this happens on the left, too) seems to be employing “neocon” in a certain pejorative, sometimes conspiratorial, way. Neocons may understandably resent it if they perceive Trump’s rise as having normalized this usage of “neocon”.
Trumpism seems little more than an affect. So maybe that’s a winner for a generation. We’ll know soon enough. If you want policies that put Americans first, go back to NR and chat with MBD, Reihan, Lowry and Ramesh.
I’m not going to rehash this all again. Suffice to say I disagree with all of that. Especially since he has repeatedly disavowed Duke and spoken about how abhorrent racism is. Again, was there cause to ask some followup questuons? Sure. Continuing on with your condemnation after the followups answers says more about your good faith than his.
I never heard or read the clarifications and followups. I’m basing my interpretation on what he said at the time, which seems pretty clear.
I have no reason, based on other things he has said, to give him the benefit of the doubt. He hasn’t earned that.
Jean, that’s part of what I mean. You hear one clip you don’t like and that’s that? That’s some serious finality of judgement. The clarifications I’m referring to were also said at the time.
Racially insensitive to whom? What’s their level of sensitivity these days? I say it’s pretty sensitive.
We are all the same and we have a specific agenda and we try to coalesce behind candidates who promise to advance our agenda, but the minute you acknowledge that fact – that there is a common agenda, you are a racist. Because we aren’t all the same. We can claim racial solidarity , but you can’t take that to mean anything, because otherwise we are just like you, good Americans who want what’s best for everyone.
Just because the left brings brass-knuckles to the boxing match doesn’t mean we have to pretend it’s a fair fight and lose.
Many Trump supporters seem to.
Unfortunately, it does. Suppose Bob and Billy are both your close, trustworthy friends. Bob is a fellow Trump supporter, but Billy seems to sincerely believe that Trump is, well, a little bit racist.
Bob tells you Billy can’t possibly believe Trump is racist in good faith – Billy must be acting in bad faith to hold such a belief, Bob says. But you know Billy, and you have no reason to doubt Billy’s excellent faith. You disagree with Billy, but because of your friendship with Billy, you have personally experienced how it might be possible for someone who treats those around him in good faith (namely, Billy) to believe such an awful thing about Trump.
You may tell Bob, “Bob, I know Billy too well to believe Billy has bad faith here, although I think Billy is mistaken.” In response, Bob may say, “I think you’re mistaken, Ed, in believing Billy’s good faith, but I trust you’re acting in good faith.”
Or Bob may double down and insist that no, the only way you can maintain good faith with Bob is by ascribing bad faith to Billy, because Bob judges that Billy does not treat Trump with sufficient good faith. Here, Bob is insisting that you choose between good faith with Trump (via Bob) and good faith with Billy. If it were me, I would either judge Bob quite mistaken in attempting to force this choice upon me, or, if Bob kept pressing and wouldn’t take no for an answer, I might begin to doubt Bob’s good faith.
No, it’s not “that’s that”. It comes on top of other offensive, crude, and frankly stupid things he has said. I had no reason to doubt that he meant what he said, namely, that the white supremacist march contained some “good people”.
Yeah I agree that you and I cannot agree here. I still don’t get this insistence from the pro Trump wing that I absolutely accept Trump’s word on this sort of stuff. One, he’s not exactly the most honest man around. Second, and really the more important point, he’s a politician talking to the press! You’d never accept Obama’s explanation for anything as gospel and neither would I.
Which sounds like the dynamic I just described in comment 81 with the parable of Bob and Billy:
There’s another possibility. Trump does not acknowledge race and racial differences. He’s not a scold. He can’t be, actually, and i believe that’s a good thing.
Imagine the idea of embracing the extremes, accepting them as natural byproducts of politics. Farrakhan has a legitimate worldview. It’s wrong in my opinion, but it still makes some sense. What he says about Jews is deplorable, but otherwise, he’s quite conservative. There are good people who came to the million-man march. Some were anti-semites, but I think most were just trying to make our society better – certainly the African American society and by extension our overall society.
So this virtue-signaling rejection of the extremes has been more of a problem than a solution. And because the left dominates the media it always goes one-way.
Let’s find out how many actual racists there are in this country and educate them, or try to help them. Condemning them and driving them underground is counterproductive.
Which was great! I must have been typing or something as it wasn’t up when I hit comment.
I don’t know about that. Sure there are extreme forms of virtue signaling. Not sure I’m in that group for being irked the president is worried about offending Nazi sympathizers. Besides, it’s hard to say condemning racists and driving open racism from polite society has been counterproductive. It’s clearly a better world for a black man today than 50 years ago. They can stay underground.
The President literally said an american citizen was incapable of doing his job because of his race.
There just isn’t any evidence for POTUS’ alleged color blindness. Quite the contrary, my friend.
You’d think from the anathemas and condemnations that every person who carried a tiki torch or Antifa flag is irredeemable and soulless, without the capacity for growth and goodness.
Interesting that Hollywood, in its hysterical one-sided politics, states this unequivocally about Republican racists (and remember Reagan was a racist too).
Then they give the Academy Award to Sam Rockwell …
We wandered a bit here didn’t we. Quake, you mentioned a fault line that may break (or not) n the coming years. Do you mean a party realignment, or something more dramatic?