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
If you just judge from actions and consequences, there’s a far higher likelihood that emails would reveal Murphy colluding with Trump in 2016 than Trump colluding with Putin. Billboards against Rubio on abortion? Stay classy Mike.
I have been staying out of the fray. I like Trump on Judges, Taxes, and Regulations. I am appalled by his lack of character or honesty. I feel that he is destroying the Republican brand. Count me in with Mike Murphy and Steve Schmidt. But I am exhausted by Trump and his Trumpiness, and have taken myself out of the fray for now as I get on with my own life. In other words, I despise Trump but am not actively working to have him be removed short of the 2020 primaries and general election. (I cannot imagine voting for Trump under any circumstances, ever.)
I do have one massive Red Line. (I wish that I could type the word “Red” in red!) That is if Trump fires Mueller.
If Trump fires Mueller, all bets are off. If the Republicans do not force Trump to rehire Mueller, I could see myself voting a straight Democratic ticket, and to email everyone in my life to seek to bring him down.
When Nixon fired Cox, I was devastated. It was after a football game that my girlfriend and I had attended. I could not sleep. I literally walked a mile and a half to the Pima County Superior Court, and took comfort in being at the Courthouse. (I was a first year law student, go figure.) I took a week off from Law School and devoted myself to work for Nixon’s removal. My dorm room was under Arizona Stadium at the University of Arizona. I organized my fellow dorm members to place in a series of 4 dorm room windows. “America Needs A New President. Nixon Resign.” The local campus newspaper ran it on the front page.
I do not know what I would do if Trump fires Mueller, but I would do my best to counter Trump in every and any way I can. I would go to DEFCON 2, and be ready to go to DEFCON 1. For example, I could change my avatar from my picture to Trump’s name in a red circle, with a diagonal slash through it. I could purchase five hundred buttons with Trump’s face on it with the red circle and diagonal slash. I could were stock those buttons are local restaurants, and wear it every day. I could buy signs and put them up in my community.
The possibilities are endless. I hope that I am not forced to do that.
@garyrobbins
The account of your reaction to Nixon’s decision to fire Archibald Cox is fascinating. I appreciate the details you shared about what you did then, as well as of your tentative plans in case Trump fires Mueller.
It made me interested to know what actions you took 25 years later, when the Lewinsky scandal reached its apogee.
Firing an employee of the Executive Branch is bad I’m sure, but it’s certainly not illegal; however, seducing an Executive Branch intern post-Thomas/Hill and post-Packwood was actionable; debasing the White House with sodomy was illicit and reprehensible; and brazenly lying about those transgressions and having others lie as well – in other words literally undermining the system of justice which a president takes an oath to defend – well that, I’m certain, must have impelled you to heroic acts of protest and resistance far exceeding hanging signs out some dorm windows or designing a new avatar.
I’m dying to know precisely what you, as a good, moral and conservative Republican, did in those days to help force such a squalid individual as Democrat Bill Clinton out of office.
Take your time. Spare no details. Hold nothing back. Paint word pictures.
I supported the impeachment of Clinton for lying under oath.
I thought that Henry Hyde and Lindsey Graham were great House Managers.
I was appalled that none of the Democratic Senators voted to remove Clinton.
I thought that was what you did in 2016.
Nope. I voted for both Republicans and Democrats in 2016. I have voted a straight Republican ticket in the past. I have not voted for a Democrat for President since 1972 when I was in college.
No, I’ve just been watching the guy for years, and noted what he did to a friend of mine who caught him up in an error on a public forum, and saw how Trump behaved afterwards. Before the public embarrassment: good guy, useful, smart. After the incident: total loser, low ratings, third-rate.
I don’t admit that he’s not a racist; there’s no grudging admission here. When I said he says “loose, stupid things,”and the base likes it, I mean the people who like him because he’s not PC. The people who are unconcerned about the substance of the left-wing response to his remarks and applaud the fact that he doesn’t observe the usual pieties.
The Trump base ranges from people who like him because he dings the Mexican Judge , and people who wish he wouldn’t ding the Mexican Judge.
Can you just take a moment to clarify just what you do admit?
I’d appreciate this also. I tried to make sense last night and just got confused.
from @jameslileks comment #130:
from @jameslileks comment # 157
So I don’t know if you think DT is or is not a racist and I think there’s still a question about call the Mexican Judge a “Mexican judge” even has anything to do with race.
This
Since he was born in Indiana I have no idea why you would call him Mexican if you aren’t referring to his “race”.
The same reason my best friend is referred to as “Irish” (she was born in Glendale, CA) and I’m called “Scottish” (I was born in Detroit)
I call such people Americans. Does your being of Irish heritage mean you place the priorities of Ireland or Irish immigrants over those of Americans?
That’s an interesting question, even if I suspect Jamie is framing it a little rhetorically. I also suspect that Jaime’s preference for the “American” category (a very healthy one) results from his choosing to become an American (another healthy development, we could use a few million more such immigrants; I support a World Talent Grab policy). I didn’t choose to become an American. My four grandparents did. Three were from Ireland (two were native Gaelic speakers) and my paternal grandmother was a Hungarian Jew.
Now, I’m reasonably intelligent, critical and politically informed, but far closer to average than exceptional on any of these scores. Why do I have such default settings in favor of Irish economic resurgence, the miracle of Israel and the Hungarian defense against Muslim settlement? In none of these cases do I prefer foreign interests to American priorities. I simply see them as consonant and to a degree fully aligned with my rooting interest for America.
But these are real abiding interests out of a kaleidoscope of possible attachments.
Why?
It’s traditional in America for people to refer to their heritage. I don’t necessarily agree with it – I actually think we focus on it too much. But it’s very, very common. It’s no more racist to refer to someone as Mexican as it is Italian or Irish.
I’m not going to answer your question because it’s irrelevant.
If someone were to say that because of your Irish heritage you were incapable of performing your job would you consider that bigoted?
The dog that doesn’t bark in the Lowry piece is the character question. Apart from a throwaway aside, Lowry doesn’t consider it.
Revisits to Charlottesville and Curiel are valuable for two groups. Those who believe Trump is morally deformed and unacceptable as POTUS. And those who believe Trump can change.
I’m in neither group.
Hey, my two favorite political leaders are Tom Cotton and Rand Paul.
But if the 2020 election is a race between Bernie Sanders and Jenna Jameson, I’m on Team Jenna.
Not the century I expected. Just the one I’m living in.
I think the issue is also the lack of politicians who have any business claiming the moral high ground. My personal list could be counted on one hand, and even that group could be reduced by more information. Once we’re arguing over the type of “morality” that’s compromised, we’re in the realm of relativism. That helps Trump.
Now you’re moving the goal posts. We’ve gone from racism to a question now about being bigoted.
I will say this: were I involved in a high profile case, I wouldn’t hesitate to throw a question into the mix about someone’s potential bias.
I dunno. How is she on the corporate welfare problem?
Also, if someone has Irish heritage, it might be fair to call their impartiality into question if they also belonged to a group called Association of Northern Irish Attorneys or some such and one of the parties to the case were also involved in the separatist movement. Again, President Trump wasn’t generalizing – he was being very specific to that judge.
I agree. But if you turn the clock back pre-Trump we’re in the realm of strict moral censure of Republicans and complete moral relativism for Democrats which sure helped Clinton, Kennedy (meaning Ted, but pick any really), Dodd, Frank et al. Maybe there’s a fairer realm on the other side of Trump. Maybe not. An age of cynical regard for power politics and the presumed public service nobility of our rulers isn’t the worst result, in my opinion.
Well she’s been known to dispense concentrated benefits.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/conservative-criticism-donald-trump-can-be-valid/
Moderator Note:
Rude.[image redacted]
Well maybe you can explain it to us.
(Or please put it up on HW.)