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.
Yes, Anti-Trumpism Is a Failure — And It Was Always Destined to Be One
From the moment Donald Trump descended the golden escalator, David Brooks opposed him. The New York Times columnist condemned him in the primaries, then in the general, in the transition and the presidency, with the harshness only growing over time. But in a fascinating column today, Brooks admits defeat.
Titled “The Failures of Anti-Trumpism,” Brooks confesses that the past two years of “Never Trump” derision has only made The Donald stronger. His approval rating hasn’t budged, his policies haven’t changed, and Republicans — pundits, party leadership, and base alike — support him more firmly than ever.
And the promised Mueller-fueled impeachment? It’s abandoned collusion with Vladimir Putin for collusion with Stormy Daniels.
Where did all the Trump mockery go wrong? Brooks finds the central issue:
A lot of us never-Trumpers assumed momentum would be on our side as his scandals and incompetences mounted. It hasn’t turned out that way. I almost never meet a Trump supporter who has become disillusioned. I often meet Republicans who were once ambivalent but who have now joined the Trump train….
Meanwhile, if Republican never-Trumpers were an army, they’d be freezing their buns off in Valley Forge tweeting over and over again that these are the times that try men’s souls….
Part of the problem is that anti-Trumpism has a tendency to be insufferably condescending. For example, my colleague Thomas B. Edsall beautifully summarized the recent academic analyses of what personality traits supposedly determine Trump support.
Trump opponents, the academics say, are open-minded and value independence and novelty. Trump supporters, they continue, are closed-minded, change-averse and desperate for security.
This analysis strikes me as psychologically wrong (every human being requires both a secure base and an open field — we can’t be divided into opposing camps), journalistically wrong (Trump supporters voted for the man precisely because they wanted transformational change) and an epic attempt to offend 40 percent of our fellow citizens by reducing them to psychological inferiors.
As any longtime reader knows, I was a Never Trumper throughout the election. But when the nation selected him, I laid down that label and accepted reality. Trump was my president for the next four to eight years, I earnestly hoped for his and my country’s success, and I would praise or criticize him based on his actions.
But if I were one of those dead-enders who kept fighting reality, the last thing I’d do is rehash the same failed strategy that didn’t stop him in 2016. What is obvious to any Army captain or novice entrepreneur was utterly lost on several of our most celebrated pundits and political strategists.
With Trump’s election, the political landscape changed, just as it did when Obama was elected. Declaring either presidency invalid — due to a Russian conspiracy or a forged birth certificate — was doomed to failure since the voters chose both of them. And mocking a president is easily blurred with mocking the millions who selected him.
There’s an old maxim in marketing: people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. Likewise, no reader will take advice from a pundit who despises them.
Published in Politics
I thought it was in the 80’s and it was one of Alan Greenspan’s genius ideas, but I don’t know.
They freaking spent it. Poof! $5 trillion.
The whole concept of payroll taxation looks like fiction to me, but what do I know?
Reagan was the Greatest President of the last 15o years.
FWIW, around 1973 the Senate reportedly (bipartisan-ly) recognized that Medicare was a “raid on the treasury”. Eight freaking years. I think they later calculated that the actuarial’s we’re off by a factor of 100 or something like that. Then they started the CBO so that couldn’t happen again. It never would’ve passed that type of analysis. Now I hear the CBO is just another politicized aspect of our wonderful government.
If you turned 65 in 1965 you literally got all your healthcare for nothing. You didn’t have to contend with the coming inflation, at all. Then your heirs inherited more money if you had assets. Does that justify asset seizure when people pass on?
The whole system just looks out of control to me.
I believe the above statement would be correctly identified as hyperbole.
Yet, Trump’s the only Republican to reduce government involvement in the economy since Reagan. Also, Trump is the only Republican able to put Democrats on the defensive, since Reagan.
This shows how much you can lower the bar and still be an improvement over the other post-Reagan Republicans.
As for the 11th Commandment, the Never-Trumpers need to think hard about that one.
Gary if your only metric for Trump is that he is not Reagan reborn, then if course you’ll never be anything but completely disappointed. That would be true for anyone you attempt to apply that particular comparison to.
There’s nothing wrong with have rose colored glasses about the past, and remembering the lessons of the past is one of the most important things you can do. You can’t expect people now to be the person you loved from 30 years ago.
Remembering the past is good, living in the past blinds you to the present.
It was LBJ during the 60s. At the time Social Security was running a surplus and by adding it to the budget he was able to disguise the impact of the increased spending for Vietnam and the Great Society.
Thank you. ***S P E N T*** Government “actuarial science” is one of the dumbest things mankind has done to it’s self.
LBJ’s actions had impacts beyond just Social Security. In 1965 he, and Robert McNamara, knowingly lied about the cost of escalation in Vietnam by telling Democratic Congressional leaders that it would only be 10% of what they knew the real cost to be. In 1967, one of those leaders, Wilbur Mills, said Congress would never have approved all the Great Society programs if they had known in 1965 the real cost of Vietnam.
“I see dead Republicans.”
It’s bad when the government lies to the people, it’s much more dangerous when it lies to itself.
Good point.
O.K. I just did some googling and to me it looks like LBJ didn’t spend the freaking social security payroll taxes and Alan Greenspan and Ronald Reagan did. I have no idea what that truth is. I do think it’s true there are 5 trillion in IOUs to Social Security sitting in a filing cabinet in Virginia that will be “extinguished” with future debt issuance or future taxation so old people don’t have to kill themselves. The other option is the Federal Reserve can “pay” for it.
Also, comrades, be sure to work hard and conduct yourself prudently. The Collective is depending on you.
The change made by LBJ was to add the Social Security Trust Fund to create a unified budget. The practice of putting money in the feds right hand pocket and then loaning it to the feds left hand pocket dates back to the creation of the program.
Reagan appointed Greenspan’s Commission responding to dire reports from the Social Security Commissioners that by the 90s, Social Security would be paying out more in a year than was collected.
True Medicare as originally touted was fairly inexpensive. The assumptions were flawed. Health care in 1965 was inexpensive, mostly because doctor care outside hospitals was a cash business and hospital services were effectively rationed because the standard model of insurance was an X dollars per day rate. Health care circa the 1960s was a much less technological business. And one major flaw was not guessing life expectancy would get longer.
All of this is bogus because they don’t operate on real, hard actuarials, they operate on political theft.
They suck all of this money out of the economy and what is the net benefit? This isn’t a social safety net, it’s social destruction. Forward Comrades!
FWIW
I’m just sharing; I don’t pretend to understand it very well.