Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Yes you can. I believe in you.
I apologize and retract my statement. For the record, I have never thought you were a leftist but rather some rare strain of Libertarian, possibly from a parallel universe.
When I say ‘our guy’ I am not implying paternity. I am not suggesting that you endorse him, send him money, lie to his wife about his affairs, invite him to dinner or do anything for him whatever. I am instead saying that he advances our interests which are center-right and conservative.
I never asked anyone to be kind or helpful to Trump. What I am suggesting is that it is to our advantage to not be unkind or unhelpful, as well as untrue and unnecessary.
The money quote:
So if you absolutely reject the ‘your guy’ phrase the rest still stands.
Would you agree that criticism that avoids destruction – of him or your interests – is preferable to outright attacks?
I think it’s safe to say that we can all agree that untrue and unnecessary criticism is bad. Hopefully we can agree that this holds true in all cases, even stipulating that we disagree about what is necessary (IE. I would consider the recent piling on John McCain and the inevitable swarming of every Mona Charen post to be “unnecessary.”) That said, the fact that we clearly have a wide range of opinions regarding what is or is not necessary is not a small matter.
The critic/skeptic/NeverTrumper would add, “…in the short term,” to your final sentence here. The concern that many had before, and which has not been conclusively disproved, is that the damage Trump does to the Republican brand may result in the decimation of the Republican party and decades of Democrat rule with all the resulting horrors you can imagine. No one yet knows who’s right on this question, but pessimism should not be beyond the pale.
That said, those who “attack” (in your sense of the word) the optimists without provocation are equally unhelpful. We can agree on that.
I’ve recounted this before, but apparently the issue and the resulting misunderstandings are evergreen. There were a series of threads about young earth creationism awhile back, and they got contentious. The last thread was one in which a member (was it MJ Bubba?) wrote to ask other members of the coalition to refrain from joining in on destructive attacks against YEC’s. He wasn’t asking for agreement or even really understanding. Just please don’t join in on the left’s attacks.
Well, I was surprised by the responses. Many simply could not fathom a distinction between criticism and attack, tolerance and agreement, defense and embrace. Still others were actively hostile to the suggestion.
With all of the upgrades and changes since then I don’t have the link anymore, but it’s worth trying to find it. Instructive. Depressing.
The reason such things do not surprise some of us is because for the last forty years, the way political discussion is framed on TV is that there are only two sides. So on Sunday afternoon talk shows, there was only the conservative vs the liberal. Usually the libs were wimpy, or they wouldn’t have been chosen to be there at all.
As though that was not enough of a ‘frame,’ the production people ensured further confusion by making sure that people screamed over one another’s statements. Add to those elements the fact that many who consider themselves “scientists” are merely computer scientists, a world which is totally binary. One or Zero. Yes or No. All or nothing.