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.
Attacks vs. Criticism: An Attempt at Clarification
Criticism of Trump is fine. It’s good and right from a free citizenry and the associated pundit class. I also enjoyed contempt, mockery, and snark when it is aimed at, for example, a Clinton.
Contempt, mockery, and snark are properly the province of late-night comedy types (including the Trevor Noahs of the world, even if they’re in denial), and also the agents of an opposition.
Contempt, mockery, and snark are not criticism. They are attacks, as are various predictions of doom, claims that the world is laughing at us, and similar Trump is ruining everything! comments.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with attacking our own guy (Trump is our own guy, btw, and for policy one of the best we’ve had in a long while). But we’ve already got people doing it. The left and their minions; the public school indoctrinators, the clamorous press, the “comedy” faction, and some of the most prolific twittists the world has ever known.
And when they’re right, they’re right. But then again, they’re mostly not right. Even leaving out the rank partisanship and the aforementioned contempt/mockery/snark, these people I would describe as enemies of Trump also lie about him. A lot.
Bernard Meltzer famously said, “Before you speak, ask yourself if what you are going to say is true, is kind, is necessary, is helpful. If the answer is no, maybe what you are about to say should be left unsaid.”
This is the kind of truly good advice that I won’t let get in my way and I certainly don’t expect anyone else to adopt it.
Nevertheless, saying things that are solidly untrue, cruel, irrelevant or damaging about your own guy is, ultimately, self-destructive.
Criticize away. But try to keep the destruction to a minimum.
Published in General
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.