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.
Regarding President Trump, there are currently several divisions on the Right. While not including everybody, these probably cover most:
I’m really not trying to be pedantic here, but I think you keep changing the words you’re using when they aren’t interchangeable. For instance, I agree that something changed in 2016 (I actually think it changed earlier but it was clear and identifiable in 2016) and that people should remember that loyalty is an important part of a functioning team/coalition/alliance the same way I’ve been loyal through the 2000’s even when I had much to be disappointed about. However, you said “The fact that since 2016 you think that needs to change might be evidence that we bet on the wrong horse”. These are just different thoughts. My thought is that something changed in 2016; your restatement says that 2016 happened so therefore I think something needs to change because of Trump.
Well, there’s a nice symmetry to that because it looks to us as if you don’t see the Big Picture. There is nobody more committed than I to the cause of defeating the Left. Nobody. And not just for one election, or two, but for years and decades to come. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the Big Picture. It seems to us that “you guys” (your term, not mine) who see the next election as the Flight 93 election (I can’t remember the last time that the next election wasn’t the Flight 93 election) are missing the Big Picture entirely. And you need to get it through your heads (again, your term, not mine) that crude and crass and boorish might win a particular battle, but it’s not going to win the war.
My point is not specific to President Trump. I don’t believe that loyalty in general is ever transactional. If it is then it probably is something other than loyalty. In accounting we have a concept of variable versus fixed costs, variable cost rising or falling in proportion to production while fixed costs are incurred regardless of production. In the short term this distinction is useful; over a sufficiently long enough term, though, all costs become variable. So too with loyalty. Loyalty is useful because it doesn’t focus on individual transactions forcing us to consider our relationships in depth at every turn. You can maintain loyalty overall despite transactions here or there which you’d rather not stand by; but if over time if these distasteful transactions outweigh the value then of course loyalty is nullified.
Set the bar where you see fit. However, please keep in mind other values. Do you still value the coalition of the right? Then perhaps you should set the bar higher than you’d otherwise feel comfortable setting it.
I’ve heard that said, but I don’t find it to be true at least on Ricochet (by that I don’t mean there are zero instances). I think there is much misinterpretation, exaggeration, hurt feelings, differing approaches, and differing definitions.
I don’t view these posts that way. Certainly not this thread. I don’t think Dave is either hysterical or decrying danger posed by NT. Perhaps we can infer that this divide has real consequences as division within the ranks usually does, even if indeterminate.
I view it more like a baseball team. If your three hitter is in a slump the team feels it even as it can compensate. If your entire middle of the lineup is slumping – or worse actively sandbagging – then that could become a problem over time.
Worse yet, if these people turn out to not have been my teammeates as I thought all along but were instead simply the umpires, well shame on me for being so dumb but that is quite a shocker and a few thoughts (or a few posts) trying to work that out might be in order.
There is more to politics and being a conservative than simply uniting against the left, otherwise, we would make common cause with the Richard Spencers of the world. Everyone draws their line differently.
Larry speaks for me.
But I don’t think there is, not at this moment in history. The fact that so many on our side actually believed we could “sit out” a Hillary presidency shows me the size of the chasm between our views of the urgency. Had she won, I’m convinced we would no longer have had a country.
I think this captures the problem in a nutshell – we’re not on the same side. There seems to be a sentiment that we need to unite the traditional right with the populist right. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s possible. There are fundamentally different world views in play, and as has been discussed many times on Ricochet, people rarely change their world view. But I agree that if we can’t come to terms with each other we may as well surrender to the left. So where does that leave us?
For that it’s important to recognize that politics doesn’t require unity. Coalitions have problems, but they can win. For my part, I don’t think it’s possible to compromise with the social-activist left. They fundamentally wish to destroy individual liberty, so any compromise they would find acceptable would be totally unacceptable to me. The populist right, on the other hand, I can compromise with. We value many of the same things even if we prioritize them differently, and the things I tend to disagree with most strongly are economic. I see a lot of room for compromise on economics. So if you ask me what I think about tariffs, I’ll tell you I’m not a fan, but unless things go to crazy extremes they won’t stop me from supporting POTUS.
If we think a coalition along those lines can work, that’s great. I’m convinced we need it for the good for the country. But both side need to recognize that we don’t agree on some stuff, there’s going to be contention, and that compromise implies a transactional relationship. Rather than trying to convince each other to believe what we believe, we should be focused on what we can compromise on and how we can trade favors.
Unfortunately, the politics of the last 20 years suggest that this won’t be possible. The far left, and both sides on the right think compromise is a synonym for surrender. Whichever party overcomes that problem first will dominate US politics for a while.
Other people telling you about loyalty is generally a sign the the relationship is unhealthy.
Great, is it okay to disagree with you at all?
No. Thank you for asking.
Chuck also speaks for me.
You seem to not understand the point of discussion.
No no no, we do not need to unite the traditional right with the “populist right,” we just have to stop shooting inside the tent. Good grief, we allied with Russia to fight Hitler. That didn’t make us Stalinists. And every time one of you calls us “populists,” what we hear is “the great unwashed masses who aren’t as smart as we are.” I don’t consider myself a “populist.” That is ridiculous.
Would this apply to say criticisms of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell? Asking for a friend.
I really can’t force the voices in your head to say things. Maybe that’s a you problem not an us problem.
You seem not to understand my sense of humor. That’s ok though. I think we should just concentrate on finding common ground. For instance, Nancy Pelosi is a poophead.
Really, Ed? A few snippets from the OP that make me think otherwise:
“the interminable Never Trump anger”
“Where are the Never Trumpers on these stunning seismic geopolitical events? … They second guess or downplay every achievement, while incessantly cheerleading any and all unsubstantiated leaks on the Mueller investigation or who said what in the White House.”
“Who needs Fire and Fury from a leftist partisan hack when you get the same breathless narrative from these people on the ‘right.'”
“their smug, condescending act has become tiresome and boring.”
“Maybe the obstinacy stems from a fleeting hope when an impeached President Trump waves his fingers in V formation from Marine One as he’s escorted from the White House, they will be given a token post in a 2020 Kamala Harris administration.”
“They have joined with the hyperbolic shrill left who aren’t dissimilar to emotionally unstable 13-year-old girls. There are fewer tantrums in a Judy Blume book.”
So, Ed – you don’t think that this stuff is hysterical or is decrying the danger posed by NT? What is it then? Is this a sober and measured evaluation of the current state of the American Right? I don’t think so. I think this is an absurd overreaction to a tiny handful of people who are truly insignificant – both in numbers and influence. And frankly, if anyone accused Trump supporters of being smug, condescending, obstinate, tiresome, emotionally unstable 13-year-old girls, I would call them out for it just as much.
They can both go sit on a tack as my mom used to say.
Something, something, shooting inside the tent.
That’s a rather nasty and dismissive comment.
If I implied you’re a populist I apologize. If you assume I mean that Trump supporter and populist are synonyms, I do not. Nor do I think Trump supporter or populist has anything to do with intelligence.
All political labels are inadequate, but to the extent that Trump appeals to a new breed of Republican voter that made themselves a player in party politics in 2016, I think populist is a reasonable label. Feel free to propose a better one. And if you haven’t noticed a correlation between populist and working-class, you should look again.
Sour Dough Republicans…..
I’m here all week folks.
I don’t think compromise has been our problem and I don’t think that’s what people are reacting to. It’s just that our compromises have been weak, poorly handled, and/or fake. If a systematic compromise approach had done anything for us then I don’t think we’d be divided this way now. Steady success, even incremental, would do much to salve the differences among the teammates.
My usual line for the problems on our side: timid, incompetent, duplicitous. Not actually trying for what we really want; not actually negotiating . When we do negotiate it’s done incompetently, like by starting with an opening bid we really want to be our final agreement. Then there is the suspicion that some/many of our people don’t actually believe or want what they say they believe or want.
Right, which is why we’re seeing so many threads discussing it. We want to regain some sense of unity, and even a loud ultraminority makes that project difficult especially if those voices have been respected leaders with amplified voices. Either those voices will regain their status or we need to begin the task of selecting new respected voices.
Hey folks! We’ve been getting quite a few flags on comments and it looks like it’s getting a little ugly in here. Please refrain from making insulting personal comments and stick to the topic at hand.
I agree with this, it seems very similar to Reagan’s three leg stool. The different parts prioritize things differently and sometimes disagree. They can still find a way to work together.
Circling back to the impetus of this OP, the latest polling shows that 84% of Republicans strongly or somewhat approve of Trump, with 59% Strongly approving. How do they find common cause with George Will? Will unhelpfully includes “Dear Leader” comments into his piece. His piece declares Trump awful, but Pence as even worse for having the gall to be a Vice President who supports the President.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/k7xf72pn0o/econTabReport.pdf
I think that as a coalition is formed some groups, groups that may even agree with the coalition, need to be left out. I think we all would want true Racists (every Republican is a Racist to the Progressives) out of the coalition. Buckley worked to remove the John Birch Society. It may be that George Will and Jennifer Rubin ( and those that agree completely with every thing they say) don’t have a place in the coalition. For a coalition to work, they have to be able to work together. Mr. Will does not seem interested in working together with other conservatives, just in name calling.
True, but it has been unhealthy for a while. “Other people” were talking about loyalty in the need to rally around McCain and Romney as well.
All true, but Republican voters feel that they’ve been screwed so often by the establishment that it’s now impossible for our political leaders to make public statements which would invite compromise. Every time they do half the party calls for their head. Maybe Paul Ryan wasn’t the right guy for the job in the current climate, but he wasn’t the enemy. Our elected leaders are powerless to fix this right now. Our thought leaders need to guide the voters though this if it’s going to work, but they’re all too busy constructing the bullwork around their respective camps to be of any use.