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.
The First Step Is Admitting You Have a Problem
Regarding President Trump, there are currently several divisions on the Right. While not including everybody, these probably cover most:
- Trump was my guy all along. MAGA!
- I voted for someone else in the primary but with serious reservations and crossed fingers, I voted Trump to prevent Hillary. Policy-wise, I’m pleased.
- I didn’t vote for Trump, but the economy, courts, and geopolitics seem pretty, pretty good.
- Never Trump. Ever. Never eva!!!
The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles (and cigar-group friend) penned “Can We All Finally Admit Trump Is A Good President?“
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
The Iran Deal in tatters, three American hostages safely returned from North Korea, which now offers to denuclearize and end the Korean War after 68 years, five top ISIS leaders captured — and that’s just this week. On the domestic front, in just a year-and-a-half, landmark tax reform has made the U.S. more competitive, fewer illegal aliens are entering our country than at any time in the past 17 years, and dozens of federal judges have taken the bench to defend the rule of law and our constitutional system. According to a poll from CNN of all outlets, more Americans today think the country is headed in the right direction than at any time in over a decade.
The Left unsurprisingly remains steadfast in their opposition to President Trump. What’s disappointing is that a handful of “Never Trump” Republicans remain equally unwilling to admit the obvious: Donald Trump is a good president. Indeed, the remaining anti-Trump voices on the Right seem more desperate than ever to take down the president, if only to prove that, actually, they were right all along.
Michael Knowles is no dummy. Yale-educated, podcast host at Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire and author of the best blank book ever written, Michael posits some truths that many on both the Left and Right could use a good dose of: reality.
We understand the interminable Never Trump anger. After all, Trump traded five extremely dangerous and hardened terrorists for one Army deserter while adjoined by the deserters suspicious looking parents in the White House Rose Garden. Oh, wait … that was the last guy. Today, ISIS has been reduced to a handful of knife-wielding basement-dwelling neckbeards stabbing randoms on the streets of North Mecca (Paris).
But there was this: Trump used State Dept. funds to interfere with and fail to prevent the re-election of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Oh, that was also the last guy. Today we see Israelis dancing in the streets as America had the audacity to recognize Jerusalem as their capital (something every former President campaigned for but never had the guts to acknowledge officially). Meanwhile, Iranian-sponsored Hamas uses the poor Palestinian people as cannon fodder while the White House Press Pool clutches pearls 6,000 miles away.
The list can go on: North Korea, Syria, Tax Reform, etc. It’s not necessary to present the impressive number of achievements in Trump’s first 16 months, but even intellectually honest liberal friends whisper that Hillary probably couldn’t have gotten this done, even if those policies were liberal.
Granted, we are not there yet, anything can happen, but from a conservative perspective, we’re quickly heading in the right direction.
Where are the Never Trumpers on these stunning seismic geopolitical events? You can find some remaining “neocons” on MSNBC or CNN as contributors whose talking points are similar to the liberals they are supposedly countering. 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.” While Trump is working to peacefully end the 60-year-old Korean Conflict, they are nattering about porn stars while spending their days trolling Twitter arguing with strangers. This is their life now. #Sad.
The worst part is, they present themselves as the moral arbiters of Conservative, Inc. In their mind, it’s still their show. Complain, and you’re a “Trump Snowflake.” Disagree and you’re a [expletive] Neanderthal, probably uneducated and seeking sponsors for your bowling league.
People correctly tell them this is the reason Trump won, except the NYC/DC/LA elites were usually on the left. But now, their smug, condescending act has become tiresome and boring. So, like millions, we have tuned them out.
We used to like respect these people. We bought their books, watched their interviews and even went on their rip-roaring cruises.
Right after the election, in an interview on my show, one said, “we hope Trump succeeds.”
“Magnanimous,” I replied. After all, it was. They fought tooth and nail against him. “If Trump succeeds, we all succeed,” I’d say.
Then the less than enthusiastic “Yeah… Well, we’ll see.” They were still smarting from their loss.
But it’s almost a year and a half later. Ego is helluva drug and the Id doesn’t easily crack. I didn’t complete my Ph.D. in psychology but I learned enough to know denial when I see it. In psychoanalytic theory, we learned denial is a defense mechanism used to minimize our anxiety. To not admit truths allows us to refuse to accept those facts while remaining adamantly married to our own rigid ideas. In other words, a drone.
Intransigence from those who can’t admit success by this President where there clearly are successes is one such example, and that denial is forever changing the conservative landscape. One can argue Trump changed the landscape, and that’s a valid point. But his policies and appointments are most certainly as conservative as we have seen from any traditional Republican President, and would otherwise be supported by most everyone who values national security, smaller government, and economic policy. We can argue over his process but, so far, the results are unmistakable.
Those once highly respected “thinkers” have all but a few original fans left, while their new followers seep from the same free-speech-fearing, big-government-advocating corners who want the demise of the conservative movement. These people have been relegated to be used as weapons against the President by the antiquated news media and hysterical left (but I repeat myself), only to be eventually disposed of if and when the left regains total power.
To what ends? 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.
Hate to think they put themselves above country so maybe it’s just appearances. Remaining virtuous and just, and being right, means you can preen across social and print media. Some of these people are brilliant, well-read academics, historians, and their opinions used to matter. We would anticipate their every word (even if we couldn’t understand some of them) as we felt smarter for the time we invested.
No longer. 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.
Refusing to even acknowledge this President has beaten the odds and is becoming what may be one of the most pivotal presidents in modern times isn’t a right or left thing, it’s history. And for many of us, we see this group along with the unhinged left desperately attempt to rewrite history as it happens, all so they end up on the correct side.
If President Trump continues on his trajectory, over the next two/six and a half years the credibility factor of many of our former conservative icons will continue to diminish. Or, they can admit things aren’t Armageddon by simply saying “Hey, I may still not like him personally, but he’s achieving many of the same results I would have wanted of any Conservative President. Now let’s work together on the things we all agree on.”
Why is that so hard?
Published in General
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.