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:

  1. Trump was my guy all along. MAGA!
  2. 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.
  3. I didn’t vote for Trump, but the economy, courts, and geopolitics seem pretty, pretty good.
  4. 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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 264 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Jager (View Comment):
    His piece declares Trump awful, but Pence as even worse for having the gall to be a Vice President who supports the President. 

    While his piece wasn’t great I think it was the approving recognition of Arpaio that triggered it. 

    • #151
  2. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    Jager (View Comment):
    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.

    84% would make a really strong coalition.  I’d love it if George Will and Bill Kristol would join it – I think they could be big help.  But we don’t need them.  I haven’t read anything by either of them in months.  I don’t necessarily think that they’re wrong.  I just think they’re irrelevant.

    • #152
  3. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Glenn Reynolds often notes that the current political class is the worst in our history, I would say a similar thing about our conservative thinkers.  Our guardians of the conservative galaxy are denser than neutron stars.  They all quote Hayek and are wanabee Hayeks.  So how might the govt umbrella which Hayek notes comes with a large powerful  govt work in the 21 century?  For those who read about VDH’s life in Fresno, one can see one version of the modern umbrella.  For those labeled protected, one can build non-zoned housing and scab non-permitted electrical lines to the housing, and one can own unlicensed animals, some used for sport, and there will be no legal consequence.  However, if you are a citizen and have visible assets all work will be to code and will be fined heavily if one has the slightest infraction, because you know, the average citizen is not under the umbrella of govt protection.  Another version of the govt umbrella is seen in the case of Catherine Engelbrecht mentioned above.  She was aligned with a political party which espoused ideas which threatened the govt and as such  would not only be outside the protection of the govt umbrella but would be viewed by the state as a threat to the state.  Most recently we see that there are two classes of political leaders, those whose law breaking is ignored and those whose law breaking is prosecuted fully.  If you are under the umbrella of state protection, payoffs will be ignored, and you will not be compelled to testify under oath, your misdeeds will be hidden by the workers of the state, who will protect you, and punish your enemies.

    Now in comparison to the ink spent worrying that Trump will ruin the name of conservatism forever, or the Republican party, or fast food, has Jonah, or Will, or anyone written a Hayekian warning about the how the govt has become an even bigger protection racket and is our biggest threat? No.  When the Tea Party bloomed and produced political results as a result of an amazing grass roots movement, which of our wise pundits delighted in the emergence of a conservative movement made up of average Joes and Jills? None.  All of our conservative pundits have said that they were devoted to the long term health of the conservative movement and the country,  we all describe our beliefs in this self-serving way.  Not only do they not know about the middle of the country, but they have no personal insight and are totally blind to their own blind spots.  We are all blind to our own biases, but we should at least be curious how Trump the crude did better than Romney the gentleman in many demographic categories,  and how Trump the idiot is actually governing in a more conservative fashion than either Bush.  But, our conservative thinkers aren’t curious because they know all the answers, and they are no more interested in the deplorables than they are in the butterflies in a collection, once they have labeled us they loose interest.

    • #153
  4. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Still NeverTrump.  

    Please see my new post, “Any Republican would have won in 2016.”

    I am glad for the Courts, and lowering taxes regulations, but note that any Republican would have done that.  Instead of a conservative, we got an erratic populist who is terribly wrong on trade, and much worse on personal ethics.

    I hope that we can remedy our mistake in the 2020 primaries and can nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    • #154
  5. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    Why do we need dozens (probably hundreds) of posts hysterically decrying the great danger posed by “NeverTrumpers”?

    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.

    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.

    Pointed – even snippy. But not hysterical.

    And I just don’t think Dave was talking in terms of danger posed. None of the quotes you provided talks about dangers posed. Except perhaps by inference or extrapolation as I mentioned.

    Perhaps I’m pedantic by nature. I try not to be, but I truly think these words have meaningful differences related to the intended messages.

    • #155
  6. Buckpasser Member
    Buckpasser
    @Buckpasser

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Still NeverTrump.

    Please see my new post, “Any Republican would have won in 2016.”

    I am glad for the Courts, and lowering taxes regulations, but note that any Republican would have done that. Instead of a conservative, we got an erratic populist who is terribly wrong on trade, and much worse on personal ethics.

    I hope that we can remedy our mistake in the 2020 primaries and can nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    I think this one of the lesser issues that seem to be dividing us.  I’m in the camp that says Trump was the only Republican who could have beaten Hillary in 2016.  There are others that feel even Jim Gilmore could have beaten Hillary.  I would be interested to know where some of us fall in regards to the question of who would have defeated Hillary.

    • #156
  7. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    We aren’t talking about loyalty to Trump. We’re talking about loyalty to our side, loyalty to the cause of uniting against the Left.

    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.

    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.

    They can both go sit on a tack as my mom used to say.

    Something, something, shooting inside the tent.

    No They are the ones shooting inside the tent, and I am treating them accordingly.

    • #157
  8. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Agreed mostly. However, I disagree that our elected leaders are powerless to fix this. They can stop being timid, incompetent, or duplicitous. Or they can be replaced. Or the coalition can break up. I think we were close to the latter after 2012. Hopefully we just start to get the former instead. 

    As far as our thought leaders, they can stop entrenching themselves and the sooner the better. I believe someone earlier on this thread mentioned the need to stop digging before you can get yourself out of a hole. Good advice as thought leaders can be replaced too. I can hear the howls already so let me be specific: I am not calling on anyone to abandon principles or to change simply for President Trump or for some unthinking tribalism. 

    • #158
  9. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Still NeverTrump.

    Please see my new post, “Any Republican would have won in 2016.”

    I am glad for the Courts, and lowering taxes regulations, but note that any Republican would have done that. Instead of a conservative, we got an erratic populist who is terribly wrong on trade, and much worse on personal ethics.

    I hope that we can remedy our mistake in the 2020 primaries and can nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    Then you won’t get the “swing voters” who number some 42% of the populace. Not that Trump would get all of the 42% but he would do far better than Nikki Haley.

    You and others who see themselves as “longtime, die hard total conservatives” forget that just 37 some years ago the “longtime, die hard total conservatives” were nervous about Reagan’s economics team getting rid of meaningful tariffs. Part of their worry was that it would send jobs overseas.

    Which is exactly what happened.

    So I have no idea of what the real meaning of “conservatism” happens to be. Often it is a substitute for “I got mine – no one else should get a thing, especially not if it means restrictions on the banks which support the Investment Class which is really what this nation is about.”

    • #159
  10. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Still NeverTrump.

    Please see my new post, “Any Republican would have won in 2016.”

    I am glad for the Courts, and lowering taxes regulations, but note that any Republican would have done that. Instead of a conservative, we got an erratic populist who is terribly wrong on trade, and much worse on personal ethics.

    I hope that we can remedy our mistake in the 2020 primaries and can nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    While I didn’t see it during the primaries, I now see clearly that Trump is the only one of our supposedly deep bench who could have pulled this off. He rallied not only disenchanted Republicans, but also fed-up Democrats, just as Reagan did. Those people would never have voted for Cruz or Rubio or any of the others.

    • #160
  11. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    Buckpasser (View Comment):
    I would be interested to know where some of us fall in regards to the question of who would have defeated Hillary.

    I’m not sure about Jim Gilmore, but he never had a chance in the primary anyway.  In late 2015 and early 2016 I didn’t expect Trump to get the nomination and I expected whoever did get it to beat Hillary.  It was clearly the Republicans’ election to lose, and Trump nearly did.

    That said, Trump did win, he did it by appealing to a demographic that wasn’t previously on my radar, that demographic cares about some issues I think are important, and “serious” politicians generally refuse to talk about those issues.  I’ve learned from Trump, and I’m not willing to unlearn just because we might have been able to do it without him.

    • #161
  12. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    We aren’t talking about loyalty to Trump. We’re talking about loyalty to our side, loyalty to the cause of uniting against the Left.

    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.

    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.

    They can both go sit on a tack as my mom used to say.

    Something, something, shooting inside the tent.

    No They are the ones shooting inside the tent, and I am treating them accordingly.

    Yeah McConnel is reall thwarting Trump by confirming all those judges in record time. And Ryan, well we all famously remeber how he stood in the way of tax reform, kept the individual mandate and didn’t get a repeal of Obamacare passed this term. 

    Your comment is so devoid of facts it could be a CNN segment on Stormy Daniels. 

    • #162
  13. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Still NeverTrump.

    Please see my new post, “Any Republican would have won in 2016.”

    I am glad for the Courts, and lowering taxes regulations, but note that any Republican would have done that. Instead of a conservative, we got an erratic populist who is terribly wrong on trade, and much worse on personal ethics.

    I hope that we can remedy our mistake in the 2020 primaries and can nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    While I didn’t see it during the primaries, I now see clearly that Trump is the only one of our supposedly deep bench who could have pulled this off. He rallied not only disenchanted Republicans, but also fed-up Democrats, just as Reagan did. Those people would never have voted for Cruz or Rubio or any of the others.

    Both of you are arguing counterfactuals which are unhelpful and impossible to prove. They’re entirely based on emotion and supposition. 

    • #163
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):
    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.

    What are examples of GOP compromise that advanced the conservative agenda?

    • #164
  15. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):
    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.

    What are examples of GOP compromise that advanced the conservative agenda?

    The sequester. 

    • #165
  16. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):
    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.

    What are examples of GOP compromise that advanced the conservative agenda?

    The sequester.

    Heh. Something everyone hated. True compromise in DC! 

     

    • #166
  17. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):
    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.

    What are examples of GOP compromise that advanced the conservative agenda?

    There hasn’t been any and there won’t be any.  Compromise isn’t how we advance a conservative agenda.  It’s how we thwart a liberal agenda.  If you want to advance a conservative agenda, build a conservative majority.  That shouldn’t be confused with a Republican majority, at least 10% of which are not conservative.  I think a conservative majority is a pipe dream and we would do well to figure out the next best thing.

    • #167
  18. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):
    a new bread of Republican

    Sour Dough Republicans…..

    I’m here all week folks.

    It would be funny if that wasn’t at least the third time I made that exact same spelling error on Ricochet.

    • #168
  19. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):
    a new bread of Republican

    Sour Dough Republicans…..

    I’m here all week folks.

    It would be funny if that wasn’t at least the third time I made that exact same spelling error on Ricochet.

    Does that make Trump supporters Pizza Dough Republicans?

    • #169
  20. Dave Sussman Member
    Dave Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Hey folks. Love all the comments… even the one labeling some of my thoughts as ‘snippy’. Lol. Reminds me of Monty Python skits with British women yapping away while doing their laundry.

    There are some great points made here on both sides, although I still haven’t read any justification why the once-celebrated conservative thinkers are using their time and credibility to continually tear down this administration while good, conservative things are happening. At this point, to halt the cultural rot and ooze of post-modernist totalitarianism, we should get our house in order and work together. To me, that’s more dangerous than tweets.

    Yes, the NT’s maybe a smaller group now, but the MSM still allows them a large megaphone and given their pedestal by those on the Left who wish ill on ALL of us, no matter what number you are in the OP.

    So, that’s the point of my overly long and meandering vent. Thanks for everyone’s input. This is the beauty of having a platform like Ricochet where we can all have a say.

    Cheers,

    Dave

    • #170
  21. Drew, now with Dragon Energy! Member
    Drew, now with Dragon Energy!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    . . . I still haven’t read any justification why the once-celebrated conservative thinkers are using their time and credibility to continually tear down this administration while good, conservative things are happening.

    They seem unable to find the first step.

    • #171
  22. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

     

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins

    Still NeverTrump.

    Please see my new post, “Any Republican would have won in 2016.”


    And one of them did, and a bunch of them did not. Fancy that.

    • #172
  23. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    . . . I still haven’t read any justification why the once-celebrated conservative thinkers are using their time and credibility to continually tear down this administration while good, conservative things are happening.

    They seem unable to find the first step.

    I was thinking the same thing … the title perfectly sums up the issue and commentary.

    • #173
  24. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    although I still haven’t read any justification why the once-celebrated conservative thinkers are using their time and credibility to continually tear down this administration while good, conservative things are happening.

    Then you haven’t been listening to what some of us have been saying. We seem to have different time horizons. Those of us that criticize the President at this time aren’t trying to stop the good things nor do we begrudge them. We fear for the long-term health of the movement. Two recent articles in the Weekly Standard, one by Ben Shapiro, point to long-term trends, caused or exacerbated by Trump, that should worry any conservative. Namely: the coalition that elected Trump is dying and the generations that follow are greatly turned off by his rhetoric, behavior, and persona. They like many of his policies and the outcomes they produce but they don’t support them because of the man pushing them. More worrying still – they aren’t changing those opinions as they age. It’s less and less true that a person is liberal in their youth and becomes more conservative over time. People are being turned off by the conservative message and they stay turned off. 

    What good does it do us to repeal a few regulations through executive orders if we lose entire generations of Americans? 

    • #174
  25. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    What good does it do us to repeal a few regulations through executive orders if we lose entire generations of Americans? 

    It was a flight 93 election. Nothing beyond 2017 can possibly matter in a flight 93 election. 

    I used to argue the primary difference between conservatives and the political left was the utility discount rate applied to long-term benefits to offset against short term costs. I think that difference has largely shrunk, if not eliminated. 

    • #175
  26. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    A-Squared (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    What good does it do us to repeal a few regulations through executive orders if we lose entire generations of Americans?

    It was a flight 93 election. Nothing beyond 2017 can possibly matter in a flight 93 election.

    I used to argue the primary difference between conservatives and the political left was the utility discount rate applied to long-term benefits to offset against short term costs. I think that difference has largely shrunk, if not eliminated.

    As I have said before, the Left has been gaining ground that is never retaken by the Right for 70+ years. At some point, the Right has to fight back. We have already lost entire generations of Americans. Most likely, we have already lost the American Republic.

    The Republicans have been the party of “Us too, just 20 years later”. At some point, the voters have decided they wanted a change. The Old GOP is not coming back, and regardless of Trump winning or losing, it was over in this election. I like to think we landed the plane, instead of it crashing into a building. Only time will tell. 

    • #176
  27. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    As I have said before, the Left has been gaining ground that is never retaken by the Right for 70+ years.

    You keep saying it but it doesn’t make it true. 

    • #177
  28. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Rand Paul just told Hannity that Tump is more conservative than Bush one or two. 

    • #178
  29. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    As I have said before, the Left has been gaining ground that is never retaken by the Right for 70+ years.

    You keep saying it but it doesn’t make it true.

    It’s 100% true. At this point we literally have to adopt some socialist policy to go more conservative. Read “The End Is Near” by Kevin Williamson. 

    • #179
  30. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    although I still haven’t read any justification why the once-celebrated conservative thinkers are using their time and credibility to continually tear down this administration while good, conservative things are happening.

    Then you haven’t been listening to what some of us have been saying. We seem to have different time horizons. Those of us that criticize the President at this time aren’t trying to stop the good things nor do we begrudge them. We fear for the long-term health of the movement. Two recent articles in the Weekly Standard, one by Ben Shapiro, point to long-term trends, caused or exacerbated by Trump, that should worry any conservative. Namely: the coalition that elected Trump is dying and the generations that follow are greatly turned off by his rhetoric, behavior, and persona. SNIP More worrying still – they aren’t changing those opinions as they age. It’s less and less true that a person is liberal in their youth and becomes more conservative over time. People are being turned off by the conservative message and they stay turned off.

    What good does it do us to repeal a few regulations through executive orders if we lose entire generations of Americans?

    Simple answer would be – Why Worry; be happy. After all, if the Trump folks are dying off (thanks for the warning; I really do need to keep dr appointments, I guess) and younger people are  more liberal and “D” Party inclined, then in ten years everywhere in the US will be similar to California. Which will be absolutely fabulously spectacular if you are gay or hispanic, or if as a business owner you like cheap labor, but not so good if your situation is other than that.

    And I see no evidence whatsoever that Trump is more of a turn off to younger people than Goldwater, Mitt Rmoney, George W or any other conservative that can be named.

    And of course, at the top of both parties, very few people among the Elite care one bit about stopping immigration, reigning in the Big Financial institutions or much of the rest of it. The only real divide among the people at the top is the abortion issue.

    And I don’t think anyone voting for Trump worried much about the “A” issue. If it is jobs and paychecks people are seeking, as for eight years prior to a candidate running for office, the economy appointees like Geithner and Bernanke swiped Main Street’s money to hand massive Bailouts to Big Finance, abortion was not all that prominent a concern. In fact, Obama handing the country over to Big Banking might have promoted abortion rights. (After all, this thought occurs in a woman’s mind while her home is being foreclosed: “If I can’t feed the children I have now, am I filled with regret over using the morning after pill?”)

    • #180
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.