On Conservatism as Masochism

 

“Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The politician’s corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged,
I wept; for I had longed to see him hanged.”
— Hilaire Belloc

Perhaps, I thought, the man described as, “One of the true lords of the English language,” and one of the preeminent minds of the mid-19th and 20th centuries was forecasting the attitude of a great many 21st-century voters with respect to those politicians and thinkers they once held in high esteem.

I’ve been close to despair of late as it appears, to me at least, that the divide on the right has widened considerably, nearly reaching the point of irreconcilable differences where both parties no longer talk to each other but instead face each other while talking mainly to themselves. For those who respect certain minds on both sides of the divide, the feeling is one of dismay at what is fast becoming the political equivalent of being caught between divorced parents who each insist that we take one side over the other notwithstanding the fact that they both screwed up.

Into the fray comes National Review’s Jay Cost, and the result is a refreshingly calm voice arising from the tumult of reductionist stereotyping which shatters reason and pierces good intent. His article, “Mend The GOP, Don’t Burn It Down,” coming as it does from a person who admits, “During the 2016 presidential campaign, I was right there with many of the Never-Trumpers,” and adds that he, “…remain[s] chagrined by the low tone Trump has brought to office, which needlessly alienates would-be political allies and coarsens our civic discourse,” is candid, well reasoned, and needed.

“I confess that I know who is a conservative less surely than I know who is a liberal,” Bill Buckley wrote in 1963, adding:

Blindfold me, spin me about like a top and I will walk up to the single liberal in the room without zig or zag and find him even if he is hiding behind the flowerpot. I am tempted to try and develop an equally sure nose for the conservative, but I am deterred by the knowledge that conservatives, under the stress of our times, have had to invite all kinds of people into their ranks to help with the job at hand, and the natural courtesy of the conservative causes him to treat such people not as janissaries, but as equals; and so, empirically, it becomes difficult to see behind the khaki, to know surely whether that is a conservative over there doing what needs to be done, or a radical, or merely a noisemaker, or pyrotechnician since our ragtag army sometimes moves together in surprising uniformity, and there are exhilarating moments when everyone’s eye is right.

So it is that 55 years later, with an administration arguably as conservative in its governance as any in a generation, various factions on the right simultaneously lament the rise of tribalism while exercising their apparent tribal prerogative to read other factions out of the conservative movement. The ragtag army now moves in every direction with fratricide being the order of the day. One is tempted to review how it all began, but then one is confronted both with the reality that each side has its own version of the schism’s genesis, and with the possibility that it no longer matters all that much who started it.

I posted Jay Cost’s article on Facebook a few days ago and then had to speed off to work. What then unfolded was a very instructive 60-plus comment exchange between people I value as colleagues and friends. A gentleman whose perspectives I value despite the fact that we disagree at times writes to say that he agrees with Cost and asks, “…what can be done to bridge what I see as a widening divide?” His own diagnosis: “[T]he problem as I see it is that the current victors, the populist wing, refuses to be gracious in victory. They want their former NeverTrump opponents to grovel and have a come to Trump moment. I read yahoos like Kurt Schlichter and I want to scream. This is of course my own biased viewpoint but it’s how things look from my end.”

It took a moment to get over my initial impulse to redirect the gentleman’s point toward others on the right who refuse to be gracious in defeat, preferring instead to disparage President Trump’s voter base, and the President himself at every conceivable opportunity. From William Kristol to George Will, Rick Wilson, Jennifer Ruben to our own Mona Charen and others, one gets the impression that they would be physically incapable of even ordering cream and sugar with their coffee without offering a fresh dollop of invective toward the President and/or his voters.

As I say, that was my first impulse and I stifled it in part because I was at work and couldn’t really engage, and in part because that’s precisely the sort of response that usually dispatches people to their rhetorical bunkers from which they launch heavy artillery against their own side. That’s when another friend for whom I have enormous respect weighed in and defended Schlicter in wholesale fashion. Which, as predictable as the setting sun and the inanities escaping from between Maxine Waters’ ears, resulted in a passionate barrage from the first gentleman complete with provocative citations from Schlichter and descriptions of him that are not suitable for framing in a Sunday School room.

After an interesting exchange on the topic of trade, someone brought up Jonah Goldberg’s recent G-File piece, “When The Tide Comes In,” in which he laments, with some justification in my mind, the level to which some right-leaning provocateurs have descended, while recalling National Review and Bill Buckley’s efforts to distance themselves from the distasteful elements of the right many years ago. Which, again, ignited a burst of rhetorical fireworks and comments in the Facebook conversation in which — and I don’t mean to oversimplify here but there isn’t space enough to reproduce every remark these fine folks made — people seemed compelled to defend this or that writer to the ends of the earth while denigrating the writer cited by the opposing party in the conversation.

Am I alone in seeing a growth in this “all or nothing” approach to political thought? Look, I have enormous respect for Jonah Goldberg and have admired his articles and books — even going so far as mailing a copy of Liberal Fascism to a progressive friend of mine who promptly deemed the book “over-sourced.” I think his early misgivings about Donald Trump were entirely understandable and I was dismayed and angered by the level of ad hominem idiocy that then-candidate Trump unleashed on him in response.  For this reason alone, I can understand Jonah’s distaste for the man though I believe he has honestly tried to overcome personal animus and instead provide balanced analysis on matters of ideology, policy, and character.

One of the obvious advantages of such an approach is that it frees the observer to both criticize that which needs criticizing and praise that which is praiseworthy. If there is a compelling reason why such a liberating approach can be applied to presidents but not to pundits, I haven’t heard it. Because while there is much that I like and applaud in Jonah Goldberg’s analysis, there are one or two areas of difference. Similarly, I think parts of Kurt Schlichter’s critique are spot-on and need to be heard from every rooftop, but I can’t sign on to every single idea to which he gives voice.

At which point I look over at The Weekly Standard and read a piece called, “The Moral Ledger,” by Andy Smarick — and ponder the comparative enchantments of a monastery. From reading Mr. Smarick, it appears that anyone whose relationship with virtue is at least platonic must refrain from praising that which is praiseworthy in the Trump presidency and instead denounce the thing in toto:

Almost every leader in history has had some redeeming characteristic or some defensible initiative. Even profoundly objectionable figures and the profoundly objectionable systems they created were often able to persist because they provided some good to some number of people—the making-the-trains-run-on-time argument. But time judges unkindly those who cheered the timely trains. Some of history’s most ghastly arrangements have been defended by relentlessly pointing to some number of their benefits and turning a blind eye to their costs. This does more than debase debate, it does long-term harm: It serves as a conscience-protecting strategy exactly when our consciences shouldn’t be protected.

“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons,” observed Winston Churchill as he formalized the Anglo-Soviet Agreement of 1941 which saw the Allies make common cause with Joseph Stalin in the war against Adolph Hitler. “Ah, but you’ve invoked Godwin’s Law,” you say, “which holds that anytime you resuscitate the specter of Hitler you’ve lost the debate.” I neither know Mr. Godwin nor care for his law. “Well then,” you might counter, “are you trying to equate the election of 2016 with the mortal danger which faced the free world in World War II?” Not quite, I reply, though I’ll get around to that point in a moment — after you explain where, in Andy Smarick’s calculus, there is room for Churchill to do anything other than abstain from an alliance with Stalin regardless of the existential threat from Hitler’s Germany.

Because if history looks with disfavor, as Mr. Smarick contends in his allusion to Italy’s Mussolini, upon, “…those who cheered the timely trains,” why should it judge less harshly those who made common cause with a mass murderer? The answer is that thankfully, time, if not Andy Smarick’s Moral Ledger, tends to adjudicate fairly those imperfect mortals who, while operating within the fixed parameters of an imperfect world riddled with still more imperfect mortals and few if any perfect choices, still manage to advance the cause of human freedom. I should think it better to risk the rebuke of Messrs Smarick, Kristol, Will and others, in the cause of such advancement than to consign my grandchildren to a future pinned beneath the heavy boot of the progressive, omnipotent state from which they will ask, “how did this happen?” only to be told reassuringly, “because our consciences shouldn’t be protected.”

Ah well, perhaps we’ve finally stumbled upon the reason former President Obama removed that bust of Churchill from the Oval Office. And while we’re taking swings at those who either founded or helped save the nation, someone should retroactively demote Generals Patton, Eisenhower, and MacArthur, while posthumously impeaching Presidents Jefferson, FDR, JFK, and others who are reputed to have had adulterous affairs. And that’s just the executive branch. Exact the same standards of character on the judicial branch, Congress, and members of the press and the Washington DC real estate market would collapse faster than George H. W. Bush’s lips when he promised, “No. New Taxes.”

Does this mean that character is irrelevant when selecting and/or deciding whether or not to support a chief executive or public official? Of course not. But the context within which those decisions are made — including the options available at the time of the decision — is imminently relevant as well.

So here, without wholesale deferment to any particular writer, personality, politician or intellectual on the right, is my assessment:

First, repudiations of those who either reluctantly (like me) or enthusiastically voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 general election carry absolutely no weight with me absent a discussion of the electoral alternative. Maintaining that the choice was not binary is interesting but ultimately meaningless in light of the fact that the outcome was in fact going to be either the Republican or Democratic nominee. You may debate all you wish about how many jackasses can dance on the head of a political pin, but on election day in 2016, we were left with only two jackasses that had a prayer of becoming President, requiring us to choose what my boss likes to call, “the best bad option.”

Second, it is evidently now fashionable to disparage those who voted for Donald Trump on the ground that we are only concerned with “winning,” — with care taken to put the word in quotes as if this were some sort of sporting event in which people are driven solely by some idiotic devotion to a particular colored jersey.

When a gentleman of solid moral character who was faithful to his wife and devoted to his Christian faith set about “winning” in 1976, the result was 52 Americans held hostage in Iran as a country formerly on good terms with America sunk into the radical Islamic abyss; the Soviet Union was so emboldened by Carter’s weak and vacillating foreign policy that it sent the Red Army itself into Afghanistan; double-digit inflation and interest rates at home and a 7.5 percent unemployment rate helped introduce the term “malaise” into the American political lexicon; and something called the Misery Index grabbed the attention of a nation that was indeed miserable. But hey if you overlook Carter’s record of human misery at home and the enabling of evil abroad, you at least have a solid Moral Ledger … which is what happens when “winning,” for the right, gives way to “losing.”

It’s not merely “winning” to deny Iran the weapons it seeks to fulfill it’s professed maniacal goal of destroying both Israel and the US. It’s not merely “winning” to seriously address a nuclear-armed North Korea that was armed under a Democratic administration and then subject to bipartisan procrastination. It’s not merely “winning” to rein in an IRS that had been weaponized to target and abuse American citizens on the basis of their conservative political beliefs. It’s not merely “winning” to scale back (to the extent the GOP’s legislative spine permits) an attempt to turn the healthcare of a free people over to the tender mercies of faceless, unaccountable government bureaucrats. It’s not merely “winning” to return more of a worker’s wages to him or her on the assumption that the money belongs to them in the first place and not the government. It’s not merely “winning” when unemployment in the African American community drops to the lowest level in history. And it’s not merely “winning” when 26 circuit court judges are appointed and we stand an actual chance of breaking a judicial oligarchy in favor of jurists who view the Constitution as the law of the land rather than an obstacle to progressive social designs in which sovereign citizens become little more than lab rats at the hands of masterminds in black robes. Of course, not all of the above-listed items can be logged in the “success” category yet, but we know which way they would trend had we not started “winning.”

On the other hand, we certainly know what “losing” looks like. It looks like the exact opposite of the above-listed initiatives which many of us have been proposing for decades, along with the accompanying increase in — you guessed it — human misery. “Losing” would also look like the return of the political equivalent of the Gambino family to American politics, with a level of corruption not seen since — well, since the last time the Clintons resided in the White House. And make no mistake, “losing” would mean the American people “losing” more of their constitutional rights, more of their property, and more of their safety as the defense of citizens from both domestic and foreign mischief would take a back seat to emasculated police departments at home and an eviscerated military deterrent elsewhere, as Ambassador Chris Stevens might himself observe had he not died in 2012 when the American Left was busy “winning.”

Third, I remember hearing from various quarters that the 2016 election was not an existential event in America’s history. “One single election will not doom America,” said those who dismissed the concerns of many Americans that the nation had reached a tipping point. And it may very well be true that “one election” can’t undo the nation. But a series of elections and a series of capitulations can have a cumulative effect that turns a single election into a pivotal event, no? Otherwise, there is no such thing as a “point of no return,” and things can keep degenerating indefinitely with no serious repercussion. But that can’t be true either, because we keep hearing approving citations of Ronald Reagan’s warning that, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Well, which is it, then?

Finally, I submit that from the standpoint of conservative governance, the victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton was a net positive and, frankly, I’m dismayed such a point should even be considered contentious on the right side of the political equation. Is the man a moral paragon? Nope. Was Hillary? Nope. When neither candidate meets the Moral Ledger test, what do you do? Go for the “best bad option,” or sit it out and throw spitballs at those who have the courage to at least try for the best possible outcome, given the circumstances, for future generations?  Evidently, that last alternative has become a way of life for far too many people.

“What can be done to bridge what I see as a widening divide?” my friend asks. Perhaps accepting as a given that there are “pyrotechnicians” to use WFB’s term, on both sides of the divide who will use incendiary rhetoric for the fun of it, and then resisting the urge to give them the satisfaction they seek. Then, accepting that some of these differences are simply and honestly irreconcilable, perhaps we can move beyond the “all or nothing” advocacy of politicians and pundits to find common ground where it exists, offer encouragement where needed, alternative ideas where necessary, and praise when earned. Simple prescription, difficult to practice, but it doesn’t hurt to try. There’s no need for conservatism to be masochistic.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 90 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Dave Sussman Member
    Dave Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Dave please realize that when you use such pundits as exemplars of you beliefs that it drives the wedge deeper. If you you’re interested in bridging this divide then I suggest you rethink your reliance on pundits who hit first and think second. 

    I don’t agree with ANY one author or pundit 100% of the time (including some notables associated with Ricochet). They are human beings who stub their toes like the rest of us, and sometimes when they have a bad day, they write really insulting, crappy articles (as we discussed last week).

    Doesn’t mean I disrespect their most ardent fans or even the author themselves as outside of the insults, there is also a lot they write I agree with.

    Why do I find myself in a defensive position here because you don’t like a particular writer? We simply disagree, that’s all. 

    Maybe I just don’t understand the either/or approach to bridging a divide. 

    • #31
  2. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Dave please realize that when you use such pundits as exemplars of you beliefs that it drives the wedge deeper. If you you’re interested in bridging this divide then I suggest you rethink your reliance on pundits who hit first and think second.

    I don’t agree with ANY one author or pundit 100% of the time (including some notables associated with Ricochet). They are human beings who stub their toes like the rest of us, and sometimes when they have a bad day, they write really insulting, crappy articles (as we discussed last week).

    Doesn’t mean I disrespect their most ardent fans or even the author themselves as outside of the insults, there is also a lot they write I agree with.

    Why do I find myself in a defensive position here because you don’t like a particular writer? We simply disagree, that’s all.

    Maybe I just don’t understand the either/or approach to bridging a divide.

    I’m trying to come to some sort of consensus over how we can move forward. Avoiding incidiary pundits on both sides seems like a good place to start. 

    • #32
  3. Dave Sussman Member
    Dave Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Dave please realize that when you use such pundits as exemplars of you beliefs that it drives the wedge deeper. If you you’re interested in bridging this divide then I suggest you rethink your reliance on pundits who hit first and think second.

    I don’t agree with ANY one author or pundit 100% of the time (including some notables associated with Ricochet). They are human beings who stub their toes like the rest of us, and sometimes when they have a bad day, they write really insulting, crappy articles (as we discussed last week).

    Doesn’t mean I disrespect their most ardent fans or even the author themselves as outside of the insults, there is also a lot they write I agree with.

    Why do I find myself in a defensive position here because you don’t like a particular writer? We simply disagree, that’s all.

    Maybe I just don’t understand the either/or approach to bridging a divide.

    I’m trying to come to some sort of consensus over how we can move forward. Avoiding incidiary pundits on both sides seems like a good place to start.

    So should we make a list of everyone we read? ;)

    Remind me not to get into an argument with you about your favorite sci-fi series.

    • #33
  4. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Dave please realize that when you use such pundits as exemplars of you beliefs that it drives the wedge deeper. If you you’re interested in bridging this divide then I suggest you rethink your reliance on pundits who hit first and think second.

    I don’t agree with ANY one author or pundit 100% of the time (including some notables associated with Ricochet). They are human beings who stub their toes like the rest of us, and sometimes when they have a bad day, they write really insulting, crappy articles (as we discussed last week).

    Doesn’t mean I disrespect their most ardent fans or even the author themselves as outside of the insults, there is also a lot they write I agree with.

    Why do I find myself in a defensive position here because you don’t like a particular writer? We simply disagree, that’s all.

    Maybe I just don’t understand the either/or approach to bridging a divide.

    I’m trying to come to some sort of consensus over how we can move forward. Avoiding incidiary pundits on both sides seems like a good place to start.

    So should we make a list of everyone we read? ;)

    Remind me not to get into an argument with you about your favorite sci-fi series.

    Everyone knows it’s Babylon 5. 

    • #34
  5. toggle Inactive
    toggle
    @toggle

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    fear that the movement may win this battle at the expense of the war: turning off large swaths of the electorate like suburban housewives and millennial/younger generations.

    “millennial/younger generations” are the ones who will win the war ?

    We were all once a “millennial.” Then we grew up. The transition from being born with a heart; then developing a brain.

    And these suburban housewives ? There are those who identify with their blue city but there are more who don’t live near one and who recognize claptrap. And live better lives.

    A fear of a millennial/housewife movement is a kin to the acceptance of media propaganda trying to convince that 20% of the population is gay, and now, 10% or more, are trans. It ain’t so.

    Fear not. 4.1 growth and full employment has a way to keep the loony youth and wayward wives at bay, and bring forth those who vote for more of it.

     

    • #35
  6. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Member
    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen
    @tommeyer

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Kurt’s snarky hit pieces against the DC elitists may not speak to you, but he writes his truth and that of many conservatives who feel GOPe have been feckless for 40 years, feathering their own nest while selling America off piece-by-piece to the cultural Marxists. He hits them hard, but I wouldn’t suggest that makes him untrustworthy. In fact, he writes how he talks and for many, it’s just a light-hearted way to deal with tragedy.

    @davesussman, my main issue with Schlicter (based on what I’ve read) is that he accuses everyone who’s more critical of Trump than him of being motivated purely by graft and contempt while presenting himself as a True Knight of the Republic. It’s 98% lazy invective, maybe 2% substantive, and and every bit as preening and venal* as the other side can be.

    * An article from a popular writer on Townhall.com that spends paragraphs breathlessly condemning Conservative, Inc. as as a wind-up for promoting his new book is an impressive work of performance art.

    • #36
  7. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Honest, guys,…I’m really going to comment. But it’s my one day off and one of my favorite haunts beckons me for lunch and I cannot say no.

    Remorsefully Yours,

    Dave

    • #37
  8. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Nanda Pajama-Tantrum (View Comment):

    Appreciated, Dave!

    Thank ya kindly Miss Pajama-Tantrum! I think Alphonse will be making a spectacle of himself on the podcast again soon.  

    • #38
  9. Dave Sussman Member
    Dave Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen (View Comment):
    * An article from a popular writer on Townhall.com that spends paragraphs breathlessly condemning Conservative, Inc. as as a wind-up for promoting his new book is an impressive work of performance art.

    Yeah because no one else promotes their latest book when doing articles.

    This conversation is so much bigger than one snarky contributor that you guys don’t like. It goes back to Dave’s original point about winning.

    The patricians bring words to a gun fight, and as a huge Buckley fan I’m all for reasoned, diplomatic and tempered discourse, but the Left use a Gatlin gun of lies, putting each of us right-of-center types on our back heels. If we don’t agree lockstep with the Left, we are racist, sexist, homophobes distilling moonshine with our daughter-wives. Now they are curtailing your free speech online while we argue amongst ourselves about conservative writers who hurt ‘muh feelings’.

    Trump wins because many of us diplomatic, reason and tempered conservatives watched what they did to Romney, Bush and anyone else who had the sheer gall to run for office with an R next to their names. Most of us have had enough. I’ve had enough and feel like we balancing on a very shaky tightrope when it comes to our first amendment rights.

    So, since Patton isn’t available, I want the abrasive Colonel/Trial-Lawyer in my foxhole.

    Yes, it is about winning and maybe getting a thicker skin. The Left wants us dead as we are the last line of defense before they realize More’s Utopia. Whether one considers themselves an intelligent Coolidge/Reagan sophisticate or a MAGA hat wearing Trump rally attendee, we are all enemy number one to the Left and without a robust offense, we will be steamrolled.

    • #39
  10. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Finally, I submit that from the standpoint of conservative governance, the victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton was a net positive and, frankly, I’m dismayed such a point should even be considered contentious on the right side of the political equation.

    The inclusion of the alternative choice (HRC) makes this hard to dispute. But the “contentious” part has two aspects: 1) We aren’t done with this Administration yet; there’s more to come with the possibility of good and bad, and 2) Omitting any consideration of Clinton, it’s at least possible that this Administration could poison the well (brand) of true conservatism by means of one or two “big” errors. I have my devil’s advocate hat on to an extent here, but I can understand those who see Trump as potentially a threat to conservatism’s long term brand. I do wish the arguments were made with a bit more substance, however.

    I agree that the chances of a backlash are there. I will, however, take the chance that things could backfire, over the certainty that they would have already backfired horribly by now had the election gone the other way. There is always a risk involved when action is taken, always a chance of backlash. How much worse, however, to cede the contest and go directly to the results of a backlash without having at least gotten a few positive things done? 

    It’s analogous, in my mind, to having a house with leaky plumbing that needs attention. The only problem is that the house is in the valley and the dam further up in the hills is about to break. A great many people on the right seemed preoccupied with the leaky plumbing in the house and are ignoring the impending catastrophe if that dam isn’t saved. 

    • #40
  11. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen (View Comment):
    * An article from a popular writer on Townhall.com that spends paragraphs breathlessly condemning Conservative, Inc. as as a wind-up for promoting his new book is an impressive work of performance art.

    Yeah because no one else promotes their latest book when doing articles.

    This conversation is so much bigger than one snarky contributor that you guys don’t like. It goes back to Dave’s original point about winning.

    The patricians bring words to a gun fight, and as a huge Buckley fan I’m all for reasoned, diplomatic and tempered discourse, the Left use a Gatlin gun of lies, putting each of us right-of-center types on our back heels. If we don’t agree lockstep with the Left, we are racist, sexist, homophobes distilling moonshine with our daughter-wives. Now they are curtailing your free speech online while we argue amongst ourselves about conservative writers who hurt ‘muh feelings’.

    Trump wins because many of us diplomatic, reason and tempered conservatives watched what they did to Romney, Bush and anyone else who had the sheer gall to run for office with an R next to their names. Most of us have had enough. I’ve had enough and feel like we balancing on a very shaky tightrope when it comes to our first amendment rights.

    So, since Patton isn’t available, I want the abrasive Colonel/Trial-Lawyer in my foxhole.

    Yes, it IS about winning and maybe getting a thicker skin. The Left wants us dead as we are the last line of defense for them to realize More’s Utopia. Whether one considers themselves a sophisticated intelligent Coolidge/Reagan sophisticate or a MAGA hat wearing Trump rally attendee, we are all enemy number one to the Left and without a robust offense, we will be steamrolled.

    Buckley somehow managed to build an entire movement without pushing the pyrotechnicians and “won” by electing Reagan.

    I don’t subscribe to your disagnosis not treatment plan on this.  

    • #41
  12. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Here’s something I’ve been trying to get across lately and let me see if this makes sense to anyone:

    The illogic at the heart of the “Winning!” mentality is that it assumes this is a game with a final outcome. That somehow if we just win enough the left will go away and Conservative utopia will be realized. That’s not how this works. The left will always be with us. The pendulum always swings. The question is do we want wild swings from side to side all the time or do we want subtle swings and push the pivot point to the right over time. 

    • #42
  13. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    Dave Carter: “What can be done to bridge what I see as a widening divide?” my friend asks. Perhaps accepting as a given that there are “pyrotechnicians” to use WFB’s term, on both sides of the divide who will use incendiary rhetoric for the fun of it, and then resisting the urge to give them the satisfaction they seek.

    I think this is a good point, and that there are roughly two types of satisfaction such a “pyrotechnician” can seek: one is trolling his opponents, the other is adulation from his fans who feast on the “red meat” he provides them. If the rule is to resist giving pyrotechnicians the satisfaction they seek, resistance to giving both types of satisfaction is possible.

    For example, it’s possible to be a massive fan of Salena Zito’s without being any fan of Kurt Schlicter’s, since Schlichter is a pyrotechnician and Zito isn’t. Zito goes out of her way to make her writing accessible to those who aren’t already convinced. Schlichter, not so much.

    Verbal pyrotechnics can be quite satisfying, but the price of piling ’em high often seems to be less room for breadth.

    I’m not as well versed in the latest terminology as I used to be, so I’m not sure if term “trolling,” means more than needlessly antagonizing the opposition or if it is more inclusive.  If that’s the meaning, I’d have to say that sometimes the opposition in fact needs to be antagonized.  Perhaps not with streams of vulgarity, and certainly not everyone in the opposition all the time, needs to be rhetorically lambasted. I prefer humor, mockery, and any number of devices that will spotlight the idiocy, for example, of redistributionists, limousine liberals who are generous to the last dollar of someone else’s earnings, etc.  But that’s my preference and I don’t suggest everyone follow it or even subscribe to it. 

    And I wonder if we confuse the “adulation of one’s fans,” with the need to reinforce morale on our side. Or perhaps that’s yet a third use for the pyrotechnician? Either way, I can see a use for the occasional pep rally, and I have no problem with people who are especially adept at it. I haven’t ready Kurt Schlicter enough to know if that’s his gig or not. If it’s not my particular brand of advocacy, I move along to something I prefer and trust others to do the same. 

    • #43
  14. Dave Sussman Member
    Dave Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Here’s something I’ve been trying to get across lately and let me see if this makes sense to anyone:

    The illogic at the heart of the “Winning!” mentality is that it assumes this is a game with a final outcome. That somehow if we just win enough the left will go away and Conservative utopia will be realized. That’s not how this works. The left will always be with us. The pendulum always swings. The question is do we want wild swings from side to side all the time or do we want subtle swings and push the pivot point to the right over time.

    Agreed, but you cannot separate political wins, as if it’s simply a sport, from their very real impact.

    You cannot argue with the benefits of appointing generational SCOTUS leaning conservatives. You cannot argue with the mass repeal of job-killing regulations. You cannot argue with actual results (4.1GDP for starters). And you cannot argue with the geopolitical strength that (so far) making the world more secure.

    You are correct that it’s not a game that ends. And that’s why we must never give in. 

     

     

    • #44
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Here’s something I’ve been trying to get across lately and let me see if this makes sense to anyone:

    The illogic at the heart of the “Winning!” mentality is that it assumes this is a game with a final outcome. That somehow if we just win enough the left will go away and Conservative utopia will be realized. That’s not how this works. The left will always be with us. The pendulum always swings. The question is do we want wild swings from side to side all the time or do we want subtle swings and push the pivot point to the right over time.

    Jamie, the very use of the tense in “Winning” shows we don’t think anything of the sort. 

    No Trump supporter has said anything about the creation of a utopia. (Indeed, utopia is for leftists and libertarians). 

    No one is saying “we have won”. 

    Now, if you want to talk wild swings, it was way, way to the left. I find Trump moving us back to the center, but not to the hard right at all. 

     

    • #45
  16. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Here’s something I’ve been trying to get across lately and let me see if this makes sense to anyone:

    The illogic at the heart of the “Winning!” mentality is that it assumes this is a game with a final outcome. That somehow if we just win enough the left will go away and Conservative utopia will be realized. That’s not how this works. The left will always be with us. The pendulum always swings. The question is do we want wild swings from side to side all the time or do we want subtle swings and push the pivot point to the right over time.

    Nonsense. Conservatives don’t believe in utopia. One side of this dispute thinks it’s acceptable to fight a rear-guard action against an aggressive, ruthless, and ascendant Left, and the other wants to engage the enemy on the battlefield they currently occupy. We’re not trying to create utopia; we’re trying to take back the ground once won for liberty.

    And, frankly, you guys are just an obstacle with your timid incrementalism. IMHO.

    • #46
  17. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Here’s something I’ve been trying to get across lately and let me see if this makes sense to anyone:

    The illogic at the heart of the “Winning!” mentality is that it assumes this is a game with a final outcome. That somehow if we just win enough the left will go away and Conservative utopia will be realized. That’s not how this works. The left will always be with us. The pendulum always swings. The question is do we want wild swings from side to side all the time or do we want subtle swings and push the pivot point to the right over time.

    Agreed, but you cannot separate political wins, as if it’s simply a sport, from their very real impact.

    You cannot argue with the benefits of appointing generational SCOTUS leaning conservatives. You cannot argue with the mass repeal of job-killing regulations. You cannot argue with actual results (4.1GDP for starters). And you cannot argue with the geopolitical strength that (so far) making the world more secure.

    You are correct that it’s not a game that ends. And that’s why we must never give in.

     

     

    Again no one is arguing that those aren’t good things (if they are then point me at them). I will quibble with you on the regulations as discussions I’ve had with administrative law professionals are making me realize that most of the action on regulations so far has been along the lines of studies and press releases – I’m willing to give some leeway here as repealing regulations is hard and takes time. The problem is we’re claiming ultimate winning when the reality is a little more moderate. The GDP trend line hasn’t changed – its been on essentially the same path since 2010, I’m hoping there is a Trump effect on the economy but so far what we’re seeing is pretty standard business cycle stuff. In what was has the world been made more secure? I commend heartily the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem and the defeat of ISIS in Iraq/Syria (there’s still more work to do there) – but we haven’t entered into some new Pax Americana over the last 18months. 

    • #47
  18. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Thank you, @davecarter for a thoughtful piece and an attempt at bridging the divide. I don’t have much of a comment to offer here, other than that I found the piece unsatisfying in answering the question at the root of it. The bulk being a rehash of arguments we have all done to death is part of that unsatisfying feeling I have – which is probably unhelpful on my part to any discussion on this issue going forward.

    I think for me it boils down to this: While Buckley saw the need to accommodate the pyrotechnicians in any movement, I doubt he would be sanguine with elevating the pyrotechnicians to the forefront of a moment, to build one’s movement around pyrotechnics is to offer a lot of bang, heat and ephemeral light that dissipates quickly into the cold night air. This is the problem with the divide right now, the elevation of pyrotechnicians at the expense of thought leaders. That is a recipe for a movement that doesn’t get much done over the long term. Buckley was after all, at the forefront of defenestrating many of the more vile pyrotechnicians on the right in his day.

    While I can sympathize with many of the reasons you lay out here in support of your side of the current conservative divide, I think that it betrays short-term thinking to simply ignore the excesses of the pyrotechnicians (after all explosives from time to time tend to blow up the guy deploying them). If as you indicate we are in an existential crisis then it is even more incumbent on us to build a movement that includes the very people the pyrotechnicians are currently trying to drive away. I fear that the movement may win this battle at the expense of the war: turning off large swaths of the electorate like suburban housewives and millennial/younger generations. The current insanity of the left works in our favor, but only to a point. A truly socialist president as a reaction to the excesses of conservative pyrotechnics could be truly disastrous.

    I guess I did have a comment to offer but I remain unsatisfied in both your answer and my own. I remain worried about the future of the movement and the country.

    Hey @jamielockett, thank you sir, for taking the time to read and consider, and comment.  I didn’t expect you would heartily sign on to all  I had to say,…but I hope a few of the points resonated.  

    I know I put an awful lot of items and points on the table here (some of it unrelated to the discussion on social media,…and that was for a variety of reasons. I have largely eschewed jumping into the many Trump-related conversations here, in part because they were so tendentious and my time is so limited that I didn’t want to spend it throwing kitchen sinks at people I respect.  

    I had been mulling over a few questions with respect to Jonah Goldberg’s new book, and I’ve been increasingly dismayed by the tendency, on the part of some, to refuse the good things the administration has done and instead harp and criticize in nearly perfect harmony with MSNBC. Likewise, it seemed that President Trump could trample various tenets of conservatism that have been championed for years, and the very people who championed those principles will abandon their own positions so fast they’d need neck braces.  

    So I was increasingly dismayed by all of it.  At which point this sardonic “winning” meme caught on. Then the Moral Ledger piece hit the streets and I felt I simply had to break my silence and answer these points from my own perspective.  I’ve spent the last couple of weeks fleshing all this out when the social media exchange took place and the perspective took final shape.  

    So that’s why this piece turned into the Golden Corral all-you-can-eat-buffet of columns,…but as I say, I wanted to put my thoughts on the subject in one place and be done with it.  

    Again, thanks for hanging in there, even though I knew you’d see certain points differently.  I too remain very worried about the future of the country. Hopefully we can celebrate the good things and work to change the bad using our respective talents and approaches. 

    • #48
  19. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Here’s something I’ve been trying to get across lately and let me see if this makes sense to anyone:

    The illogic at the heart of the “Winning!” mentality is that it assumes this is a game with a final outcome. That somehow if we just win enough the left will go away and Conservative utopia will be realized. That’s not how this works. The left will always be with us. The pendulum always swings. The question is do we want wild swings from side to side all the time or do we want subtle swings and push the pivot point to the right over time.

    Nonsense. Conservatives don’t believe in utopia. One side of this dispute thinks it’s acceptable to fight a rear-guard action against an aggressive, ruthless, and ascendant Left, and the other wants to engage the enemy on the battlefield they currently occupy. We’re not trying to create utopia; we’re trying to take back the ground once won for liberty.

    And, frankly, you guys are just an obstacle with your timid incrementalism. IMHO.

    Incrementalism is the only way lasting change happens. Ask President Obama how wild swings in politics works out for the long term. 

    • #49
  20. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    This is the problem with the divide right now, the elevation of pyrotechnicians at the expense of thought leaders.

    I would agree if those ‘pyrotechnicians’ were lacking substance to back up their bluster. Provocateurs doing provocative things simply for the sake of being provocative get’s old quickly.

    However, as per Dave’s thoughtful piece, I think it does a disservice to ignore a writer or pundit’s larger points because they exhibit abrasive prose that may offend some. We shouldn’t diminish the macro issues because they are made in a sometimes less-than-gentle prodding.

    At some point, though, the bluster-to-substance ration is no longer worth it. Where that point is may differ for different people, and I don’t think it should be considered a sin for conservatives to not all set their cutoff at the same ratio.

    What can be frustrating is when an attitude of “Oh, that pundit just isn’t for me” doesn’t fulfill apparent expectations that that particular pundit (and possibly also that pundit’s fans) be either denounced or embraced.

    A thousand times, yes!  

    • #50
  21. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    This is the problem with the divide right now, the elevation of pyrotechnicians at the expense of thought leaders.

    I would agree if those ‘pyrotechnicians’ were lacking substance to back up their bluster. Provocateurs doing provocative things simply for the sake of being provocative get’s old quickly.

    However, as per Dave’s thoughtful piece, I think it does a disservice to ignore a writer or pundit’s larger points because they exhibit abrasive prose that may offend some. We shouldn’t diminish the macro issues because they are made in a sometimes less-than-gentle prodding.

    As far as who is and isn’t considered a ‘thought leader’, that’s in the eye of the beholder. Conservatism is a high-end buffet, and I always enjoy a little side of pot-stirring with my intellectual steak.

    We just have different estimations of the substance behind the bluster. That’s okay, it’s just we need to know this when having discussions and avoid trying to find common ground using incidiary pundits.

    Ill stop quoting Bill Kristol and you save Kurt Schlichter for your MAGA buddies. Deal?

    Does that mean I have to get a hat?

    I’ll send you one.

    With a propellor? 

    • #51
  22. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    @davecarter I’m sorry to say mate, but I’m unfollowing your thread. It’s clear that the answers to the question you were attempting in your OP won’t be found in these comments. 

    Good luck and I can’t wait for the next podcast. 

    • #52
  23. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Dave Carter (View Comment):
    I’m not as well versed in the latest terminology as I used to be, so I’m not sure if term “trolling,” means more than needlessly antagonizing the opposition or if it is more inclusive.

    In context, it meant more like needlessly antagonizing your allies — or those who would be allies if they weren’t being needlessly antagonized.

    Some folks say “always shoot left”, which is well and good by itself. But it’s cheap to say that, then label members of the right’s coalition who tick you off  “leftists” to justify shooting at them as if they were really leftists when they’re not.

    • #53
  24. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Dave please realize that when you use such pundits as exemplars of you beliefs that it drives the wedge deeper. If you you’re interested in bridging this divide then I suggest you rethink your reliance on pundits who hit first and think second.

    I don’t agree with ANY one author or pundit 100% of the time (including some notables associated with Ricochet). They are human beings who stub their toes like the rest of us, and sometimes when they have a bad day, they write really insulting, crappy articles (as we discussed last week).

    Doesn’t mean I disrespect their most ardent fans or even the author themselves as outside of the insults, there is also a lot they write I agree with.

    Why do I find myself in a defensive position here because you don’t like a particular writer? We simply disagree, that’s all.

    Maybe I just don’t understand the either/or approach to bridging a divide.

    I’m trying to come to some sort of consensus over how we can move forward. Avoiding incidiary pundits on both sides seems like a good place to start.

    So should we make a list of everyone we read? ;)

    Remind me not to get into an argument with you about your favorite sci-fi series.

    Fair point, Dave.  And I don’t even read any sci-fi books.  If, however, you don’t enjoy a good George Carlin book, then I’m afraid we can’t be friends anymore. 

    • #54
  25. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Dave, you nailed it. Well said, sir.

    When we finally actually meet, Ima kiss you right on the lips.

    Inna totally non-gay way, of course.

    Keep doing what you’re doing, brother.

    Thank you sir!!  And Ima make you buy dinner. Inna non-gay way as well, naturally. 

    And thanks for the kudos,…high praise indeed coming from you! 

    • #55
  26. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Member
    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen
    @tommeyer

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    One side of this dispute thinks it’s acceptable to fight a rear-guard action against an aggressive, ruthless, and ascendant Left, and the other wants to engage the enemy on the battlefield they currently occupy. We’re not trying to create utopia; we’re trying to take back the ground once won for liberty.

    And, frankly, you guys are just an obstacle with your timid incrementalism. IMHO.

    I spent a lot of time reading and thinking about @davecarter‘s thread, trying both to understand his side’s position better and to see where we can find common ground. Dave, clearly, put much more time and effort into writing it.

    Comments like this suggest that we both wasted our time. Unfollowing.

    • #56
  27. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The pendulum always swings. The question is do we want wild swings from side to side all the time or do we want subtle swings and push the pivot point to the right over time. 

    There are at least a couple of problems with this question. First is that this pendulum has been swinging further left for a hundred years. It never seems to find the original center, if we could even define that center, and stay there. It just comes back far enough right to almost get to that center and then moves further left again, taking the center with it. Secondly, how can anyone control that pendulum in such a way that it does stay balanced. I don’t think it can be done. And I agree with <span class="atwho-inserted" contenteditable="false" data-atwho-at-query="@Bryang“>@bryangstephens. Trump is certainly not a far right guy. When he was in the primaries, mine and most conservatives/Republicans were afraid of just the opposite, that Trump was a closet liberal/Democrat running to steal the nomination. How many people pointed to Trump’s past donations to Democrats?

    • #57
  28. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Finally, I submit that from the standpoint of conservative governance, the victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton was a net positive and, frankly, I’m dismayed such a point should even be considered contentious on the right side of the political equation.

    The inclusion of the alternative choice (HRC) makes this hard to dispute. But the “contentious” part has two aspects: 1) We aren’t done with this Administration yet; there’s more to come with the possibility of good and bad, and 2) Omitting any consideration of Clinton, it’s at least possible that this Administration could poison the well (brand) of true conservatism by means of one or two “big” errors. I have my devil’s advocate hat on to an extent here, but I can understand those who see Trump as potentially a threat to conservatism’s long term brand. I do wish the arguments were made with a bit more substance, however.

    I can understand too. However, the conservative brand is already on life support. Has been for decades or longer. Heck, that’s even assuming we can agree to a definition of what conservatism actually means; I think even Ricochet has failed to do so in all of the attempts I’ve seen. 

    Here’s a Gallup poll from end of 2017 showing Americans’ self identification:

    Americans’ Ideological Views, by Year

    It shows that team red is down recently and team blue is up (team gray is down too). What I notice is that team red is no worse than it was at the end of the HW Bush term. What I suspect (speculate, really) is that team gray is actually mostly liberal (Clinton wing) while team blue ranges from progressive to outright socialist (Bernie wing). I view this as the poll catching up to reality that moderate mostly means liberal with a few exceptions. 

    Can things get worse? Yeah there’s some room for that. But conservatism (as I see it) is already scraping the bottom culturally and politically. Republicans have not been a good vehicle for conservatism since the 90’s, and even then it was limited and we continued to face cultural erosion. 

    What potential big errors are unique to President Trump as opposed to other Republicans or any president? If there is little risk unique to Trump then I really don’t see why we should worry about it more than we’d worry for anyone else. Of course this is one of the big disagreements: some people do see unique risks to Trump. I remain unconvinced, and instead I actually see unique opportunities. 

    • #58
  29. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    While I can sympathize with many of the reasons you lay out here in support of your side of the current conservative divide, I think that it betrays short-term thinking to simply ignore the excesses of the pyrotechnicians (after all explosives from time to time tend to blow up the guy deploying them). If as you indicate we are in an existential crisis then it is even more incumbent on us to build a movement that includes the very people the pyrotechnicians are currently trying to drive away. I fear that the movement may win this battle at the expense of the war: turning off large swaths of the electorate like suburban housewives and millennial/younger generations.

    You’re ok with Buckley defenestrating and reading out of the movement those you consider to be pyrotechnicians, but then you lament others trying to do the same to those they consider to be timid, incompetent, duplicitous. I get it, and this is why a bridge needs to be built. However, I actually don’ think it’s the same thing at play. Buckley defenestrated and drove off specific people and movements; he had the influence to do so (to the extent he was actually successful instead of simply converting these people into reluctant or underground Republicans) because gatekeeping and focused media was a thing then. Now, people seem to be running over the bridges and burning as they go. I used to like Goldberg and Kristol – now everything they do is driven by or tainted by their apparent Trump distaste. I’m not driving them out – IMO they are welcome to reclaim their places within the movement, but I don’t think they can get over their Trump distaste to do so. 

    Regarding millennials, isn’t it a truism that the young are inherently turned off from conservatism? To the extent that conservatism has fallen so far behind in the culture, I think that truism gets magnified/amplified regardless of Trump. 

    Suburban housewives are entirely different. To the extent that such a thing actually exists anymore, I don’t think that segment was ever conservative. Moderate maybe. At least since the 90’s. Look at the Chicago suburbs for example. The suburbs used to be a Republican bastion which is why IL had Republican government into the early 90’s. Now those places are blue too – and so is the state. Has nothing to do with Trump. 

    • #59
  30. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen (View Comment):

    Dave Carter:

    I’ve been close to despair of late as it appears, to me at least, that the divide on the right has widened considerably, nearly reaching the point of irreconcilable differences where both parties no longer talk to each other but instead face each other while talking mainly to themselves. For those who respect certain minds on both sides of the divide, the feeling is one of dismay at what is fast becoming the political equivalent of being caught between divorced parents who each insist that we take one side over the other notwithstanding the fact that they both screwed up.

    Echoing Jamie, I also deeply appreciated this, @davecarter. We should all try to find common ground we can all fight on because it’s worth doing and we all have much to lose.

    Agreed. So are we a team again? Or are some of us umpires and some of us players?

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.