Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Being Too Nice in Politics
Mitt Romney’s declaration of independence from Donald Trump as he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate has been illuminating – more for the responses than the op-ed itself. Professional speculators are asking whether it’s the opening gambit of a 2020 primary challenge (his denials notwithstanding) or mere virtue signaling?
The unappeasable left has drummed its fingers on the table, demanding to know whether Romney will oppose absolutely everything Trump does. If you are truly appalled at Trump, they insist, you must obstruct every judge, deregulation, and foreign policy move. Anything less taints you as insincere or useless. If Romney doesn’t vote like a liberal Democrat, he could pace up and down Pennsylvania Avenue with an “Impeach Trump” sandwich board and still be dismissed as a wuss.
The right, by contrast, has adopted a world-weary tone. “Oh, he’s unethical. Tell us something we didn’t know.” They dismiss moral objections as overly fastidious. Thus, David Limbaugh: “This type of self-congratulating moral preening from Romney will have the precise opposite effect Romney intends as it will further entrench Trump supporters, who are just really sick of being demonized. Yes, these types of unsolicited attacks on Trump are shots at his supporters.” Is there such a thing as a solicited attack? Anyway, you see how this works. Those who stick to standards are “preening,” and worse, they are insulting voters. But that’s a fallacy. There are plenty of Trump supporters who don’t excuse everything Trump does. They are fully capable of saying “Yeah, can’t deny that Trump is a jerk and a liar, but I do like some of his policies.” They are not guilty of Trump’s sins, and Trump shouldn’t try to evade responsibility by hiding behind their skirts.
Ben Shapiro assumes that Romney must be considering a primary challenge. It would fail, he contends, because “Republican voters have . . . learned the lesson that character doesn’t matter — ironically enough, from 2012 Mitt Romney, whose sterling character plus five bucks bought him a cup of coffee in that election cycle.” It’s not clear whether Shapiro is endorsing this interpretation or just reporting it, but it is common on the right, and by the way, also on the left. People have a weakness for believing that their own side is being hammered by the unscrupulous tactics of their opponents. Republicans believe that Democrats demonize them as racists, commit voter fraud, and change the rules to suit their own purposes. Some of this is true (see my second book, Do-Gooders for many examples of the first offense), and see Harry Reid’s filibuster rule change for an example of the third. Democrats believe that Republicans suppress minority votes, bend the rules for their own purposes, and rely on scare tactics. Some of that is true is as well. Ask Merrick Garland.
It’s always possible to rationalize your own departure from ethics by claiming self-defense. You’ll never lack for examples of the other side’s perfidy – but that doesn’t justify it. If it did, we’d never be able to have decency at all.
Nor is it settled that Mitt Romney was defeated because he was too much of a gentleman. I’d wager that many of those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 were thinking “A candidate who says that 47 percent of the nation are indolent ‘takers’ is not my kind of guy.” Besides, he was running against an incumbent president whose approval ratings were above 50 percent in the final weeks of the race. And despite all of that, he still managed to get a bigger share of the popular vote (47.2) than Donald Trump achieved in 2016 (46.1). And don’t forget, Trump’s opponent was under FBI investigation – an inquiry that was reopened a week before the vote.
The fable that John McCain was felled by excessive delicacy in 2008 is also absurd. A two-term Republican president had just presided over a (perceived) failed war and the worst economic crisis in decades. It would have been a steep uphill struggle for any Republican even without the collective swoon for the charismatic first black major party candidate.
Whatever Romney’s motive may have been in penning the critical op-ed – it’s clear that what he wrote is the truth, which is worth a lot these days.
One of the chief grievances Republicans nurse is that they are portrayed as “bad people” for holding the views they do. Someone who believes in color-blind admissions is not a racist. A skeptic of government regulation is not a polluter. A believer in American world leadership is not a warmonger. But if you slip into defending Trump’s character, as opposed to some of his actions, you risk living down to the caricature.
Published in Politics
This too.
The GOP needs to do two things: preserve political power, and slow down socialism and everything that goes with it. They don’t have that in the forefront of their plans and that is why the ACA wasn’t defeated. That is how are you got Trump.
I shouldn’t, but I just can’t help it. This is pure balderdash. It is just the opposite. If we get in the mood, and lose our moorings, then we lose everything.
The fact of the matter is that Romney got more votes than Trump. Not electoral votes, to be sure. But more physical votes; people don’t want to be in the mud. We lost the House because of Trump’s being in the mud. These are just facts. The fact that the Trump excuses won’t admit that is why we lose everything in the end.
I shouldn’t either because we are on different planets, but you aren’t entitled to claim facts that don’t exist – that’s universal. Romney got more physical votes. True. The electoral college is the score we go by -for good reason. Romney failed on that.Republicans did not lose the House for any single reason, and to blame Trump as a”fact” is politically ignorant. Historically, Presidents lose a significant number seats in the House after the first election, unless we are in a crisis like 2002 right after 9/11. And this came out of a concerted effort from the left and media frenzy that unprecedented. Obama lost 60 seats with the media praising his every move!
But rarely do they pick up Senate seats, which you didn’t mention.
How do ‘we’ lose our moorings by having an immoral (stipulating for you) President. You and I and everyone are free to be as moral as we can be. The President has nothing to do with it. How did you survive the Clinton years?
Yes, we do live on different planets. But, with all due respect to yours – which I am sure is a lovely place – mine is more realistic.
I will stipulate for you this: Of course we survive Trump. I said this way back, either in a Post I made, or a comment. I can’t remember (I think it was a Post; but I am old and forgetful). The question is how. If we lose our Moral guideposts, we will still exist. But i want to live, not just exist. We don’t do this by swallowing immorality to get a lower tax rate. I want to a lower tax rate too. But I want a President I can proud of. The two are not incompatible.
By the by, I was never proud of Clinton. I shuttered for my country that such a man could occupy the seat that not long before that had been occupied by the Great Gipper!
I have not lost my Moral guidepost. My morals exist outside of politics. Nothing JFK, or Clinton or Trump does as President, or before they were elected, affects my Morals.
As a general rule if your Morals are being formed by or altered by a Politician then you need some real self reflection. There are an awful lot of immoral people in politics. 2016 gave us the choice between 2 candidates that had questionable morality. We choose the one who would give us our desired policy outcomes.
I want a President I can by proud of. If I do not find his personal life to be inspiring or his speaking ability is problematic, I can still be proud of his accomplishments. I have never voted for someone I was proud of (sorry to young to have a chance to vote for Reagan).
I did not sell my soul for lower taxes. I voted for the guy who would give me lower taxes, the guy who would be more friendly to my religion, more pro-life. Frankly given the choice between a Immoral Man who will do some good and a candidate suggesting free abortions on demand, the Immoral Man was the moral choice.
We do indeed come from separate planets. I don’t know your age, or if you know about this book: In 1992, a book was published: Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, about the differences between the sexes. It may as well have been written about you and me.
I am certainly not going to change my mind. I have tried assiduously to argue with what I consider prudent facts. To no avail, as you will not give up on your way of looking at the world. I hope one day you will discover that I was right.
In the meanwhile, I see no point in continuing the dialog. But I genuinely wish you well, as I do my country, which I dearly Love and Respect, and want others to emulate as much as possible.
Take care, Jager.
You’re correct that Trump was not mocking the reporter’s particular handicap and it’s frustrating that, all this time later, people are still getting this wrong.
That said, I don’t think the correction is much of an improvement. If my kid defended himself by saying “But, Dad, I wasn’t making fun of that kid because he was handicapped: I make fun of all kids I don’t like as if they were spastic!” he’d be setting himself up for a world of trouble.
I’m not sure that he’s representing “spastics” but it’s possible in a second-hand kind of way.Maybe it’s not the greatest method, to portray someone flustered physically when people might believe you are representing a person with a specific malady, but is it really that reprehensible?
Notice Trump has not done this again. So are we really living in a world where people can be offended so obliquely- and the punishment for the transgression is perpetual condemnation and no chance for redemption, forgiveness or magnanimity? Can offended people or classes ever forgive? If not, then until they develop that capability….
Isn’t it even more contemptible to refuse to stop misrepresenting and punishing, and then saying, yeah, but still… when millions of people have the wrong impression. Especially considering that it is indeed despicable.
Dennis Prager just said that Mitt Romney fears the Washington Post more than God.
Great line. But actually the WaPo is quite connected. They don’t know God, but they know the CIA quite well. They know things so it’s kinda like God.
I count it as pretty bad; somewhat less-awful than it initially appeared, but YMMV.
I can think of plenty of ways Trump could earn some redemption and forgiveness on this. But “I haven’t made fun of anyone as if they were handicapped in two years!” doesn’t really make the cut for me. Again, YMMV.
If people are purposefully misrepresenting Trump on this — and I’ve no doubt some are — I agree that is despicable.
I’d wager most of them only remember their initial outrage and/or have conveniently forgotten the correction; that’s also pretty bad.
You’re a tough guy to please. I wish more people were as moral as you, but I’d hope they were more forgiving.
Nowaday’s you can’t go begging people who want to hate you and are in many ways delusional to forgive you. Lot’s of these people are quite despicable themselves parading their virtues by sending their enemies into social damnation. Trump is way smarter than that.
Consider it my opening offer.
You didn’t answer my questions. Maybe you thought they were just rhetorical, in which case you can still reply
So are we really living in a world where people can be offended so obliquely- and the punishment for the transgression is perpetual condemnation and no chance for redemption, forgiveness or magnanimity? Can offended people or classes ever forgive?
First, I don’t think it’s that oblique.
Second, I reject the premise that this demonstrates that we’re living in a world without forgiveness and redemption. If Trump had both apologized and not done it, then forgiveness would be in order.
(Lest there be any confusion, this is not an issue I lose sleep over or bring up unprompted. I saw you and George talking about it and decided to add my own $.02.)
If I may, I’d like to ad that, as far as I know, Trump has never issued any sort of notion of regret. Sure, he may not done it again. But who knows why? Could it be because he is afraid that he’d even more unfavorable press?
About the press: Many of these people are terrible. They choose to make the news, and, in some case, not correct what they’ve reported in the past. But that in no way excuses the president. He is the President. We don’t pay the press; we pay the President. And he should act like a grown-up
The media are 100% pro-statist. They will do anything to this end.
@garyrobbins – Does anyone not know he is an overt liar who cannot be believed, and a bully? Did anyone not know this who was paying attention during the primaries? I have 3 problems with this line of argument:
Government Is How We Steal From Each Other™
You are correct, of course. So much for hyperbole . . .
Put another way, we shouldn’t waste our time trying to defend his character. You won’t win against those for whom character is everything, and you certainly aren’t going to win against never-Trumpers for whom Trump is everything.
Frankly, I don’t understand that last sentence. Trump is everything to so-called Never Trumpers??!
Stad, I’ve always considered you a fine person. Though we probably disagree on Trump, I usually find your comments considered and fair.
However, if you consider me a Never Trumper, you are way off the mark. Although there may be some who don’t mind the tem, and even embrace, and even embrace it, I’ve always found it to be silly, especially now. The election has been over for more than two years, and I don’t think it applies any more. I am, as Jonah Goldberg is, for example, a Trump Skeptic. We are always willing to say when Trump has done something worthy. But we do not believe he is up to the Presidency. While I do not consider character everything, I do consider it more than something. Character is what stands between a person and the abyss. Life is not worth living if you can’t develop character within yourself and know how to see it revealed in others. I do not deny Mr. Trump his accomplishments. And I even hope, if he really wants to run again, he wins, if the only alternative is a Democrat. But I do not like him; do not believe he is good for my country; and will not change my mind, no matter how many people, even if they themselves are of good character, tell me I am wrong.
I should have been more clear. Trump’s character and their hate for him is everything for never-Trumpers.
Well, speaking for myself, I am not a Never Trumper, which I have explained at nauseam. I do not hate anyone I have never met. It is more complicated than that.
I’ll rehearse my old argument here too: it’s weird to call someone an immoral man. We’re all mixed bags; at what point do we slide from moral to immoral? Is that judgement final? Is it a one drop rule?
Does he need redemption? So he’s insensitive – so what? I know plenty of insensitive people who are also good in other ways. Do those people need redemption, least of all from me? Are they now wholly tainted or unqualified for unrelated capacities?
I’m not certain that he is an overt liar who not be believed. There are far too many lies which in fact are not, which are simply unclear, or which are only interpreted in such a way to make them lies. Oh, there are undoubtedly overt lies too. None I’ve thought to be of much consequence, though.
You are right. Fundamentally, I believe as well that judging other’s morality/character isn’t something that people have enough information -or skills to be doing. Certainly not lightly or casually.It’s not very good for the person doing it either. I’m not especially religious myself, but I respect tremendously the words of Jesus regarding judgement.
My comment are responding to the stipulation that someone, after being judged by someone should still be granted some way back in that person’s mind. We all judge others but we forgive them their trespasses, as it were.
That is true. I’m generally pretty narrow in my judgements, though, and they’re based on my reaction to the person or the person’s actions – not to some intrinsic quality of that person.