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.
Conservatism in the Trump Era
It use to take a lot of thought and study to be a true conservative. There is a long tradition of high-level debates on the right about the nature of conservatism, about trying to reconcile conflicting ideological components drawn from libertarianism versus cultural conservatism. How much can/should we borrow insights from Schumpeter, Smith, Hayek, Friedman etc? Must we be purists on free trade or can/should there be tariffs to punish cheating? Is there any role for government in health care or welfare? To what extent must we compromise with political, electoral realities to get as much of our shared agenda implemented as possible? Like the rest of the conservative intellectual heritage, ideological divides such as the old anti-communism versus isolationists required some serious historical, economic, philosophical and geopolitical study and thought.
Fortunately, we no longer have to do any of that intellectual heavy lifting. Conservatism is now solely about how we react to President Trump’s tweets and then react to each other’s reactions to those tweets.
Take a look at the chart below and select which category you usually fall into.
I am usually a Category B man, myself. We are largely invisible despite our likely large numbers precisely because we do expressly support Mr. Trump (largely because of the utterly horrific alternatives) and thus we generally refrain from expressing critical assessments.
The Category C fellows are Republican NeverTrumpers. God bless them for being Republicans and I am certain we share a vigorous agreement on virtually all substantive issues but when they enter the discussion there is that RINOesque whiff of self-congratulations with an implied wish for a Trumpian downfall to vindicate their superior judgment. Category A and B folks generally find that tiresome and oddly detached from the ideological death struggle we believe is in full force.
I try not to argue with Category A people. They see Trump as the man directing the fire that keeps statist totalitarian pirates from seizing our ship and its cargo of freedoms. They see his oppositional tendencies (even when overtly rude) as a feature, not a bug. Only someone so despised by the unworthy elites who own this utterly corrupt political order can be counted upon to bring it down. Criticism in time of war just gives aid and comfort to the enemy and should be avoided. Even when I don’t agree with Category A people, even in instances when I think they have picked a bad piece of ground upon which to fight a battle, I still gotta love ‘em (hell, sometimes I am them) and love the energy they supply and their commitment to the fight
My generally preferred position (Category B) is, of course, invariably the most reasonable option and I encourage everyone to adopt it. Frankly, it would be wonderful if Mr. Trump routinely consulted with some category B supporters (Congress is full of them) to craft and temper his various reactive outpourings. His combative wit is welcome and could still be effective if tempered as it often is in public speeches—and would be less likely to give suburban weenies the vapors.
In any event, we must always try to erect that big tent in which Categories A thru C can unite in mutual respect lest the vile Orc army that is category D devour us all.
Published in General
No, you can’t count on it. He does sometimes, but sometimes he goes against them.
There have been other presidents who were much more reliable supporters of dictators. Sometimes for the sake of “stability”, sometimes because the ruling class always looks after its own.
Amen. Reagan was a uniter who saw the best in everyone. Trump is a divider who demands fealty.
I challenge anyone to edit the above and make it even more of an oversimplification.
According to the RINOs of his era, Reagan was a partisan extremist who would divide the party and the nation. Also, as the first divorced President, he had no business trying to represent the nation’s moral majority.
There has never been an elected official who did/does not expect fealty.
A Republican in 2019 who is not accused of being a “divider” is a dhimmi.
It is OK to disapprove of Mr. Trump’s more infelicitous stylings but not OK and a little weird to turn that disapproval into a religion.
Anyone who thinks Reagan wasn’t (and isn’t) considered divisive wasn’t paying attention. Here is a Salon article from 2011: The divisive underbelly of Reagan’s sunny optimism: It wasn’t all patriotic homilies: Just ask the “welfare queens,” “radicals” and “filthy speech advocates”
If you don’t want Reagan to have been divisive, you’ll first have to get rid of those of us who still remember.
If you’d said that to a liberal rather than a conservative, I’d fear for you.
Evening Umbra and Gary,
I have noted we Reagan (you know Ronny Rayguns) thumped Malaise Carter. Besides all of Carter’s baggage with the economy and Iran, Reagan was good on TV, he was charismatic. Against the weak Mondale, who Rush used to call Mondull, Reagan was running with a 5% yearly growth in GDP, that would make Trump’s polling go up. Mondale best argument was that after the first debate Reagan looked old and could hardy speak coherently, unfortunately in the second debate Reagan said that he “wouldn’t hold Mondale’s youth and inexperience against him.” That riposte caused everyone to laugh including Mondale. So Mondale was without away to criticize Reagan and he had nothing to offer as a vision for the future. Mondale’s bravely said that the only difference between him and Reagan was that he (Mondale) is telling you he will raise your taxes and Reagan will raise your taxes but won’t tell you. So Mondale did not have the success of a past administration to run on and was promising to raise your taxes, it is no surprise he lost badly. These big victories do not require a more insightful populous concerning the ruling class and if I did not make that clear, my apologies.
I am suggesting that obsessing over Trump is not going to lead to understanding, either of how we got him, or what our dangers are. Our biggest external threat is China, Trump has turned around decades of China policy, where we turned a blind eye to the destructive impact they have had on our economies. As big a threat as China is, it is not our worst hazard. Our worst hazard is the administrative state whose goals are in conflict with our politics as a republic. Not only is it our worst hazard, it is the hardest to correct. The media is another internal threat and Trump is the best at driving down the media’s reputation. Their lying is so open that even folks who don’t follow politics can see it. Umbra if you think Reagan would not have been impeached by Nancy for Iran/Contra make a case that the Ukraine phone call was worse. Gary if you think the intel agencies have saved us from the bete noir Trump, make the case telling us how moral these agencies have acted, always within the law, don’t just tell us again you no likey Trump.
I give up.
I keep saying that Reagan was beloved by the common folk, and people keep ignoring what I actually said and using examples from the media and/or politicians to allegedly prove me wrong. Obviously my actual point isn’t going to get through no matter how many times I repeat it.
I get it. It showed when he died. People showed up by the throngs just to watch the Hearse go by.
Trump is loved by the common folk too. Just watch a Trump rally.
Now just imagine if Trump was a democrat and the media licked his boots like they did with Obama. There would be stories of how the little common folk just loooooooooove him.
So, is that all the common folk? I have a hard time getting examples of all the common folk to see if your point is valid or not.
Plenty of “common” folk on both sides of the aisle, sparky. I lived with the “common folk”, and as many people didn’t like him as liked him. Plenty of “common” folk complained that tax cuts were for the rich, he was helping corporate America, not the little guy, etc. Plenty of “common” folk didn’t like his union busting with the FAA.
You can repeat your point. That doesn’t make it valid. Reagan was no uniter, either, considering the vitriol I heard from the news, media, and plenty of people who lived in my home town.
Sheesh. For those complaining about Trump worship, we really can’t seem to get past the rose-colored glasses for Everything Reagan ™. I say this as a guy who loved Reagan, at the time, as a politician.
Don’t forget the crack epidemic he created and the HIV epidemic he ignored and probably secretly cheered as holy comeuppance.
I wasn’t even a teen during the Reagan years and even I saw how people thought of him.
There is no such thing as “common folk”. Or, those common folk as they are, vote for, believe, and mouth all these monstrous things too. Back then and now.
Maybe it’s you doing the ignoring? Maybe your point won’t get through because it doesn’t overcome whatever counterpoints various other commenters make?
Not to pile onto President Reagan, because I really liked him and his presidency too, but I would guess that nobody on this thread actually knew him. We knew the persona, and it seems to me that it was much easier to live as a persona back then than it is now.
I used to see him weekly – when he was commercial spokesman for General Electric (GE).
I should have known. Only at Ricochet.
And then, in 1984 when I was Chief Disbursing Officer for the Treasury I encountered President Reagan along with Treasury Secretary Donald Regan in the hallway at Main Treasury as each of us was leaving meetings. That’s the closest I’ve ever been to a POTUS and it was at work.
Maybe God has heard your concerns about Ginsberg, as the HuffPost headlines that she is in the hospital for a fever and chills. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized-fever_n_5dd9c7e8e4b0d50f3290db79
There are still too many of us. Wait a few years, and then they can pick off the rest.