Goldberg v. Klavan

 

I’d like to say that I’ve been dying for a Goldberg/Klavan (of the Andrew variety) long-form podcast for almost three years, all about Trump.  I don’t want a “debate,” despite the intentionally incendiary (or at least flammable . . . or at the very least dyspeptic) title.  I’d like to hear two sides of a divide discuss their differences because I firmly believe most conservatives aren’t Trump purists or Trump haters.

Perhaps I am an anomaly.  Nonetheless, for almost four years now I’ve scratched my head trying to understand one side of the conservative movement that I have always respected (and still respect).  I imagine the feeling is mutual.

I admit to being unread and unlearned in the so-called “conservative movement.”  I haven’t read much that could rightly be called conservative intellectual work like Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America (or the underrated Tyranny of Cliches). I do listen.  I listen to this great network of podcasts (obviously, not all).  I listen to National Review’s podcasts (obviously, not all).  I listen to the Daily Wire’s podcasts (obviously, not all . . . can you tell I’m a lawyer yet?).

Before all that, I listened to my father and with my father to talk radio.  Early, I thought “conservatism” was primarily about preserving the good of the founding, insofar as possible.  This always meant things like maintaining a small government, maintaining federalism or maintaining legislative supremacy in the name of maintaining individual liberty. Or restoring these things as far as practical, because conservatives are nothing if not practical.

This, of course, leaves a big intellectual tent.   And there is a long intellectual history, allowing for other things most conservatives tend to like.  Some for obvious reasons, such as free markets, low taxes, and minimal regulation.  Some for less obvious reasons (but, I think, still related to liberty) such as institutional stability, strong national security, and being pro-life.  Of course, this is an extremely poor discussion of the issues that have motivated what we might call “conservatism” over the past thirty to forty years, yet it’ll do for my purposes.

I raise these issues merely to note that I think what I’ll call “Trump critical” conservative voices are, on balance, letting their distaste of Trump, the man, get in the way of supporting the conservative successes of the current administration.  Let me define “Trump critical.”  Here, I do not mean “Trump derangement.”  There are former conservatives who, for my money, have decided they’d be happy and willing to abandon every principle they supposedly held because of their distaste for Trump.  I also do not mean conservatives who are obsessed with Trump, such that they cannot get through a day without discussing the man.  I mean conservatives like Jonah Goldberg, David French, Kevin Williamson and many others (please don’t make me try to compile a full list) who, in good faith and with good arguments, appear to believe that Trump is worse for conservatism (or the country) than he is good for conservatism (or the country).

The names I have listed are thinkers I respect and whose apparent hostility to the Trump administration, I can’t quite understand.  Andrew Klavan of the Daily Wire has a different take.  Of course, so do others but I think Klavan is among the most interesting and nuanced.  He argues, among other things, that Trump is a man of necessity, not wholesome but needed to fight the media; that Trump should be praised for his apparent dedication to federalism and a reduction of executive power.  On a different note, Klavan appears to argue that free markets (at least in terms of trade between nations) is more than it’s cracked up to be.  Most of all, Trump, for all his faults, has been right where the “elite” was the wrong time and time again.  Nonetheless, Klavan has not been unwilling to criticize Trump for some of his many faults.  Since I’ve already labeled the other guys (likely unfairly), let us call Klavan “Trump positive.”

The point of this way too long note is as follows: I think the “Trump critical” and the “Trump positive” sides of the argument as outlined above are the conservative mainstream.  I am sick and tired of hearing arguments between alleged conservatives who would vote for a resurrected Stalin over Trump and alleged conservatives who would personally abort a baby to ensure Trump remained in office.  Furthermore, I am supremely tired of hearing what I have just labeled mainstream conservatives argue against the hypothetical straw-man version of their opponent.  What I would like to hear is an hour-plus discussion between two of the most interesting and reliable people on either side of the “Trump divide,” as it were.  Namely, Andrew Klavan and Jonah Goldberg.  Make it happen.

If you agree, tweet this dumb little article to @realdailywire, @thedispatch, @jonahdispatch, and @andrewklavan to annoy them into a special episode of The Remnant or The Andrew Klavan Show or whatever forum they would like.

Published in Podcasts
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 125 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    There’s a Mollie v Jonah & Chris Wallace thing going on right now on Twitter. There’s just the two of them against all of her. Really unfair.

    • #31
  2. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses. It doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident.” -Henry Kissinger.

    • #32
  3. Cicero Del Tufo Member
    Cicero Del Tufo
    @

    I think the divide is over those who know with every fiber of their being that the mainstream press corps consists of mendacious and venal partisan hacks (some very clever, some less so) and those that don’t.  Klavan, a former reporter like me, knows these people (yes, THESE PEOPLE) through and through.  He knows that there is no hope of reform unless they are first destroyed and them rebuilt.  And so yeah, it takes a bulldozer like Trump to do it. They will not be defeated any other way.

    (Ted Cruz probably could have done it, too.)

    Those who are loathe to siding with Trump to defeat this venal and mendacious enemy had no problem siding with Stalin to defeat Hitler (or did they)?  But siding with Trump to defeat the mendacious and venal Media-Democrat-Lawyer Complex is a bridge too far?  Give me a break.

    This divide is nicely illustrated by the reaction to the White House Press Secretary’s tearing the venal and mendacious press corps a new one on a daily basis.  Klavan calls her a Warrior Princess; Goldberg today shamefully trashed her.  The reaction to her is a Rorschach test.

    Oh, and by the way, in a totally unreleated development. Judge Sullivan’s new lawyer is Mrs. David Gregory.

    • #33
  4. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    KelKilken: The point of this way too long note is as follows: I think the “Trump critical” and the “Trump positive” sides of the argument as outlined above are the conservative mainstream. I am sick and tired of hearing arguments between alleged conservatives who would vote for a resurrected Stalin over Trump and alleged conservatives who would personally abort a baby to ensure Trump remained in office. Furthermore, I am supremely tired of hearing what I have just labeled mainstream conservatives argue against the hypothetical straw-man version of their opponent.

    This is me almost every day.  I am sick of this 

    • #34
  5. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Jeff Petraska (View Comment):

    Besides a Klavan-Goldberg debate, I’d also like to see a Klavan-Nordlinger/Charen debate and a Klavan-French debate.

     

    Jay can be reasonable, even if vehement, and reserves his ire predominantly for Trump himself, not his supporters. French too, to a point, if certain subjects are avoided. Mona? She’s not gone full Jen Rubin by any stretch, but she maintains an undisguised contempt for anyone even suggesting the position @larry3435 has taken above. I’m not sure that would be a productive interview at all.

    Mona clearly holds Trump supporters in contempt, as does JPod. 

    • #35
  6. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Cicero Del Tufo (View Comment):

    I think the divide is over those who know with every fiber of their being that the mainstream press corps consists of mendacious and venal partisan hacks (some very clever, some less so) and those that don’t. Klavan, a former reporter like me, knows these people (yes, THESE PEOPLE) through and through. He knows that there is no hope of reform unless they are first destroyed and them rebuilt. And so yeah, it takes a bulldozer like Trump to do it. They will not be defeated any other way.

    How is Donald Trump defeating the mendacious press?  I haven’t noticed any of the big press outlets become more sympathetic to conservative points of view, nor have any of them gone out of business to be replaced by less leftist news organizations.  He’s taking the fight to them, to be sure, but I don’t see any sign that they are being destroyed and rebuilt.

     

    • #36
  7. Cicero Del Tufo Member
    Cicero Del Tufo
    @

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Cicero Del Tufo (View Comment):

    I think the divide is over those who know with every fiber of their being that the mainstream press corps consists of mendacious and venal partisan hacks (some very clever, some less so) and those that don’t. Klavan, a former reporter like me, knows these people (yes, THESE PEOPLE) through and through. He knows that there is no hope of reform unless they are first destroyed and them rebuilt. And so yeah, it takes a bulldozer like Trump to do it. They will not be defeated any other way.

    How is Donald Trump defeating the mendacious press? I haven’t noticed any of the big press outlets become more sympathetic to conservative points of view, nor have any of them gone out of business to be replaced by less leftist news organizations. He’s taking the fight to them, to be sure, but I don’t see any sign that they are being destroyed and rebuilt.

     

    Polls show that the press has never been viewed as less credible than now. (Let me know if you require citations.)  Larger and larger numbers of people don’t believe much of what they report.  That’s a good start.

    • #37
  8. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    KelKilken: The point of this way too long note is as follows: I think the “Trump critical” and the “Trump positive” sides of the argument as outlined above are the conservative mainstream. I am sick and tired of hearing arguments between alleged conservatives who would vote for a resurrected Stalin over Trump and alleged conservatives who would personally abort a baby to ensure Trump remained in office. Furthermore, I am supremely tired of hearing what I have just labeled mainstream conservatives argue against the hypothetical straw-man version of their opponent.

    This is me almost every day. I am sick of this

    Amen.

    • #38
  9. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    The worst one can say about Klavan–and I don’t think it’s a crime against conservatism–is that he thinks that the one man who could defeat Trump is Trump himself. Why is that heresy? It’s true of just about all politicians.

    True. It’s not heresy to think that. GWB was his own worst enemy when he chose to not respond to MSM attacks and narratives or when he chose to rely on surrogates. But it gets rapidly complicated and much depends on how one applies that truth.

    The first and most common complication is really just an obscured and self-defeating way to bash Trump. If any “his own worse enemy” critique relies on some version of “this will allow the press and his opponents to…..”, then that’s a tipoff. If there’s one thing common to folk living to the right of center, it’s that we know the MSM is hopelessly and lopsidedly biased and fake, and has been for a long long time. They don’t need justification or evidence to say what they want about Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney, Trump, us. They push the narrative anyway, far and wide, regardless of what is said or who says it. That’s no different now that Trump is the president.

    Using “his own worse enemy” in such a way calls into question the assumptions and perhaps motives of the critic. Does this critic know that the MSM doesn’t need ammo and so is just using this to sneak in his own hit on Trump? Does the critic not know the MSM game and so should be regarded skeptically anyway as someone who doesn’t know the landscape well enough to point the way for anyone else? Does the critic actually accept the MSM game?

    • #39
  10. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    I was distressed by Trump’s ascendance in the primary when Republicans had so many good, “normal” candidates to choose from, and I wanted so desperately to defeat Hillary and I was just sure Trump wouldn’t be the one to do it, and I said here on R> he was living up to what the Europeans and leftists (but, I repeat) condescendingly term the “ugly American.” Turns out, I kinda love ugly Americans, and I find the inability to see the good in a man who has done so much good for the country (and so obviously loves it) pretty petty and a pinched view of politics and the redeemability of humans.

    If there were a discussion between Goldberg and Klavan, I’d only listen because I’d want to hear Klavan’s responses to Goldberg’s irrationality. And, that’s what it is — irrational hatred. And, since I’m a regular listener of Klavan’s and can probably predict what he’d say, and I don’t expect anyone to be able to influence Goldberg, I wouldn’t waste my time unless some trusted HWs recommended it.

    • #40
  11. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Trump can win without a single NeverTrump vote. He can win without a single hard core blue Dem vote. But if he doesn’t win a majority of the independents a second time, he loses. These are the people who are often derided on sites like ours as the “mushy middle”. In fact, not many are mushy; they’re a mixture of strong opinions that don’t line up precisely with either party. I think he will, or enough of them to peel off a win, because like them, he isn’t totally consistent either: a libertine in the past who defends the rights of the religious; a billionaire who is skeptical about how far the benefits of free trade really extend.

    This is probably true. One group I hear so much about: (white) suburban women. Trump has lost them, supposedly. Because they don’t like him. Personally, I think we lost suburban women (along with suburbs generally) a decade or two ago. It takes awhile for things to catch up. Who is Trump gaining, though? I think people who may have been disposed to voting for Dick Gephardt are moving solidly toward Trump. His constant body work (in boxing terms) is also softening black and possibly hispanic Dem hegemony if not generating actual converts. Who else? The eclectic issues people. People who Republicans had been struggling with since Reagan. Trade (anti-globalists). War (anti-nation-building but kick-ass-and-leave if need be). Social (ok-gay, anti-sjw’s). Aside from suburban (white) women, Biden or any Democrat candidate would have problems with these groups.

    • #41
  12. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Trump can win without a single NeverTrump vote. He can win without a single hard core blue Dem vote. But if he doesn’t win a majority of the independents a second time, he loses. These are the people who are often derided on sites like ours as the “mushy middle”. In fact, not many are mushy; they’re a mixture of strong opinions that don’t line up precisely with either party. I think he will, or enough of them to peel off a win, because like them, he isn’t totally consistent either: a libertine in the past who defends the rights of the religious; a billionaire who is skeptical about how far the benefits of free trade really extend.

     

    This probably true. One group I hear so much about: (white) suburban women. Trump has lost them, supposedly. Because they don’t like him. Personally, I think we lost suburban women (along with suburbs generally) a decade or two ago. It takes awhile for things to catch up. Who is Trump gaining, though? I think people who may have been disposed to voting for Dick Gephardt are moving solidly toward Trump. His constant body work (in boxing terms) is also softening black and possibly hispanic Dem hegemony if c\not generating actual converts. Who else? The eclectic issues people. People who Republicans had been struggling with since Reagan. Trade (anti-globalists). War (anti-nation-building but kick-ass-and-leave if need be). Social (ok-gay, anti-sjw’s). Aside from suburman (white) women, Biden or any Democrat candidate would have problems with these groups.

    And that’s just it. Trump doesn’t exist in a vacuum. He’s competing in a world where the Democrats nearly elected a Bolshevik as their candidate, where they deny natural rights, where they boo God at their national convention, where double-standards regarding sexual misconduct are the norm. . . And, speaking of double standards, I’ve said it before — if Hillary Clinton were anyone but the former first lady and the Democrat presidential candidate, she would be serving time for serving up state secrets on her illegal server. Democrats are so thoroughly anti-American and corrupt, I’m only surprised Democrats can vote for them, holding noses or otherwise.

    • #42
  13. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Cicero Del Tufo (View Comment):

    I think the divide is over those who know with every fiber of their being that the mainstream press corps consists of mendacious and venal partisan hacks (some very clever, some less so) and those that don’t. Klavan, a former reporter like me, knows these people (yes, THESE PEOPLE) through and through. He knows that there is no hope of reform unless they are first destroyed and them rebuilt. And so yeah, it takes a bulldozer like Trump to do it. They will not be defeated any other way.

    How is Donald Trump defeating the mendacious press? I haven’t noticed any of the big press outlets become more sympathetic to conservative points of view, nor have any of them gone out of business to be replaced by less leftist news organizations. He’s taking the fight to them, to be sure, but I don’t see any sign that they are being destroyed and rebuilt.

     

    By challenging their mendaciousness rather than letting it stand unchallenged. “Defeat”, I don’t know. “Contending with and making headway”, I think that’s more like it.

    Trump won the nomination then the presidency despite 95% negative coverage of the ugliest type (racist, sexist, anti-gay, as the demonstrators’ chanting would have it). Despite being dumb and vain (or devious and malevolent). He was a puppet of Putin (despite the Russion disnformation commissioned by HRC). He literally wants you to inject disinfectant (no he doesn’t)!

    How many outrageous things has Trump been vindicated on?

    I’ve always said: for those who go on and on about centrism, Trump could have been their biggest advocate and vehicle for success. They chose personal hatred instead. That shows up in media too, and people do notice. Once the seventh day comes and no Return of Christ, then people tend to start questioning what they’ve been told.

    • #43
  14. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    On the day after the election I realized that I had a choice to make. I could either spend the next four years gnashing my teeth and rending my garments because I didn’t get the kind of President I wanted. Or I could recognize that Trump was the duly elected President and I could wish him well and observe his Presidency with an open mind. I also realized that if I chose Option 2 I would have to pay attention to what Trump did and not what he said. By that time it was already obvious that Trump was not articulate and he had a tendency to say any damn fool thing that popped into his head. It was obvious that Trump would continue to do that – he can’t control himself (at least, not all the time). So I would need a gibberish filter to tune out all that stuff and put all my focus on actions rather than words.

    Agreed. I went through the same with Obama. President Obama (as I would often have to force myself to type). What I found, along with many others I think, is that looking at what Obama did made his words worse, whereas looking at what Trump does brings his “gibberish” (I never quite agreed with that) into context.

    • #44
  15. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Trump can win without a single NeverTrump vote. He can win without a single hard core blue Dem vote. But if he doesn’t win a majority of the independents a second time, he loses. These are the people who are often derided on sites like ours as the “mushy middle”. In fact, not many are mushy; they’re a mixture of strong opinions that don’t line up precisely with either party. I think he will, or enough of them to peel off a win, because like them, he isn’t totally consistent either: a libertine in the past who defends the rights of the religious; a billionaire who is skeptical about how far the benefits of free trade really extend.

     

    This probably true. One group I hear so much about: (white) suburban women. Trump has lost them, supposedly. Because they don’t like him. Personally, I think we lost suburban women (along with suburbs generally) a decade or two ago. It takes awhile for things to catch up. Who is Trump gaining, though? I think people who may have been disposed to voting for Dick Gephardt are moving solidly toward Trump. His constant body work (in boxing terms) is also softening black and possibly hispanic Dem hegemony if c\not generating actual converts. Who else? The eclectic issues people. People who Republicans had been struggling with since Reagan. Trade (anti-globalists). War (anti-nation-building but kick-ass-and-leave if need be). Social (ok-gay, anti-sjw’s). Aside from suburman (white) women, Biden or any Democrat candidate would have problems with these groups.

    The question is whether he is gaining those voters in the right states?  Trump drew to an inside straight in 2016 by winning PA, MI, and Wisconsin by a few tens of thousands of votes. 

    I continue to be disappointed by the number of people I talk with who actually agree with Trump on most issues, or are at least closer to him on the issues than to any Democrat, yet still refuse to vote for him because of how much they detest him personally.  Though I’m voting for him and trying to persuade others to do so, I understand it in a way because I still can’t stand the guy.

    And I don’t think he’s helped himself during Covid time. Yes, everyone else, Democrats, media etc also look bad, but he’s the President and at a time of crisis when people (or at least people who are persuadable) want steadiness, he acts like a man who is not in control of himself.  People like me just shrug it off at this point – we know his behavior is part of the whole Trump package – others don’t – they find his public persona exhausting, erratic, and offensive.  This election will be won at the margins.  We’ll see if he can pull it off.  I hope so.

    • #45
  16. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):
    The question is whether he is gaining those voters in the right states? Trump drew to an inside straight in 2016 by winning PA, MI, and Wisconsin by a few tens of thousands of votes. 

    I disagree. I think he saw the battle field clearly, went after the high value objective, and prevailed. Drawing to an inside straight involves wishing and hoping. I don’t think that is Trump’s m.o.

    • #46
  17. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):
    I continue to be disappointed by the number of people I talk with who actually agree with Trump on most issues, or are at least closer to him on the issues than to any Democrat, yet still refuse to vote for him because of how much they detest him personally. Though I’m voting for him and trying to persuade others to do so, I understand it in a way because I still can’t stand the guy.

    Agreed. I’ve been disappointed that way since the 90’s. Which is why contending with MSM is job one. They will always paint that picture so that the Republican is supposed to be personally detested. It’s a wonder that any Republican is capable of overcoming that.

    What we have to realize, though, is that it doesn’t matter how short President Trump’s skirt is, how provocatively he dances, or what part of town he was walking in at which time. He doesn’t deserve to be raped, and they rape everybody regardless of dress, actions, or time of day. Stop blaming the victim, at a minimum. That doesn’t mean you have to approve of short dresses, twerking, and staying out til the wee hours in the red light district.

    • #47
  18. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):
    And I don’t think he’s helped himself during Covid time. Yes, everyone else, Democrats, media etc also look bad, but he’s the President and at a time of crisis when people (or at least people who are persuadable) want steadiness, he acts like a man who is not in control of himself.

    Disagreed. He’s been steady and a leader. Acting when they called him xenophobic for doing it. Bringing public and private together. Giving local authorities space to do what is rightfully theirs to do. Leading on reopening. Leading on optimism.

    How is he out of control?

    • #48
  19. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):
    And I don’t think he’s helped himself during Covid time. Yes, everyone else, Democrats, media etc also look bad, but he’s the President and at a time of crisis when people (or at least people who are persuadable) want steadiness, he acts like a man who is not in control of himself.

    Disagreed. He’s been steady and a leader. Acting when they called him xenophobic for doing it. Bringing publiuc and private together. Giving local authorities space to do what is rightfully theirs to do. Leading on reopening. Leading on optimism.

    How is he out of control?

    As I said, I support him and want others to.  All of my comments are from the perspective of trying to stand back and convey what I hear from people who should be supporting him because of the issues but refuse to do so.  It isn’t about any of the issues you mention, it is his very visible process of communication that they see as wavering, imprecise, not interested in details, and reacting to anyone he doesn’t like in what they see as an inappropriate way.  Trump thinks by talking aloud and tweeting whatever he feels in the moment.  The positive part is it makes him the most transparent president of my lifetime – you know exactly what he is thinking.  On the other hand, you know exactly what he’s thinking and how he thinks. I’ve followed his twitter feed (both official and personal) for the past two years and found out about many good things he’s been doing that the media won’t tell you about, mixed in with the occasional unhinged rantings.  Unfortunately, some otherwise persuadable people can’t get past the unhinged part.

    • #49
  20. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    The worst one can say about Klavan–and I don’t think it’s a crime against conservatism–is that he thinks that the one man who could defeat Trump is Trump himself. Why is that heresy? It’s true of just about all politicians.

    True. It’s not heresy to think that. GWB was his own worst enemy when he chose to not respond to MSM attacks and narratives or when he chose to rely on surrogates. But it gets rapidly complicated and much depends on how one applies that truth.

    The first and most common complication is really just an obscured and self-defeating way to bash Trump. If any “his own worse enemy” critique relies on some version of “this will allow the press and his opponents to…..”, then that’s a tipoff. If there’s one thing common to folk living to the right of center, it’s that we know the MSM is hopelessly and lopsidedly biased and fake, and has been for a long long time. They don’t need justification or evidence to say what they want about Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney, Trump, us. They push the narrative anyway, far and wide, regardless of what is said or who says it. That’s no different now that Trump is the president.

    Using “his own worse enemy” in such a way calls into question the assumptions and perhaps motives of the critic. Does this critic know that the MSM doesn’t need ammo and so is just using this to sneak in his own hit on Trump? Does the critic not know the MSM game and so should be regarded skeptically anyway as someone who doesn’t know the landscape well enough to point the way for anyone else? Does the critic actually accept the MSM game?

    What I’ve noticed, and what I think most angers Goldberg, is that Trump and the Press are having two different conversations, in two different languages.  Bush [and Romney, McCain, and Republicans in general] accepted the Press’ terms of speech and overall narrative, and tried to respond within their framework; Trump (and now it appears McEnany) don’t play by the Press’ rules or acknowledge their presuppositions.  This is probably why Goldberg so despises McEnany, too.

    • #50
  21. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Amy Schley, Longcat Shrinker (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):
    That’s pretty much my answer to the question, “What do you think of Donald Trump?” I am largely happy with the work the Trump Administration is doing. I think he is wrong on international trade, but there will never be an administration with which I agree on everything, so all in all this administration is as good as I could have realistically hoped for. But I am never going to admire Donald Trump, the man. I just can’t stand his personality.

    Same. Frankly, I think Trump is the embodiment of Milton Friedman’s comment that the way to accomplish good things in politics is not to elect the right people but rather to make it profitable for the wrong people to do the right things.

    Yes, but paradoxically, he’s taken on more “you can’t do that!!!” hysteria than any president in living memory. You’ll start a trade-war with China by imposing sanctions!!! If you drop out of the Paris Climate Accord and encourage fracking, you’ll destroy the planet!!! If you move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, you’ll start another war in the Middle East!!! If you cut taxes, only the rich will thrive!!! Just one thing after another.

     

    • #51
  22. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    As I said, I support him and want others to. All of my comments are from the perspective of trying to stand back and convey what I hear from people who should be supporting him because of the issues but refuse to do so. It isn’t about any of the issues you mention, it is his very visible process of communication that they see as wavering, imprecise, not interested in details, and reacting to anyone he doesn’t like in what they see as an inappropriate way. Trump thinks by talking aloud and tweeting whatever he feels in the moment. The positive part is it makes him the most transparent president of my lifetime – you know exactly what he is thinking. On the other hand, you know exactly what he’s thinking and how he thinks. I’ve followed his twitter feed (both official and personal) for the past two years and found out about many good things he’s been doing that the media won’t tell you about, mixed in with the occasional unhinged rantings. Unfortunately, some otherwise persuadable people can’t get past the unhinged part.

    I see what you mean. It’s probably not productive, past a certain point, to argue about the subjective like “unhinged” or “wavering, imprecise, not interested in details, and reacting to anyone he doesn’t like in what they see as an inappropriate way”. Which is another reason people dislike that some prominent pundits on our side still do that anyway.

    Because also, at some point, the persistence in valuing the subjective personal over actions and results in line with professed values says something about the true hierarchy of values of that person. Those that persist are likely to be ungettable anyway. They are likely to accept the ugly picture the MSM paints of any Republican (and the rosy picture they paint of any Dem) – and think that this picture they are being given is the highest priority. Because it’s their reaction to this picture which tells them whether they are in or out of the current zeitgeist.

    I don’t think we ever had a chance with people like that. Others, they’ve seen past the picture being painted for them to what’s actually happening.

    • #52
  23. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    As I said, I support him and want others to. All of my comments are from the perspective of trying to stand back and convey what I hear from people who should be supporting him because of the issues but refuse to do so. It isn’t about any of the issues you mention, it is his very visible process of communication that they see as wavering, imprecise, not interested in details, and reacting to anyone he doesn’t like in what they see as an inappropriate way. Trump thinks by talking aloud and tweeting whatever he feels in the moment. The positive part is it makes him the most transparent president of my lifetime – you know exactly what he is thinking. On the other hand, you know exactly what he’s thinking and how he thinks. I’ve followed his twitter feed (both official and personal) for the past two years and found out about many good things he’s been doing that the media won’t tell you about, mixed in with the occasional unhinged rantings. Unfortunately, some otherwise persuadable people can’t get past the unhinged part.

    I see what you mean. It’s probably not productive, past a certain point, to argue about the subjective like “unhinged” or “wavering, imprecise, not interested in details, and reacting to anyone he doesn’t like in what they see as an inappropriate way”. Which is another reason people dislike that some prominent pundits on our side still do that anyway.

    Because also, at some point, the persistence in valuing the subjective personal over actions and results in line with professed values says something about the true hierarchy of values of that person. Those that persist are likely to be ungettable anyway. They are likely to accept the ugly picture the MSM paints of any Republican (and the rosy picture they paint of any Dem) – and think that this picture they are being given is the highest priority. Because it’s their reaction to this picture which tells them whether they are in or out of the current zeitgeist.

    I don’t think we ever had a chance with people like that. Others, they’ve seen past the picture being painted for them to what’s actually happening.

    At least some of them are people who have voted for Republicans in the past, and again, they often agree with him on substance.  Yes, some of this is MSM induced.  But some of it is from the failure of Trump to modulate his own behaviors enough.  It’s his job to get reelected.  We will see if he’s made the right calculations in his appeals.  Objectively, he should be cruising to reelection – a great economy (pre-Covid), no new foreign wars, public polls showing large majorities agreeing with him on immigration, trade and China, and declining trust in the MSM according to the same polls.  My hope is that the Democrats continue to repulse even more people, something they’ve proven very talented at.

    • #53
  24. Weeping Inactive
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    How many outrageous things has Trump been vindicated on?

    Enough that I’ve come to think of him as the Teflon President.

    I’ve always said: for those who go on and on about centrism, Trump could have been their biggest advocate and vehicle for success. They chose personal hatred instead.

    I totally agree. Maybe I’m wrong and am doing him a disservice, but I really think that Trump would have been willing to work with the Democrats more often than not if they had tempered their reactions and been willing to work with him. They didn’t, and battlelines were drawn instead.

    • #54
  25. Weeping Inactive
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):
    And I don’t think he’s helped himself during Covid time. Yes, everyone else, Democrats, media etc also look bad, but he’s the President and at a time of crisis when people (or at least people who are persuadable) want steadiness, he acts like a man who is not in control of himself.

    Disagreed. He’s been steady and a leader. Acting when they called him xenophobic for doing it. Bringing publiuc and private together. Giving local authorities space to do what is rightfully theirs to do. Leading on reopening. Leading on optimism.

    How is he out of control?

    I was wondering the same thing.

    • #55
  26. Weeping Inactive
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    Flicker (View Comment):
    What I’ve noticed, and what I think most angers Goldberg, is that Trump and the Press are having two different conversations, in two different languages. Bush [and Romney, McCain, and Republicans in general] accepted the Press’ terms of speech and overall narrative, and tried to respond within their framework; Trump (and now it appears McEnany) don’t play by the Press’ rules or acknowledge their presuppositions. This is probably why Goldberg so despises McEnany, too.

    For me, that brings up the question: Why should the press get to set the framework?

    • #56
  27. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    What I’ve noticed, and what I think most angers Goldberg, is that Trump and the Press are having two different conversations, in two different languages. Bush [and Romney, McCain, and Republicans in general] accepted the Press’ terms of speech and overall narrative, and tried to respond within their framework; Trump (and now it appears McEnany) don’t play by the Press’ rules or acknowledge their presuppositions. This is probably why Goldberg so despises McEnany, too.

    For me, that brings up the question: Why should the press get to set the framework?

    I don’t know.  Because the the First Amendment?  Because they are the legitimate counter-government watch-dogs?  Because conservatives are polite?  Because conservatives don’t like to argue?  Because we let them?  Because many conservatives are paid to let them?  Because that’s the gaming for politicians to most assuredly get reelected?  Probably all of these are answers in various people’s minds.

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

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    At least some of them are people who have voted for Republicans in the past, and again, they often agree with him on substance. Yes, some of this is MSM induced. But some of it is from the failure of Trump to modulate his own behaviors enough. It’s his job to get reelected. We will see if he’s made the right calculations in his appeals. Objectively, he should be cruising to reelection – a great economy (pre-Covid), no new foreign wars, public polls showing large majorities agreeing with him on immigration, trade and China, and declining trust in the MSM according to the same polls. My hope is that the Democrats continue to repulse even more people, something they’ve proven very talented at.

    Right. The people you are talking about care more about appearances than substance. I agree. Perhaps such people have even voted for Republicans before. Perhaps. I’m skeptical. Even if they have though, on what do they now base their negative personal assessment that isn’t also applicable to politicians generally or Trump’s opponents only more so? On what do they base their assessment that isn’t shaped by the distorted picture being presented to them?

    I’m not sure it’s worth going down that hole – I probably already thought of such people as part of what I called “ungettable”. If we manage to get them – ok. If we don’t – we weren’t counting on them anyway.

    • #58
  29. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    I have to admit when I first saw this post, I thought it was a Ricochet MMA Octogon pay-per-view.  Even when I saw it wasn’t, I still felt like it would be cool for Rob and Peter to sponsor such an event – I’m thinking @bossmongo vs. all the Ricochet Never-Trumpers . . .

    • #59
  30. Suspira Member
    Suspira
    @Suspira

    KelKilken: I’d like to say that I’ve been dying for a Goldberg/Klavan (of the Andrew variety) long-form podcast for almost three years, all about Trump.

    I would love to hear a discussion between Drew and Jonah. I listen to both, and usually find myself somewhere between their positions. But, please, does it have to be all about Trump? I get tired of all roads leading to the Donald.

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