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.
Useless Useful Idiots: Whither The Bulwark and The Dispatch After Trump?
Ever since Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign began to look like it was more than a promotional stunt for his reality show and began to take on the shape of a real run at the White House, there were voices on the Right condemning the whole idea of a Trump presidency. The Right’s most concerted effort took the form of National Review’s “Against Trump” issue, and most on the Right remain critical of the President’s failings even if they support him generally. (This is a marked difference from the last Democrat president, who received virtually no significant criticism from members of his party while in office.) But a sizable group of Republicans (excuse me, “former Republicans”) abandoned their party and became “Never Trumpers” – they were so exorcized by the idea of Donald Trump personally that they could no longer support their party. Some, like Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin, completely altered their beliefs and values because they hated Trump so much.
And from this sprang a whole new cottage industry of Republican-hating Conservatives. A niche craft that once belonged only to David Brooks and David Frum suddenly burst open with a whole field of carpetbaggers toting elephant guns: Charles Sykes, Mona Charen, Jonah Goldberg, George Will, Noah Rothman, Joe Scarborough, just to name a few. And with it has come two political websites to challenge the likes of NationalReview.com, CommentaryMagazine.com, and Ricochet.com: TheBulwark.com and TheDispatch.com.
The Bulwark clearly is staffed by people who have been marinating in the full-bore culture of the Coastal Left far too long. Even the graphics have that overprocessed, graphic design school sheen to them that looks like something off early 2000s Slate.com. As of this writing, there is a graphic of Trump with a crown that is clearly inspired by the works of 1980s neo-expressionist Jean-Michel Basquiat – an artist whose works were explicitly political in their examination of wealth, class, and colonialism. This is not something one would see in, say, The Weekly Standard, but it is something the Lefties who buy New York magazine would lap up. It instantly transmits the message, “Hey, we’re worldly Coastal Elites just like you. We go to the Whitney and the Guggenheim. We’re down with Bob Iger and Margaret Atwood and Oprah Winfrey. We’re one of you!” Honestly, it reeks of a desperation to be accepted by the cool kids.
That likely also explains why the columns go overboard in their criticism of Trump:
“The president of the United States, ladies and gentlemen, was in full Mad King mode, rambling, confused, disjointed, parading his grievances with barely a wave from afar at coherence.”
Of course, one could just go to the “trending” article, “100 Reasons Trump Is Unfit to Be President.” Written just on June 26, 2020, one would think this would have been the first article produced by the site. Finding any criticism of Democrats on TheBulwark.com is pretty much impossible: Currently, the home page of the site lionizes Alexander Vindman, an army officer who was insubordinate because his partisan beliefs ran counter to the Commander-in-Chief’s. But by in large, the majority of the articles just seem stale:
“Trump is not interested in the actual job of the presidency. He’s interested in the attention the presidency affords him.”
Really? This is a new insight? I seem to recall Never Trumpers harping on this in 2016. Why would anyone subscribe to The Bulwark if the contributors are so low on fresh material?
Just the article titles alone on The Bulwark are enough to make one’s eyes pop when one considers this site is supposed to cater to “Conservatives”:
Actually, Virtue Signaling Is Good
We could use less celebration of vice and more signaling of virtue.
Racial Injustice Remains the Great Weakness of American Democracy
If America is to lead the free world, first it must lead itself.
Crises and Competence (complete with a graphic of Ronald Reagan)
How the decades-long gutting of government—worsened by Trump’s failings—exacerbated the pandemic, the protests, and more.
America’s Underlying Injustice Won’t Just Disappear
We have all failed. Now we have to fix it.
Now is the Time to Stand with Dreamers
Evangelicals want Dreamers to be allowed to stay lawfully in the United States. The President should listen to them.
Florida’s Idiocracy
Come and witness the wisdom of The People.
(One usually has to tune into Last Week Tonight or The Daily Show to find the kind of snarling, sneering condescension and gleeful ridicule for non-elite types in which shamelessly Charles Sykes wallows in that last article.)
What’s most glaringly missing for the site? Any critique whatsoever for the behavior of any Democrat lawmaker. Andrew Cuomo’s killing thousands of people by ordering COVID patients into nursing homes? Not a peep. Gretchen Whitmer’s high-handed assaults on liberty in Michigan? Never heard of it. Anything Nancy Pelosi has done ever? Nancy who?
In short, almost the entire output of TheBulwark.com can be summed up in one line from the 1996 film Waiting for Guffman:
The Dispatch is somewhat better – in the way that being shot in the arm is better than being shot in the face. At least there is an acknowledgement that the real final boss at the end of the game is, in fact, the Democrats and not just more Bad, Nasty Republicans as The Bulwark now crew seems to believe. The problem with The Dispatch mostly seems to lie in the idea that the rules of political discourse have remained roughly the same as they were in 1985, where all politicians understood there was a balance of power and respected the fundamental layout of the system of checks and balances laid out in the Constitution. Anyone paying a lick of attention over the last decade will know that one party long ago abandoned anything like partisan comity when they rammed through ObamaCare with budget reconciliation and abandoned the filibuster in the Senate. And that party was not the Republicans. And yet Conservatives should still play by gentlemanly rules and the most prim and proper of etiquette and morality according to the thinker who most represents The Dispatch’s ethos, David French. French is the sort of man who would insist on fighting a duel with a flintlock pistol according to the rules, even when he clearly sees his opponent is carrying an AK-47. As the Democrats make loud noises about court packing and move to create an unconstitutional fifty-first state simply to consolidate a permanent hold on the Senate, French and The Dispatch gang seem less and less like standard bearers for old guard Conservatism than a gang of fusty old Don Quixotes tilting at windmills.
If TheDispatch.com folks were a Waiting for Guffman line, they would be this:
It’s difficult not to look at these sites – especially The Bulwark – and not think of the old phrase “useful idiots”: As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, “useful idiot” is “a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause’s goals, and who is cynically used by the cause’s leaders.” If there was ever a group of people spouting the propaganda of a group (the Democrats) whose goals they cannot fully comprehend, it must be the Never Trumpers. After all, the best recompense people like George Will and Steve Hayes could hope to get from the Left is (metaphorically) getting shot last.
So what if Trump is disposed of in this election? What do these groups do next? When Trump is gone, what is the purpose of the Never Trump brand? Are they just going to become Never Republican? There’s a name for that: Democrats. And there are plenty of those around: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, PBS, NPR, HBO, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Vox, HuffPo, BuzzFeed, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Deutsche Welle, The Economist, etc. When there’s no longer a need for a supposed “inside” voice to undermine the Right, why would the Left continue to give these Useful Idiots succor? And why would the Right want to have anything to do with speakers who will be seen as having happily played a role in their downfall from power? Pundits like William Kristol, Mona Charen, and Charles Sykes are more likely to be viewed as treasonous Clytemnestras than tragic Cassandras.
So with that said, then, what will the Useful Idiots who have been bolstering the Democrat cause against Trump do if Joe Biden becomes president and the Democrats take control? Who will be their audience? If Trump is gone, can they sustain more than just a small echo chamber of Inside-the-Beltway types congratulating themselves on how smart they were while everything goes to hell?
For the future of their investments and careers, I suspect there are actually quite a few people working at both sites secretly praying Trump pulls out a win this November…
Published in General
“Civil” does not mean protection from threatening ideas. Nor does it mean polite acceptance of absurd notions. But maybe I misunderstand. Care to elaborate?
BTW what does “center right” mean these days? Like, not Democrat and not, um…David Duke?
I understand labels are difficult, wily things, but this smacks of “compassionate conservatism” indicating there are enough “non-compassionate” conservatives out there to make the distinction, and/or there’s something about conservatism that isn’t inherently compassionate.
That’s the trouble with oblique, drive-by postings. Who knows what’s meant? I don’t find that very civil.
There another one from the same person at #94.
By yelling, “BINARY!!!” and telling them they’re destroying the republic by not doing everything in their power to defend the it from the Democrats?
In other words, the same thing the Trumpists did to them.
I toldja we were back in this part of the ever-repeating cycle of the anti-Trump narratives. Pushed by The
LincolnLenin Project, where Nevers get their talking points.Oh, and we can’t forget comparing them to the Vichy French. That was a successful tactic as well.
All members of Congress? Are you sure you want to include Democrats in that? How are Democrats responsible? No, Democrats, as you have been telling us for four years, are responsible for putting a check on Trump. Therefore, I don’t see how Democrats enabled him at all. It’s really just the Republican Party — the one you claim to love — that needs to be destroyed, right?
Some of them are very, very excited about this. I would love to hear the descriptions of what they think this looks like.
Defeat Trump and all other Republicans
?
Restoring GOP
I don’t think you understand. The ‘Trumpists’ played the binary game for two cycles and the party lost.
Now that the party won, the Nevers remain unsatisfied.
They had some credibility before a myriad of conservative policies, approaches, appointments and attitudes were expressed and implemented by this administration. One of the ( somewhat credible) arguments was Trump was a stealth Democrat. That argument is now shattered, and was over after 6 months.
Furthermore, somehow Trump is passionately hated by Democrats. Do you really think that’s because of his demeanor and past lifestyle? It’s because he’s effective and can’t be controlled by them through their media allies.
No, you really don’t understand. Because those opposing Trump are insignificant as voters.
Trump has about a 94% positive view among voting Republicans. This is more than Bush (!) – either of them.
So we, as voters need not cater to, or convince these few bumbling generals to fight with us.
Their only value was in being thought-leaders, debaters and representatives. Now that they have been exposed as serial blunderers and faux representatives, they are worthless. Worthless. Better on MSNBC bashing Trump than with us fighting leftiststs. Because they are incompetent and stupid. Or they are working as stealth Democrats themselves. Take your pick.
Adding to the absurdity of trying to court their favor, to get them advocate or vote for Trump… their credibility has vanished, so advocacy would be counterproductive, and as voters??? They all – to a man and woman, live in deep blue states! Sure the 94% are going to compromise on a few things to try to get the approval of the 6% ? That’s just not how politics works.
The generals lost the infantry because they mislead. They are worthless as leaders, and insignificant as fighters.
The “Trumpists” got a Democrat elected?
The analogy is far from perfect. It’s one thing to play the binary card to keep a Democrat out of the White House and quite another to use it successfully after you’ve helped puta Democrat in the White House.
Victor David Hansen was one of the first people in the Bulwark‘s crosshairs. When the Bulwark launched, Charlie Three-Wives singled out VDH as an example of the people they were created to destroy.
That interview should have been a clear signal to all conservatives that The Bulwark wasn’t just an anti-Trump outlet. That their thrust was basically anti-conservative.
Charlie Three-Wives was never a conservative. He always pretended to be one on the radio because that was how to get a talk show.
Republicans have been doing that forever, though, making promises they never intended to keep because “who else are they gonna vote for?” Well, the McCain and Romney candidacies showed that they might just choose to stay home. The thing about President Trump is that he has worked to keep his promises.
I think this is right. Nobody wants the Republican party anymore. Trump is keeping it going by forcing them to make some begrudging concessions to their voters but mostly by force of his personality. There was some thought that Trump could reform the Republican party into a more electorally viable institution, but he failed. Maybe if he had a 2nd term, but that looks unlikely, now.
The presumption of the Republican leadership is that they exist to protect business. That’s somewhat appealing as long as pro-business policies provide economic prosperity, but the 2008 financial crisis made that suspect. Now, it’s become clear that business despises Republican voters. How will the continued coddling of business interests, now thoroughly anti-American, be a winning issue in elections? The only other rationale for the Republican party is to protect it’s voters from the predations of the left. Is anybody feeling that now?
After November, the Dems will probably establish electoral dominance for decades. They are not bashful about consolidating power (immigration amnesty anyone?). The Republican party is going to be a rump party. What type of party will it be? I don’t see it going back to the Bush-McCain-Romney model.
Edited for a grammar error and improved wording.
Well, giant corporations anyway. Small businesses still seem to lean conservative.
For Trump’s second term, he really needs to think hard about how to break up some of the mega-corporations. Decoupling from China will help. But there needs to be some serious consideration for how to reduce their power.
This is interesting. What does Gary think?
Given how they’ve been treated over the last four years, part of me can’t really blame them.
Who do you think started it? The organized anti-Trump is pathetic in this sense.
If they withhold their votes for any reason and a Democrat wins, it’s their fault. Period.
That’s what they’ve been saying for the last four years, and that’s the standard they should be held to.
How has Trump failed to reform the Republican party into a more appealing electoral force? Is it by doubling down on his racial divisiveness? Incompetent handling of the pandemic? Failing to make any compromises with Democrats? Being generally and overtly corrupt in his administrations practices? Constantly making an ass of himself on Twitter to the point where a substantial majority of Americans now can no longer tolerate to hear him speak on anything?
The Republican party is not in anyway interested in “protecting business”. I see no evidence of that anywhere in their rhetoric or practices. What it is interested in and what Donald Trump has promoted is a constant parade of performative actions meant to entertain and delight the Talk Radio die hard segment of the American populace. Trump and the current Republican establishment is now all about providing political entertainment for the idiots that watch FoxNews 12 hours a day, listen to Rush Limbaugh, and write comments on the sites like Ricochet. They are doing everything you guys say you want. And you are unhappy with the outcome? This is what you fools voted for when you picked Donald Trump to be leader of the Republican party. Are you not entertained?
The Republican Party deserves to die as an institution because it is no longer a serious thing, and as such can no longer be trusted with any sort of national responsibility. Donald Trump is the zenith, the apogee of this performative entertainment conservatism, and any one in a leadership position within the party who might be tempted to actually focus on governing rather than performing of the MAGA crowd is to cowardly and weak to do it.
No serious or decent person should want anything to do with this organization anymore. It is unsalvageable. Nuke it from orbit it’s the only way to be sure.
Bill Kristol, is that you?
What decade that happen? tia
I don’t see any “Trumpists” withholding their votes in 2020.
It pains me to say it, but Kristol makes somewhat more sense.
Not in 2020. The question I was answering was, “How do the NeverTrumps expect to win back the Trump supporters if they get their way in 2024?”
My point was that maybe they should use some of the rhetoric that has been used against them over the past few years.
If you are in a game of opinions, you either take heat in the form of others’ opinions or find a new line. If the usual suspects have been treated badly in a substantive sense, I’ve missed it. What I have noticed is that some have been able to carve out new locations for their opinions that presumably pay the rent.
Now that I think of it, there is a way for the never-Trumpers to reassert themselves within the Republican party. If the left is overwhelmingly dominant after November, they may be powerful enough to appoint their own opponents and basically establish a controlled opposition. The left will want a Republican party that does not challenge the premises of leftist rule and that won’t present any electorally popular alternative.
I misunderstood, but the original point was what I was trying answer in my post previous to that.
Here’s my problem with any equivalency. For those on the right who viewed 2016 as binary, it was in the service of keeping HRC out of the White House. The binary line of thinking is going to be a tougher sell in 2024 for anyone in the GOP establishment who either passively or aggressively assisted in putting 2020 Biden in the White House. The situations are not really the same. I hope that makes more sense.
It is obvious to me that The Lincoln Project is making a difference based on the volume of attacks about some of their founders, the relative percentage of start up costs, and some random unfortunate statements over the years of some of their founders. If The Lincoln Project was not making a difference, they would simply be ignored.
I have an observation of the comments after I last weighed in at Comments ## 93 and 97. All but one of them have been filed by people who have pseudonyms and not their real names. The one person who posted under his name has shown himself to be a most difficult person to reason with.
Do I have responses to some of the arcane arguments? Yes. Do I want to battle in the world of conspiracies? No. I don’t want to try to justify what various members of The Lincoln Project have or have not done. What I am looking at is what the Lincoln Project has produced. And their ads are devastating and amazingly effective. I am happy to discuss the ads produced by the Lincoln Project. I am not willing to discuss the foibles of various people who have been associated with The Lincoln Project. “Prior Bad Acts” are generally not admissible in court cases; likely because if you dig deep enough, you can always find some “prior bad act.”
One last point. It has been suggested that Trump has the support of 94% of Republicans. Not true. He is down to 87% and that amount is going down every day. There are more Democrats than Republicans. To win, Democrats need the votes of 80% of all Democrats. To win, Republicans need the votes of 90% of all Republicans. For Trump to be down to 87% is devastating.
Gary, just flat out say you don’t care about their motives including money. They are jacking up their net worth off of Pierre Omidyar.
I can’t stand what Bill Kristol and everyone around him believes about government.
Pierre Omidyar has a lot of money.