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.
Quote of the Day: The 80/20 Rule
“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is an 80 percent friend and not a 20 percent enemy”–Ronald Wilson Reagan
Fifty-four years ago today, on November 8, 1966, only two years after Barry Goldwater’s rout in the Presidential election of 1964, Ronald Reagan was elected Governor of California and American Conservatism was back in political business. His opponent, once-popular, two-term Democrat Pat Brown had unwisely decided to seek a third term (after stating that he would not), and was damaged by unrest in the universities (where else?) and a season of riots, most notably those in the Watts area of South Los Angeles, huge conflagrations in which dozens died. Reagan took a tough line with the universities, asking in the speech announcing his candidacy:
Will we allow a great university to be brought to its knees by a noisy dissident minority? Will we meet their neurotic vulgarities with vacillation and weakness, or will we tell those entrusted with administering the university we expect them to enforce a code based on decency, common sense and dedication to the high and noble purpose of the university?
He was not shy about condemning the riots either, saying that the city streets of California had become “jungle paths after dark,” and supporting the short-lived repeal of the Rumford Fair Housing Act calling it an incursion on a citizen’s right to “dispose of property to whom we see fit, and when we see fit.” As might have been expected, the fallout from those remarks was swift and both of those positions aroused accusations of racism, which Reagan largely shrugged off, saying that citizens had a right to live in safety and that although some people may have been “expressing bigotry and prejudice [in opposing the Rumford Act]” that he was “sure the majority did so because the government was invading a Constitutional right.”
Reagan’s ascension to the Governorship of California launched the political career of one who many people considered a second-rate actor, a man of indifferent intellect, and a divorced and remarried man who many believed didn’t have the moral character to serve in public office. And yet that career culminated, fourteen years later, with his election to the first of his two terms as President of the United States, and after that, the inauguration of George H.W. Bush, in the hopes that the often spectacular successes and outcomes of the Reagan years would continue. And today, forty years later, many look back on that time as a lost, golden age of Conservatism and the Republican Party in the United States. And perhaps it is. And perhaps it was.
Nevertheless, life goes on, and here we still are.
It’s a bit of a mess, to be sure. I don’t know what the final outcome will be. I don’t really know what ordinary citizens can do to help (pretty sure rioting and burning things down should be off the table). Send money to the RNC legal fund, perhaps?
I do know that Donald Trump has an obligation to the 70 million or so Americans who voted for him to do everything he can to ensure the integrity of the ballots, and that the count is fair and accurate. As obnoxious as some people may find that idea, and as petulant and ungracious as Trump’s demeanor may be in announcing it and as it plays out, the history of both perceived and actual election fraud in this country is wide and deep, and the quadrennial navel-gazing over it is one of the country’s least edifying aspects, no matter who’s on offense, who’s on defense, or where the ball is spotted (note well: rare sports analogy). It’s 60 years ago today that the first American presidential election of my lifetime to be clouded by credible claims of fraud and corruption was held. Whether or not the election of John F. Kennedy was legitimate is still being debated, not always by cranks.
Will Trump be successful in his challenges? I don’t know. I hope that the eventual outcome will show that one or the other presidential candidates won fairly and squarely, and that the GOP holds the Senate. I increasingly fear that one, or worst case both, of those things will not come to pass.
But I can’t won’t live my life that way. Hope is not a strategy. Despair is not a lifestyle. Not for me, anyway.
So what now?
I look back four years, to a time when the last narcissistic and grandiose US President left office. (To be fair, I think a certain amount of narcissism and grandiosity is necessary in the character and makeup of anyone who’s running for a position as “Leader of the Free World.” Some just manage to hide it better than others.)
And I think to myself that one of the huge disservices that Barack Obama did the Democrat party was to leave office and leave the party with no clear lines of succession. Often, when a President leaves office, the Vice-President becomes the de-facto “leader,” first among equals with a few rising stars thrown in the mix. Joe Biden wasn’t that leader in 2016. (As best I can tell, he’s been hiding in his basement not just for the last six months, but for the last four years.) And there weren’t really any significant nationally-credible rising stars. Well, Pelosi and Schumer. LOL.
The result of what (I remember reading about at the time) was probably a conscious decision on Obama’s part not to hand off the baton to the next generation, but to keep himself front and center even after he left office (likely because he was depending on a Hillary win), was the “99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall” effect of the Democrat primary debate stage earlier this year. 17 of them? 19 of them? 22 of them? Who cares? And who can really remember what any of them, besides Bernie, stood for–or did they all stand for the same thing? Who cares?
Because when it all came down to it, no-one really knew who the hell they were, they started dropping like flies, and finally, in an effort to stem the chaos, squelch Bernie, and give Rip van Biden a boost, James Clyburn decreed that he would win the South Carolina primary. (IIRC, it’s the first primary election Biden had ever won, in any of his 3? 5? 12? Who cares? runs for President.)
That started the “Joe-mentum.” And the rest is history. Maybe.
My hope for the post-Trump Republican party is that it doesn’t make the same mistake. Whether or not Trump leaves office in January of 2021, or January of 2025, I hope that there’ll be two or three leaders of recognized national stature carrying the Conservative (and yes, largely Trumpian–remember those 70 million voters) message forward, and that the electorate will have a chance to evaluate and observe them over a period of more than the five minutes of the primary season when they suddenly erupt into the national consciousness for the first time.
I’m not saying there isn’t room for a shooting star to emerge at any moment from the political, or a different, arena. I’m saying that nature, and politics, abhor a vacuum, and that it’s not a good idea to leave one at the head of the party, otherwise, after a brief period of posturing by a gaggle of opportunists, poseurs, and nitwits, you’re likely to end up with another Joe Biden, or his equivalent on the GOP side, doddering in to fill the space.
When it comes time for Trump to say goodbye, I hope he gives the speech of his life. I hope he thanks his supporters, tells them they’re the best people in the world (I know they are, because many of them are my neighbors), tells them that they, and not he, are what “Makes America Great.” That even though he is leaving office, the work goes on. That he knows he can trust them to do it. And that he’s leaving the party in good hands [insert a few names here].
I hope he doesn’t leave angrily, with promises that he, or one of his children, will be back in 2024 or 2028. I really hope he doesn’t do that.
If Donald Trump would like to have some say in how the country and the party moves forward (and I hope he would like that), if he’d like to be remembered as something of a statesman, he’s going to have reconcile himself, perhaps for the first time ever, to the fact that not all his 80 percent supporters are his 20 percent enemies, give some of them a boost into the spotlight, and then let go gracefully.
That’s half the job.
And then it is on us to do with each other, likewise.
Published in General
My hope for the post-Trump Republican party is that it doesn’t make the same mistake. Whether or not Trump leaves office in January of 2021, or January of 2025, I hope that there’ll be two or three leaders of recognized national stature carrying the Conservative (and yes, largely Trumpian–remember those 70 million voters) message forward, and that the electorate will have a chance to evaluate and observe them over a period of more than the five minutes of the primary season when they suddenly erupt into the national consciousness for the first time.
Trump is the last wall standing between the United States and the Great Reset. Which is why Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano wrote the letter he did. There are no reinforcements coming.
Well, then. We are doomed, either now, or in the next decade or two when Trump, after having declared himself President-for-Life, shuffles off this mortal coil as even he surely must. Unless you, and Archbishop Vigano, know something I don’t.
I reject that scenario, living as I do in on a property with electric power and a back up generator, and a well which draws water automatically but also has a hand pump in case of failure. However, you’re free to subscribe to it if you like.
I like to have a backup plan, thanks very much. And it’s a rare case in which I can’t find at least one.
I am afraid you may be right.
But I remain an optimist, by virtue of faith if not reason: if those of us who stand, choose to stand for what is good and right, the battle is not lost. We have persevered over much worse odds before.
Unfortunately, if the other guy doesn’t see it that way and shivs you and America in the back, he makes himself a 100% enemy.
If you would like to participate in the Quote of the Day series, our sign-up sheet for November awaits. Dates as early as Veterans’ Day are open as of this moment.
If, on the other hand, you want to share with Ricochet the thanks you have to give, you might consider Group Writing, for which the theme this month is: Cornucopia of Thanks.
When I said “no reinforcements” I didn’t mean he would have no support or supporters. I meant that no other statesmen will emerge. I suggest reading Vigano’s letter. Its a message of hope.
Indeed. There are some of those around, as well. And I, as I suspect do most people, have no difficulty in telling the difference between the two.
Or when they loudly proclaim themselves your enemy.
Me: What was that you said?
Me: Sharpens longsword
It is absolutely a two-way street. (I think some believe that, like ballot-box-stuffing, the advantage only goes to the one side).
Mr. She was one of the most genial and easy-going fellows it was possible to know. I’m sure, if I’d ever asked him if he subscribed to the 80/20 rule, he’d have said yes–after all, some of his dearest friends were university Lefties who weren’t with him politically, but with whom he could, and often did, enjoy vigorous and good-natured debates in other fields, and who agreed with him on what Reagan described, in the quote I put in the OP, as to the “decency, common sense and dedication to the high and noble purpose of the university?”
But.
One of Mr. She’s favorite maxims? “I’m a nice guy. Don’t [expletive] with me.”
Words to live by.
I hope the things you hope, @she.
Oh yeah, @she, if someone on the other side engages in good faith and a spirit of comity, I’m okay engaging in a friendly manner. But when they start making lists of those they want to ruin, “F— around and find out.”
I have no use for doomsayers, and particularly for doomsayers who think they speak with authority (e.g., comment #1). Few correctly predicted 2016, far fewer both 2016 and 2020: anyone who thinks he can see 2024 is almost certainly engaged in fanciful thinking. We don’t know who will occupy the White House then, much less who will be running against him or her.
Let’s verify the vote.
Regarding the Reagan quotation, I agree. But I’ll add this:
“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is an 80 percent friend and not a 20 percent enemy. Unless he shot your dog. That’s worth at least 20%.” — Hank Racette
That’s kind of how I feel about the more vocal Never-Trumpers right now.
Reagan didn’t leave a successor to the conservative party he tried to establish. He left GHW Bush, a severe socialist with dynastic intentions. Bush is the one who left a legacy in the party that we are still suffering from. Bush did not believe in small government, he believed in a government that should be bigger, but not as big as the democrats wanted. Not much of a choice. The principled defense of capitalism has been lost since Reagan because he left Bush to take over.
When people complain about the republican “establishment,” they are referring to the Bush political machine, which has done precious little to promote freedom or smaller government.
You mean like John McCain? Or Mitt Romney? Bob Dole?
Trump was the anomaly. I really don’t care anymore about the GOP. I despise the Bush family and what they stand for. That accounts for all 12 years of Republican rule between 1988 and 2016. I despise Mitt Romney and John McCain. There are Republicans I like but I’m not sure if I can actually trust them. I have zero respect for the Never Trumpers. Very little respect for the Balz ‘n Strikers living out their political fantasies at their keyboards and podcasts.
But at this point whoever the media and deep state hate the most should be our candidate, and of course he/she would lose because they are in absolute control as we now are seeing unfold. So it’s either surrender to this fiction, or fight. There’s no 80/20 anymore.
There’s no going ‘back’. That’s an illusion. We see that we can only have fake and tepid doddering-fool candidates who will be ‘acceptable’ …and they will freakin’ lose every time.
I’m now of the opinion retrospectively, that W Bush only survived by giving the deep state everything they wanted. Makes sense now, no?
Regardless of whomever wins – Trump or Biden – we are not going to see any “healing”. And it will probably get worse before it gets better (“it” being national comity). If Biden is certified, a majority of the 70 million of us who voted for Trump will consider him illegitimate (President Asterisk) and will return to him what the Dems/Swamp gave to Trump over the past 4 years (of a different type, but in equal measure). We may not riot like the Left’s blackshirts, but we will become increasingly uncooperative and disruptive in our own way, and that matters a lot given the roles we generally play in society. It is unlikely that Trump will be quiet in the wilderness. He will be interested in preserving his Legacy. He will make life extremely difficult for a Harris/Biden administration. There’s no way he’ll be a Reagan or Bush in retirement. Any GOPers who think they can pilot a post-Trump party without Trump involved are kidding themselves.
If the recounts and court cases show Trump to have prevailed with an Electoral College victory, the Democrats/Media/Big Tech etc. will go even hotter. They put themselves all in. Big Tech in particular burned their ships. They can only win or die. There is no way that a re-elected Trump will let them off easy and they know it.
So whatever the immediate outcome, we are headed for divisive times and rougher seas than we’ve already seen.
Yes, that is who I mean. The “it’s my turn” candidates.
I think there is still room for civil discussion, the expansion of the base, particularly in the area of minority constituents, and even the changing of minds. The swing at the local levels was rightward, and that means something. I do not think we should assume that the Presidency is lost to the Republican party forever, if reason prevails in Georgia. Of course, if you are right in everything you say, then the Republicans will lose both Senate seats, and we are indeed [expletive]. We shall see.
If you understood my post to say that we should go backwards, and that only fake and tepid doddering-fool candidates are acceptable, then you must be reading the “backmasked” version of it. Please don’t bother looking for hidden messages; there aren’t any.
Hindsight is indeed 20/20.
The nature of the Republican problem summed up in five words.
I expect this is largely true, or that at least it will be to start with.
This was one of the main points of the post. I, personally, think it would be a great mistake for Trump to strut around and snipe from the sidelines for the next four years. (I fully understand why he might want to do that; do not mistake my lack of appreciation for such tactics for a lack of understanding as to why he might want to employ them. But I think that would paralyze the Right, and lead to defeat in 2024, if Trump ends up leaving office in January.)
And yes, ” any GOPers who think they can pilot a post-Trump party without Trump involved are kidding themselves.” That is exactly why I am suggesting that Trump should involve himself in the handover of the reins of power in the Republican party, have some say in them, and insure that his supporters have a place to go.
Much as we may love him, warts and all, and invincible as he seems, Donald Trump is 74 years old right now. We have no idea how he’ll be, physically and mentally, next year, or two, or four years from now. He could be fine in both regards. Or he could be severely incapacitated in one or both areas. He doesn’t know how he’ll be, either. The most magnanimous thing Trump can do, if he ends up losing this election (this is a theoretical premise, not a prediction either of electoral outcome or of Trump’s behavior), is become the Grand old Man of the party, and play a role in its future without insisting that its future can hinge on only one man–himself.
Yep. Nor should he.
If Trump ends up as the President, come January 2021, I don’t think there’s any doubt the Left will lose what pass for their collective minds. If he does not, then I think he could do his 70 million voters a great service by giving them an optimistic message, and by giving them permission to support other, younger candidates of the Trumpist (no pejorative implied) political persuasion. He should stay involved, and he should remain in an advisory, elder statesman role. (I realize that almost none of this scenario plays to Trump’s strengths, but it’s my honest opinion of what would be best for the country.)
This is what turned me on to Trump in the first place. If the bad guys hate him this much he’s not one of them. (And you can tell they’re bad by the irrationality of their arguments, the illegality of the their actions, and the vehemence of their invective.)
Amen.
Nonsense.
That the election was so close should just by itself put paid to that. The radicals on the Left have made enough noise for the last 4 years to convince the rest of the party that they were more numerous than have proven to be, but this election being so close should clue them in that their real base is much smaller. No, Trump and others (like Vigano) succeeded in making this election for many a referendum on Trump Himself, and likewise this has fallen flat. I cannot tell you the number of people I have spoken to in the last year who, if you could separate the policies from the man, actually supported what Trump was doing, but only insofar as they did not associate it with him. These folks had sympathy for the radicals too only insofar as they saw these radicals as the only vehicle for opposing Trump himself.
Take Trump out of the picture and suddenly you have AOC and the other Maenads of the Left front and center. You think these same voters wont pivot away from that mess?
Which means, for 2024, Cruz? Rubio? I hope not.
So do I. I was hoping for something more along the lines of Cotton, Crenshaw, DeSantis, Noem, I’m sure there are others.
Why? Why should he do that?
He hasn’t even lost yet and people are begging him to never try again? Let’s see if he loses before we start demanding what happens in 4 years.
I believe he should do that because I believe that IF he is not declared the winner of the election after he has fulfilled his obligation to (in the words of the OP) “insure the integrity of the ballots, and that the count is fair and accurate” it would be the in the best interests of the country for him to do so. I would rather see the baton passed to a younger set, and see Trump continue to play a leadership role in the party than I would see internecine war, resulting in either the “establishment” moving back into leadership positions for more of the same old, same old (Hello, Mitt Romney, etc) or the party split in two and Trump taking his football and most of his supporters (I’m not sure they’d all go with him) and starting The Trump Party somewhere else. In either case, I think the result would be that it would be a very long time before a Republican was elected President of this Republic again..
I am suggesting, on both humanitarian and actuarial grounds, that, should Trump lose the 2020 election, it may be unwise for those who support “Trumpism” the policy agenda to put all their eggs in the single basket of “Trump” the man. He is 74 years old, and although he appears hale and hearty at the moment, I think that is 1) a lot to ask of a person (no matter how much his ego would be flattered by the prospect), 2) a foolish risk. That is why, if he’s more interested in implementing his agenda than he is in being the President (assuming he loses the 2020 Presidential election), I think Donald Trump would better serve his country by announcing that he won’t run again in four years, and that he’ll work within the party to keep his agenda moving forward and work to elect candidates who’ll carry it out. Peripherally, I think designating Donald Jr, or one of his other children as the favored heir (and I’ve heard several people float that idea) would be a mistake. If that scenario is to play itself out, let that child run for Congresscritter in NY, and work his or her way up the ladder a bit.
I demand nothing. I’m not in a position to demand anything. In fact, it’s exactly because I can’t see four years into the future that I favor a lower-risk strategy. I started out with a rather strong statement that Trump should make sure that the election that’s just been held was fair and accurate, and that I hope that whoever wins it, that will be the majority view. I merely looked back at the vacuum Obama left at the top of the party after his second Presidential term, and suggested that Trump should do things differently. And I combined that with my humanitarian and actuarial sense that, should Trump end up leaving office in January 2021, rolling the dice, and the Republican hopes for the Presidency, onto the shoulders of one 74-year old man and where he’ll be, mentally and physically, in four years is a risk I don’t think the country can afford.
Seem premature.
Well, one of two things is going to happen in the next several weeks. Donald Trump is either going to be declared the winner, or the loser. There really aren’t any other options, so as far as the eventual outcome goes, the alternatives aren’t numerous or complex. Worst case, come January 6 (I believe), and no certified winner emerges from the Electoral College (which I suppose is a possibility), then the House will decide among the top three EC vote-getters (I think), and Trump will emerge from that process as President or not.
I don’t think pondering alternatives about what should probably be called “succession planning” in timely and rational ways is ever premature. Actually, I think it’s one sign of a good leader, and I’d like to think that Donald Trump is thinking about both potential outcomes already, and has a plan for whichever one of them comes to pass, since whichever one it is will profoundly affect the next four years of his life.
January 6th, itself, is just a little less than eight weeks away. (Sheesh, better start thinking about where I put the Christmas decorations ….)
The alternative strategy, which my stepdaughter refers to as “panic when you get there,” never seemed like an attractive or wise course of action to me.