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.
Will Conservatives Fight Each Other for the Next Four Years?
I have no idea what will happen over the next month. It’s possible but unlikely that President Trump will be re-elected; it’s also likely that Joe Biden will fill that seat; his winning this election fills me with fear and dread.
But to me, even worse than watching an elderly man who has cognitive problems and misguided ideas become President will be watching the Conservatives at each other’s throats. I foresee those who enthusiastically support Trump holding angry grudges against those who believed that Trump could not overcome the odds or beat back the fraud. And I can imagine those who believed the odds were long will be hated by those who believed that fraud should have been uncovered and Trump should have won.
This outcome is a lose-lose proposition for Conservatives everywhere.
Why do I bring this issue up now? Because in one sense, it doesn’t matter what the results are: we could waste our energy berating each other, blaming the system, and condemning those who were on the opposite side of us.
I’m also raising this issue now because we must focus on the real potential catastrophe: Democrats may very well be in charge of the government at one level or another and their dominance could destroy our country.
Now I will admit that I’m not fond of watching people fight with each other, verbally or otherwise (although I did enjoy the original Karate Kid). But the stakes are too high for us to get sidetracked and fall into Republican reticence of being Mr. Nice Guys or giving up the farm. Instead of fighting with each other over the past, let’s try the following:
- Make sure one way or another that a highly credible commission is established to study the results of the election, identify the fraud that occurred, find the mismanagement that was pervasive, and identify solutions. This effort will require identifying which steps should be proposed for the federal government to oversee, and which should be given to the states. If possible, the recommendations should include penalties for breaking or mismanaging the rules. The committee should be bipartisan and should preferably include people who are no longer in government, but have credibility on both sides of the aisle.
- Stop crying over spilled milk, no matter who wins. It will have been done. Arguing amongst ourselves is just another kind of distraction and will stall any progress on the part of Republicans. I frankly don’t care if you feel there was massive fraud or if you believe there was fraud, but not enough to make a difference. (I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.) It’s history. Finished. Done.
- Let’s figure out the next steps for the Republicans that go beyond fighting the Democrats or re-litigating the election. We need to revamp totally the principles of Conservatism. We need to give up on old hopes that will be lost for the future, such as small government. We need to figure out how to educate people about US history and its goals in moving forward. We need to determine how to best engage people in America and build enthusiasm for 2024.
- We must explore the psychological impact of this election and be honest about its effect on ourselves and the people. Each of us should take a good hard look at ourselves and ask what really motivates our antagonism toward our colleagues. I learned a good lesson that is almost always true when it comes to human motivation. We become angry when two aspects of our psyche are challenged: being right and looking good. That means when someone accuses us of being wrong, we defend ourselves, insisting that we are right. It doesn’t matter whether we are “really” right or not; we must protect ourselves from those who question us. “Looking good” describes those characteristics that we value because we think they make us “look good”; they are what you value about yourself, not necessarily what someone else appreciates about us. That means when a person violates your important beliefs about your looking good—being smart, being right, being ethical, being educated—you will have a strong negative reaction and even fight back. I know intimately the limitations of these reactions!
Once we realize that our reactions to others’ challenging us are based on our irrational fears of being discounted, it’s much easier to disregard what they say about us. For example, some men like to tell me I’m reacting “emotionally” to something. Most women hate to be told that; I love it because I can respond by saying, “You’re right! I am emotional. But I’m also smart and knowledgeable.” That usually stops the attack.
* * * * *
My hope for all of us is that we don’t move into the next four years with a chip on our shoulders. Let’s not attack each other; let’s not spend our time in useless arguments. Instead, let’s transform our anger into passion; our concerns into dedication for America; our frustration into a laser-sharp focus. Let’s work together. Let’s help each other.
Let’s set the example of what it means to be proud Americans.
Published in Politics
The proverbial frog has much to teach us.
I’d really appreciate it if you would avoid just dropping a “lies” bomb without supporting it. Hopefully you understand that a “lie” is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth.
I don’t like Trump. I voted against him in the 2016 Primaries. I voted for him in the 2016 & 2020 General Elections. I have sent e-mails to the Speaker of the Michigan House & the Michigan Senate Majority Leader asking them to select Trump Electors. I have no idea why anyone would vote for a brain dead Democrat over an imperfect Republican, but that’s just me.
Is Cruz really out?
Perhaps the problem is that you treat them with disdain.
1 hour and 95 comments. Susan, you know how to generate a conversation!
That’s the core of the disagreement. Trump is the enemy of our enemies and it did no good to a certain few, who apparently said amongst themselves: I like our enemy better; they’re clean and bright, have crisp pant creases and trillions of dollars at their disposal, and their surrogates start such great rhetorical and actual fires.
As long as someone has to open the conversation on how bad Trump was, there is no reason to talk to them. I am not interested in people who open with virtue signsl.
With all due respect, the invitation came from Susan, not you. If you would like to fight, then we can fight on your post or my post. Let’s not fight on Susan’s post, okay?
I’m unclear on your continued attempts to decide what can be discussed in any comment. My view is that it’s none of your business, Perhaps you’d like to express a contrary perspective,
Trump knew since 2015 or earlier that both parties are corrupt. That is why he used a team of lawyers to wade thru the regulations of each party regarding their respective protocols for nominating the Presidential candidate before he decided which party he would be part of.
Although his lawyers did not announce the Republicans were not corrupt, his lawyers did figure out that he could persevere if he went into the Republican battle knowing how to manage his fight. But as a Democrat, he had zero chance against the well established machinery of the Clinton Crime Family.
Are you saying that Trump hasn’t told any serious lies since emerging as a political figure or do you mean something specific?
And no, I think if “reckless disregard” is good enough for second degree murder it’s good enough for lies. Except in Trump’s case I’d up it to a malicious disregard for truth. The man clearly has contempt for the very concept and enjoys getting away with statements he has no reason to believe are true.
Lists, please.
Thanks. I was expecting no answer. Instead I received a completely evasive answer. Is that better or worse?
No. You chime in, I am going to tell you what I think of you again.
This rhetorical trick has become such crutch, it’s hilarious.
“Return tomorrow with an exhaustive report justifying your unfounded assertion that the sky is blue. Meanwhile, I shall continue to dunk on you with my own assertions for which I have no evidence.”
This is a conversation site. If people disbelieve or claim to disbelieve the patently obvious, that’s not my problem.
The rhetorical trick is to pound the table and insist that the President is a serial liar without ever providing a lick of evidence. With behavior like that, you could have your own podcast!
I take this as an admission that you got nothing.
I call threadjack.
I don’t understand why there needs to be such an intense debate about Trump’s character.
We all know that Trump bragged about sleeping with women who were married to other men. We know that Trump talks about National Enquirer stories of Ted Cruz’s father being involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and stories about Joe Scarborough having one of his congressional aides killed.
Now, can one make a case that despite Donald Trump’s moral imperfections, one should vote for Trump anyway? Sure. That case has been articulately made here on Ricochet and elsewhere.
Go ahead and mention Trump’s US Supreme Court nominees, tax cuts, deregulation and so on.
But don’t blow smoke in our faces and say, “Trump doesn’t lie.”
Let’s have an honest conversation. We don’t have to tip toe around these issues. We can admit the good, the bad and the repulsive regarding Trump.
Then there’s this great line from “The Ballad of Cable Hogue”( starring Jason Robards)
Priest( warning Hogue that revenge is wrong): “ Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord”
Hogue: “Fine with me, as long as He doesn’t take too long, and I get to watch!”
How about we test for substance, for policy results? If your supposed policy, peddled every two years to get those other voters to show up for your guy, is actually being implimented, and you are in a huff, whatever you used to use as a public/fundraising conservative metric is falsified and you are not, by the definition you used just 5 years ago, a conservative.
This is universal on the left, and I assume from the NTs. I can never get them to describe one “lie.”
Your NeverTrumper credentials are current, I see.
Speaking of lies.
It’s okay with me if you stop.
I assume you have evidence for your accusations besides “everybody knows it.” Lots of people suspected the Congressman from CA. I have never heard of an accusation about Scarborough. He and Trump were friends until 2016.
No. I mean we should all be able to agree that Trump is a liar and generally a bad person. We can say, “He’s an bad guy, but he’s our bad guy.”
It just seems like many Trump supporters aren’t willing to admit the obvious.
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/05/26/politifact-donald-trump-spreads-baseless-claim-that-msnbc-host-murdered-a-staff-member-in-2001/
has
Yes, it is not always best if “common ground” is elevated, especially when it is always. Always. Peddled by leftists and GOPe to mean shut up and do not dispute our “win.”
In Lou Reed’s words, “there’s no ground common enough for me and you.” By the way, this is the winning strategy of Nancy Pelosi, who purged the “Blue Dog” Democrats that Reagan once could rely on to undercut the Democrat Speaker of the House.
Whodathunk that Trump voters would agree with an NT who posts no evidence except “Everybody agrees?”