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.
Who Will be Polk to Trump’s Jackson?
About ten years ago I read an interesting biography on James Polk by Walter Borneman. In short, he was Andrew Jackson’s protege and cemented in place the changes that Jackson started. Many of these held, even after the Civil War. Polk and Jackson were opposites with regard to temperament. However, Jackson was a mentor to Polk, both ideologically and practically. Even so, Polk made his own mark, was his own man, and was not a mini-me to Jackson. In many ways, Polk was more ruthless than Jackson. The strength of Polk’s presidency was that many of the changes he established became the bipartisan establishment for decades. Possibly until the rise of the Progressives in the late 19th century.
In my opinion, Trump’s show-biz instincts will come to bear now. He will see that he’s going to be more powerful and more appreciated if he becomes an “elder statesman” for the MAGA set of policies. This will be the political equivalent of licensing his name on other hotels. If I’m right, I suspect that the same Polk-Jackson dynamic will develop. I do not know who it will be, although I have some thoughts. Who do you think and why?
Published in General
I read a Polk biography around that time as well, don’t remember the author, I agree that this is the dynamic I would hope for. Ron DeSantis or Kristi Noem. Both are healthier than Polk was in his single term, which was all he committed to serve when he ran..
Polk is an underappreciated president; not many know much about him.
The person I think has the same will to carry through on promises and also a genuinely conservative world view is Tom Cotton. I don’t know if he has the charm to sway crowds, but he has enough chutzpah and brains to carry out good policy and sheer guts to face down the Left. Trump likes him personally enough to really go to bat for him, and Cotton is well spoken without the communication challenges that were the #1 complaint from some about POTUS.
He certainly understands middle America, and I trust his core more than any of the others I’ve seen mentioned. DeSantis and Noem are good, but not as tough as Cotton and if there’s one thing the last 4 years convinced me of it’s how badly we need tough. Remember the letter he sent to Iran after Obama bypassed the Senate to make the agreement with Iran? Brilliant.
Trump showed that conservatives desperately want a fighter; that other voters are attracted to bold patriotism and optimism. Now, the country needs someone who fights with equal boldness but more tact and clarity.
Now is not the time to consider who should run for President in 2024. Our politics moves faster than that. Events will shake up the field of popular and interested parties by then.
Instead, now is the time for Trump to transition to whatever vocal but unofficial role I suspect he’s considering, while other figures act as rightwing voices for the people who are censored or ignored.
Legally, governors, state legislatures, and local district attorneys will be more influential than they have been in decades. We are already seeing states buck more against the national government’s extra-Constitutional claims.
Polk made us a continental country. He finalized the process of admitting Texas. He won California, Nevada, Arizona and the western half of New Mexico and Colorado. He glared down England to extend the 49th parallel to the Pacific Ocean. He is perhaps the greatest president of the first half of the 19th Century.
If there’s going to be another Polk . . . look out, Western Canada!
I’ve actually been musing about the possibility of gobbling up Western Canada some time soon. This was the result of listening to a couple of podcasts on geopolitics and oil issues, which indicated that there’s a fair amount of internal conflict involving Alberta and its oil.
If Alberta or BC asked to join us, I would take them in a heart beat. Actually, I’d take any part of Canada that wants to join us. (I would also happily take Greenland if they are ever for sale.) This is a very good book on a merger with Canada.
Unfortunately, I don’t think Cotton and Trump have a good relationship anymore, and Cotton may have alienated a critical mass of Trump supporters in the wake of January 6th. I’m willing to forgive Cotton (and pretty much only Cotton) for that in light of his past actions, but I worry that the damage will be too great to overcome in four years, much like some Trump supporters hadn’t forgiven Cruz by the time he was up for re-election.
I don’t know where Cotton stands on it now, but he had adopted the “insurrection” language surrounding 1/6. That was a major mistake in my opinion, both on the merits and pragmatically. He can come back from it, for me, if he shows that he understands the severity of the error. Otherwise I’ll pass as that is a sign of the surrenders and passivity to come.
Yup. I hadn’t read your comment before posting my own. I like Cotton (and Cruz). I have to hear some major reversal on that insurrection business, though, before I could really support him for president.
DeSantis definitely gets a look. He has done well in Florida is still a very popular governor with cross-over appeal. I think we should move away from senators and back to governors. I would favor a Noem or DeSantis over a Cotton or Cruz at his point. I really liked Nikki Haley but she proved she is unserious about things, unfortunately. We need a serious person who understands the stakes of the fight we are in. Not an establishment retread who wants to go along to get along.
Forgiven for what? For working with Trump and defending him after Trump publicly slandered his father in the first campaign?
Concur
Haley has lost me (she is at the bottom of my list).
I am very much in favor of Noem or DeSantis (in that order). I will follow Cruz just about anywhere.
Donald Trump sold us down the river with his actions after the election. Unfortunately, he is likely to remain a destructive force.
If you think Tom Cotton needs to pledge his personal fealty to Trump in order to regain credibility you are mistaken. It is Trump who needs to apologize.
My understanding is that Cotton objected to Congress, specifically in the person of Mike Pence as President of the Senate, sending slate back to specific states to take another look. This article gives Cotton’s reasons, and they are sound IMO. It’s one thing for a majority of senators to object if they think something wonky has occurred in particular states (which I think would be Constitutional based on my limited understanding), another for the VP to be responsible.
Cotton is on board with the election investigation described in the other 10 GOP senators letter, which is exactly what should have happened back in November: a forensic audit.
He did not think the impeachment itself was constitutional and voted to acquit President Trump. I’m guessing his position on the VP not stopping the vote was not popular in Arkansas, which shows some fortitude on his part. I don’t disagree with him on that point.
Who knows where things will be by next general election. Right now, I’d vote for Cotton in a heartbeat.
Who said anything about fealty to Trump? Jesus, that broken record should just be discarded already because it’s worthless.
All well and good. No objection to any of that from me – much of that is downright supportable and leader-like. It was still a major error to aid and abet the “insurrection” farce.
What do you mean by highlighted?
I hope that I am not damning Cotton here in Ricochet by saying that I can live with him. He is perhaps the smartest member of the Senate.
I mean labeling what happened on 1/6 as insurrection. It was a riot; it was illegal; it was wrong; it should have been prevented; it should have been repelled. It was not insurrection, and labeling it insurrection gives what followed (along with the various impeachment and convict vote defections) a veneer of bipartisanship. Actually, what followed was entirely partisan. There was nothing civil or civic about it.
My initial impression is that I would not want Quebec, and I’m dubious about Ontario.
The book may be interesting. I wonder if it deals with the political realities.
If we’re going to be adding new states, hypothetically, we need to think about the political ramifications. It has to be balanced. There would be significant and legitimate political objection if the new states tilt politically, one way or the other.
My impression is that Alberta would be a red state and BC would be a blue state. I haven’t looked into Saskatchewan or Manitoba. We’d also need to figure out what to do with the 3 northern territories, which are too sparsely populated to be states.
In principle, I like the idea of gobbling up everything west of Ontario. Again, I want to emphasize that I don’t think that we should be meddling in internal Canadian politics to bring about such a result.
To regain credibility, Cotton should not call the Capital Protest on 1/6/2021 an “insurrection”. Particularly since he never called what happened at the Portland Federal Courthouse an “insurrection”. Not to mention the too numerous to count violence enacted against citizens and their property all summer.
By giving into the hyperventilation and hyperbole he has become part of the problem.
Dude, I’m on your side of that issue, but many hardcore Trump supporters refused to support his re-election after his ‘vote your conscience’ statement. From what I’ve seen online, that grudge is almost completely gone now, but the public reconciliation between the two played a role in that, essentially opening the door for a second look among those who had not already been Cruz fans before the primaries. Cotton might not get that opportunity, even if he otherwise redeems his poor decisions in the wake of January 6th, so this may be what defines his image in the eyes of many Deplorables.
Those who disagree with you on the first will disagree with you on the last; thus far poll responses from Republicans overwhelmingly differ from your perspective.
Which is not to say that all that Trump-supporting majority were thrilled with the totality of Trump’s actions post-election (many of us think he was reckless and it blew up in his face), but talk about ‘inciting insurrection’ is absurd as well as unacceptable, as is breaking a promise regarding his vote. We regard the reaction to the events on January 6th as a Reichstag fire scenario, by both the Democrats as well as the Republican Establishment.
Ironically, Trump would have lost a lot more support and influence if every Republican Senator followed the example of Ted Cruz in their response (condemning the violence, noting that it paled in comparison to the past six months, and not changing their vote), but they once again decided on a course of action that made Trump look much better by comparison, much like the Democrat reaction to Kavanaugh made his support a moral and political imperative, despite reservations that existed regarding his conservatism relative to other options.
Edit: Correction on my part, Cotton’s vote had already been decided before the riot, I got his action mixed up with a few other Senators; my statement regarding his rhetoric stands.
You are talking about hyperventilation and hyperbole and ignoring Donald Trump? Incredible. Donald Trump sold us down the river with his hyperventilation, hyperbole and overall ridiculousness.
Hint: P O M P E O
How very terrible for you. I am sure it truly hurts. Will you be ok? Are you in a safe space now?
The election was stolen. There are too many 1-way anomalies for that not to be true. To complain about the election being stolen isn’t hyperbole or hyperventilation. Trump, being the great clarifier, has illuminated very deep flaws in various states election processes. Those flaws could have been corrected, had elected officials stood up and honored their oaths to the constitution. The process has 3 major tripwires, any one of which would have yielded a more just result. Our elected officials, being the timid followers they are, were unable to marshal the stones to do it.
Encouraging elected officials at all levels (local, state, and federal) to step up and rectify that wrong isn’t hyperbole or hyperventilation. That those officials didn’t do so (or even look at the evidence) is ridiculous.
Claiming that Trump “sold you down the River” is hyperventilation and, frankly has no meaning in this discussion. I have no idea what you mean when you say it.
Also, “Sold down the river” is an antebellum phrase regarding slavery that thankfully won’t get you cancelled on Ricochet. I would be careful where you say it elsewhere.
Okay, think I’ve found the reference you make. “Insurrection” seems to be the term he consistently uses to define what you describe. I don’t read this as bipartisan haymaking on his part.
His January 6 statement, however, was too hastily made IMO and probably heavily influenced by the violence he feels strongly about. His second paragraph in particular could have multiple subtexts, making it a tad disingenuous. Example, by “It’s past time for the president to accept the results of the election, quit misleading the American people” he could very well mean POTUS has exhausted all legal avenues and it’s obvious SCOTUS is not going to do what they should have done so get on with it.
Also, he’s a trained lawyer making some assumptions I’ve seen other lawyers on here make that are based on what I consider erroneous assumptions. IOW, heavily weighted toward those multitudinous court cases that proved nothing about fraud :-)
Ah well, no one’s perfect. He’s still top pick if I had to choose POTUS candidate right now.
Edit: Just saw Philo mention Pompeo. Good option, too. Smart, steady, discreet, capable.
I was not familiar enough with Cotton’s insurrection statements so looked them up. Articles like one linked in comment #28 show he actually does refer to other riots as insurrection. He got pilloried for that NYT editorial he wrote advocating for POTUS to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell riots.
Stop with the crap. I voted twice for the guy. Be smart enough to realize you got conned.
I saw Tucker Carlson interviewed a couple of years ago on CSPAN and he put his finger on it. He said Trump was important because he was willing to talk about things that other politicians weren’t and to raise the questions that they avoided. But, he went on, Trump would not be the guy to actually do the transformation because he was too lazy, undisciplined, and uninterested in learning the details of governing. That’s proved to be true.
I assume I was like most of those who voted for him – knowing we were taking a risk that with Trump driving the bus he might take a sudden turn and drive us all over the cliff. That’s what he did post-election. As Michael Anton (a big Trump supporter) pointed out he did nothing in preparing for the election issues, even though he kept warning us they would happen. There was no coordinated effort to stop the election changes before they happened, to encourage mail in balloting once it was clear it would happen, to assemble a team in advance to monitor key election venues. For Trump, tweeting was a substitute for action, because it kept his most fervent supporters amped up. And after the election by embracing the most idiotic theories (Dominion etc) and talking about his “landslide” he made it easy to discount more legitimate complaints because he sounded like a lunatic (his Director of Communications resigned in December because she said the election results were what they had been seeing in their own internal polling and the President’s rhetoric was detached from reality). In the real estate world from which he came, you say anything, no matter how outlandish, to seal the deal, because once the deal is done no one cares. That approach worked against him here.
Then he gave away the Georgia Senate races and control of the Senate because he demanded fealty from everyone. His ego was more important than controlling the Senate, even though any sane person knew by then he had no chance of overturning the election.
And then he pumped up his craziest supporters with the nonsense about January 6. Did he deliberately incite a riot? I don’t think so. But he simply didn’t care if a riot occurred.
Next time around we need someone less self-destructive, someone who can actually think ahead about the consequences of their actions, and someone not so personally petty.