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.
Containing Trump
Let’s assume that my prediction is wrong and that, on the evening of November 8, President-Elect Donald Trump gets to say “Hillary, you’re fired.” Liberal heads explode, NeverTrump garments are rended, and — while everyone has their suspicions — no one can prove that Jeff Sessions intentionally popped that champagne cork into Ben Sasse’s eye. Let’s further assume that Republicans hold the House and — to make matters interesting — say the Senate is split 50-50.
Come 2017, Trump and the new Congress are sworn in and… things go well. Construction begins on the Wall, the Chinese start behaving, Speaker Paul Ryan passes some sensible-if-underwhelming ObamaCare reforms, and Attorney General Rudy Giuliani accepts the FBI’s new recommendation to indict Hillary Clinton following the latest WikiLeak revelations. Then, out of nowhere, Ruth Bader Ginsburg announces her retirement so she can spend more time with her cats. In response, President Trump nominates a previously-unheard-of immigration judge (and close friend) from Staten Island as her replacement*. Journalists quickly discover that the judge — though tough on immigration — believes that Roe and Casey are subject to stare decisis, opposed Heller and McDonald, and has written several articles defending Kelo and Obergefell as “misunderstood.” When conservatives balk, Trump takes it as a personal insult to his friend and doubles-down on the decision, saying that if conservatives won’t make a deal, he can look elsewhere. Simultaneously in Paris, Boston, and Phoenix, three EEG monitors that had lain dormant for months begin to show signs of activity.
What do we do in that circumstance? When George W. Bush went off the reservation and nominated Harriet Miers, conservatives’ anger was able to manifest itself through establishment, ideological, and populist channels such that Bush eventually smartened-up and withdrew the nomination. For obvious reasons, these levers will have less effect on Trump who, after all, will be riding pretty high at this point while the glue is still drying on the newly-reformed conservative movement.
Game it out, Ricochet. We may need to.
* This character is an invention.
Published in Domestic Policy
Registering protest is the only thing we can do to change Trump’s mind.
If Trump wins (yes, a big if) he will have done so largely in spite of the conservative movement so the ability of conservatives to rein him in will be highly limited.
The best we can do to influence Trump is use aligned interest groups like the NRA to exert influence on Eric and Ivanka on these decisions.
It’s possible we can influence our legislators to block confirmation. But I wouldn’t bet on it since there will be a very strong counter-message coming in to otherwise sympathetic legislators who will, when in doubt, punt by “deferring” to the President or holding a voice vote.
Paris, Boston and Phoenix? Is that some incredibly obvious reference that’s completely escaping me?
Claire, Jon and Tom going into comas in shock methinks.
If things are going well and the economy is producing jobs you are done for, Mr Meyer.
However, you have created a scenario that implies the guy who beat all odds to become president, who defeated the media and the GOPe and the Clintons would go all that way for an inherently useless gesture.
Try gaming the scenario on what happens to the ‘conservative movement’ if Trump succeeds and , because of the people advising him, promotes mostly conservative solutions.
I expect some new media to fill the niche formerly occupied by NR.
I clicked the Like button then immediately figured it out. That would be Claire, Tom, and Jon.
God, a Never Trump what if game.
The Conservative Case for Trump by Phyllis Schlafly
“The stakes are unmistakably high,” Schlafly writes in the introduction. “I know that some well-meaning conservatives find Trump puzzling or even offensive, but I trust that this book—the culmination, for me, of more than seventy years of active involvement in Republican politics—might help sway them.”
“In The Conservative Case for Trump, Schlafly reveals how Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court (on which Schlafly advised him) could be the most consequential in a century”
With a 50/50 Senate (which includes Republicans who vote more like Democrats – Collins, Kirk, Ayotte, Murkowski), there will be no turning back or influencing of the horrible pick from a Hillary Administration.
Your selected fanciful “game it out” scenario is as ludicrous as Hillary nominating Janice Rogers Brown, so let’s game that one out too in fairness.
And why is that?
Trump has said that he’s not beholden to his list, he’s a full-throated supporter of Kelo, and you can still smell the paint on his 2nd Amendment and anti-abortion stances.
Well, in the end we may have to console ourselves that, however disappointing his pick might be, Hilary’s would have been definitively worse. That is cold comfort but it aligns with the reality that we – conservatives – have already lost. Our viewpoint is not represented this time around. We didn’t make it to the final round. We should assume that such a nomination is the most likely one and be pleasantly surprised if it is not horrendous. I still don’t think that adds up to being NeverTrump but it is the sad reality of our position.
I agree with the implied premise that there won’t be much “containing” of Trump. In a way, those enthusiastic about Trump ought to regard him in a similar way to how an ancient General had to regard war elephants. It is tantalizing to foresee them smash your enemies ranks but it is almost equally likely that they will go rogue and smash your own lines. If I recall, even Hannibal, famous for bringing elephants over the Alps, finally lost at Zama in some part because his elephants trampled many of his own soldiers.
As pointed out in comment #6, I give substantive weight to Phyllis Schlafly (RIP) and her statements regarding Trump’s SCOTUS thinking. Also, I think that Mike Pence is closer to his current thinking on Justices and recent issues.
The ones we have to worry about most in a “game play” are Collins, Kirk, Ayotte, Murkowski (or replacements) who are more likely to side with democrat colleagues than Republicans on SCOTUS nominations.
Trump bypasses the (R) and the (D) foreign policy teams and we have a new detente with Russia, so we might not wind up in a new Cold War, or a warm or hot war in Ukraine either.
Or, the foreign policy establishment restrains him, and we do, as we would if Hillary wins.
This is a very important conversation.
Yea, but Tom. In this alternate universe prediction, were you the Virtue-Signaler this whole time? Only fair, right?
Anyway…..not sure where this quote comes from but “this is like a dog walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”
Bet you a dollar he appoints a 2nd amendment friendly judge. It would be a mortal error not to.
I am not very concerned about President Trump’s judicial nominations. Remaking the judiciary isn’t part of Making America Great Again, so he will probably follow the path of least resistance. That means he will ask for a name that can pass the Senate, but won’t spark a conservative revolt.
Some keep going around and around with no more information than rapidly aging tweets. We don’t know, can’t know and the worst we can imagine based on repeated comments on trade, currency and punishment for free economic decisions can all be managed within sound basic economics. Worry after he defeats Hillary, she’s a known existential threat, and won’t change or learn. He’s just an unknown and may be educable and if not will face oppositon from just about everybody.
Hey, I know I’m going to be making a protest vote this time (first time in my life I don’t vote for a Republican for president). It’s… curious to see Trump-supporters deny even the possibility that they may be confronted with the same.
I’m not sure I even care anymore.
If a People should get the leader they deserve, a reality TV star without any firm positions on policy running a ramshackle campaign built on style and a belief other people should carry the load is perfect for our next President.
Just to make sure I have this straight, the fact that Reagan and both Bushes have checkered histories on this matter doesn’t give you pause?
Sure, though I’ll hardly be shocked if you win that one.
While we’re at it, what do you think of Trump’s position on Kelo?
Tom, we are trying desperately to avoid crashing the republic into a cliff of statism and our attention is a touch more survival focused. You are wondering why we are not worried we might need a brake job when this is over?
You chose the back seat, just hope we do not hit the cliff wall. It’s freezing rain and there are no guardrails.
While we’re at it, what do you think of Hillary’s position on Citizens United and wanting to make it illegal to criticize her?
I am not really worried about Trump if he wins. The press, the Democrats, the Republicans, the bureaucracy will all combine and strive to restrict him at every turn. It is only when forces align to a similar goal that bad stuff happens. Bush could get stuff done because he had the Republicans with him. Obama can get more done since he has the Democrats, the bureaucracy and the press with him. HRC will get even more done since she will have the press, Democrats, some Republicans, and the bureaucracy behind her. Trump will have Trump and nobody else, well maybe the people but they really do not count much outside elections.
I think it’s unconstitutional, a disgrace, and among the many reasons no one should vote for her.
Now answer my question. :)
Well, many things about a potential Trump Administration gives me pause, excuse me, pause. It is just that I really don’t think the Judiciary is a priority for Trump, so he will want to avoid serious fights. He could nominate a minority originalist to the Supreme Court to ensure that the conservatives will cheer him and the Democrats’ attacks remain (for them) muted.
@tommeyer
Trump will have Pence, Sessions, Giuliani, Gingrich, Kudlow, Bolton, Flynn and with a win, a large number of congressmen who got elected with him, along with the RNC and I expect half the Senate.
If he wins, victory has a lot of cousins in Washington, and most of the DC crowd will suddenly have been Trump guys all along. 90% of the cheap (but not inexpensive) and talentless consultants will be knocking on the White House door to get in on the action.
I know this because the scenario you paint has never happened with a new incoming president. The one I paint has happened every time. But heck, there is always a first time for Washington Crooks and Chiselers to stand on principle over money.
Right, this is a whole stack of “what ifs” of the sort that my kids will ask for fun. “What if you meet a bear in the woods?” they’ll ask. I’ll say I don’t have enough info about location, time of day, weather, type of bear, etc., and there are no bears nearby so it doesn’t matter. They’ll start filling in details. “Well, it’s a brown bear, you’re in Maine, it’s November, it’s raining, you are not armed, and you just rolled in honey.”
My response is usually along the lines of “How on gd’s green earth did I end up in that situation in the first place? Answer that and then we’ll talk.”
Your scenario poses an unfair question because you have piled up an enormous stack of preconditions and assumptions. Well, I could just as easily ask something too…
As someone who leans Trump, because I am now and forever #NeverHillary and Gary Johnson seems kinda nuts, I think Kelo is a disgrace and anyone who supports the decision is wrong and has problematic beliefs as regards private property.
I also find it hard to believe that Hillary doesn’t share the belief that underlies Kelo, namely that if an important person (defined largely by being politically connected) wants your property to enrich themselves then the government should give it to them. I’m pretty sure the Clinton Foundation is founded on that belief.
So I could just as easily pose another improbable scenario and ask you to game it out:
It’s February of 2017. Hillary eked out a victory and has the senate, but not the house. The economy is as fragile as before, but the wave of executive orders streaming out of Washington has caused businesses to hoard cash, and capital goods orders are plummeting. Further, Hillary has nominated a hard line anti-gun, pro-abortion Ivy Prof to fill Scalia’s vacancy, Ginsburg is also retiring, Putin has invaded Ukraine, China has sent a carrier to Spratley archipelago, and riots in the Bordeaux region have driven up wine prices. You’re hosting a dinner party with 11 guests but only 10 chairs. What do you serve for desert?
Let’s deal with one challenge at a time without demanding others to game out extremely minute details for an event that has not even happened.
May the Lord save us from unfair questions…
Skip , it was a response to a silly scenario. Might as well ask what if Hillary suddenly become Frederick Hayek, won’t we regret not supporting her?
Suppose Trump only ran to legalize gambling in several key states he had casinos under construction in…..
Anyone can conjure the hypothetical.