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.
On Conservative Navel Gazing and Upending the Game
Dr. Charles Krauthammer is an intelligent man and I’ve enjoyed his analysis over the years. Nonetheless, the Trump Phenomenon has opened my eyes to the ways conservative intellectualism has blinded conservatives from understanding our world. Conservative intellectualism has become a straitjacket. The latest piece in the National Review by Krauthammer exemplifies this limitation.
[Republicans feel not] just let down or disappointed. Betrayed. By RINOs who, corrupted by donors and lobbyists, sold out. Did they repeal Obamacare? No. Did they defund Planned Parenthood? No. Did they stop President Obama’s tax-and-spend hyperliberalism? No. Whether from incompetence or venality, they let Obama walk all over them. But then comes the paradox. If insufficient resistance to Obama’s liberalism created this sense of betrayal, why in a field of 17 did Republican voters choose the least conservative candidate? A man who until yesterday was himself a liberal. Who donated money to those very same Democrats to whom the GOP establishment is said to have caved, including Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton. But then comes the paradox. If insufficient resistance to Obama’s liberalism created this sense of betrayal, why in a field of 17 did Republican voters choose the least conservative candidate? A man who until yesterday was himself a liberal. Who donated money to those very same Democrats to whom the GOP establishment is said to have caved, including Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton.
Conservatives like Krauthammer analyze Trump by applying conservative preferences, regardless of the suitability of their application. Krauthammer seems puzzled as to why an electorate that — as he sees it — is angered by the Republican Party’s “insufficient resistance to Obama’s liberalism” has, strangely, chosen Donald Trump. His tone leads the reader to conclude that the voters are ignorant in some manner, incapable of understanding that the solutions they sought were to be found in, say, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
But Krauthammer is confused because he is misreading the public.
Conservatives have been arguing that the solution to Obamacare is to repeal it; the solution to Planned Parenthood is to defund it; the solution to the increase in the size and scope of government is to shrink it, or starve it, or whatever; and the solution that matters most is growth. So why — if you object to all of the liberal policies during the Obama years — would you possibly vote for the man who appears to be supporting the opposite of the conservative solutions?
Because the public, in its wisdom, has concluded that there will never be any solution — conservative or otherwise — to the Left’s failing policies until the foundation on which politics is conducted is completely upended. They have correctly concluded that conservatives will fail, as they have always failed, until it’s possible to implement changes that do more than shift pieces of the pie to those with the ability to direct policy in their direction.
The public is smarter than conservative intellectuals at the current moment and they correctly concluded that the only candidate who offered a chance to change the terms of debate is Donald Trump.
To be sure, many supporters reject free trade, and Trump has been inconsistent, at best, in his policy positions. But, again, this matters less to voters than fundamentally altering the conditions of our politics. That is how Trump wins both Greenwich, Connecticut and the rust-belt working class communities. They are not unifying on an antipathy to trade; they are unifying on antipathy to structures that perpetuate ineffective policy.
That is why Trump is a conservative candidate. That is why he can run as a Republican and not as a Democrat. Whether we are talking about the role of corporations in building preferential policies (e.g., free trade that gives them access to cheap labor), the restrictions placed on speech by enforced progressive morality (e.g., the inability to even discuss immigration), or the role elites play in undermining public choices (e.g., everything), he is running against the structures that are required to maintain failing liberal policies. Trump delegitimizes the very institutions and people required to maintain liberalism.
In order to enact and sustain successful policies, the stranglehold made by those who keep screwing-up — who happen to be the same people who direct solutions toward their own personal gain — needs to be broken. Once that is done, conservatives will have a chance to implement policies that may work.
Conservative intellectuals are coming to the conclusion that the public is judging their solutions, or is misunderstanding them, or is just plain ignorant. This is completely false. The public isn’t affirming them or rejecting conservatism, but is using this election to reset the terms so that, going forward, we can have that debate on policy. The public understands — and Krauthammer and so many conservative intellectuals fail to grasp — that effective policy, including conservative policy, is not possible so long as the terms of the game remain as they are. They are voting to flip the chessboard over.
And the public is completely correct on this.
Published in General
BINGO!
I have no idea what the public thinks, or even if “the public thinks” is a meaningful statement. But I know I am sorely tempted by the “blow up the system” approach.
(Also, I must have missed the bit in the OP about warship surveillance.)
Cheap shot across a non-existent bow.
Also there is no inconsistency between Donald Trump being the candidate most likely to actively perpetuate those policies and the candidate most likely to successfully oppose them.
In the most personality-driven campaign of all time, an analysis that is entirely based around policy preferences. Interesting. Good luck with that.
RFBF,
Almost 60% of Republican’s are “working” people – wage workers, blue collar, and most without college education. The wages of this class over the past 15 years went down around 3%; college educated incomes rose by 19%.
I too like Krauthammer. He just swung and missed (to borrow a fitting baseball analogy). He is like Nate Silver, one of the most data driven, objective people in the field of political analysis. No one – except for Scott Adams – saw this coming. Scott Adams is a cartoonist with amazing social and psychological insight.
At one time, the GOP offered a contract with America. Whether we realized it or not, in 2012 there was another contract with America. That one was unwritten and had been building for years. And the 60% believe it was broken.
So Trump’s support is drawn from this 60% of Republican’s, of whom maybe 30-40% vote – which gives him hard Republican support of say around 20-25%. As the other candidates dropped out, he began to mop up the leftovers.
Cruz saw this group and misread it as strong conservative, evangelical, and anti-establishment. He was a few notches off. This group is not ideological nor are they operationally conservative. They just want better treatment. Leave their entitlements alone, cut better trade deals, follow and enforce the law (immigrants), and avoid costly wars while making the nation’s military strong, aka Trumpism.
Trump patented “Make America Great Again ” just after the the 2012 election. Amazing.
The ‘unwritten’ contract with the GOP electorate was seen and believed by the voters and dis-believed and unseen by the GOP elected. That ‘disconnect’ gave us Trump. [And similarly, gave the donkeys, Bernie.]
Well Said.
It’s on the poop deck.
You are misreading it. I am claiming that the public is specifically not making a judgment on policy.
Yes. They voted for the reality TV star who promised them stuff.
Yes, you argue that it’s about challenging the institutions of liberalism, changing the terms of the debate, flip the chess board, etc. But all of these actions are prompted by ineffectual policy, inability to implement policy, etc.
The idea that Trump is going to blow anything up is laughable or that’s he’s going to upend politics. He’s never even said he would do such a thing. He’s only promised to do what he’s always done – make “deals” with the powers that be, and everything is negotiable. The deals are going to end up looking like they would have looked like with most other candidates.
The electorate is dumber than conservative intellectuals if they think Trump is some sort of revolutionary. He’s never been that and never will be and doesn’t claim to be.
He’s a lot like Obama insofar as voters are projecting their fantasies onto him. And they will be similarly disappointed.
A big flaw of intellectuals is that we think that others spend time thinking, as we do. This is an error. The vast majority of Trump supporters are not thinkers: they are angry and emotional, absent any understanding of American exceptionalism or love of the constitution.
We will see if the bureaucratic shackles of our government keeps a dictator from rising. I have my doubts. Certainly Democrats are now Above the Law: I suspect Trump will be as well.
What does one call a leader who is Above the Law?
If Trump truly thinks he is going to “make deals” then he will be rolled over by his administration and Congress.
I still think defaulting on the debt is much more likely if Trump is President. Hyperinflation (and nationalization of savings/brokerage accounts) is the way out if Clinton is elected. Either way, we have a $20 trillion hole, and Clump will not “grow” us out of it.
It is hero worship. A vote for Cruz or Rubio was a vote for a group of ideas and policies but not a hero. Trump is a champion he stands for no firm policies or ideology but he stands for me. He will champion me, protect me, empower me and maybe even kick some people in the rear that need to be kicked!
Conservatives thought they were trying to sell a set group of ideas and our politicians were salesmen and practitioners of state craft. They better they were at state craft the more of our ideas would get implemented. Conservatives found out that there was a real appetite for just a Hero it is unimportant what he stands for he just needs to be my Hero.
Heaven help us if he wins the Presidency and has to actually be that Hero to everyone….It is going to be an interesting few years coming up.
I did not suggest he will be successful. I suggested that he was the only one offering the voters a choice to upend it all.
The voters are correct on their diagnosis of the problem. They may not have the right solution. But Trump is the only one who offered a chance at solving that problem. Every single conservative in the race was just simply wrong on this threshold matter.
Trump isn’t a conservative but his supporters know that Washington is rotten and they want a person to fix it. Trump is a man on horseback and as such not only not a conservative but, like such people always are, part of the problem. This is what happens when dysfunction and rot become deeply pervasive and seem permanent and not reversible. We’re all depressed because we had candidates who actually know what our problems are and had ideas how to liberate the nation so that it could fix itself. But Trump is a reality, the question is can we at least guide him, influence the outcome? We know that Hillary will appoint at least two Supreme Court Justices that could make return to ordered liberty impossible. Can we get a credible commitment from Trump to appoint conservatives? If so that is enough. Can we get him to defund things we want defunded? Destroy things we want destroyed? This isn’t just another swing of the political pendulum. Cultures, economies, histories are not mechanical devices. They are organic and don’t swing back and forth. There is no bottom to decline. Decline is always, everywhere associated with the dysfunction and rot that comes with centralization. Human flourishing and prosperity emerge if there is some form of ordered liberty however imperfect and temporary.
That’s right. And they hear Trump’s un-PC rhetoric and mistake it for a commitment to change the way things are done – something Trump has never said he’d do and can’t do, because he doesn’t even know how they work.
Like all the other populist upstarts – Jesse Ventura and Ahhnold come to mind – he’ll get into office and rapidly be co-opted by the very forces he claims to oppose, because he has no real clue how Washington works. Right now he’s got the superficial bravado and confidence of the ignorant.
No, he’s not offering that choice. That’s why the voters are ignorant.
The only one even close to offering that choice was Ted Cruz. But the so-called wise voting population found his personality icky.
Note:
Redacted for vulgarity.[redacted] If the Republicans are so sturdy and intelligent a party, then we may safely assume that their success rate in enacting sound conservative policy will be better than Trump’s anyway, right?
[redacted]
No, they didn’t. That’s why he won. Every single conservative who ran would have failed as president. He/She would have failed to change the trajectory of the government in any meaningful manner.
The problem is that the political system always results in more failure. No one understood that in this race, except Trump. Even Cruz. Cruz was arguing to be in charge of the system, and impose his choices on it. His policies would have failed in the end as a result. Just look at welfare reform. A really fantastic conservative change. Look at it today.
Trump is offering the voters a chance to change the terms entirely. And that is the threshold problem. Cruz did not have that answer at all.
RFBF, you’ve described the level change magnificently. Everybody caterwauling about policy is missing the point. But they have their policy papers to prove things, unlike what is going on outside the window.
How has Trump offered to change the terms? From what I can see he’s done two things: Said a lot of outrageous things that no normal politician would say, and promised to make deals with the existing powers – including Pelosi and Reid – to get things done. A minority of voters have mistaken the first thing for somehow changing the terms of politics, which it doesn’t. Talk is easy. The second sounds a lot like John McCain.
I agree with you that some voters have mistaken Trump for offering to change the terms of politics – but that proves that they are fools, not wise, and have fallen for the age old populist con.
I’m going with Jonah Goldberg’s analysis that Trump is just a more entertaining show.
Some keep trying to fit this inside ideology. Some can’t understand why Trump is not an operational conservative. His supporters are not that conservative – a little bit socially and fiscally conservative – but they are looking out for themselves. Remember, the Tea Party surveys show the Tea Party is not that conservative on actually cutting federal spending. They are “for” cutting foreign aid, and not much else.
American productivity has been sliding and the bottom has been under pressure for decades. Anxiety and anger are driving them.
Having said this –
Those who support him strongly (≈ 25% of 1/2 of the Republicans who vote in states with primaries), represent around 10 million or so voters (7% of those who will vote in 2016).
Trump will drag along the “left-over” GOP voters and the Republicans resigned to his candidacy (Ryan will fold, the Bushes maybe later). That ends up being around 35 million more votes. He will likely capture a majority of independents – narrowly. That will add another 15 million. And he will win some Democrats – say around 10-15% or 5 million. This puts him at 60+ million and within shot of winning.
My guess is he will garner a solid 21o Electoral Votes (better than Cruz would do). He will hold NC., Ind., Mo., and Ga.
He then has a shot at Pa., Ohio, Fla., and maybe Wisc. or Ia. Va., Colo., and NM. are not likely to go Trump.
But, he could get to 285 EV’s.
Trump has offered to change it. In some ways, he already has, and voters saw that. You may look at Trump’s policies and tactics and decide he won’t change the terms of politics. But fact of the matter is, (i) there is a TON more evidence that every other Republican running would have been much worse on that issue (they were all politicians, using that system in one way or another, and every other politician ever elected was unable to change the terms) and (ii) Trump changed the terms of politics on certain key issues during the campaign alone.
Look at immigration. His campaign, both by aggressively using anti-immigrant rhetoric and by showing the support that it could generate, changed the perception of what is and is not an acceptable outcome. Ask anyone who previously tried to make an argument about enforcing immigration law. Racist! Now, that is a winning argument. His obtuse behavior created that space. I bet you dollars to donuts that his campaign makes the Supreme Court take a hard look at their rulings on this point going forward.
He did it on trade too. He made defending protectionism a valid choice. Anyone with those ideas found themselves on the outs in both the democratic and republican parties. Just ask Mickey Kaus.
Wow. If only someone could have told the electorate earlier that it should stop all this ‘childish linear’ thinking, and that it should never expect ‘correlation’ between what the candidate says he’s going to do, and what actually happens, we might have avoided all the mess. We really didn’t need Donald Trump to teach us this.
Who knew, the establishment has been doing it right all along!
PS: Your comment is extraordinarily offensive.
What outcome? Despite all his rhetoric, Trump’s only actual plan on immigration is a touchback amnesty and he’s said everything is negotiable, including his vaunted wall that the Mexicans will pay for. But some people project onto him the myth of anti-immigrant revolutionary because of his outrageous rhetoric. Wait till he makes a “deal” with Congressional Democrats that sounds tough but is actually the “comprehensive” immigration reform the left has always wanted.
You love his “anti-immigrant rhetoric.” Talk is cheap, and he’s always been talk. When has he ever actually changed anything? Never. He always cozies up to the powers that be. He’ll do it as President.
Make things more expensive for Americans, all the while defending corporate welfare and having the government pick winners and losers. With a decent chance of a trade war that will hammer economies the world over.
Remind me again why I am supposed to think Trump is better than Hillary?