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.
Ulysses S … Trump?
General George McClellan was beloved by his troops. McClellan returned the affection, earning a reputation as a well organized and meticulous commander. Giving credit where due, McClellan turned the Army of the Potomac into a cohesive unit and kept it together, even in the face of defeat. He is also credited with fortifying Washington, DC and securing the Union frontier, all through his skills in logistics. But after some early victories, defeats became all too common. It is a common theme of biographies of McClellan that, when it came to actual battle, the general was overly cautious, unable (or unwilling) to gamble, and failed to take advantage of Confederate mistakes that might have turned stalemates into victories, or victories into routs. According to some, McClellan consistently overestimated his opponents’ strength and, thus, refused to advance or attack for fear of losing. Lincoln came to distrust the general and, when sufficiently frustrated with McClellan’s hesitations and caution, fired him.
The Army of the Potomac then went through a series of generals (Burnside, Meade, Hooker), all of whom were blamed for similar failures of leadership, chiefly the inability or unwillingness to advance against the Confederacy. Then came Ulysses Grant. In the western states, Grant had fought hard against the Confederacy. Unlike the other generals, he was willing to risk casualties to achieve strategic advantages and would try unproven tactics if he thought some advantage could be gained. With the full aid of superior Union industry and a far larger Union population — advantages his predecessors shared but failed to exploit — he was relentless in his advances, racking up casualty numbers that earned him criticism as a butcher of his own troops. But he won battles.
The years since 2008 have reminded me greatly of our Civil War. The Obama administration has effectively declared a cultural war on middle America through an expanded regulatory state, lawsuits in retribution of political appointments, collaboration with far-left activist groups, the stirring-up of racial animosities, attacks on religious institutions, the opening of borders, assaults on the Second Amendment and the attempts to gut the First Amendment, and scores of petty and vindictive skirmishes against small businesses, churches, and private citizens. Our president has pitted half of America against the rest, claiming — like some restless dictator — that his advances and occupations are really defensive in nature, while wielding powers no prior president would have dared try.
We scored a few victories in return, regaining first the House and, later, the Senate as well. We won many lower court victories, but the battles that counted at the Supreme Court have frequently been lost. As for our generals in the cultural war, John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell deserve more credit than they are generally given. They returned the House and Senate to our side and Regular Order. They stopped the relentless legislative push to enshrine and secure the regulatory victories claimed by Obama. They built a defensive works that, while not impenetrable, have held true against many of the worst excesses of Obama’s agenda.
Yet — like McClellan before them — they’ve held party unity and discipline remarkably solid, but have secured few offensive victories and rarely exploited the enemies’ vulnerabilities. “We need more troops! We need more Congressmen and Senators!” they’ve pled, without ever breaking camp.
Mitt Romney, too, failed to make a solid case for himself or to sufficiently attack Obama; such, it seemed, would have involved getting his hands too dirty. He waved the flag and paraded the troops, but led a tepid campaign that seemed more hopeful of victory through Obama’s mistakes than his own aggression.
So now we come to the campaign season again, and we have a general (for those who would follow him) who could well cause enormous casualties for our side. “And yet he fights,” as Lincoln said of Grant. His principles are uncertain, and his tactics are unconventional, hearkening back to an America well-nigh forgotten. And yet he fights. He won the Republican primaries, out-maneuvering the party princelings and upstarts, turning them against each other. Those within his party who were most dismissive of his abilities when this began are now those most opposed to his victories and, unsurprisingly, most convinced of his inevitable failure. Many — like McClellan running for president after his termination — are now threatening to oppose the one who succeeded where they all failed.
The worst damage Obama has done to this republic has been to our national unity and, though it, support for the rule of law. No president since Lincoln has been so utterly divisive, and no president has ever so actively pursued division. No previous president has so openly sought to curtail the First Amendment without even attempting to disguise the attacks as “temporary” or “expedient.” Obama has launched and led a cultural war on America, the likes of which has only been seen writ in larger scale in major revolutions in France, Russia, or China. Hillary shows every indication that she will continue this war. Love him or hate him, only Trump is openly fighting them.
Yes, the man is morally distasteful. Yes, the man is corrupt. Yes, he may well butcher the down-ticket races in this election. And yet he fights, and for the sake of wrenching the presidency from the cultural Marxists, we should not fear a bloody battle. With the head of this cultural war firmly entrenched in Washington, with an uncertain and timid Congress unable or unwilling to attack the executive overreach, and with the courts having deferred the very law of the land to the whims of the cultural warlords, we must remove the Democrats from their power base. We must remove their hands from the levers of control. We must break their stranglehold on the media and the dissemination of information. After four or eight more years, the damage may be insurmountable, and the losses unrecoverable.
Trump may be the most reprehensible and amoral candidate the GOP has ever fielded, yet he is the general we have. And at least he is fighting.
Published in Politics
And yet he fights, and for the sake of wrenching the presidency from the cultural Marxists, we should not fear a bloody battle. With the head of this cultural war firmly entrenched in Washington, with an uncertain and timid Congress unable or unwilling to attack the executive overreach, and with the courts having deferred the very law of the land to the whims of the cultural warlords, as a nation we must remove the Democrats from the core of their power base. We must remove their hands from the levers of control.
Amen.
Hear, hear!
This is the point, Skip.
Lombardi Rules.
The Rabble may need this guy too
Try not to use this one
Every time I read “civil war” around here, I expect to read about Oliver Cromwell, but it’s just another Yankee talking about the War of Northern Aggression.
But, yes, Trump is the only one who seems to be fighting in the political world of the US.
It all depends on if the civil dispute is states versus the federal government or class versus class. If you view Hillary as a restoration of the monarchy, it could be class based.
You are a great writer.
I have had similar thoughts sometimes about Trump.
I do hope it is not wishful thinking.
The only way to win a war is to have clear goals. I’m not sure what his are.
“You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.” -Winston S. Churchill
I’ll go Judge Mental one better: Hear, hear, hear!
Well done.
I’ve used this before in comments, but here again a favorite scene as General Grant wins over his troops upon exiting The Wilderness:
Yes, a tonic like no other. I think you may be on to something…
Grant at Shiloh: Day two had not gone well for the Union. That evening Sherman was in Grant’s tent, reviewing the shortfalls of the day, pacing and gesticulating as he was wont to do.
Grant sat on his camp stool, whittling and masticating a chaw. When Sherman wound down a little bit, Grant spit into the dirt and said, “That’s alright. We’ll whup ’em tomorrow.”
Now that is a man of careful word choice.
Grant said little and defeated Confederates. Trump has done nothing but run his mouth so far and has no victories over Democrats, but has managed to destroy other republicans. In that he’s like John Pope, who talked tough, ran down other generals, and fooled Lincoln into thinking he was something. In actual combat against Rebels he was a disaster. We haven’t yet seen how Trump will do against Democrats, but it’s not looking good
Who is he fighting, Skip?
It isn’t the Left.
Given his deficit ballooning tax plan and simultaneous complaints about the debt it’s clear that he doesn’t care for arithmetic, though I’m hesitant to claim he’s at war with it.
Tell you what, you point me to the slaves this man is trying to free, and I won’t only vote for him, I’ll donate and volunteer time.
Until then, he isn’t my general, he’s just a clueless, spoiled-brat, serially-bankrupt, loudmouth.
No President can accomplish this. This is a long march through the institutions-type endeavor.
The fundamental failure of Conservative Media in the last 25 years is the bizarre expectation it has fostered: that Conservative politicians during campaigns should be able to educate voters in the way that, say, teachers educate students.
Regardless, Trump has no interest in any of it. Even he did (and had the wherewithal to deliver) it wouldn’t matter.
Electing an ignorant celebrity merely allows the enemy to fight on good ground. Their ignorant celebrities are better looking and more articulate.
Thanks for the thought that went into this Skip.
I have never been one to applaud crassness and belligerence, but what turned my opinion of Trump was the support I hear in my locale from police and veterans cheering him. And I know there are vets & law enforcement on this site that can’t stand him, but he does support the military and he does support police, and they are the barrier between order and chaos here – and I believe he will fight for them.
And the Democrats will patently emasculate them.
Why do you say that?
He supports the military so much, he thinks he knows what military life is like from going to a boarding school. He knows about the terror, boredom, and trauma of war; he slept around with dozens of women without getting an STD. Giving up chances to play the “daddy, rescue me from torture” card? That’s being a loser, McCain, and Trump likes winners.
You know, I’m so old, I remember when Republicans considered draft-dodging a disqualification for the presidency and mocked those who exaggerated their military credentials to appeal to patriotic sentiment.
Amy, I admit those things are dreadful. I have hope that he’s changed – how many even on this site admit they were Democrats in the past? – and I honestly believe the Ds are now determined to nullify our law enforcers – as in the Baltimore riots.
Because his actual history is cozying up to Democrats when he has the chance, he’s never fought for anything other than himself, and anytime he feels he’s getting backed into a corner, he changes positions. Thus his much ballyhooed wall turns out to be negotiable, his deportation of illegals morphs into touchback amnesty, etc. Presidents play they way they practice, and Trump’s practice has never been to fight Democrats on anything.
It seems like considerations of honor are over–that’s what’s so startling about what Skip has discovered. Nobody cares about the honor of U.S.Grant.
Great article, but Trump a Grant? You’re projecting. I projected my fantasies on Cruz because there was more to go on, he’d actually won battles against the left in court and kept fighting even when he was losing on the Hill. Where has Trump fought the left and won? He reminds me of the Democrats refusing to recognize Islamic terrorism as an evil force and an enemy. Does Trump recognize the threat of the administrative state, or does he relish the opportunities it afforded him? He has done one thing, spoken politically incorrectly and that’s good, but will he act with courage in the right direction?
That image at the top, put there by the editor, does not do this thoughtful post credit.
What fits a flag for Washington, makes him unfit for battle—-and it’s still “him”, Pat Schroeder’s ghost and Lori Robinson’s promotion notwithstanding.
I really think it is wrong to demean U.S. Grant in this way. He helped save the union. What does Trump fight for? He’s indicated he’ll keep Obamacare and perhaps beef it up. He doesn’t care about social issues, in fact plans to support the left on bathroom access–use whatever bathroom you want, crows Trump. He gives pro-life tepid lip service but has always supported abortion. He will not support marriage. He is not fiscally conservative with other people’s money. He is PC. Don’t let his rudeness to women, the handicapped and military heroes fool you. He gives every PC notion that comes along tacit or actual support. And he was very free with making fun of and belittling actual conservative candidates in the course of the campaign in playground fashion.
So tell me again, what does he fight for?
There is a difference between the two. Grant fought against slavery.
This is a flat-out falsehood. It’s laughably false. Not only is there little evidence that Trump is opposing, or ever has opposed, leftism, there are countless people on the Right who are opening fighting, who have been for years. Only Trump is openly fighting the Left? Please. That’s absurd.
That picture made me physically ill.
I am so tired of seeing tortured apologies and rationalizations for Trump on the main feed. I’m pretty sure there are at least as many Never Trump member here as Trump supporters, but there are never any posts pushing that viewpoint on the main feed.
As for Trump being my general, get bent. He isn’t my general. I don’t identify with him in any way. He is a buffoon and a seriously revolting man with dangerous ideas to the extent the garbage issuing from his word hole can be characterized as ideas. He will end up being more George Custer or Benedict Arnold than Grant for conservatives and the GOP.
Stop feeding us this tripe.
Well, to be fair, Rachel’s post was there yesterday, but since she’s a contributer, it didn’t have to be promoted. And Midge had a post yesterday that made the case for both sides. But I agree, the comparison here is not convincing.
Folks, this was not created by the Main Feed. This was thought up by Skip, who’s a swell guy. I imagine his good faith is as yet granted. I think he deserves a listening–& a rebuttal–but not denigration. Please remember a member as respectable as any other wrote this & try to let that first angry response subside & allow for a more thoughtful rebuttal to come.