Infighting on the right
Oh, why rehash the bitter disputes that led us to where we are right now in September of 2016? Sometimes I think it’s impossible—or at least highly unlikely—for people to learn from their errors, or even pay attention to them. We don’t even agree on what those errors are.
But this Red State article by Kimberly Ross entitled “Cruz vs. Rubio Hindsight in the Dark Days of Trump” got me to thinking about it.
Red State is very much an anti-Trump site. But it’s got a lot of good writers and it also covers news that has nothing to do with Trump. You don’t have to agree that these are “dark days of Trump” (although I certainly tend to think so) in order to wonder what happened in the Cruz vs. Rubio battle, or how it’s emblematic of what has so very often gone wrong on the right.
Ross writes:
As Trump was continuing to rack up primary victories, there remained a deep division among those who supported Rubio and those who supported Cruz, the only two (apart from Trump) who really had any shot at becoming the nominee. The divide was vicious and filled with attacks, strange accusations, and some legitimate grievances. I guess the mood from both sides was desperate as they saw the disastrous, embarrassing Donald Trump suddenly lead the pack.
Emotions continued to boil over until Rubio dropped out following the Florida primary loss. Suddenly we were left with Cruz and Trump. While plenty of Rubio supporters obligingly backed Cruz, many did not. Their loyalty to Rubio just couldn’t be shaken. Once Cruz was gone, reality began to sink in. This is who we are left with? Donald Trump??
There’s a lot more at the link. I read the whole thing, and although I agree with some of it (and think it does fairly represent a certain mindset at the time), it wasn’t anything like what I was going through back then. For example, I don’t think that what drove the bitter, nitpicky accusations between Cruz and Rubio supporters (or, for that matter, Trump supporters and both) had all that much to do with Donald Trump. The phenomenon of bitter division on the right long predated his rise. Anyone on the right who was dissatisfied with the nomination of alleged RINOs McCain and Romney understands that I’m talking about a split on the right that long preceded 2016 and which has made it difficult for a conservative alternative to be nominated.
Perhaps it is because I came to this crowd as an outsider—and to a certain extent am still an outsider—that I have always observed and been very concerned about the destructive bitterness of the disagreements on the right. Just before the 2012 election I wrote that the right would tear itself apart in the next four years, and though I certainly didn’t foresee all the ins and outs ad backs and forths of those years, the main outlines were clear and have been for a long, long time.
Not just clear to me. Clear, period.
My immersion in politics online coincided with my political conversion and was part of what made it possible. So I don’t recall being part of political discussions online (or even in person very often) back when I was a liberal. But to the best of my recollection, plus a certain amount of reading I’ve done in the last fifteen or so years on liberal and leftist blogs, there is a big difference in the way left and right approach candidates.
Simply put, the left accepts its candidates and unites against the common enemy, the right. Yes, there are exceptions to this rule (remember the pro-Hillary PUMAs in 2008? or some of Bernie Sanders’ die-hards now?). But they just aren’t all that numerous.
On the right, however, the focus is different. The right agrees that the left is an enemy, but somehow the left seems to fade way way into the background for many people, and looming huge and insurmountably in the foreground are the candidates on the right and their imperfections.
Sometimes it’s because the voter is a one-issue voter who uses an absolute litmus test—for example, on abortion. The rage against Rubio on immigration was another. It had nothing to do with the advent of Donald Trump, either. I watched it build for years in the blogosphere, and every now and then (not often) I also tuned in to talk shows and heard the spitting rage there. Against Rubio it focused on the Gang of Eight. Against Cruz (arguably the smartest and most conservative GOP candidate to come down the pike in a long long time) it seemed even odder, based on some form of visceral dislike for his face or his voice or his inability to get enough other senators to agree with him on issues on which they disagreed.
These things always seemed small to me. I am pretty sure that statement will rouse the ire many of my readers, who will ask how I can think that Rubio’s immigration betrayal was small. Well, “small” is a relative term. I’ve never idealized candidates, once I reached adulthood. I’ve always expected some problems with any candidate I basically like, but it’s a question of the overall picture among a very flawed lot. With Rubio, there was only that one thing, and although it was somewhat of a biggee, I carefully read all the explanations and apologia for it, and decided it was a big mistake but that on the whole Rubio was conservative and smart.
About Cruz’s conservatism there was no doubt. So either candidate was fine with me (my favored candidate at the very beginning had been Walker). But you know what? All of the rest of the candidates were okay with me, too, to different degrees, except for one: Donald Trump. He was not okay for reasons I’ve delineated in about 200 posts so far, but I’ll summarize by saying (a) I disagreed with him on many issues, not just one (b) he had changed his mind on so many of them and was sometimes still changing it, so often that I found what he said to be deeply untrustworthy (c) he seemed ignorant of a great many relevant facts (for example, the nuclear triad) and completely uninterested in learning about them (d) he had a liberal recent past and failed to adequately explain why or how he’d changed his mind (e) his character was profoundly narcissistic and vindictive; and (f) he lied not just sometimes, but constantly, and even about minor things.
That’s why, as I wrote in this post on the subject, objections to Trump are different in kind, scope, and number to objections to previous nominees.
But to get back to Rubio and Cruz—the problem was always that they split the un-Trump vote somewhat evenly between them (in addition, of course, to the huge number of other candidates who kept limping along), and that kept them both going way too long, long after one should have dropped out. I almost didn’t care which one it would be, because I thought Cruz was the most ideologically consistent and trustworthy, but Rubio the most likely to win against Hillary. Based on polls, however, both seemed like they could win, and both consistently did better than Trump.
But throughout the entire campaign season one thing that especially puzzled me was that so many pundits thought Trump couldn’t win the nominiation. It was obvious by August of 2015 that he definitely could, and might. As I wrote that August:
From the start of Trump’s rise in the polls I’ve taken him very seriously as a phenomenon. I haven’t understood those who casually asserted “He’s never going to win the nomination.” I’ve long thought he could, because the force of that appeal is obvious, and he’s somehow made himself immune to being criticized for anything he says. His niche is “the more outrageous, the better,” and the more extreme his utterances the more his supporters seem to like him””although not all of what he says is extreme, of course, and some is just common sense.
If I were one of the other Republican candidates I’d be very very scared. And if I were one of the Democratic candidates I’d be scared, too.
So here we are. Why did more people not see where it was heading? A prognosticator didn’t need a crystal ball; it was glaringly obvious. Was this wishful thinking? Denial? Yes, and yes.
But I see the main problem mostly as the propensity of anti-Trump voters on the right to nitpick about their candidates, and their inability or unwillingness to unite behind one. Who would organize that uniting?
Don’t rely on the RNC, that’s for sure; they have their own agenda. I’m not even sure what that RNC agenda was this year. At first it seemed to be Jeb Bush, but his candidacy was such a failure that after that they seemed to throw up their hands in despair. The one thing they did seem united about after Bush was gone was their hatred of Ted Cruz.
But the main problem was something else, and that’s this tendency toward extreme divisiveness on relatively minor disagreements (again, I see Trump’s problems is being of a different number and type compared to all previous GOP candidates, and not the least bit minor). It’s not for nothing that for years the GOP has been called a “circular firing squad.”
Let’s not forget about Kasich. He said he was staying in the race until the end, then dropped out 5 minutes after Cruz did. IMO, he was persuaded to stay in to thwart Cruz, since nobody thought he had a realistic chance.
Also, Carson didn’t have to throw his lot in with Trump, but I think he was persuaded to buy into the “Cruz tried to sabotage Iowa” conspiracy. Even to this day he seems reluctant about supporting Trump.
In hindsight, the real blow came from the way the primaries were ordered. Trump was always going to do well in the Northeast, but the South was where he normally should’ve been knocked out. Unfortunately, the South was at the very beginning and we still had 15 candidates to split the vote.
Mistakes were made in 2016, but some things weren’t mistakes.
Matt_SE:
But the states were ordered that way before Trump was a candidate. It just so happened that it played into his hands, along with the larger issue, which was the large number of candidates.
I have heard that theory about Kasich and at one point I thought it might be true, but in retrospect I think not. He has more than enough ego to have stayed in just because of ego. I think he actually thought he could be the last man standing or could be a mover and shaker at the convention if Trump didn’t have enough votes to get the nomination outright. And he is not a Trump supporter after all, as he proved by not endorsing him and not being part of the convention even though it was in his home state.
No, I don’t think anyone put Kasich up to it, although I thought so at first. That said, it did become obvious that in a Trump/Cruz contest, most of the GOP establishment (I hate that word) preferred Trump to Cruz.
“The right agrees that the left is an enemy, but somehow the left seems to fade way way into the background for many people, and looming huge and insurmountably in the foreground are the candidates on the right and their imperfections.”
Sounds like a self-portrait.
Neo has written some 200 posts on The Donald and remains on the fence. Along with some others who comment here.
No allowance is made for Trump’s growth as a candidate and as a political leader. To condemn him for being a liberal until recently is to condemn ourselves in many cases. Castigate him for seeing the light? Why? For coming late to the party? Why? For not being as smooth as he should have been? Why? For ruminating out loud about the Mexican problem and Islam? Why?
Because he should have been smoother, more rehearsed, more a Teleprompter reader, I guess. Well, he is a quick learner and has become patently Presidential, IMO.
I was ardently for Cruz before this all began, when he “shut down the government” on sound principles, but when the dust settles, I am anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-Dem, almost violently so.
The problem with Walker, Jeb, Rubio was they didn’t man up enough. They volunteered for the circular firing squad thinking they were immune to bullets.
So I’m for Trump.
Frog Says:
“Sounds like a self-portrait.
Neo has written some 200 posts on The Donald and remains on the fence. Along with some others who comment here.”
That’s kinda passive-aggressive and bitchy.
I’m not on the fence, but I have hopped over it a couple of times now. I’m back to not voting for Trump because it’s what’s best for conservatism.
So I guess I’m voting my self-interest after all!
“No allowance is made for Trump’s growth as a candidate and as a political leader.”
Not at all. He’s sounding so much more presidential these days that I agree his chances of being elected have improved substantially.
The problem is that his promises are as worthless as Obama’s. Everything about Trump says that he’s trying to close the deal, and is lying to that end.
“…but when the dust settles, I am anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-Dem, almost violently so.”
And that’s why you’ll always vote for the anti-Democrat, even if the choice given to you is only marginally better. By behaving in this predictable manner, you’ve made yourself a slave to the establishment.
Personally, I plan on voting for John McCain’s Democrat opponent in AZ because I won’t put up with this shit anymore. I sincerely hope she’s a crack addict, because it will make getting rid of her in 6 years that much easier.
“The problem with Walker, Jeb, Rubio was they didn’t man up enough.”
I’m not really interested in the alt-right’s version of what manliness is. They seem like a bunch of impudent adolescents to me.
@ neo-neocon:
Yeah, the primary order was just bad luck from my standpoint. I suppose Kasich might not have been put up to it, since I already know vanity can trump rationality. That was the whole basis for the Todd Akin debacle.
Approval Voting would solve the problem of too many candidates. Vote for as many as you like. See av4co.org. We’re working on it in Colorado.
As for the now rotted into compost party, I repeat what I have been saying for the better part of a decade (or more):
REPUBLICANS: They thirst for death.
The GOP is dead to me.
Trump is a threat to the system of rent-seekers cheating the American public. In that sense he’s exactly like Reagan and is hated for it. Spin against Trump mostly emanates only from this faction. Suggestion. Don’t listen to what politicians say. Watch what they do.
Frog:
For many many years you’re been commenting here, intermittently hurling insults my way, mostly about things about which you should know better and understand better if you actually read what I write.
But you know what? For some weird reason I like having you here. There’s something engagingly, consistently curmudgeonly about you.
I sometimes respond to your insults, sometimes not. Suffice to say, in response to this one, that I’ve listed the many many ways in which Trump is different, both in the present post and in many many others. And no, one of those ways has never been “Because he should have been smoother, more rehearsed, more a Teleprompter reader.” I don’t even think YOU think I think that. It’s just some strawman you like to trot out when you can’t respond effectively to the substantive points.
That after a year of being a candidate, Trump finally HAS learned to read a teleprompter more smoothly is also of very little importance to me. That’s his very-recently-arrived-at “presidential” demeanor. It doesn’t affect who and what he actually is, and what he has been doing and saying for most of his life, the positions he holds, what his character is, and all of that.
I do think, as I wrote in another post, that the more “presidential” he can appear, the better he will do in the election. On that, I believe we agree.
mf:
Sure, just like Reagan! Actually, Trump resembles Reagan only in that he is a man, is the Republican nominee, and was initially underestimated.
Otherwise, nothing like Reagan: not in character, experience, philosophy, history (personal and political), personality, and probably a million other ways.
As far as the way in which you allege he’s like Reagan, Trump actually has for his entire life supported and contributed to and profited by his support of those “rent-seekers cheating the American public”—including Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill.
Neo:
You are arguing against things I did not say..
“What we have here is a failure to communicate…”
Neo,
I’m sure we can all imagine what a tough game the NYC construction biz is.
Credit where it’s due:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFLiDrYPE1w
If we are looking for scapegoats, what about Jeb! He sucked up a ton of money and spent a fair amount attacking Rubio. All that, and there was no reason to think it was his time. But enough. I’ve changed my expectations from hoping for a conservative to enjoying the show, I figure I can’t lose. If Trump wins the meltdown of the MSM, Democrats, pundits, and assorted Republican flacs will be epic. If Trump loses the Trumpers will throw a tantrum, screaming blame at everyone except Trump. As to the long term outcome, I expect to be dead by the time it really matters.
Re:Rubio – Gang of Eight was only the first of Rubio’s stab in the back of his supporters in the Tea Party (being one of them in Florida when his nomination against Crist was dicey, I know what I expected of him based on his legislative background. ) Having received a giant yell from his constituents on immigration and the idiocy of getting anywhere near Chucky Schumer, he promptly signed on to Kristin Gillibrand’s attempt to do away with due process for college males. My email to his staff should have scorched the intertubes, I will give him credit – and my vote for Senator this year – based on his Machiavellian and almost unnoticed deed – getting the Obamacare risk corridors collapsed. Thus our favorites health care insurers can reap the full measure of their specious support for that flawed attempt to support government control of healthcare.
mf:
Actually, I’m arguing against things you did not say and that I never said you said. However, they are things other people have said, many times, and that’s why I brought them up. That may not have been clear, but if not, I’m clarifying it now.
However, I was also arguing against the one analogy you did make between Reagan and Trump, which I think is a false analogy, and I believe I originally made that point quite clear.
mf:
Boo hoo, the tough tough construction game. Boo hoo, Trump just HAD to do what he did! Because he just had to be the biggest, baddest, bestest real estate developer in the (fill in the blanks with whatever he would say to brag—world? state? country? city?).
The Mafia’s a tough game, too. But people choose to enter it (as far as I know). It’s also a family tradition, as was Trump’s business.
Everything Trump did was a choice. He doesn’t get to weasel out of anything; no one held a gun to his head and forced him to be anything.
Neo:
Any of those type of tough guys will tell you that the toughest guys in the world are those who get up everyday and go to work to provide for their family.
Trump is a clown.
“But I see the main problem mostly as the propensity of anti-Trump voters on the right to nitpick about their candidates” – Neo
Agree with most of your post but this point (is this nitpicking? ).
It seems that there are many trump supporters who only four years ago were yelling “RINO!!!” wrt Romney.
We’ve certainly seen several in conservative media (e.g. Hannity) who did so, and changed their tune for trump.
Agree with the overall point, that most differences have not been particularly great between candidates (e.g. between some notional 90% vs 85% conservative).
It also begets the search for “purity” and denigration of any elected official from even engaging in any negotiation around a point that won’t deliver a purely conservative solution, even if there is no realistic way to get there without negotiation.
All of this is played up by the conservative media creating a bubble of echoing bias, driving up expectations and emotions.
A good many conclude all is lost and give up, thinking the last best hope is to “blow it all up”, on the “chance” there might be some good out of it, or that we may better recover from that awful mess than one created by the Dems.
The (R)s had Fiorina, Walker, Rubio, and Cruz to choose from. Those on the right chose Trump. The Trump nomination will most likely give way to the first female president of the USA. If so, the Dems will have the first (half) black president and the first female president. They’re currently winning at the “hearts & minds” game just by those superficial images alone.
The Repubs? Nada. Reagan’s dead and the MSM loathe him. The country had it’s chance to redeem itself but it totally spliced the kick when the ball was at their feet, the goalie nowhere near them.
But hey, maybe the alt-right is right, maybe Trump will win; maybe the likes of Ben Shapiro is right that a Hillary Clinton nom isn’t as bad as a Trump win. Who knows.
There were too many candidates for any one, two, or three to distinguish and define themselves. The idea of so many candidates participating in those “debates” to positive effect is just absurd. (Personally, I would urge that in the future the candidates on the right refuse to answer questions posed by radio or television actors portraying journalists.)
Meanwhile there was Hillary and a couple of guys who clearly were not going to be a threat to her.
Republicans need to institutionalize a process that reduces the number of candidates to two or three about a year before the election.
Then there was Bush, who looked early on to be the express train, what with all that money behind him. If that money had been spread around a little, America could have seen more of the republican candidates. The money men backed a loser from the get-go, and their claim to wisdom and perception compared to the average person’s no longer exists. Shame on them.
Another contribution to the discussion:
http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/#.V81-TGBriL4.facebook
“By: Publius Decius Mus
September 5, 2016
2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You–or the leader of your party–may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
To ordinary conservative ears, this sounds histrionic. The stakes can’t be that high because they are never that high–except perhaps in the pages of Gibbon. Conservative intellectuals will insist that there has been no “end of history” and that all human outcomes are still possible. They will even–as Charles Kesler does–admit that America is in “crisis.” But how great is the crisis? Can things really be so bad if eight years of Obama can be followed by eight more of Hillary, and yet Constitutionalist conservatives can still reasonably hope for a restoration of our cherished ideals? Cruz in 2024!
Not to pick (too much) on Kesler, who is less unwarrantedly optimistic than most conservatives. And who, at least, poses the right question: Trump or Hillary? Though his answer–“even if [Trump] had chosen his policies at random, they would be sounder than Hillary’s”–is unwarrantedly ungenerous. The truth is that Trump articulated, if incompletely and inconsistently, the right stances on the right issues–immigration, trade, and war–right from the beginning.
But let us back up. One of the paradoxes–there are so many–of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad….”
His analysis of the blinders on the Right are more important than the incidentals of the candidate discussion.
GRA said:
“Those on the right chose Trump.”
No, I would say a large portion of people not on the right chose Trump. Hence his much better showing in states with open primaries. His core of support among the alt-right gave up on politics years ago.
@ AesopFan:
This is more of the apocalyptic hysteria of the Trumpkins. The country will go on, even if he loses. Hillary is not liked enough for anyone to stick their neck out for her, establishing internment camps. 500 billion illegal immigrant aren’t going to flood a country in economic decline.
In fact, if she does as good a job on the economy as I think she might, the illegals may flee the country like they did in 2008.
AesopFan said:
“The truth is that Trump articulated, if incompletely and inconsistently, the right stances on the right issues–immigration, trade, and war–right from the beginning.”
What kind of rhetorical nonsense is this?
By that logic, Jeb was right (if incompletely and inconsistently) from the beginning. Kasich was right (if incompletely and inconsistently) from the beginning. Every one of the other candidates was right (if incompletely and inconsistently) from the beginning.
Go ahead…pick LITERALLY ANY OTHER CANDIDATE AND TRY TO CRITICISE HIM/HER.
In response, I will tell you that it was merely an episode of being inconsistent. Or maybe their position was incomplete instead…I haven’t really decided yet how I’m gonna bullshit you.
The only thing more pathetic this cycle than Trump is watching people murder logic and good sense in trying to defend him.
Stubbs brings up a good point though: I think the RNC allowed such a clown show because they assumed it would help split the anti-Jeb vote. I guess it didn’t occur to them that Jeb had no support and that their tactic would favor someone else.
My favorite line from Trump in the primaries was about Rick Perry about him suddenly showing up wearing glasses “to make him look smarter…” and “…he doesn’t realize people see through the glasses” Howling laughter, devastatingly hilarious.
One of the things I find interesting is the number of people coming out from behind a bush to say that their first pick was Scott Walker — including me.
It’s not only interesting; it’s heartening.
After Gov. Walker, my choice was, and remains, Cruz. But I do have a few problems with him, not centered on religion! He’s made a few statements that indicate to me that his “Constitutional Scholar” creds don’t entirely represent the facts.
For this last reason I think I’d rather see him in the Presidency than on the Court. Of course, he’s still a great pick for the Senate.
Beyond all that, I remain a loyal #Never Trump-er; it’s just that I have even stronger loyalty to #NeverShrill, so I guess I gots to vote for the Hairy One.
I pretty much preferred the same order of candidates as neo (and 2/3s of Julie): Walker, Cruz, Rubio.
Walker had excellent credentials and was plenty man enough to take on and beat the unions and corrupt prosecutors. He just wasn’t enough of an entertainer for many, and he didn’t sound angry enough for others.
Cruz: Anyone the “establishment” hates that much has got to be good.
Rubio: Yep, he has some issues, but he would have been a lot better than anything we can expect now.
One candidate no one here mentions is Rand Paul. He was rejected early for the same reasons as his father, that he was perceived to be an anti-Semite as well as soft on immigration. The taint of libertarian/leftist foreign policy knocked him out of consideration for me. But he did show real leadership when his filibuster forced the administration to publicly admit they didn’t have constitutional authority to track down and kill American citizens without trial within this country, something they had repeatedly refused to answer because they fully intended to do it. I also liked his personal Christian commitment of donating eye surgeries in Central America. He excelled on economic issues with a plan to end the IRS and audit the Fed. Even given his flaws I’d take him over the remaining candidates including Gary Johnson.
It’s interesting how Trump makes them ALL seem reasonable in retrospect.
Fiorina was my first choice. But best as I can tell, she was the most popular second or possibly third choice for a lot of people, rather than the all-important first choice. She seems to have been a popular candidate among those paying attention, but received barely any of the vote.
Dagon Says:
“My favorite line from Trump in the primaries was about Rick Perry about him suddenly showing up wearing glasses “to make him look smarter…” and “…he doesn’t realize people see through the glasses” Howling laughter, devastatingly hilarious.”
Yes, what a riot. Trump at his best, and for him, most intellectual, hurling childish personal insults and ad hominem attacks. He couldn’t take anybody on in the realm of principles, because he doesn’t have any of his own.
I’m going to vote for the psychotic She-Stalin. I will do this because once people get a taste of real leftism, and what so-called positive liberty means as it is shoved up their arses by a no-limits redistributive government run by cultural Marxists out to finish off the fundamental transformation of America, then people will really wake up – those sixty percent who are not clients of the state – and elect conservatives. And this will be good for conservatism.
And all the unconstitutional innovations and legal atrocities which have afflicted free men to that point will be rolled back and abolished: just as has always happened in the past.
It’s a lot worse than just the end of a political party. It’s a milestone on the way to dictatorship.
http://capitalistpig.com/news-media/nevertrump/
https://reason.com/archives/2016/09/05/the-worst-case-for-republicans-trump-win
Someone is angry on Tuesday.
I think Stubbs is right that a lot of the responsibility lies in the format of the debates. In a crowded field, it was going to be difficult for a candidate to stand out. The 23-candidates-on-a-stage debates only heightened the problem. They also diminished the better way that a candidate can stand out in a debate: ideas.
I think there will be changes in the debate rules and the primary schedule, along with a push for more closed primaries.
Had another political “conversation” with a quasi-relative this past holiday.
Instead of a government social worker half-cousin, it was a retired former businessman married to a cousin. He likes to rant about the evils of socialism, but volunteered that he had in fact voted for Obama last time ( “which was a mistake, I admit”) because he hated Romney.
Why did he hate Romney? Because : “47 percent”, “Bain Capital”, “elitist”, “magic underwear”.
I tried to explain that Romney was talking about tuning the points of the Republican campaign message to the realities of the current American voting public, and warning that offering people what they had no interest in – a Federal income tax cut for example – would do no good.
He looked as though he had never heard that before, and then went on to something else while using the word “caring” or “care” in some additional reference.
My conclusion upon taking my own advice regarding addressing het up acquaintances? It is that my advice to try and get them to agree on facts, and to point out to them the consequences of their implicit demands on others, is not working out very well. 0 for 2 at this point.
They are emotional. They are angry. And for them, thinking, and facts for the most part , as well as serious calculations regarding probable outcomes, be damned.
It’s like living among a bunch of chimps.
Think about what Romney really said, and then consider the aghast reaction of many conservative pundits who were dismayed at the supposed political “stupidity” implied by his indiscretion.
Romney spoke the truth, but was crucified for having done so; in part by his own supposed allies.
This may be in part why some Trumpsters, people who may have recognized emotional pandering on the part of the GOP establishment, and its failure , and who recognize that those who oppose them are and have been for a long time now operating off an emotion driven agenda which they don’t even bother to defend, now feel entitled themselves to the same rules – or lack thereof – and don’t really care what happens to the GOP establishment, or to cautious conservatives for that matter, anymore.
Cruz promised to deliver what establishment Republicans had been claiming to their constituents to want.
But what they really wanted was shown by their reaction to his “arrogance” and uncooperativeness.
The run-of-the-mill Cruz hater was it seems as you mention, oddly focused on his looks and demeanor: which appeared either Black Irish Joe McCarthy hard and fanatical, or wan smile geeky, depending on where one stood.
Yet, I cannot think of one policy issue that Rubio was demonstrably better on than Cruz. But he was, in my perhaps harsh opinion, the latest “Colin Powell” of the let’s-be-nice-while-being-conservative crowd.
Now why the most vociferous of the TrumpTrolls hated Cruz, is a bit more difficult to figure, unless you do grant that they hated him for much the same reason many hated Romney … i.e., “He thinks he’s better than everyone else, and is secretly corrupt too”
DNW Says:
“I’m going to vote for the psychotic She-Stalin. I will do this because once people get a taste of real leftism, and what so-called positive liberty means as it is shoved up their arses by a no-limits redistributive government run by cultural Marxists out to finish off the fundamental transformation of America, then people will really wake up — those sixty percent who are not clients of the state — and elect conservatives.”
There is an intractable problem with your hoped-for scenario – if the Marxists keep control of the White House, they will institute de facto amnesty, with voting rights for 20-30+ million new Democrats with Executive Orders/Memos. There will be new regulations outlawing voter ID, and DOJ decisions to not investigate any Democrat voter fraud.
Even if 75% of the people then get fed up, Marxists will be in full control of the election process itself, and the vote totals will somehow always be in favor of the Collective, even if they allow conservatives to run.
Even assuming the Rs retain the Senate which is not even 50-50, the Marxists can live with a deadlocked SCOTUS as it will never rule against them. And with Schumer as Majority Leader, the filibuster rule is dead from day one on every issue including Supreme nominees.
That is the disastrous dilemma we face if Trump doesn’t win. I suspect that in every state not solidly red or blue, conservatives like myself, neo and most others will feel forced to vote for the blowhard to avoid becoming the USSA.
Yeah, you are right.
The thing to figure out is just what has unleashed this kind of thing, and made it seem not only acceptable, but something to be celebrated.
I don’t say this as if it implies some moral civic duty to understand and embrace, but as an actual analytical puzzle.
Who are, the most radical Trumpsters, and what drives them? And yeah, I know, It is a question that has been asked ad nauseam, and still has no comprehensive answer.
“with your hoped-for scenario ”
That would be with my pantomime conservative’s scenario, thanks. LOL
And yes, you are right.
Thanks for the links.
I have read the Reason article and find the reasoning defective. In fact there is almost no real evidential argument or deductive entailment to be found in the paragraphs. And what he does “reason” about seems to have mostly to do with what he figures to be the interests of the Republican Party, not the republic.
First of all in order to enhance the menace, he tacitly assumes that we are for all intents and purposes electing a princeps during a post-republican, post rule of law age. The author posits that if Trump acts badly, nothing effective can really be done about it: including apparently removing him from office. Which the article then incoherently explicitly posits might be the actual eventuality.
Now I don’t believe it to be the case that we are in a clearly post-constitutional era if the Republicans make a real fight of it; but at this point only on the downhill slope. But if it were the case that the U.S were no longer a constitutional republic, then the fate of such polity and its enablers, and the notion of preserving the status quo, would not only be of little to no interest to me, but its preservation might well be antithetical to my own best interests and the interests of those others aligned with the idea of constitutional government.
Second, the predictions of Trump’s behavior in public office where he is not a CEO or proprietor, is not based on evidence, but on bald faced histrionics, a rhetorical question, and a what-if scenario:
The author’s insinuated answer to his rhetorical question is invalidated by the fact that the conditions necessary for Trump to exercise such behavior as the author laments, are formally and manifestly different from the conditions found in a private corporation or proprietorship.
Which by the way, the author then seems to acknowledge below, while still not realizing that the very fail-safe he explicitly mentions [impeachment] undercuts what he has previously implied is the state of affairs which informs his most extravagant fears. Since, he now assumes, the Republic does still live, and Trump could be impeached.
Of course if the Republic really has died, then there is not likely anything that Trump can do that would not be exceeded by Hillary’s demonstrated history of indifference to constitutional limits and the rule of law in public office.
Advantages, it is hoped, for the Republican Party, as opposed to The Republic.
It is the latter I care about, and is where I live. The other is only a means of supporting an end. When it cannot do even that effectively, it has lost its utility as a means to an end.
Though those whose livelihoods subsist off of this supposed means to an end, may not care so much it it actually does do the work it is supposed to accomplish: as long as it provides the caretakers and sinecure holders with a comfortable nesting place.
I’m going to vote for the psychotic She-Stalin. I will do this because once people get a taste of real leftism, and what so-called positive liberty means as it is shoved up their arses by a no-limits redistributive government run by cultural Marxists out to finish off the fundamental transformation of America, then people will really wake up — those sixty percent who are not clients of the state — and elect conservatives. And this will be good for conservatism.
——————-
I remember when people were using a rationale like this to explain why they weren’t going to vote for Romney in the general election four years ago.
Based on the attitudes of much of the electorate, it didn’t work.
I’m not sure why you think it’ll work any better this time around.
I don’t.
Point taken, since you are the second to mention it.
I guess I need to find a way to punctuate ironical presentations or statements intended as a parody of a view I disagree with. Can’t bracket everything in quote markers.
/s = sarcism
/jk = joking
/p = parody
What we had was a failure to communicate. Your attemnpt of derision was clear to me, and anger.
DNW – It doesn’t work online because there are always people who say absurd things and mean them. We need to stop doing impressions of bad thinking and actually say what we mean. At a minimum, write “I don’t understand how people think the following:”. It makes the comment less zippy, but it improves communication. Anyway, we often distort people’s arguments when we paraphrase them even non-sarcastically. Better to say say yes when we mean yes and no when we mean no.
DNW:
I believe that the Trump trolls hated Cruz mostly because they recognized early on that he was Trump’s main rival for the angry-at-the-GOPe crowd. He had actually been fighting the good fight while Trump was still giving money to and praising liberal causes. Cruz had to be discredited in any way possible (lies are best) in order for Trump to grab that vote of “burn it downers.”
Ah, and they also geniunely hated Cruz because he is so smart and somewhat geeky.
See also this.
Well, after making forty-eleven comments here day in and day out for some number of years, I guess I figured that as a result I could let rip, and any readers even bothering to look at my comment would be likely to be pretty quick on the uptake.
However, given that I have had only minimal direct interaction with the two readers who rightly pointed out the deficiencies of the attitude embodied by the voice and pose I adopted, their response was probably justified too.
I almost didn’t read the comments, since Frog’s first post reflected some of my thoughts as well. Glad I did, though, since the discussion was (mainly) good.
My initial ranking of the candidates was Walker, Perry, Cruz, and (perhaps) Fiorina. Didn’t really rank the rest, although if pressed, I’d’ve put Trump toward the bottom, mainly because his style is not one I care for and his background led me to see him as more of a Kennedy Democrat than a libertarian-conservative. I did, however, recognize his style as employing an entertainment schtick in a political environment.
On the other hand, I didn’t find him as innately terrifying nor disgusting as many did. I read some of the critiques of him, and many seemed more emotional than substantive–and way too many involved twisting and putting the worst interpretation on things in a manner more consistent with the techniques of “progressive” social justice bullies. (Aside. Ms. Neo: I found your critiques to be among the best and most reasoned and thoughtful overall. Although my conclusions did not coincide with yours, I had to take them seriously.)
Also ignored was the character of the federal bureaucracy, especially in the more politicized parts (e.g., DoJ, IRS). These would gladly go along with any Democrat over-reach, but would tend to resist any changes from a Republican.
Our primary was after Trump had clinched the nomination. I voted for Cruz. My wife (whose preferences were similar to mine) voted for Trump. Her reason: she believed that Cruz, by his actions after Trump’s clinching, indicated a lack of seeing the big picture, and were petty. (She is usually an excellent judge of character; in retrospect, she was probably right.)
What often throws people off about Trump is that he is more context-sensitive than we are used to. E.g., his conference with Pres. Peé±a Nieto and his speech at a majority-black church in Detroit were not particularly surprising.
Anyway, as a very astute person once pointed out, a mind is a difficult thing to change. Too many #NeverTrumpers have made that a part of their identity. National Review pretty much painted itself into a corner. It is difficult to say, “I was very concerned about this–and still am to a degree–but there is much good as well.”
As for me, after reviewing Trump’s policy positions (www.donaldjtrump.com/positions), that’s where I’m at. I was concerned–and still am to a degree–but there is much good as well.
CBI:
As I’ve written before, I have no quarrel with people who have reluctantly come to vote for Trump because they consider him the better of the two.
After all, I may end up in that boat myself.
I also have no quarrel with those who decide they cannot in all good conscience vote for him.
However, I disagree that Cruz’s behavior has been faulty. After what Trump has done, particularly what he said about Cruz’s family, Cruz could not have endorsed him and retained his own personal integrity, in my opinion.
I’d like to speak out as a single issue voter (well, 2 single issues, but you get my point). While I make my determinations based on abortion and gun control, I expect no perfection from anyone. I take a ‘who is best of all’ approach. This led me to vote for Cruz in the primary, and will lead me to vote for Trump in the general. Is Trump perfect? No, but he’s way better than her on these 2 issues.
Of course I care about other issues such as creeping socialism and growth of government, illegal immigration, terror, etc, but they aren’t deal killers for me.
So we’re not all destructive and argumentative. In fact, once my decision is made, I view the the other arguments quite dispassionately.
DNW says:
“Now why the most vociferous of the TrumpTrolls hated Cruz, is a bit more difficult to figure, unless you do grant that they hated him for much the same reason many hated Romney … “
The core of Trump’s supporters hated Cruz because he was a threat. Their willingness to believe the most absurd lies shows that they were searching for a reason to dislike him. I do allow that some of them are really that kooky though.
Then, after all that, Cruz had the gall to not kiss Trump’s ring like the other toadies.
Neo: I think I understand what you are saying about Cruz’s personal integrity, but . . . I also don’t think that “the personal is political.” IMO, in the primary campaigning, Cruz was and remains the much nicer guy, and I disagree with the insults that both sides gave (and, again, the Trump side hit harder),
But the primaries are over. Now is the national election. For personal feelings to rule the political calculations is, again IMO, letting personal feelings overrule the political picture, and is being petty.
CBI:
Trump crossed the line many times with many people. IMO Cruz may have realized that this personality trait in Trump is far beyond petty and goes to essential personality characteristics and fitness for office.
OM: Again, I haven’t cared for Trump’s schtick and don’t like it. My wife–raised in New York City–thinks it’s fairly natural and within bounds. Also, while his words have been more public, I don’t think they’ve been any worse than previous presidents within my lifetime: Obama, Nixon, Johnson coming immediately to mind.
But that’s of less import. The main question: whose policies are better: Trump’s (donaldjtrump.com/positions) or Clinton’s (hillaryclinton.com/issues/). I find the choice easy to make.
Then again, I tend to be more of an “issues” instead of a “feelings” sort of person when it comes to these sorts of decisions. A vulgar guy with more good policies trumps a melifluous guy with mainly horrible policies.
An awful guy that has no credibility is no better than the Shrew Queen, who is awful in her own special way.
Comparing the present Trump’s actions in this campaign with past presidents during their campaigns, well I too young to remember much about the Nixon 1960 campaign, but Trump has far exceeded what used to be standards for candidates. I can’t assess what Trump has said in private if that is what you are referring to with Obama, Nixon, and Johnson.
What are Trump’s policies on immigration, gun control, abortion, entitlements, health care, NATO, Russia, Iraq? Consider how they are fluid and malleable, with exception of Iraq where he is at best a 9-11 Truther and “Take their oil!’