More on NeverTrumpers
Commenter “Eva Marie” offers this explanation for the motives and concerns of NeverTrumpers:
Maybe they think of conservatism as essentially a lost cause. Maybe they think of it as that last bit of shelter from the vulgarity and crassness that is destined to seep into every part of our lives. And even though politicians like Bob Dole, Bush 1 and 2 eventually failed, they maintained a standard of behavior that heartened [them]. Switching metaphors, even though we are destined to go down with the ship we will do so as gentlemen and gentleladies. And here comes Trump. He thinks he can save the ship. He’s a fool for thinking so and we are fools for supporting him. Not only will the ship sink anyway but we will have been reduced to behaving just like the Democrats – we won’t even have the comfort of believing that we are not like them.
I wouldn’t doubt that’s what goes on with some NeverTrumpers. If all is lost anyway, why not maintain one’s dignity?
I have no idea how common that feeling is. But I don’t share it. All may be lost, but I see no reason to assume that and to give up. Meanwhile, if the ship is temporarily captained by someone who wasn’t sent by Central Casting, I don’t mind his crass style if he can steer away from the shoals and avoid a wreck. I would love for someone to come along who combines every quality I admire – eloquence, dignity, wisdom, strength, courage, foresight. But I’m not waiting around for such a paragon to appear, nor for Godot.
I didn’t start out supporting Trump, particularly during the primaries, as anyone who read my blog at the time could instantly perceive. But my objections were not especially about his style; they were about my distrust of him and what he planned to accomplish. Once he was elected, I was more than willing to give him a chance, and in terms of actions he’s exceeded my expectations tremendously as president. Even in terms of style he hasn’t been as bad as I expected, so on the whole I’ve been pleasantly surprised.
That experience obviously runs counter to the perceptions a NeverTrumper has of the Trump presidency so far. By the way, I define the term “NeverTrumper” this way: a person who claims to be on the right and who detests Trump and his ways so much that nothing the man does gets that person’s approval, and who in most cases is now actively hoping for impeachment or for the election of whatever candidate the Democrats nominate in 2020 to oppose Trump.
The concept of losing with dignity makes sense for your average conservative-on-the-street NeverTrumper, however few that may be. But what about the Jonah Goldberg’s and David French’s of the world? They literally pay their bills promising to lead the fight against the liberal horde.
Mike
But what about the Jonah Goldberg’s and David French’s of the world?
They’re the loyal opposition to the progressives. They maintain their sinecures by those means. They simply mean to feed the rest of us to the socialist crocodile, hoping to be eaten last.
They don’t actually want to put conservative principles into action. That’s an awful lot like work. And responsibility.
Neo: ” I don’t mind his crass style if he can steer away from the shoals and avoid a wreck.”
Setting aside personal opinion of the man, both as man and as president, I do have one major concern or reservation: that he won’t actually succeed in steering us away from the shoals. 2016 may be a Pyrrhic victory, provoking a reaction that will have us heading for the shoals at increased speed. I’m *not* predicting that, just saying that it seems possible.
But also, before anyone jumps in to say it: the appointment of two apparently good Supreme Court justices is a major, major Good Thing, which will last for a while (unless the Dems succeed in expanding and packing the Court). I say “apparently good” because as we’ve seen in the past that doesn’t always work out, but if it doesn’t it won’t be Trump’s fault.
Mac:
It is true that it doesn’t always work out that nominees of Republican presidents make conservative rulings. But those justices were not ordinarily staunch conservatives to begin with. Staunch conservatives tend to stay that way (Thomas, etc.).
The alternatives that a Democratic president would have chosen tend to be far more liberal and stay that way. So I think we can safely say all of Trump’s judicial appointments are far better than anyone Hillary would have chosen.
“I didn’t start out supporting Trump, particularly during the primaries, as anyone who read my blog at the time could instantly perceive.”
I remember it well. I got so annoyed that I moved to Tanganyika to raise gazelles for a while. Anyways, I don’t understand TDS. I can remember a few instances of similar behavior during the Nixon years but nothing like today. This current insanity was kicked off by the absolutely vicious attacks on Sarah Palin. She scared the bejeseus out of them. It’s worse with Trump. Remeinds me of a story I heard many years ago. Went something like this:
John was a poor farmer who was just plain unlucky all his life. His wife died birthing his second child, then his son was kicked by the mule and became an invalid. The crops were spare and the chickens laid square eggs. One day as he was plowing the south forty his tractor hit a root and flipped over, breaking his legs and pinning him to the ground. Lying there, he looked to the sky and moaned “Why me, Lord?”. A voice came down saying “I don’t know John. Something about you just pisses me off”.
Neo: ” I think we can safely say all of Trump’s judicial appointments are far better than anyone Hillary would have chosen.”
Oh, certainly. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. One could also make a reasonable case that they are better than another Republican’s would have been.
Eva Marie’s description sounds a bit like Rod Dreher’s “Benedict Option”. In his case, he feels that the secular forces have won, and the religious communities need to retreat and focus on their own communities.
I think part of the issue that the NeverTrumpers don’t advocate retreat, which would make sense if they truly believed Eva Marie’s description. The NeverTrumpers advocate that conservatives should keep fighting, keep getting excited for conservative candidates and national policies (and of course, spending money on those causes). Just different candidates, not Trump.
They don’t actually want to put conservative principles into action. That’s an awful lot like work. And responsibility.
I don’t think they’re averse to implementing whatever. The problem is that they took emphatic positions in 2015 and 2016 and are too vain to acknowledge and delineate the ways they were in error. Quite a list of the starboard commentariat suffers from a similar vanity. One thing Trump has done is tear off a mess of masks. We’ve learned (albeit something of minor significance) that a mess of people employed to write topical commentary are shills, capons, or comically self-absorbed. These people can improve public discussion by disappearing from it. (George Will could have and should have put down his pen 15 years ago to take up more contemplative and academic work and acquired some hobby other than going to ball games).
Fight the Dems! Fight the Never-Trumpers! NEVER GIVE UP.
“…just different candidates….”
Ingrates and fools.
Trump brought them kicking and screaming—hauled them—to the Promised Land.
Even as “Dump Trump” springs like hoary Hosannas from their sorry lips.
Ingrates and fools. And totally divorced from reality. (But oh so very virtuous!!)
What I find most annoying about the NTs is their sanctimonious, pompous attitude. I was a Cruz volunteer in 2016. I deeply distrusted Trump. But it was a binary choice so I voted for him. Now I am pleased with his performance so far. He is actually working to achieve his campaign agenda, more so than any president in my lifetime.
His SCOTUS picks seem much better so far, especially compared to GW’s pick for chief justice. Plus he has done a good job with low court appointments. It important to remember he is not a politician, first and foremost he loves America and his policies have greatly benefited the middle classes. The employment rate for blacks and Hispanics are amazing. What more do the NTs want?
It may be better to remember that Pres. Trump is a politician, if only because this forces us all to recollect what politics itself is. Seems like most Americans have lost sight of their own political thing, or as the Romans called it: Res Publica.
Eva Marie’s comment was her speculation on why NeverTrumpers never trump. Mizpants signed off on it and I’m willing to take her word for it. Nonetheless, it doesn’t quite gel for me.
Three years in neither Trump nor America look like lost causes — aside from Trump still being Trump. What is really bothering NTs and why specifically? I’m not getting it.
Perhaps Mizpants or any other NTs might explain their opposition in more detail and perhaps Trump supporters might give them some room to do so.
Neo: “I don’t mind his crass style if he can steer away from the shoals and avoid a wreck.”
Have you considered his crass style is the thing pointing him towards the rocks? Thats been my concern all along. Other than that, he does have winning policies.
Harry:
His crass style got him elected in the first place, IMHO. So he wouldn’t now be steering any ships without it. His crass style is also helping him survive the leftist attacks and throw it right back in their faces. And he even seems to be doing pretty well in the international diplomacy arena, which surprises me. So I don’t think his crass style is causing any wrecks so far, except for some of his enemies.
I’m on my cellphone, and autocorrect keeps changing “crass” to “crash.”
Have you considered his crass style is the thing pointing him towards the rocks? Thats been my concern all along. Other than that, he does have winning policies.
Harry: That was my worry, more than just disliking his style. However, after three years he hasn’t hit the rocks yet and he’s had plenty of opportunities to do so.
In my experience big mouth people are impulsive and dangerous. Trump’s mouth seems to run on a separate circuit from his brain. Or maybe it’s a grand design.
I don’t know. But I’ve come to trust him much more than I did.
Neo: “His crass style got him elected in the first place…”
…and he ran against who and what percentage of the popular vote?
If we win again in 2020 it will be by the same margin against the same lack-luster democrat field.
The pendulum has a way of swinging back. I recently read that far from abandoning religion, the younger generation has begun to embrace it, and with that comes family and with children a more conservative outlook. I predict a big shift in Hispanic and Black vote in the coming years towards conservativism and the GOP. They are just beginning to realize the Dems care more about gay rights and transpeople using the restroom and government control of virtually everything and not improving their lives. PDT has pointed up the fact democrats have destroyed nearly every big city and are working on more affluent ones like Seattle and San Fran. The dems overplayed their hand on the race card and the war on women and its beginning to catch up with them. They will be the party of hard core radicals and affluent white liberals. Blacks and Hispanics will gravitate toward the working man’s party, which the GOP has become. With that will come power to change some of the excesses the left has foisted upon us. Fear not, it’s a long road that has no turning, as me old gramps used to say.
Thanks for prompting me to explain myself, Huxley. I’ll keep it as short as possible. What bothers me about Trump is not exactly his “style.” It’s his completely amoral nature. There is nothing aspirational in him, no sense, even, that he knows the difference between right and wrong. He’s the first president who doesn’t even pretend to be a good man. People say he fights for them, but he’s much more likely to fight for himself, and often in the pettiest, most spiteful way imaginable.
He leveraged the terrible culture divide in this country to win the election. He didn’t create it — I’ll grant that it was mostly the left that was responsible — but the prospect of watching him do it again, when that divide is even wider than it was the first time, makes me fear an actual civil war.
I would like Neo’s view of Jonah Goldberg, if she keeps up with him. His books are solid, but his weekly e-mails are either Trump or alt-right. There are other important things in the world e.g. a major Dem candidate for President openly calling for churches to be forced to co-ordinate their theology with the current party line and that guns should be confiscated. The NYTimes running an op-ed calling for the end of 1st amendment freedoms. We’re one Supreme Court justice away from all those things. What Michele Malkin said in relation to some guy I never heard of is trivial. But not to Jonah.
He’s the first president who doesn’t even pretend to be a good man.
That’s interesting at least, whether true or no.
What, I wonder, does it mean to pretend to be a good man and why would you look for someone like that? Isn’t this the game Obama played well, and with which people were quite willing to play along? What did that get them?
Sdferr
I don’t remember the source, but I do remember the quote. Maybe it was Oscar Wilde: “Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” At least that’s something!
Yes, I do think it is something to be screwed over by someone who is convincingly something he is not. Something such as a nation may recover from in the course if a decade or two, if it is lucky. But surely not something to be devoutly wished.
“of a decade”, apologies for the typo.
t’s his completely amoral nature. There is nothing aspirational in him, no sense, even, that he knows the difference between right and wrong. He’s the first president who doesn’t even pretend to be a good man.
mizpants: Thanks for the response!
I know what you mean and it bothers me too. Except at this point he’s done so much good (by my standards) and been so consistent at it that I wonder if there isn’t a decent core beneath all the blather.
I’ve traded speculation with another commenter here that perhaps Trump had some sort of awakening after the shock of being elected. (I don’t believe he expected to win.)
That’s an interesting speculation, Huxley. I’m not really an NT by Neo’s definition because there’s plenty Trump has done that I approve of — especially his support of Israel and his SC picks. I wad grateful he didn’t withdraw his Kavanaugh nomination when the dems did their disgraceful thing. But I still recoil when I hear him speak.
nothing aspirational
Let’s loop back to this fragment too if we may?
Are we to say that the crude incantation “Make America Great Again” is wholly without aspiration to it? That furthermore it partakes of neither good nor evil (right or wrong in translation)? This seems odd on its face, does it not? But why do this? Why “make America great again”, if not to improve the estate of the Americans? And is not improving the estate of men the very project of modern liberalism, broadly understood?
Sdferr:There’s a difference between moral aspiration and triumphalism.
difference between moral aspiration and triumphalism.
I’ll perhaps accept your view of this distinction if you’re willing to make it plain; whereupon I may ask the relevance of your insertion of “triumphalism” where it was not present before. That is, I don’t happen to view triumphalism as particularly significant in our politics at the moment, but maybe I’m missing something salient.
I’m in that class of people who were anti Trump because we don’t follow popular culture. I remember not paying attention because … how could it be possible that the Trump candidacy was for real?
I’m fully a Trump partisan at this point.
Two things:
Trump’s pop culture persona was a huge plus. I feel sure, for example, that the MSM could have beaten Ted Cruz. Enough low info voters would have been tricked by media lies. That didn’t happen to Trump because so many had an already fully formed picture of him. It was not possible for the media to successfully build their desired false image.
Secondly, I post the article which convinced me to take PDJT seriously. It’s from Jan 2016 and I think it has held up well over time. Do please consider reading it and while reading keep in mind the shenanigans of Paul Ryan, John McCain and others who worked overtime to subvert the power we voters gave to Repubs to turn the ship around.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/a_plea_to_conservative_voices.html
JimNorCal, I like it. Thanks.
What the hell does the popular vote have to do with electing a president, Harry? We do not live, according to the Constitution in a democracy which is another term for mob rule. We are per the Constitution a Republic if we can keep it. I don’t want to be ruled by the voters in CA, NY, MA, NJ, IL, or the district of criminals*.
If anyone gets to rule it is flyover country. We produce the food (except for nuts and some fruits), the energy that keeps the lights on and fuels transportation, and is the bastion standing against the ‘progressive’ insanity.
*Check out why DC was created and understand why it is not a state.
Trump has done more to keep his promises than any president in my lifetime (born in 1956). Keeping promises seems pretty damn MORAL to me. It indicates a very real type of honesty. And anyone who spends any time with working class people in flyover country can tell you that this is precisely what they love about him. They don’t care about crude. They’re just real damn tired of Beltway Bulls**t.
Trump doesn’t beat around the bush. He isn’t mealy mouthed. And he has all the best enemies. Anyone who actually cares about the little guy, the working class, the small business on the verge of bankruptcy, the coal miner, the factory worker, knows why they love Trump. It ain’t hard to understand.
One more thing — Trump’s resilience in the face of a unrelenting and unprecedented assaults is astonishing. I can’t think of another politician who could have withstood it, much less thrive as he has.
And that speaks to some kind of substantive moral, spiritual grounding. I don’t know how he does it. Go back and research what happened to LBJ and Nixon. Trump’s put up with far, far worse.
“It’s his completely amoral nature. There is nothing aspirational in him, no sense, even, that he knows the difference between right and wrong.”
This statement demonstrates how truly screwed up we are. In what way in Trump amoral but not the men who immediately preceded him in the White House? How many innocent bystanders were killed by Obama-ordered drone strikes? What about the “Fast and Furious” gunwalking scandal? How about the 100,000 migrant children detained in U.S. border facilities while Obama was President? What about Bill Clinton and his torture-by-proxy policy of “rendition?” And George W. Bush? ‘Nuff said.
I’m sorry but you are confusing morality with manners and decency with pretension. Do you think Trump ran for President just for his personal amusement? Do you think he advances the policies he does because he just flipped a coin? That he actually doesn’t care about his country and his fellow citizens? In contrast to…what? The people who’ve been trying to overturn his election for the last three years?
Mike
mizpants,
With rescept, your problem with Trump is similar with the problem way back when that the delicate class had with Patton. Patton was not a gentleman, he was brash and crude, but he was the right man at the right time who forged ahead and made the Germans die for their country instead of my father. Trump is similar, he doesn’t give a damn what you think about him. He is what he is and intends to win. What Republican president since Lincoln has had that fortitude?
Mizpants; I have been saying the same thing all along. Bringing the fight to the left is admirable, but you have to do it with more than just insulting tweets. You hace to explain why conservatism, free market capitalism and meritocracy is better than straight up pandering. That way you can win better than just the electoral college but the popular vote as well, which (Parker), you would need if we’re going to get that important Overton Window back in the direction of a sane society.
I’ll perhaps accept your view of this distinction if you’re willing to make it plain; whereupon I may ask the relevance of your insertion of “triumphalism” where it was not present before. That is, I don’t happen to view triumphalism as particularly significant in our politics at the moment, but maybe I’m missing something salient.
She’s improvising. You’re expecting her to make sense. That’s so not fair.
“…amoral nature…”
Gosh, “amoral” according to whom?
(Or, “moral” according to which standard?)
I, too, wish he could be more, um, perfect?
(Actually, I don’t. Beware of perfectionists. Be very, very aware….)
Harry,
So what is so precious about the popular vote? Two wovles against one sheep and one sheep dog whose vote doesn’t count? Or am Ifailingto understanding you?
mizpants:
You write:
You don’t give any specific examples, so I have to try to imagine what you might mean, exactly. I respect you and like you, from the past, so this is a bona fide effort I’m making.
Let me take it point by point.
—What bothers you is not his style but “his completely amoral nature.” What might you mean? What has he done that’s amoral? He has cheated on his wife (or wives). This is a common moral failing of many people, and especially many powerful men and many politicians and/or rich men. It certainly doesn’t distinguish Trump in any way among his political fellows. Nor does it usually mean that a person has a “completely amoral nature.” How can he be “completely amoral” and have done business all those years without being in prison, and without the opposition – an opposition determined to dish up all possible dirt on him, or even to make it up if that fails to materialize – finding much of anything with which to charge him so far? Perhaps there are such things, but they haven’t emerged yet, and certainly do NOT speak to a “completely amoral nature.” Then we have his children, all of them loyal, devoted to him, and apparently living fairly decent lives compared to others of their generation. Even his ex-wives are friendly with him – fancy that! It’s not all that common, and does not speak to a “completely amoral nature.” He is a complete teetotaler and doesn’t use drugs as far as I know, and never has. He has kept more promises more consistently than any president I can recall in my lifetime. His biggest failing seems to be insulting people, which he does for strategic reasons and also because he has a combative nature (I’ve already covered his tendency to insult people in a fairly juvenile way in my post). That isn’t especially admirable – although it seems effective – but it hardly bespeaks of anything even close to a “completely amoral nature.” He brags, but that doesn’t have anything to do with having a “completely amoral nature” either.
—You write, “There is nothing aspirational in him.” And yet his entire campaign is aspirational, not just for himself, but for the country. You may not think he’s sincere, but that’s just your opinion. He certainly indicates aspirations and even behaves in ways that attempt to fulfill those aspiration, and not just for himself but for America. And what did he do in the past, before becoming a politician? Fixed up old buildings and broken-down public places (please see what he did regarding Wollman Rink), as well as building spiffy (if garish – there’s that style thing again) new ones. Seems “aspirational” to me (particularly the skating rink story), although of course there was something in it for him, too. He wasn’t and isn’t selfless, but to me he seems quite aspirational both in his past life and particularly since he’s been president. He’s also quite bold – for example, trying to renegotiate NAFTA and moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
—You wrote, “no sense, even, that he knows the difference between right and wrong.” I think my response to the first claim (his amoral nature) in the quote could also stand as a response to this claim, too. What’s more, when you write “He’s the first president who doesn’t even pretend to be a good man”, it’s puzzling as well. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Trump is a bad man. Would you rather have a complete hypocrite who pretends to be a good man but is actually bad, or would you rather have someone who doesn’t even pretend? At least with the latter, people know what they’re dealing with. But, as I’ve written elsewhere in this comment, there’s no indication to me that Trump is actually “a bad man” although he certainly has some negative traits, as most of us agree. I find that the good in him outweighs the bad.
—You write, “People say he fights for them, but he’s much more likely to fight for himself, and often in the pettiest, most spiteful way imaginable.” But I’ve seen him fight for America and for segments of America very often. He also fights for himself – defending himself mostly, and he certainly is attacked a lot. He’s a counterpuncher. That’s something I think Republicans previously have been very deficient in, and it has made them sitting ducks and vulnerable to smear campaigns because of their “gentlemanly” nature. And sometimes (as we have agreed) his method of fighting is petty and akin to schoolyard taunting. But a president can defend himself, fight for himself, and fight for the country and its people all at the same time. These traits are not contradictory nor are they mutually exclusive.
Neo,
The best defense of the President that I’ve ever seen. Brava!
(signed) Never a #NeverTrumper, always a #NeverShrillar. *g*
(Who is now glad that he got it instead of Sen. Cruz. Fingers crossed that he scores again in 2020.)
Neo,
Thank you for your kind words. This blog has meant a lot to me in the past, and still does — I check it out often, if only as a lurker. But now, to my distress, it’s a completely Trump-occupied space.I don’t feel comfortable commenting, because as the past few threads have demonstrated, any anti-Trump, or even Trump-skeptical comments get jumped on hard. I do wish there were more room for debate here.
When I talk about Trump’s amorality, I’m not referring so much to actions of his — though I could cite quite a few. The matter of Trump University comes immediately to mind. And he certainly surrounds himself with some scuzzy associates.
But what I’m talking about is more performative. What he projects and embodies is a strong-man ethos. Winning at all costs, humiliating your rivals, trolling, humiliating. It distresses me to see public discourse brought down to the level of professional wrestling.
Do you remember what he said about Carly Fiona, in her presence?
In other words, he wins by appealing to the worst in us. He’s a mud creature who pulls others down into the mud. The culture has already been trashed, and he’s making it much worse.
Part of the presidency is public example-setting. Clinton comes to mind as a president who utterly failed in this regard, and I was disgusted by him. But Trump is different here — he deliberately sets bad examples. He sees the usefulness of doing so.
Maybe, as Huxley says, he has more dimensions than we see. If so, I wish he would show them so that I could support him. As it stands, I hate the Democrats and wouldn’t vote for any of them. For a week or so I was cheered by Bloomberg’s entry into the race, but that didn’t last.
So I’m really quite despairing.
In other words, he wins by appealing to the worst in us.
No, he wins by emphasizing issues the political class wants off the agenda and by punching back against purveyors of corruption, abuse of power, and institutionalized mendacity. Schiff, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Mueller, and miscellaneous shysters and propagandists: he fights them all.
mizpants:
The last presidential election was in November 2016. Sorry to hear you are fixated on that election, some things have happened since then. Sorry to hear that your are being repressed but that you would prefer to be ruled by President Big Gulp, who has recently apologized for being effective in prompting public safety.
Om on: That’s an amazing exercise in misreading, and a good example of why I don’t generally comment on Neo’s blog.
mizpants:
You said you were “cheered” by Bloomberg entering the race. Your words not mine, sorry to repress you by reading them.
mizpants:
One of the things that has been going on while that vulgar boorish man has been in the White House:
https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/coup-concerns-suddenly-dont-seem-so-far-fetched/
If only we had a gentleman. I’m so concerned.
What killed Trump for me in 2016 was the Trump University scandal. It was an obvious scam. Trump got caught and had to settle, but not before he made a a lot of self-serving rationalizations, which amounted to lies as far as I was concerned.
Trump struck me as a bad character then. Which is Jonah Goldberg’s position still. Trump is a bad character and that character will eventually will out and destroy his presidency. In the real world that’s a reasonable argument.
However, three years later Trump has been obnoxious many times but he hasn’t done anything blatantly corrupt or foolish by my standards. Considering the amount of scrutiny he is under, I find that amazing.
So I stopped waiting for Trump to implode. I’m now trying to understand him better and appreciate what he has given.
I meant Carly Fiorina.
In other words, he wins by appealing to the worst in us. He’s a mud creature who pulls others down into the mud. The culture has already been trashed, and he’s making it much worse.
I doubt you are persuadable. Lurking is probably best for you. I have a left wing daughter who I thought might be rational when she told me in September 2016 that she would not vote for Hillary. She is a lawyer and FBI agent who should be a natural Hillary voter. Single, 50 and a lawyer.
She was visiting over Veterans day and favored me with a rant about how much she thinks Trump is “incompetent.” I asked her if a 28,000 stock market and 3% unemployment meant anything to her and she responded “NO!”
I suspect you would be compatible.
However, three years later Trump has been obnoxious many times but he hasn’t done anything blatantly corrupt or foolish by my standards. Considering the amount of scrutiny he is under, I find that amazing.
What you knew about the Trump University business is what had been fed to the media by the plaintiffs’ lawyers. (Though it does look bad all by itself).
mizpants,
Precedents matter. Your plaints about Trump and his supposed moral failings ceased to be relevant once Bill Clinton was able to win office and evade removal despite his literally endless crimes, scandals, and moral failings.
I spent decades watching watching the hapless GOP get rolled again and again by loathsome scum like Bill Clinton because they simply weren’t willing to respond to baseless attacks and endless lies from the left, so the blazes with them.
They’re done. Either the Republican party remakes itself into Trumpian force that can defeat the left, or it will cease to exist. And if the GOP ceases to exist, then we will go down the same road that nations such as Cuba and Venezuela have gone, with results far worse than being embarrassed because a candidate says mean things about his rivals.
Politics ain’t beanbag, to quote an old saying. It matters- and it matters enough that we should stop wringing ours hands because the people on our side who can win aren’t perfect. They’re still vastly better than any leftist- and that’s what matters.
Mike K: Believe me, I’m nothing like your daughter. Nobody could ever call me left wing.
mizpants:
What are you (not left wing) if you are “cheered” by a Bloomberg? Seriously, ask yourself what you are for, i.e., any gentleman be he progressive, leftist, or conservative, as long as he is a gentleman?
To JimNorCal – Thanks very for that link in your post from last night (at 9:55PM) to Richard Miniter’s piece published in January 2019 – almost eleven months before Trump was elected! His plea to conservatives that “we need a new victory script” was spot on, and his arguments were almost prescient. And I absolutely loved seeing that phrase, “the hive breaking up” to describe the phenomenon of the MSM turning against Hillary as Trump’s attacks began to take their toll on her campaign.
I believe he was right: the new script called for a honey badger and with all due respect to Mizpants (who I think was already posting here when I first ‘found’ Neo’s site in 2012) I’m glad that we have one. The other side is not the “loyal opposition”; it’s an unpersuadable and unprincipled adversary which (as we all know) will stop at almost nothing in its quest for power.
mizpants: “What he projects and embodies is a strong-man ethos.”
I agree with you that far. I’ve scoffed at those who call him a “fascist”. Fascism is an ideology, and I don’t think he really has one. Not a rigid one, for sure. But I do think he would be some kind of authoritarian if he could. Fortunately, our system gets in his way. I see him as being by nature not a fascist but the sort of “caudillo” who has made himself dictator in various Latin American countries. I am not worried about him succeeding, because our system is still strong enough to stop such things.
One always has to keep in mind the actually-existing political reality, which is that the present drift of the Democrats is not toward mere authoritarianism but totalitarianism. One example that didn’t seem to get as much attention as I thought it should have was Kamala Harris a while back tweeting that “homophobia” is a national security issue. That ought to give us all chills. Our system, as it has evolved, is actually at this point more susceptible to quietly creeping totalitarianism than to mere one-man authoritarianism. So Trump remains to me “the least worst” option.
It’s hard for me to see the authoritarian in Trump. In fact, it has been a greater worry to me that he might eventually throw up his hands and walk away in a snit, rather than attempt to take power not rightfully his own.
Now I hasten to add I’ve made no study of his business practices, but merely have the impression he’s a delegator with high expectations of accountability. **Here’s a big job, a prize, a reward, a favor from me to you; enjoy it and make your best of it: mess up, you’re gone.**
Somethin akin to the stories I hear of Bill Belichick’s methods, perhaps. But these are my surmises — not, as I say, developed from detailed observations.
Oh, come on. Mizpants said she was cheered by Bloomberg’s entry “for a week or so … but that didn’t last.”
Would that the same could be said for those who were overcome by the awesome wonderfulness of the Sith.
There’s nothing wrong with being put off by Pres. Trump’s manner when it gets too down-and-dirty, nor with saying so.
Somewhere in the last week or so, some native of N’Yawk or Brooklyn or one of the other boroughs said he wasn’t bothered by the President’s insulting nicknames and Tweets because he comes from the same locale, and there it’s more or less conventional discourse. Remember: Famously, the Sith lectured either Pennsylvanians or Ohioans about their “clinging bitterly to their guns and religion.” How is that any less insulting than the President’s “street tweets”?
Actually, what really got to me was Trump’s statement early in the campaign that he thought Kelo was properly decided.
I hope to gad he’s changed his mind about that. And it would, indeed, be a sea change, because it would mean that private-property rights have come to be more important in his mind than what could be sold as a deal good for the collective (New London, Conn.), at the expense of the property, which is to say a part of the life, of an individual human person.
“Bringing the fight to the left is admirable, but you have to do it with more than just insulting tweets. You hace to explain why conservatism, free market capitalism and meritocracy is better than straight up pandering.”
I think this is a perfect summation of the mindset of decent people who are, or tend to be, NeverTrumper types. I say this because in many ways, a part of me longs to live in a world where you can explain things, using facts and reason, to the opposing party and get results.
Long before I got into politics, I found that it’s very difficult to move someone from something they believe. They don’t believe it because of facts and reason, and facts and reason alone are very unlikely to change their beliefs. Experience to the contrary of those precious beliefs is almost the only thing that works – a wakeup call that makes someone question something they’ve always believed and assumed to be right. And even that doesn’t apply to ideologues, like hardcore leftists, because they either shift the blame for contrary outcomes (eg, blaming conservatives for the failure of Obamacare) or simply because they are so sure that they are pursuing an ultimate rightness that it doesn’t even matter how much fails or is broken along the way.
As radical far left as the Democrat party itself has become, led by emboldened radicals and populated by normies staring at their shoes at the craziness but still voting D every time, good luck with “explaining” why our position is better. We are way past the point of “explaining.” We are at survival-of-the-Republic times. I know that there are NTs who in their heart would rather be dead than sullied, but the rest of us are not ready to die (figuratively or even literally) because you don’t want to get your hands dirty while fighting with vile people that have no standards at all.
“no sense, even, that he knows the difference between right and wrong.”
Wow. The man has had the NSA, CIA and FBI spy on every word he’s said and look at every document he’s touched for nearly 4 years. He’s had lying, cheating, bloodthirsty prosecutors spend $40 million in a desperate quest to find something, anything that was wrong. The Mueller anal probing was joined by every left-wing news organization, the Democrats in the House, state and local prosecutors in blue states, and every bureaucrat in the Federal government.
And they all got zilch.
Do you realize how extraordinary that is? Trump must be the most honest man in the DC. In an era of “Three felonies a day” and a “Ham Sandwich Nation”, the failure of the left-wing witch hunt to find anything is the most shocking thing I’ve ever seen in my 63 years.
If I had been told of the details of the spying and persecution of Trump for four years beginning in 2016, I would have bet everything I own that the witch hunt would have found something they could twist into a crime. As a lawyer, I’d have guaranteed it.
If you don’t realize that the big goose egg for the witch hunt means Trump is exceptionally, unbelievably clean, you need to get back in touch with the real world.
Mac, Caudillo seems just right. I’ve been irritated by people saying he’s a fascist too. I like your distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. You’ve made a pretty persuasive case for holding my nose and voting for him.
You want to understand our predicament, read this, posted by a ‘Martha Nelson’ on September 18, 2019:
“One reason Kavanaugh is such a lightning rod is that beyond his particular conservatism he represents the prototype of the white privileged frat boy so not representative of most Americans”
This woman fancies it’s perfectly reasonable to be hostile to someone and lie about them because of his ascribed traits and fancies about his upbringing. The reason is that they’re staring at their shoes and voting Democratic is that they despise an abstraction which they fancy is you. And, no, there is no reasoning them out of that.
(Missing comment from prior thread; strange server problem, unclear where)
Thanks, mizpants & Eva Marie (great name, Eva!), for such a good explanation:
here comes Trump. He thinks he can save the ship. He’s a fool for thinking so and we are fools for supporting him. Not only will the ship sink anyway but we will have been reduced to behaving just like the Democrats – we won’t even have the comfort of believing that we are not like them.
Most American Trump supporters WANT to save the ship, and are willing to do ANYTHING LEGAL to save the ship.
There is a similar strain to Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option, of Christians focusing more on family & local community and being more faithful Christians locally. Which is fine, but doesn’t fight back so much against the Dem cultural degradation.
If we go down, we go down fighting.
Flight 93 – let’s roll – storm the cockpit.
Trump is fighting, fighting with the cultural weapons provided by post 60s culture.
—
Mizpants, please keep trying to express yourself, but expect to create disagreement. 3 of my liberal friends told me things about Trump (almost first thing, from them, no mention by me):
Trump is Hitler, Trump is creepy, Trump is racist.
He ain’t Hitler, is less racist than Obama. But he’s a bit creepy.
Wanting fun, I didn’t ask for reasons nor argue much — just said his results seem surprisingly good.
I’d guess (almost?) ALL of the folk you have lunch with, friendly acquaintances, are Trump-haters and mention such platitudes. One of the things about bias is that, if you listen to Trump and want to hear him brag, you’ll hear him brag.
If you want to hear him aspire to something good for America, you’ll hear aspiration for WINNING for America.
From NeverHillary, I’m now pro-Trump. But I don’t like listening to him (nor any politician). He’s too full of himself, and how HE’s doing so much for the little guys, for the great people of X (wherever it is), and how “we” are WINNING.
He’s far more into WINNING, publicly, than any Rep in my memory; probably ever. I like winning, but Trump’s overdoing it, for my style tastes. Tho I’m a political infotainment junkie — most voters get much less of this. His rallies are HUGE, even when the Dem media give little or no coverage of them. Probably most voters are not overdosing one winning yet. And most Reps are very very very tired of losing, losing elections, losing culture, losing free speech. To the PC-Nazis, SJ Despots. Trump wins; he has been effective.
A BIG part of the Dems (“Left” is not on the ballot) push is “moral superiority”, or virtue signaling. Yet they fight dirty, they lie and smear and accept bribes thru the Clinton Bribery Foundation (lost over $1 million last year) or accepting bribes thru kids on boards of directors. Biden and Kerry both; actually Clinton too; and Michelle Obama before becoming Pres.
Trump being “creepy”, compared to the Dem reality, is a neutralized negative. Real negative, but neutral in comparison. For me. Not for those who want to be anti-Trump.
Tweets are good. I started reading Trump tweets. For me, those who complain about Trump, and are willing to quote Dems media but are unwilling to quote Trump’s direct tweets, such complaints deserve to be called wimpy. Dem media twist what Trump says or does, just as Schiff has lied about Trump (“joked”).
Mizpants, please keep trying to explain what you don’t like about Trump – recently. His Trump University actually bothered me less than Trump Steaks, tho they were both cheesy (~ “icky”) attempts to cash in on the “Trump” brand and get money from suckers, er, thoughtful customers wanting only the best.
I knew you meant Carly Fiorina; she was my first pick, with Cruz #2. Expecting to lose, gracefully, politely, and intelligently, with the more Christian Cruz. Was a bit surprised, but very pleased, that Trump won.
Fiona – wasn’t she a Shrek troll, half-time?
Would there be a Trump without Shrek?
“…authoritarianism…”
“…caudillo…”
That’s simply bonkers. (Or in this case, slippery slope on steroids.)
If you want to go with “Alpha Male” (still not a felony as far as I know—but for how much longer?…) you’d be far more accurate.
(But gosh, do they even allow men—or women for that matter—to be Alphas at this stage of the game?…. Since the goal is to be the most victimized victim in the land….which, heh, means only that there’s an awful lot of wolves out there in sheeps’ clothing, baaahing up a storm in woolly falsetto.)
Alas it cannot be denied that the pernicious toxins injected into the public domain regularly, constantly, vigorously, by the Democrats and their never-resting MSM cohort—those reckless, hysterical charlatans of politics and the media—have been seeping inexorably into the body politic, infecting even those who really should know better. (Well, freedom of choice, I guess, even if it’s warped and distorted….)
Curious, though, that Trump seems to be not only immune but is, himself, the antidote to these foul poisons.
Courage!…
I see him as being by nature not a fascist but the sort of “caudillo” who has made himself dictator in various Latin American countries.
Trump doesn’t resemble Daniel Ortega or Hugo Chavez or Alberto Fujimori.
mizpants: I should mention, in case you don’t know, that the authoritarian/totalitarian distinction is not mine. It goes back to at least Jeanne Kirkpatrick in the Reagan administration.
If you want to go with “Alpha Male” (still not a felony as far as I know—but for how much longer?…) you’d be far more accurate. — Barry Meislin
No question Trump is an Alpha Male, in fact a super Alpha. And he’s got the Girl to prove it! He expresses himself bluntly, crudely, and with a sort amount of meanness. He must be a fascist.
That’s the extent of the fascist charges against Trump, as I can discern them.
Trump doesn’t resemble Daniel Ortega… –Art Deco
No, but I do. When I was an activist in the 80s, people would tell me so. But at this age I’ve got more hair, yay!, though no mustache.
Sorry if I’ve scarred anyone for life or for however long they read this blog.
stan Brown:
Agreed!
It is actually quite extraordinary.
Thanks, Julie (near ChiTown)
and Carl (Atl)
Comment removed
Barry Meislin: I did not mean that Trump is or in fact is ever going to be the sort of authoritarian I described. I thought it was clear that I was describing his temperament. As I said, even if we grant for the sake of argument that he is trying (I don’t really think he is), our system is very much in the way. Fortunately.
Mizpants, if you’re not left wing, then what? It’d help if you can clarify what policies or laws you want.
I knew a person who always voted Republican but refused to vote for Goldwater because he said ‘damn’ in a speech, and instead cast their ballot for the single most corrupt President (beat Clinton by miles) we’d ever had.
William Buckley Jr said “I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.” National Review today sure doesn’t reflect its founder. Class, etiquette, demeanor, and hierarchy were thrown out by our first President —and arguably the best— who was criticized as rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
Figure out what laws and policies you want, then vote wholeheartedly for the candidate that will most likely fulfill them.
Class, etiquette, demeanor, and hierarchy were thrown out by our first President —and arguably the best— who was criticized as rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
hoodathunkit: Are you talking about Washington? As I recall, he kept a self-improvement journal:
Tips from George Washington’s Self-Help Manual
Every action in company ought to be done with some sign of respect to those that are present.
With that mild but firm assertion begins a little book of self-improvement that George Washington copied down as a teenager. There followed 109 rules, and by the time Washington had written them all into his notebook ““- in what was probably the equivalent of a homework assignment — he had taken them to heart, and he attempted to follow them for the rest of his life.
The pamphlet was called “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation” ““- a shorter title than many of today’s self-help guides. It was composed by French Jesuits in 1595, and later rendered into English. It’s unclear how the publication reached America, but its effect on Washington’s character and behavior were profound, according to historian Richard Brookhiser, who published an annotated edition of “Rules of Civility.”
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/18063/tips-george-washingtons-self-help-manual
mizpants: I hope you stick around for a while. I like a range of views and good conversation.
I R A Darth Aggie on November 20, 2019 at 2:02 pm said:
But what about the Jonah Goldberg’s and David French’s of the world?
They’re the loyal opposition to the progressives. They maintain their sinecures by those means. They simply mean to feed the rest of us to the socialist crocodile, hoping to be eaten last.
They don’t actually want to put conservative principles into action. That’s an awful lot like work. And responsibility.
* * *
Great conversation, but I saw an article today directly addressing this comment.
https://thenationalsentinel.com/2019/11/21/tucker-carlson-backhands-lindsey-graham-for-failing-to-press-fbi-over-who-tipped-off-cnn-before-roger-stone-raid/
The headline tells the story.
I confess that Graham has me baffled by his bi-polar positions and policies, but he seems to have more gung-ho conservative statements than actions.
Like McCain and others, Graham is big on promises and small on follow-through.
As mentioned above, the number of campaign promises Trump has kept (or at least tried to) beggars all other presidents except possibly Reagan.
“He’s too full of himself, and how HE’s doing so much for the little guys, for the great people of X (wherever it is), and how “we” are WINNING.” – Tom Grey
He is like that at rallies because he’s selling himself, and people want to know what he is going to do for them, but I’ve read articles about how his formal speeches are nearly devoid of “I” statemnts — unlike Obama’s monotous ego-burnishing efforts — and have personally observed (at both rallies and official events) how often he credits other people’s achievements and yields stage-time to (essentially) nobodies, which is unprecedented AFAIK.
Every politician wears the two hats of self-interest and moral justification in action, because anything that a large number of voters approve of increases his likelihood of retaining office.
Some things that were the right thing to do (IMO) but don’t seem to have any personal payoff for Trump other than winning electoral support:
moving our embassy to Jerusalem & recognizing de facto Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights; pardoning etc the three military men with questionable prosecutions; supporting Cabinet departments moving offices out of DC; donating his salary to charity.
The true test of morality is doing the right thing (by whatever definition you choose) when doing so guarantees a LOSS of electoral support, or some other valued good.
JimNorCal on November 20, 2019 at 9:55 pm said:
…
I’m fully a Trump partisan at this point.
Two things:
Trump’s pop culture persona was a huge plus. I feel sure, for example, that the MSM could have beaten Ted Cruz. Enough low info voters would have been tricked by media lies. That didn’t happen to Trump because so many had an already fully formed picture of him. It was not possible for the media to successfully build their desired false image.
Secondly, I post the article which convinced me to take PDJT seriously. It’s from Jan 2016 and I think it has held up well over time. Do please consider reading it and while reading keep in mind the shenanigans of Paul Ryan, John McCain and others who worked overtime to subvert the power we voters gave to Repubs to turn the ship around.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/a_plea_to_conservative_voices.html
* * *
Agree with points 1 and 2.
This from the AT post bears remembering — because it didn’t just hold up, it was prescient (as observed by carl in atlanta) in describing so clearly “This is how you got Trump” before the election, or even the primaries.
docweasel on November 20, 2019 at 8:13 pm said:
The pendulum has a way of swinging back….PDT has pointed up the fact democrats have destroyed nearly every big city and are working on more affluent ones like Seattle and San Fran. …Blacks and Hispanics will gravitate toward the working man’s party, which the GOP has become.
* * *
Interesting that the middle aka working class gravitates to policy, not party.
mizpants on November 20, 2019 at 8:35 pm said:
He’s the first president who doesn’t even pretend to be a good man.
your quite insane given how everyone is on him to catch him actually being a bad man, and instead he has kept his election promises (a good man), his nefarious deals are twisted to look that way by the ‘good’ opposition (good man), he has several agencies trying to find out if he has spit gum on the sidewalk and are coming up empty (good man), and they even created a dossier with all fake information and put that out to catch him (good man)
but what you do is judge him from a moral suprior mizpants position in which his personal life, of which you will never know details, and in which his wife is his friend despite others being upset, and on and on… is the bad man
well.. what about bad woman nancy and her son in another company
how about polished kerry being part of a laundering scheme
bidens son taking millions and being part of a money laundering scheme
then there is clintons… with blow job bubba, and the lady macbeth of what does it matter, want some uranium
and on and on
your delusional and you focus on false image over substance
you deserve everything that such people get
like the people who voted in Venezuela, they do the same
perfection is the enemy of the good
and your one screwed up enemy of your own good
all those tanned people who couldnt get jobs for 20 years, now have them
the retirement accounts forced to be anemic, now are getting pumped up so they dont take YOUR money to skim and give some to the elderly
and by the time your really old, they are going to ration your health care cause old people are expensive, and dont give much to society..
and on and on..
huxley on November 20, 2019 at 9:04 pm said:
By their WORKS you shall know them…
all the stuff that says he is amoral are not amoral
grabbing a crotch of a woman who doesnt mind, is not amoral
offering a woman 7 million for a property worth only 2 million and she holds out till she dies is not amoral
being a target of what is the largest slander campaign across nations not just this one, is not amoral, but wants him to appear that way.. mostly because the people doing it ARE amoral, and find that their bs bounces off an actual decent person stuck in this machine…
the truth is that he is making his mark in history, and saving us from a venezuela future, and has more billionaires angry at him that are dirty than clean people helping… steyer? bloomberg? Soros? if he was so dirty, he would be easy to co-opt and play the public just like the others do, and then not have them on his back as he would be part of that amoral machine…
nothing crooks dislike more is an honest person with a big mouth in their den
I can admit that some conservatives and republicans can have valid concerns about him. As cited above, Trump University, etc. may turn people against him.
But after seeing 2-scoops-of-ice-cream-gate, the dossier, and so forth – all the lies and hatred… I’ve seen the enemy unmasked. They hate him, but they REALLY hate me.
I could never support any of them. So in that vein, I can’t imagine what Trump could do to make me turn against him. It saddens me to say that, since I don’t think that’s a good position, but I see so many of the Left to be evil, thus utterly unacceptable.
But after seeing 2-scoops-of-ice-cream-gate, the dossier, and so forth – all the lies and hatred… I’ve seen the enemy unmasked. They hate him, but they REALLY hate me.
It’s been one fraud after another from the Democratic Party and the NeverTrump residue pretends it isn’t happening or tries to make lame arguments justifying the fraud. That pretty much eliminates the value of their contribution to public discussion.