The Never-Trump Mentality

Top o' the Stack

Comments

[Tom Tillett]

Has anyone become more irrelevant to the conservative conversation since 2016 than Jonah Goldberg, George Will, or Bill Kristol? How about Jim Geraghty of The Morning Jolt/NRO and the Washington Post?

He writes today at great length on the fact that it is now proven that COVID came from a Chinese lab leak and cannot believe that China has escaped any consequences for the misery they inflicted on the world. He then goes on to cite President Biden's failure to highlight China's involvement or to impose some sort of consequences.

In all of this, he fails to note that Trump, as President in 2020, did exactly what he wants Biden to do. Against tremendous push-back, Trump insisted on calling COVID the "China Virus," and also stated on numerous occasions that China owed the world reparations for its reckless behavior. And undoubtedly, given his record on tariffs against China and other foreign countries, Trump in his second term would have pushed for some sort of economic repercussions against China.

All squarely within what Jim Geraghty wants to see from a President. But Geraghty ignores the front-runner for the GOP nomination and odds-on favorite to win in November. Instead, two days ago he threw his full support behind Nikki Haley's impotent presidential campaign as an important "protest" against Trump: "There’s no downside for Haley to keep sounding that alarm [against Trump] in the coming weeks."

'Cause protesting against Trump for Geraghty, Goldberg, et al. is more important than electing a person who has proven effective in standing up to China (without, be it noted, any hint of starting a "hot war"), implementing center-right policies in the face of extreme opposition, and otherwise repairing the incalculable damage inflicted on America by the Democrats and their fellow travelers and useful idiots.

Oh, and in answer to your 2016 question, no, there aren't any conservative arguments preferring a Hillary Presidency over Trump, nor anyone else in 2024. I like DeSantis, but these are special, perilous times. Conrad Black said it best: "Trump isn’t very reminiscent of Franklin or Jefferson or FDR or Nixon or Reagan; but he is a man of his times, and his time has come … Difficult though it may be to believe at times, the office of the presidency, in that astonishing, ineluctable, and fateful American way, may have sought the necessary man again."

[BV]

Tom,

Good comments. Glad to see we agree about Trump. I don't read Geraghty or the Wash. (Com)Post. Does he have any arguments against Trump? Or is it all just TDS?

>>'Cause protesting against Trump for Geraghty, Goldberg, et al. is more important than electing a person who has proven effective in standing up to China . . . implementing center-right policies in the face of extreme opposition, and otherwise repairing the incalculable damage inflicted on America by the Democrats and their fellow travelers and useful idiots.<<

Yes, and that is what is deeply puzzling. Are these people so stupid that they cannot look past his strut, swagger, orange hair, suboptimal style of self-presentation, etc and credit his courage and accomplishments?

Black's comment is on target. Trump is the political phenomenon of my lifetime, and I've been around a while. He alone can save the republic, if anyone can. (It's not clear that anyone can.) That ought to be blindingly evident.

But this leaves us with the puzzle: why can't otherwise intelligent and decent people, some of them erstwhile friends of mine, see this? WTF is wrong with them? What are they thinking?

[Malcolm Pollack]

Bill,

"But this leaves us with the puzzle: why can't otherwise intelligent and decent people, some of them erstwhile friends of mine, see this? WTF is wrong with them? What are they thinking?"

For starters, some are beginning to see it. In a sense, it's a bit of a win for "accelerationism" that we all got a good look at what a Biden administration would look like, and just how insane the Democrats have become, because I think there is a growing sense among some of those who voted for Biden in 2020 that it was a mistake they shouldn't repeat.

For the rest, I think it's that many of them are not, by nature, people who think deeply, critically, or analytically about political issues. I have many leftish friends who reflexively abhor Trump, but most of them are people who were never interested in politics at all, and who have always simply trusted "the system" to produce good enough government that they can just get on with their lives. Most of the ones I know are urban professional NYT-reading sorts; most of them are not religious (but will, when pressed, describe themselves as in some sense "spiritual but not religious", which also belies the same sort of analytical laziness).

Such people, living in easy, feminized, bourgeois comfort, are easily attracted to the nebulous good feelings associated with multiculturalism, relativism, non-judgmentalism, paternalism for the poor and downtrodden, welcoming of "migrants", etc., and as such they are perfect, highly absorbent targets for the continuous brining of propaganda that they are marinated in from morning to night.

Trump is a threat to all of this: he is coarse and garish, and he wears his wealth ostentatiously in the manner of an uncultured arriviste. He seems unsympathetic to all the swarming brown people that your "erstwhile friends" can take a Kiplingesque pride in being able to pity, and he doesn't respond properly to being told to remember his place. He doesn't hate America, or apologize for its history, and he seems to have no trace of shame about being white, or even male!

Worse, he rubs their noses in the falsehood of all the things they so enjoy believing are true, and that's painful and embarrassing.

All of this is a lot to overcome. The fact that it's happening at all is heartening.

[BV]

Malcolm,

Your analysis is hard to beat.

Your 'accelerationist' point is well-taken. One might even say that it is good that Trump was defeated in 2020 so that the lazy and inattentive who are wrapped up in their private lives could see and experience the wages of wokery at their own bodies and in their own lives. My hope is that with four more years of Trump we can get back on track and then the outstanding young blood can take over: Ramaswamy, DeSantis, Tulsi Gabbard.

But how counter the mail-in ballot fraud that the the Dems will undoubtedly unleash once more? Here's a tough question: should we fight fire with fire and enlist the dead and the undocumented to vote for Trump with, say, menthol cigs and tequila as incentives? The nice thing about the dead is that they no longer smoke or drink and are very easily enlisted.

Or should we rake the high ground?

While you analysis is excellent, Malcolm, I remain puzzled by those acquaintances of mine who are analytically sharp and don't fit into your second category above. I am thinking of two Never-Trumper philos of religion, Victor Reppert and Dale Tuggy.

[BV]

TAKE the high ground. First take, then rake.

[Joe Odegaard]

Brother Bill, I strongly believe it is Providential that Trump "lost" in 2020; look what that has revealed about the Democrats.

— Cataomb Joe

[BV]

It is said that the Lord works in mysterious ways. If he chose the Manhattan sybarite to save the republic, who am I to argue? But while you, Joe, believe that Trump's 'loss' was providential, I take no position on that question. But I do heartily approve of your use of 'sneer quotes.'

I will say, however, that anyone who fails to support Trump is a damned fool and will fully deserve to suffer the evils that will accrue if Orange Man 'loses' again or is assassinated or otherwise stopped.

But I would like you, Joe, to take a position on the question I posed:

"But how counter the mail-in ballot fraud that the the Dems will undoubtedly unleash once more? Here's a tough question: should we fight fire with fire and enlist the dead and the undocumented to vote for Trump with, say, menthol cigs and tequila as incentives? The nice thing about the dead is that they no longer smoke or drink and are very easily enlisted.

Or should we take the high ground?"

[Joe Odegard]

I say take the high ground, because you cannot achieve good ends with bad means. Huxley wrote a book about that, titled "Ends and Means." Merton recommends it in "Seven Storey Mountain.

— Catacomb Joe

[Malcolm Pollack]

Thanks. (I'll start by noting my misuse of the word "belies" above; I recast the sentence while writing the comment, but neglected to change the word. I should slow down.)

At this point I have no lingering interest at all in the "high ground". This is war, and we should do what we can to win, rather than do only what we may, and lose. My only caveat would be not to put tactics above strategy, and not to do stupid things that will backfire, or that our enemy (an enemy that, in its darkness, increasingly seems to be a limb of the Enemy) can seize upon and twist to use against us.

As for Victor Reppert and Dale Tuggy, I don't know what to say, because I don't know what they've said. What is their argument? (I'd guess that it is something like the "high ground" position: that winning with Trump is really no better than losing, because we lose ourselves in the process.)

[BV]

Malcolm,

We should all slow down in more than one way. I think I picked up the term 'hyperkinetic' from you. "Slow down, you're moving too fast/You've got to make the moment (morning?) last."

Your comment is good and I will respond properly later in the day. Now I have to attend to some mundane matters in this here *mundus sensibilis.*

[BV]

Malcolm writes, >>This is war, and we should do what we can to win, rather than do only what we may, and lose. <<

I sympathize and have said similar things myself. But there is a problem here and we need to face it.

If we should do what we can to win, and not only what we may (i.e., what is morally and/or legally permissible) then we should, among other things, 'vote early and vote often,' i.e. violate the election laws.

Trouble is, we are then validating the very principle -- Do whatever it takes to win -- that our political enemies deploy against us. This is essentially Joe's point @ 6:41.

On the other hand, if we 'take the high ground,' as Joe recommends, we lose and the evildoers win.

It looks like we are impaled on the horns of a dilemma.

Fiat justitia et pereat mundus? Really? A noble sentiment no doubt, but even at the expense of the world? On the other hand are you prepared to endorse extra-political means to defeat our political enemies?

[Malcolm Pollack]

Bill and Joe,

"If we should do what we can to win, and not only what we may (i.e., what is morally and/or legally permissible) then we should, among other things, 'vote early and vote often,' i.e. violate the election laws.

Trouble is, we are then validating the very principle -- Do whatever it takes to win -- that our political enemies deploy against us. This is essentially Joe's point @ 6:41."

I must respond (sorrowfully and reluctantly) by arguing that the principle in question is only binding as a foundation for shared nationhood -- and that if a faction is willing to discard such principles in the interest of arrogating the power to subjugate its political opponents, then in that very act of abrogation it has declared itself hostis publicus.

Because the nation itself is constituted on the shared acceptance of rules by which political questions are to be resolved, then a faction in deliberate and subversive violation of those rules is no longer a member of that nation, but an external foe acting within our borders -- and the guidelines that apply to them are no longer the principles of American politics, but the principles of war.

[Joe Odegaard]

But it is not a given that we will lose if we don't cheat the same as the Democrats do. Look at the really big picture ! God sets up rulers and deposes of them. (Daniel 2:21). It is enough to obey the 10 commandments, and let the Creator work things out. Look what the Democrats have reaped from their cheating: stadiums full of people chanting "Fuck Joe Biden." And the probable decades-long eclipse of their party. ... The gates of hell shall not prevail.

— Catacomb Joe

[Malcolm Pollack]

I realize that my comments above seem downright intemperate, but I'm sorely vexed by where we've now got to (the blatant, in-your-face abuse of the legal system in the persecution of Donald Trump, while the Bidens skate away, is all by itself essentially a declaration of war).

I realize also that there is a logical objection that could be raised to my prior argument, namely that whoever abandons the fundamental rules and principles of the American political system is no longer a part of that system -- so if we do it too, then there's nobody left, and the former nation is dead.

Well, if so, then so be it. When the electoral system and the rule of law can no longer be relied upon to resolve our conflict -- when all the "neutral" principles have been seized as weapons, or smashed to rubble -- all that's left is the "friend/enemy distinction", and the "appeal to Heaven" -- and with all respect to Joe O. just above, sometimes the appeal to Heaven requires, for a favorable outcome, some kinetic participation below.

(This is not a thing I am hoping or calling for, mind you -- but I would rather we die on our feet than live on our knees.)

[BV]

Excellent comments, Malcolm. As usual. Not intemperate: there is such a thing as righteous anger.

I said @4:01 that we seem to be impaled on the horns of a dilemma, one that is practical-existential and not merely theoretical. And it appears that there is no middle path, no way between the horns.

So if there is a solution, it will be by embracing one of the horns. One of the horns is hot civil war, and I think this could take two forms: either a war for control of the central gov't (civil war proper) or a war of secession. Either way, we abandon the moral high ground and we do to our enemies what they do to us, including removing their candidates from the ballot, shouting them down, disrupting their assemblies, assassination, sabotage, and all the rest ("All's fair in love and war.")

The other horn is the way of acquiescence and the acceptance of political dhimmitude or worse: acceptance of cancellation of livelihood, of life itself, permanent incarceration. On this horn, we refuse to reply in kind and we retain the moral high ground. "Better to suffer evil than to do evil." (Socrates) "Resist not the evildoer." (Christ)

How do we choose between these two horns? That depends on metaphysics. If you believe that this world is the only world, and you want to live as long as possible in it, then you must go to war. If, on the other hand, you believe that this world is a vanishing quantity, that the temporal is next-to-nothing as compared to the eternal, then you should embrace the second horn.

Or is there a way between the horns? Perhaps we can defeat our enemies politically, thereby avoiding both the horrific descent into the extra-political and acceptance of dhimmitude/cacellation of livelihood and life and liberty.

Now it is evident to me that the only way to win politically is by supporting DJT. So that is what we must do. But this may not be possible at this late date if we play by the rules! And so we are back with our dilemma!

[Malcolm Pollack]

Hi Bill,

First of all, regarding the forms of civil war, I published an article at American Greatness in 2020 discussing exactly that; you might find it interesting:

https://amgreatness.com/2020/08/09/the-singularity-is-near/

As for the metaphysical dilemma, my own situation is complicated by finding myself between the horns of doubt and belief. A meta-dilemma! (I will say though, that I am far closer to belief than doubt these days, in no small part because the influence of our own decades-long friendship, and the penetrating criticism you have given, over the years, of my quondam doctrinaire materialism. I cannot thank you enough for that.)

I certainly agree that we should do what we can politically. I suppose that would mean, if I were truly committed to making the maximum effort, "walking the walk" by going out and doing get-out-the-vote stuff, but I'm afraid that's not really something I'm likely to do, and anyway I doubt this election is going to be affected by door-to-door persuasion. I already believe that in a fair election we'd win handily (in a 50-state landslide, if it weren't for the 19th Amendment, the gift that keeps on taking -- but there's no point dwelling on wishful counterfactuals).

I have no confidence at all, however, that the election will be fair or honest. My belief in the honesty of the American electoral system is irrecoverably destroyed at this point, as I think it is for scores of millions of our countrymen.

I also think that between now and November (or January 20th) there is a high probability of some sort of "black swan" event, with the possibilities ranging from a new pandemic, to such widespread domestic or foreign disturbance that martial law is invoked, to a grid collapse, to the incarceration (or assassination, or sudden death by "natural causes") of Trump, or something entirely unforeseeable (because that's how black swans are).

Given those things, I consider it unlikely that we'll get Trump across the finish line. But perhaps we will. What then? Can any of us imagine that a Trump victory in November is going to heal the nation?

What does all this mean, then, about the "high-ground" dilemma we face? If we care about our children and our duty at this hinge of history, we must ask ourselves whether mere political action, even if we manage to win the upcoming election, is where we should focus our energy and attention. Can the United States, as currently constituted, be saved by elections? At this point, is it even worth saving? Or has it run its course?

These are terrible (in the archaic sense) questions, and they give me no rest. I don't pretend to have answers to them.

[Joe Odegaard]

Secession is not an option, I think. For example, 34% of the California presidential vote in 2020 went for Trump; over 6 million people. And if kinetics is really required, I believe that a high road path will open for it, witness Sherman's quote about CW 1: "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."

[Joe Odegaard]

Anyway, with language like this, it is easy to imagine that a high road path will open:

https://www.salon.com/2024/03/01/joe-biden-says-climate-change-deniers-are-neanderthals--thats-not-fair-to-neanderthals/?in_brief=true

[Malcolm Pollack]

You may well be right, Joe.

[BV]

Malcolm,

Your Am Greatness article is very good and adds considerably to the discussion. The three-fold distinction between secessionist, successionist, and supersessionist civil wars sheds some light.

Secession is out for the reason you gave, namely, >>the two sides do not occupy distinct and contiguous geographical regions, but are, rather, mixed together county by county, or even house by house. Nobody has yet arrived at any plausible plan for the factions to disaggregate<< But also: secession would weaken us overagainst our external geo-political enemies.

As for succession, it doesn't apply to our current predicament because the battle does not concern which bunch of people takes control of the state apparatus. The struggle is instead over something far deeper: the nature of the state apparatus. The Left is out to destroy America as she was founded to be. Leftists want to supersede the system the Founders set up.

As you say, >>We are fighting, then, not over who shall rule over the existing system, nor about whether the United States should be broken up into two distinct nations, but about whether the United States as currently constituted should continue to exist, or should be wholly replaced with an entirely new regime.<<

But I would replace "the US as currently constituted" with "the US as she was founded to be." The current plutocracy is far from the Founder's vision. But I know you meant.

Bedtime for Bonzo. More tomorrow. Race looms large in all of this.

[BV]

Malcolm,

What you say about "pathological presentism" and time preference is also quite to the point. >>Civilization depends also on low “time preference”: we defer present consumption to profit from the increased relative value of the things we build for the future.<<

There is a racial angle here that you prudently did not mention: blacks as a group (nota bene: AS A GROUP) have high time preference: they live in and for the present and have a hard time deferring gratification. There are of course many notable exceptions to this generic statement. But might there be some connection between high time preference among blacks and the dysfunction of black-run cities? (Sweet Home Chicago being one of them, but not the only one) Not to mention the anti-civilizational antics of Bragg, James, and Willis? I suspect you may have an opinion about this.

[Malcolm Pollack]

"But might there be some connection between high time preference among blacks and the dysfunction of black-run cities?"

I do have some thoughts about that, Bill, and they include one aspect that you didn't mention here: to the extent that American blacks still feel that they are outsiders to this civilization, they have an incentive to prefer consumption over than investment. (That would not, however, explain the persistent dysfunction of black nations elsewhere.)

But I think this comment-thread isn't the place to go more deeply into this.

[Malcolm Pollack]

* "over investment", not "over than", of course.

[Joe Odegaard]

It is quite clear that the Left wants to change the country beyond recognition. Who in their right mind would not want these things:

• Strengthen the family
• Return self-governance to the people, and reduce the administrative state
• Defend national sovereignty and borders
• Secure liberty and freedom.

Yet here is a link to an article at "Salon" which attacks all these things as "Christo-fascism."

https://www.salon.com/2024/03/01/project-2025-is-more-than-a-playbook-for-trumpism-its-the-christian-nationalist-manifesto/

We are dealing with demonic forces here. And I don't know how many people read and agree with the stuff at "Salon," but it is certainly a big problem in that context, that elections are not to be trusted as accurate reflections of the people's will anymore.

— Catacomb Joe

[Tom]

Bill. I don't mean to come in late and interrupt a top-notch conversation, but you did ask me some questions in your original comment.

>>I don't read Geraghty … Does he have any arguments against Trump? Or is it all just TDS?<<

Arguments? I can't bring myself to spend much time on that Haley applause piece, but it appears he makes two substantive points.

He parrots the current Beltway wisdom that Trump keeps winning by large margins, but look at all the people who didn't vote for him! Apparently winning is no longer winning in our American system unless you get 100% of the vote - majority rule is so 1990's.

He also insists that Trump got lucky in 2016 and has not won an election since, because "Trump is just a guy who repels at least as many voters as he attracts." That, of course, is another bit of Beltway wisdom. However, he ignores the 75 million votes Trump got in 2020, the most in history of any presidential candidate. That number had to include many moderates, independents, and democrats - you know, all those voters repelled by Trump.

He relies on loaded, spittle-tinged rhetoric for the rest of his argument. "Nasty" is used more than once, as in " a spirit of nasty vindictiveness has permeated his campaign this cycle" and that Trump is "seething and nasty." Trump's top aid, Chris LaCivita, "sneers" on social media and Trump's campaign is "poisonous." He finally lets it all out and declares that Trump is "an abrasive, spiteful, raging personality with less than perfect sensitivity to African Americans." If this were a tweet, he would have needed all caps to really make his point.

>>Are these people so stupid that they cannot look past his strut, swagger, orange hair, suboptimal style of self-presentation, etc, and credit his courage and accomplishments?<<

It's not stupidity; that could be corrected by events (e.g., the outrageously destructive policies of Joe Biden). Geraghty and the Never-Trumpers have descended permanently into a purely visceral Trumpian revulsion. How formerly rational people can do this is perhaps only explainable by the doctrine of concupiscence. But in any case, they are no longer worth reading for any conservative who takes the precarious state of our Republic seriously - which is sad to see. Buckley and NR were the go-to source for most of my life to cut through the noise of events with solid analysis and precision polemics. Now there is no signal to be found; they are all just part of the noise.

>>But this leaves us with the puzzle: why can't otherwise intelligent and decent people … see this? WTF is wrong with them? What are they thinking?<<

Malcolm makes a good point about those people who are not especially political (comfortable, urban, NYT readers, etc.). But I want to focus on the case of those "otherwise intelligent & decent people," the so-called rock-ribbed Republicans. These are not Never-Trumpers and they are paying attention to politics, but nevertheless, they cannot support Trump. Indeed, what is wrong with them?

I think there is a general tendency of Republicans/conservatives to revert (or steer) towards the mean. Sudden change of any kind is automatically suspicious for this type of sensibility, a sensibility I share. I saw this with Reagan v Ford in 1976 and again with Reagan v Bush in 1980. Normally smart, sensible conservatives like my father and some friends just could not bring themselves to support Reagan over a clear mediocrity like Ford or an inarticulate caricature of a human politician like Bush, because Reagan was an outsider who was intent on real change to the status quo. "Don't rock the boat" is the default for these well-intentioned people, even if it's clear that the boat needs to be rocked.

This is why the Left has consistently branded Republican candidates as "extremist" beginning with Barry Goldwater and running right up through Reagan and now Trump. Common wisdom is that they are trying to gain the votes of independents, but they also are trying to peel off or at least demoralize this sizable group of Republican voters. And it often works, especially in Trump's case; he seems to thrive on tweaking and trolling his opponents with often outrageous statements.

His style doesn't suit me either, but it (somehow) works for him. So, I am able to see past the rhetoric and style to the substance of the man and his policies. Trump is, as you say, the "political phenomenon" of our lifetime.

[Tom]

Joe writes, >>But it is not a given that we will lose if we don't cheat the same as the Democrats do. Look at the really big picture ! God sets up rulers and deposes of them. (Daniel 2:21)

Bill writes to Malcolm, >>are you prepared to endorse extra-political means to defeat our political enemies?<<

Malcolm writes, >>This is war, and we should do what we can to win, rather than do only what we may, and lose. <<

A difficult question for me, but I am on Malcolm's side on this. I think the question depends on what time you think it is. Attacking and boarding a ship under another nation's flag is an act of piracy and the crew of the attacking ship is subject to criminal prosecution. However, any crew that does the same in a declared war cannot be prosecuted because such actions are under a completely different set of rules and laws.

Likewise, what tactics we adopt from the Left's arsenal depends on whether you think the Left has declared all-out war on the rest of us. I think it's clear that they have, and I believe Malcolm agrees. If so, then this is not normal politics and different, more flexible rules apply as to how we should respond.

How flexible? I dunno. But the clearest case is the reprehensible lawfare the Democrats are engaged in. I think Republican state AGs need to crank up the lawfare against Democrats. How about Adam Schiff running for the Senate in California? Since the DC Courts have stripped Trump of his presidential immunity for acts taken as President, then Schiff has no immunity for his acts and outright lies to the American public while in Congress. Surely there is an obscure statute somewhere that can be misinterpreted to hold Schiff in the docket.

Bullies need to be punched in the mouth or they will continue to punch the rest of us in the mouth - or worse.