Reflections on the Trumpocalypse

First of all, I want to apologize for the unannounced month-long hiatus. A bout of depression hit, and it didn't do much for my muse.

Strangely, though, that depression lifted on election night. Mind you, I still don't like Donald Trump; indeed, I eventually voted third-party. But whatever my intellectual objections to the Republican candidate, something inside me evidently feared Hillary Clinton all the more -- and when the prospect of her presidency decisively evaporated, I was both shocked and slightly giddy. In fact, it has taken me until now to come down from the unexpected high.

So what do I make of this result in the more sober light of day? I think I'm going to frame my thoughts in the form of three letters addressed to the various constituencies involved.


*****

Dear Trump Supporters (Reluctant or Otherwise),

You got me. I was wrong.

I thought Trump was going to be an utter disaster for the GOP. Obviously, I underestimated how averse to Hillary Clinton the electorate would be. I did not predict how profoundly her corruption and globalist bona fides would dampen enthusiasm and drive down turnout among the Democrats' usual constituencies.

I was #NeverTrump to the end, but please understand that my antipathy towards Trump was not accompanied by antipathy towards his backers. In reality, I actually agree with you on many issues. I agree that we must sincerely grapple with the negative effects of globalization. I agree that we have a right to defend our borders and enforce our immigration laws. And I agree that the media and the rest of the supposed "elite" need to be humbled with extreme prejudice. I didn't believe Trump had the right answers to these pressing issues - and I still don't - but when it comes to your general sentiments regarding the state of our nation and its desperate need for a reset, I am 100% in your corner.

I didn't oppose Trump because I wished to virtue signal or because I wanted to prove I was smarter than everyone else. I just wasn't convinced Trump would uphold Constitutional principles. That being said, I sincerely hope Trump will be the change we all desire -- that he will actually reinvigorate our love for the classically liberal federal system the Founders established and consequently ensure our domestic tranquility.

Sincerely, etc.

*****

Dear #NeverTrumpers,

We have work to do. As movement conservatives, we can no longer be satisfied with our status quo. We have to start listening to Trump's voters and addressing their specific concerns.

What do we really have to offer to the working class besides bromides on lowering taxes and reducing regulatory burdens? As manufacturing has continued to move off shore, many have seen their previously stable communities crumble all around them. Reliable jobs have disappeared, and so too have support systems that once gave lives meaning. What are we going to do at the ground level to rebuild social capital and restore people's dignity and purpose?

We're already out there preaching libertarian economics, but I think we need to reconnect with and emphasize the more communitarian side of our intellectual heritage. I for one plan to search through the wisdom of my own faith tradition - and seek out our Founders as well - for possible solutions to our problems. Will you join me on this journey?

God bless, etc.

*****

Dear Leftists,

A few of you actually get why you lost (see also: Jonathan Pie). But the rest?

The election results were not in your favor -- and it was entirely your fault. When you cry "ist!" and "ism!" so many times without good cause, people stop listening.

You yelled "ist!" and "ism!" at John McCain when he ran for president -- even though he was, by all reasonable standards, a moderate Republican. You yelled "ist!" and "ism!" at Mitt Romney -- even though he presided over the institution of the Affordable Care Act's predecessor in Massachusetts and has been, throughout his life, a deeply charitable person. For the past several decades, you've portrayed every Republican, no matter how benign, as the second coming of Hitler. So when you did the same to Trump, the electorate tuned you out.

I happen to agree that Trump was an awful candidate -- but I could prove that with his actual actions and his actual words. You, on the other hand, decided to exaggerate - and sometimes outright lie about - Trump's flaws. Moreover, your identitarian ideology kept you so focused on the fact that Hillary Clinton has a vag that you completely missed her manifest lack of fitness for the presidential office. This only cemented the voters' distrust.

Your behavior in the wake of Trump's election has also not served you well. Some of you are lying about being the targets of supposed hate crimes, which makes genuine victims less likely to be believed. Some of you are rioting in the streets, disrupting the lives of people who, by the way, probably also voted for Clinton. Many of you are spreading claims that Trump will destroy the rights of LGBTQ citizens/minorities/immigrants/the disabled -- claims that, so far, have no empirical basis in reality. Many of you are unjustifiably scaring your children, modeling emotional incontinence instead of rationality and principled dissent. And lastly, all of you are ignoring the Trump supporters who have been beaten or otherwise intimidated because of their vote. Congratulations, guys, for continuing to demonstrate why many Americans despise you and your beliefs.

Might I make a suggestion? If you want people to be more receptive to your concerns, maybe you should try persuasion instead of coercion and respect instead of condescension. And maybe - get ready for a truly radical idea - you should give genuine federalism a try instead of attempting to force your lifestyle on people without their consent. I'm perfectly happy to let San Francisco be San Francisco. Perhaps you should reciprocate and allow Provo to be Provo. If you let more cultural decisions be made at the local level, perhaps our national politics would no longer be a blood sport, and we could all feel more empowered and more in control of our own surroundings.

Just some thoughts, etc.  

Quick Thoughts

So "cultural appropriation" is in the news again...

... thanks to literary fiction writer Lionel Shriver, who caused a ruckus over a speech she recently delivered at the Brisbane Writers Festival that politely - but firmly - criticized the rhetoric of the regressive left. I for one applaud Shriver for her audacity and agree 100% with her remarks. "Cultural appropriation" - like many concepts born of "social justice" zealotry - takes a tiny germ of truth and then seeks to push its applications to the very edges of absurdity. It obviously behooves us to treat other cultures - including subcultures within our own society - with respect. But "respect" means we should work hard to be accurate and fair; it does not mean we should wall these cultures off from all outside curiosity. Indeed, to attempt to accomplish the latter is outrageously counter-productive. First, in suggesting that these cultures cannot withstand the outsider's explorations, SJZ's are implicitly suggesting that these cultures are inferior to ours. After all, nobody is seriously arguing that, say, Lin-Manuel Miranda has damaged white American culture by embracing Alexander Hamilton and transforming him into a hip-hop icon (and, in my view, a deserving Broadway sensation). So let's think about this: Do we really believe that white American culture is uniquely robust while every other culture is exquisitely fragile? Secondly, Americans of European extraction are still the majority demographic in the United States; how, then, will minority cultures ever become visible and clothed in dignity if white folks aren't permitted to enjoy aspects of those cultures in their own pursuits? Racial harmony and human solidarity come from empathy, and empathy comes from stepping into the shoes of the Other -- and from no other source.

Meanwhile, regarding the presidential campaign...

... Hillary Clinton has been having a rough week. Personally, as a person with a debilitating autoimmune disease who still manages to nail her job, I think it's a little weird that we're obsessing over Clinton's health and not over her manifest corruption in other matters. Clinton is - despite all tongue-and-cheek speculations to the contrary - a human being, and human beings get sick. On the other hand, the Clinton campaign royally deserves mockery for the cagey way in which it's handled the whole health question. Just be honest, okay? For Christ's sake, it's not like the US president has to be able to drop everything and run a marathon!

It was also not a smart move to claim that a significant chunk of Trump's supporters belongs in a "basket of deplorables". I'm no Trump fan, but I still think this characterization of the Trump camp is slanderously inaccurate. Sure: Trump does attract alt-right provocateurs, and some of those are objectively racist white nationalists. But I think Trump has also attracted frustrated working-class whites who are looking for someone - anyone - to pay attention to their problems and give them a voice -- not to mention a lot of vocally reluctant supporters who just fear Clinton more. I encourage everyone - but especially out-of-touch urban elites - to sit in fly-over America for a spell and actually listen to the people who live there before throwing out careless judgments. Oh, and also? First cast the beam out of thine own eye, Ms. Clinton. The left has its own problems with "deplorables"; clear out your own house and we will clear out ours.

Links of Interest: More on Campaign 2016

This morning, one of my students asked me why I thought Trump was popular in the South. "As it turns out," I said, "I've been thinking a lot about that." I don't want to dismiss Trump's voters as simpletons or fascists; no matter how much I may disagree with their political choices, these folks are my neighbors and friends. And as the links below argue, they are trying to tell us something important. God help us if we fail to listen.

*****

Trump: Tribune of Poor White People
Rod Dreher, The American Conservative

I wrote last week about the new nonfiction book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and a Culture in Crisis by J.D. Vance, the Yale Law School graduate who grew up in the poverty and chaos of an Appalachian clan. The book is an American classic, an extraordinary testimony to the brokenness of the white working class, but also its strengths. It’s one of the best books I’ve ever read. With the possible exception of Yuval Levin’s The Fractured Republic, for Americans who care about politics and the future of our country, Hillbilly Elegy is the most important book of 2016...

RD: A friend who moved to West Virginia a couple of years ago tells me that she’s never seen poverty and hopelessness like what’s common there. And she says you can drive through the poorest parts of the state, and see nothing but TRUMP signs. Reading “Hillbilly Elegy” tells me why. Explain it to people who haven’t yet read your book.

J.D. VANCE: The simple answer is that these people–my people–are really struggling, and there hasn’t been a single political candidate who speaks to those struggles in a long time. Donald Trump at least tries.

What many don’t understand is how truly desperate these places are, and we’re not talking about small enclaves or a few towns–we’re talking about multiple states where a significant chunk of the white working class struggles to get by. Heroin addiction is rampant. In my medium-sized Ohio county last year, deaths from drug addiction outnumbered deaths from natural causes. The average kid will live in multiple homes over the course of her life, experience a constant cycle of growing close to a “stepdad” only to see him walk out on the family, know multiple drug users personally, maybe live in a foster home for a bit (or at least in the home of an unofficial foster like an aunt or grandparent), watch friends and family get arrested, and on and on. And on top of that is the economic struggle, from the factories shuttering their doors to the Main Streets with nothing but cash-for-gold stores and pawn shops.

The two political parties have offered essentially nothing to these people for a few decades. From the Left, they get some smug condescension, an exasperation that the white working class votes against their economic interests because of social issues, a la Thomas Frank (more on that below). Maybe they get a few handouts, but many don’t want handouts to begin with.

From the Right, they’ve gotten the basic Republican policy platform of tax cuts, free trade, deregulation, and paeans to the noble businessman and economic growth. Whatever the merits of better tax policy and growth (and I believe there are many), the simple fact is that these policies have done little to address a very real social crisis. More importantly, these policies are culturally tone deaf: nobody from southern Ohio wants to hear about the nobility of the factory owner who just fired their brother.

Go and read the whole thing -- and then buy the book. I've just finished reading Hillbilly Elegy myself, and it's a real eye-opener.

*****

How David Brooks Created Donald Trump
Glenn Reynolds, USA Today

When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. Brooks closes his Trump column with Psalm 73, but a more appropriate verse is Hosea 8:7 "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Trump’s ascendance is a symptom of a colossal failure among America’s political leaders, of which Brooks’ mean-spirited insularity is only a tiny part. God help us all.

Yep. The members of our clerisy have been kicking the dog for years, and now they have the temerity to be shocked - shocked, I tell you! - that said dog is starting to bite? Screw them, I say. They've done nothing to earn our respect.

Grappling with the Donald Trump Phenomenon: A Conversation

(Quick admin note: This will be the last post of the week until Monday, as I have a convention to attend this weekend. Try not to burn down the joint while I'm gone!)

The internecine warfare within the GOP - which has spread to virtually every social media space in which conservatives gather - has, for me, been a matter of grave concern. Friends are fighting friends. Family members are quarreling with family members. In fact, the debate over Donald Trump and his suitability for the presidency - or lack thereof - has become so strident and so intolerant that even the smallest things can set off a mutual blocking spree. And personally? It bothers me.

It bothers me because it's happening between people whose views are at least 70% in concordance. We should be allies, not mortal enemies. Thus, when my brother, a fervent backer of #NeverTrump, got into an argument with another conservative on Facebook in re: Trump and his detractors, I decided to play devil's advocate. What follows is an excerpt from the resulting discussion. My initial comments are in normal text, and Matt's comments are in blue. In purple, meanwhile, I add some post-conversation reflections and/or questions for further study.

If you would like to join the conversation, please do so in the comments. I only ask that everyone be polite and respectful. The future of our nation may very well be at stake.

*****

Vlog #1: Funny Campaign 2016 Merchandise!

My first low-rent attempt at the whole vlogging thing.
And in other news: Congratulations, Great Britain! I hope we in the States can eventually get our acts together and properly welcome you into the community of free, English-speaking nations. Honestly, my Euroskeptic friends and I are utterly verklempt that you have chosen true sovereignty over the status quo. Absolutely brilliant!

For a good analysis of yesterday's vote and its possible consequences, see also:

Brexit: How, Why, and What Next.

What Is This I Don't Even

I've been actively seeking out silly election stuff, and this is officially one of the weirdest things I've found so far. Oh, but don't worry -- there's so much more I'll be sharing next week once a certain package from Amazon arrives!

Ladies & Gentlemen: Behold Mike Rowe, Champion of Common Sense!

If Trump were to announce tomorrow that he plans to appoint Rowe as his Secretary of Labor, I'd be sorely tempted to change my mind about the Hairpiece.

In other news, I've changed the sticker on my sidebar. While I still don't intend to vote for Trump, I want to make it perfectly clear that I don't support the Clinton corruption machine either. I'm basically a homeless voter at this point; as I suggested last week, my only remaining options are to:

1. Slit my wrists in despair over the collapse of our republic.
2. Stop giving a fuck, pop buckets of popcorn, and enjoy the decline.

From this point on, I'm going to lean more towards the latter course. That doesn't mean I'll stop the serious cultural commentary completely, mind you; it does mean, however, that more silliness is going to be thrown into the mix. It's pretty much the only way I can stay sane.

Heh. My Feelings Exactly.

Stuff & Sundries

The Rules

One of the more civil people to respond to last Friday's post on Trump has asked me what is, in truth, a very fair question: When does mere political heterodoxy shade into boorishness? Where, exactly, do I draw the line?

Allow me to offer a set of contrasting examples to help facilitate discussion:

A politician observes that a porous southern border puts undue strain on our law enforcement agencies, our job market, and our social services -- and then presents facts to bolster his case.

Politically Incorrect, But Defensible

A politician states that he will force another sovereign nation to pay for our border security.

Boorish -- And Also Profoundly Unserious

Will the left portray both of these politicians as bigoted nativists? Indubitably! But that does not erase their qualitative differences. In the first case, the politician presumes his audience is capable of at least semi-rational discussion. In the second, the politician has jettisoned reason in favor of ginning up the crowd.

When you get right down to it, what bothers me about Trump is his apparent assumption that his listeners were all born yesterday. Did you see the word salad that was his interview with The Washington Post? I'm no fan of the Post; all the same, Trump's refusal to offer straight answers to many of the questions posed - particularly vis-à-vis the freedom of the press - should be alarming to anyone who cares about the foundational principles on which our country was founded.

That Being Said...

My antipathy where Trump is concerned does not extend to excusing the illiberal left and their repeated attempts to shut Trump down. Blocking traffic on a main thoroughfare -- and potentially preventing needed access to a hospital in the process? That's not exercising one's freedom of speech; that's breaking the law. It's a pity only a few of those protesters were arrested.

Additionally...

A proposal to blackball anyone who has publicly backed Trump is perhaps the dumbest thing a professed conservative could ever support. That's not who we are, people. We don't hound people out of "respectable" society for the sin of being wrong. Shit-listing and shunning are tactics of the left. Leave such antics in the gutter where they belong -- or get off my side.

Meanwhile, Let Me Address One Final Note to the Crybullies:

Pro-Trump chalking on a campus sidewalk does not make you "unsafe" in any way -- nor does the availability of Trump merchandise on Amazon. You people are the reason why Trump has fans. Stop conflating disagreement with harassment and violence. We are all sick of your playing the victim.

Why I'm Backing #NeverTrump: A "Cuckservative" Speaks

Let me get a few disclaimers out of the way before I dive into the meat of this post:

1. I don't want anyone to read this post as an implicit attack on engaged conservative friends who are making different judgments. I know many good people who believe that voting for a third party candidate - and possibly giving the presidency to Hillary - will be worse for the country and for conservatism as a movement than letting Trump have his fun flying our banner for a few years. I understand this position. Indeed, when it comes to foreign policy in particular (which is mostly the province of the executive branch), this is an argument that has real merit. (Letting Hillary, the architect of the Benghazi fiasco, pick our Secretary of State? Ugh and aieeee!) 
2. At the same time, I would like to assure my readers that my refusal to campaign or vote for Trump does not mean that I will be canvassing for Hillary -- or that I will be abandoning the GOP completely. Because I am well aware that voting third party in the presidential race may cost the Republicans the presidential election, I will be working twice as hard to make sure solid conservatives win the down-ticket races so our government remains split. Obstruction for the win, baby! That's how the Framers designed our system. 

That being said -- yes, I am sporting a red #NeverTrump badge on my sidebar. This post is intended to explain why it's there.

(PS: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And to those who've chosen to be rude, thanks for all the hate!)

(PPS: No, I'm not "eschewing all Instapundit readers." I'm eschewing the impolite. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have edited the above remark accordingly.)

I Strongly Approve of This Message

If Rubio is still in the running on March 1, I'll probably be voting for him.

There's A Special Place in Hell for the Presumptuous

To Madeleine Albright and all the other feminists who demand I vote for Hillary Clinton because The Wimmins, I have only this to say:

  

I'm not going to jettison everything I stand for and vote for a corrupt political dynasty just because its standard-bearer has a matching set of genitalia. And my sisters on the left who are voting for Bernie Sanders shouldn't exchange principles for cheap symbolism either, even if I personally think Bernie's "platform" is as realistic as a plan to fund our federal government with rainbows and unicorn farts.

Oh, yes, I did say "cheap symbolism" -- because it is. We don't actually "need" a female president. There's nothing in the female psyche that confers magical leadership powers on those who possess it. And before you even start with the myths, no: Women are not "more peaceful" and "more compassionate." What bizarre schools did you go to when you were a girl? We can be just as bloodthirsty and just as cruel as any man. Please -- go and read some actual history. Violence and injustice didn't disappear in a puff of smoke any time a women was in charge. For an instructive example, see Mary I of England.

But we need The Wimmins to secure our rights! And what rights would those be? Because the rights that actually matter are rights that a Democratic administration under Clinton would almost certainly seek to squash. The right to life -- even if it is "inconvenient"? The right to practice my religion in public as I see fit without interference from the federal government? The right to speak my mind even if my thoughts don't fit the elite orthodoxy of the moment? The right to defend myself using any method I choose -- including, if necessary, deadly force via high-velocity lead? Whither will these go under left-wing governance? And while we're at it, let's consider the universally applauded gains won by earlier feminist movements -- like, for example, the franchise. Did we need The Wimmins in charge to pass and ratify the 19th Amendment? I'll give you one guess.

But we're not at parity! So? That is something we will never achieve so long as the meritocracy remains robust and we're all left free to make our own choices. Women may not be infused with Mystic Leadership Juice, but in other ways, we are fundamentally different from men in the aggregate. For example, we have less upper body strength, which means we are less likely to qualify as soldiers or firefighters, where rigid standards for said strength are a matter of life and death. We also have different interests and different priorities, which means we tend to choose different college majors and more flexible career paths. And no -- these divergences are not simply the result of cultural conditioning, as anyone with experience with very small children will confirm. But hell -- even if they were 100% the fault of culture, culture is not something the government is competent to fix. 

But really, let's turn this around for a second: Suppose, by some miracle, Carly Fiorina surged in the GOP's polls and subsequently seized our party's nomination. How would you, my dear Clinton supporters, respond if I demanded you vote for Fiorina because The Wimmins and Historic Milestone? You'd reject the argument, of course, because Fiorina does not share your beliefs! Why, then, do you expect women on our side - or Bernie's female backers, for that matter - to act any differently?

No: I will not be checking under the hood before I make my vote -- and quite frankly, I'm insulted that you would suggest such a thing. To steal from a Facebook friend of mine, I am not a vagina with feet. 

God Bless the Editors of National Review!

"One may say that Trump’s personal life and business dealings are irrelevant to his candidacy, but conservatives have argued for generations that virtue matters, in the citizenry and in the nation’s leaders. Can conservatives really believe that, if elected, Trump would care about protecting the family’s place in society when his own life is—unapologetically—what conservatives used to recognize as decadent?" - Russell Moore

"Trump nevertheless offers a valuable warning for the Republican party. If responsible men irresponsibly ignore an issue as important as immigration, it will be taken up by the reckless. If they cannot explain their Beltway maneuvers — worse, if their maneuvering is indefensible — they will be rejected by their own voters. If they cannot advance a compelling working-class agenda, the legitimate anxieties and discontents of blue-collar voters will be exploited by demagogues. We sympathize with many of the complaints of Trump supporters about the GOP, but that doesn’t make the mogul any less flawed a vessel for them." - The Editors

As you can see, the folks at National Review have gathered an astounding line-up of principled conservative writers who all condemn the Trump candidacy. (Thomas Sowell, you guys! Thomas freakin' Sowell!) And yes: the results deserve to be read in full. Follow the links below for the epic smackdown!

Against Trump (The Main Editorial)

Conservatives Against Trump (The Symposium)

Chaser (Added Sunday): Remedium peius morbo

Posts of the Week: Campaign 2016 Updates

This afternoon, while I was trying to sleep off my current bout of sinusitis, I had the weirdest dream -- that Donald Trump was president and I was chosen to be one of his advisers.

Aaaahhh!!!!
I'm a movement conservative - specifically, one with "reformicon" leanings - and like most movement conservatives, I think Trump would be a disastrous candidate for the GOP. He's sound and fury signifying nothing -- a populist rabble-rouser whose policy prescriptions are literally absurd and whose campaign events often rival Obama's 2008 campaign when it comes to sheer creepiness.


Seriously: What the hell is this?
But it would be beyond foolish for those of us who actually care about the future of conservatism to ignore the few things Trump gets very right. That's why the following two posts are today's "posts of the week":

First, go and read Notes on a Phenomenon, in which Mark Steyn describes a Trump event held on Bernie's turf in Vermont. Apparently, Trump doesn't use a teleprompter and doesn't recycle the same boring, focus-group-tested stump speech. Instead, he says whatever pops into his head at any particular moment.

"One minute he's talking about the Iran deal, the next he detours into how Macy's stock is in the toilet since they dumped Trump ties. But in a strange way it all hangs together: It's both a political speech, and a simultaneous running commentary on his own campaign." 

This explains why Trump often sounds like a crazed nutbar -- but in this media-saturated, celebrity-focused culture, it also works. Writes Steyn:

"I've seen no end of really mediocre shows at the Flynn in the last quarter-century, and I would have to account this the best night's entertainment I've had there with the exception of the great jazz singer Dianne Reeves a few years back. He's way funnier than half the stand-up acts I've seen at the Juste pour rires comedy festival a couple of hours north in Montreal. And I can guarantee that he was funnier than any of the guys trying their hand at Trump Improv night at the Vermont Comedy Club a couple of blocks away. He has a natural comic timing." 

This, of course, does not mean Trump is qualified to occupy the nation's highest office. It does, however, reveal a queer sort of authenticity that more serious candidates should try to adapt to their own needs -- without the lunatic demands for mass deportations and a border wall. First suggestion? Get rid of the damned consultants and actually listen to the people!

Meanwhile, TRUTH, a blog post written by the inimitable Sarah Hoyt, hits upon something else that drives Trump's allure. The money quote:

"Maybe Trump will turn out (somehow) to be a pragmatic ruler, but make no mistake, he will be a RULER, not a leader, because he has no concept of limits or of individual rights.  His concept is of socialism, only more national.  But people here are so tired of being told that the United States is the worst thing ever, when they see it isn’t, that they are willing to accept even an outright socialist, if he’ll just assure them they’re not going crazy and they’re not evil for loving their country." 

Yep. As Sarah observes elsewhere in the same post, the West's cultural aristoi have been pissing down our backs and telling us it's raining for quite some time, and it is totally and utterly sane to hate them for it and to look for someone - anyone - who's willing to tell the truth about who we are as a civilization and, more importantly, defend us from peoples and ideologies that wish us ill. If no one of intellectual heft takes the stage to fill this role? Trump is mild compared to the threats waiting in the wings. If we keep stomping on every sincere doubt regarding immigration and our national security, we will get our own Front National -- and it won't be pretty.

To the GOP: Wake up and pay attention! Your survival may depend on it.