For The Last Time: Stop Throwing ‘Never Trump’ Delusions In Our Faces

[corbe]

For The Last Time: Stop Throwing ‘Never Trump’ Delusions In Our Faces

By Steve Berman  |  January 31, 2017, 05:30pm  |  @stevengberman


The latest entry in “you must pick a team and cheer” comes from New Republic’s Jeet Heer, who accuses National Review of “surrender to Trump.” Sigh.

For the last time, can we go through this so even a liberal can understand it?

This Sunday, the Patriots play the Falcons in the Super Bowl. I happen to be a lifelong Pats fan (hate me if you want). I am going to cheer for them without regard to who unfriends me on Facebook or unfollows me on Twitter. If the Falcons win, good for them–I live in Georgia and can happily congratulate them for beating the Best Team in Football, Ever.

But if the Patriots win, would I expect those who vehemently despise the BTiF,E to renounce professional football because they won? Because that’s what Heer and all the others (including, sadly, Evan McMullin and the #AlwaysRubio crowd) suggest we do with political reality and our country’s governance.

Trump won.

The executive branch is his to run, as he sees fit, regardless of our histrionics. Either we can be patriotic in the sense that we respect the government of the United States as it exists, or we can be oppositional to the realities of political life. It’s not unpatriotic to call Trump out for his (many) faults, fumbles, and blunders. But it is unpatriotic to start from the position of “I hate Trump and therefore this government is invalid, illegitimate, and deserving of all scorn for anything it does.”

When David French, who flirted with running just to keep Trump from office, writes that the president’s executive order on refugees is right on substance, then the same careful thought and vetting applied to his many #NeverTrump pieces, plus the fact that a Harvard-trained constitutional lawyer who served in the military in Iraq is saying it’s kosher, should be assumed. Instead, we read how anything Trump does is bad, because Trump did it.

We need not agree on the substance of the immigration ban–some think it’s okay to continue bringing in tens of thousands of refugees from countries with known ties to terrorists (as long as it’s not in their back yard). But we need to agree that the president has the authority and ability to set policy under current law. Simply because we disagree on the policy doesn’t give us some new right to cheer those who defy that authority (such as Susan Yates).

Heer, in the last paragraph, is where the sour grapes of #NeverTrump surfaces–invoking Buckley’s embrace of Reagan as a failure of doctrinal purity.

“
That’s the same dilemma that National Review confronts today. Trump is not a conservative, but he does many things that the right likes—and above all, he’s a Republican. In some ways, National Review is following the trajectory of the party as a whole: Initially doubtful of Trump, but eventually consolidating behind him as the leader of the GOP. Never Trump is increasingly losing any salience as a real political position. While anti-anti-Trump is the current holding position, there’s ample reason to suspect that for many National Review writers, it’ll become something more full-throated: Forever Trump.

No. A million times no.

Trump is not a conservative. And he’s not a Republican either, other than the fact he bears the party label. In no way should Trump have ever hijacked the GOP to his nationalist, populist ends. But he did. The fate of the party itself is yet to be determined. We’re 12 days into Trump’s term, for Pete’s sake, and somehow doctrinal purity is still based on complete opposition or complete subservience to President Trump.

Does that make sense by any measure? It’s a ridiculous and untenable position without any connection to reality.

So, for the millionth and last time.


1.#NeverTrump is dead, because the election is over.
2.Trump won. He is president.
3.When the president (whoever it is) does something that supports conservative values, we should support that particular thing.
4.We do not all have to agree on every policy move, on the substance or motives, but we can agree to disagree.
5.Those who oppose Trump simply because he’s Trump are really opposing our form of government, demanding a “do-over” because they don’t like the outcome.
6.Being formerly #NeverTrump and now call them as we see them is not unpatriotic or somehow compromised–or Forever Trump.

<..snip..>

http://theresurgent.com/for-the-last-time-stop-throwing-never-trump-delusions-in-our-faces/

[corbe]

   I added the emphasis on the following line.

1.#NeverTrump is dead, because the election is over.

[Sanguine]

Ooooh, this is scary.  I'm a Pats fan too.  There's two of us!

[Oceander]

#NeverTrump

Sorry, but with all due respect, Trump is an a$$ and, more to the point, has a very virulent personality cult that must be opposed whatever the merits of any particular action of Trump's.

I'll agree with what makes sense, but I will not tolerate, and will not be silent about, the stupidities and inanities, such as the latest immigration idiocy, the threats against Mexico, etc, etc, etc.

[HonestJohn]

Trump now defines American conservatism for us and the world.

Why?

Because there is no one else to challenge him.

And as you've already seen for the past year, if you don't agree with him in all things, *YOU* are defined as 'not conservative'.

---

It's time to wake up and dump the new "conservative" moniker and stop trying to argue that Trump's not "conservative".  It's irrevocably tainted now.

The term "classical liberal" will probably be a more attractive "brand".

[LMAO]

I can't say I'm a "Never Trump." I didn't vote for him in 2016 but we will see what happens by 2020

[Cripplecreek]

The writer can kiss my ass.

[Cripplecreek]

Trump now defines American conservatism for us and the world.

Why?

Because there is no one else to challenge him.

And as you've already seen for the past year, if you don't agree with him in all things, *YOU* are defined as 'not conservative'.

---

It's time to wake up and dump the new "conservative" moniker and stop trying to argue that Trump's not "conservative".  It's irrevocably tainted now.

The term "classical liberal" will probably be a more attractive "brand".

I'm a federalist.

I just blocked a former follower on twitter for threatening me over my "committing treason against Trump"

[Oceander]

I'm a federalist.

I just blocked a former follower on twitter for threatening me over my "committing treason against Trump"

It's the cult of personality that's the most dangerous. 

[guitar4jesus]

I just blocked a former follower on twitter for threatening me over my "committing treason against Trump"

Sheesh!

[Jazzhead]

#NeverTrump

Sorry, but with all due respect, Trump is an a$$ and, more to the point, has a very virulent personality cult that must be opposed whatever the merits of any particular action of Trump's.

I'll agree with what makes sense, but I will not tolerate, and will not be silent about, the stupidities and inanities, such as the latest immigration idiocy, the threats against Mexico, etc, etc, etc.

This is how I feel as well.   I respect the office of the President, and will listen and consider what Trump says and does,  dispense praise when merited and criticism when warranted.    His first week has set him back months, with the needless picking of fights and unnecessary cultivation of enemies.   It's been so bad that I'm afraid that his SUPERB pick for the Supreme Court will be denied confirmation just because he was nominated by Trump.   

But Oceander makes a good point -  I have no respect for Trump's lickspittles who insist that anything short of complete fealty is treason.    Respect is earned, not anointed by a cult of personality.   

[Smokin Joe]

It's the cult of personality that's the most dangerous.

Yep. No person who has power is so worthy they are not worthy of scrutiny in the way they use that power, and of opposition when they are wrong. Had other presidents been watched thus, perhaps we would not have the mess we do. And Congress is, as ever, part of the problem.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Sorry, but with all due respect, Trump is an a$$ and, more to the point, has a very virulent personality cult that must be opposed whatever the merits of any particular action of Trump's
I'll agree with what makes sense, but I will not tolerate, and will not be silent about, the stupidities and inanities, such as the latest immigration idiocy, the threats against Mexico, etc, etc, etc.

My issue with that is that I cannot see what you are trying to accomplish.

It is very clear that a large chunk of the country not only dislikes Trump personally, but opposes everything he does.  Including a lot of things that conservatives in general would otherwise support.   And if you look out in "the streets", it seems to me that spectre of anti-Trumpers "being hunted down like dogs" isn't exactly on the horizon.  The real threat to liberty and our democratic system comes, as always, from the militant left.   The other stuff was just a bunch of overheated rhetoric from a few overly-excited Trump supporters.  But there is no discernable evidence of that ("hunting down with dogs", etc.) actually happening.

I just don't see what purposes it serves to pile on the guy when he commits one of his verbal gaffes.  The left does enough of that for both sides, and are aided in that by an extremely compliant media and pop culture.  They do that not for personal reasons, but to try to derail his agenda.  And I don't think it is out of line to say that in terms of the things he is actually doing so far, he has been almost shockingly conservative.  How does assisting the left in derailing that agenda help the conservative cause?  Do you truly not care about "the merits of any particular action of Trump's?"

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But Oceander makes a good point -  I have no respect for Trump's lickspittles who insist that anything short of complete fealty is treason.    Respect is earned, not anointed by a cult of personality.

I don't think it's a case of respecting him, or blindly and publicly defending every stupid statement he makes.  It's more an issue of not joining the left and MSM in their attempts to derail his agenda via non-stop attacks.  Those attacks have already been turned up to 11 as it is.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't think it's a case of respecting him, or blindly and publicly defending every stupid statement he makes.  It's more an issue of not joining the left and MSM in their attempts to derail his agenda via non-stop attacks.  Those attacks have already been turned up to 11 as it is.

When he is right, I will support that. When he is wrong, I will oppose that. That's as good as any get. What I will not do is tie myself into logical knots trying to support the man when I think he is wrong, and there are plenty who have abandoned principle for personality and done exactly that.
It isn't a question of supporting or opposing the man in the office so much as the actions which come from that office at this point, and to frame any opposition to policy as 'just being #nevertrump' is only a device to ignore the policy.

[jpsb]

If I was here to be a trouble maker I would be all over this thread. Just saying.

[Jazzhead]

I don't think it's a case of respecting him, or blindly and publicly defending every stupid statement he makes.  It's more an issue of not joining the left and MSM in their attempts to derail his agenda via non-stop attacks.  Those attacks have already been turned up to 11 as it is.

I understand, which is why I've tried to combine my recent criticisms with constructive positive suggestions.   Trump, for example, should emphasize jobs and economic growth - not only because that's what his base wants but because he can find allies on such matters in Congress.  Picking needless fights with Mexico and blindsiding Congress with sudden immigration bans?   All that's doing is destroying precious political capital.   

[don-o]

#NeverTrump

Sorry, but with all due respect, Trump is an a$$ and, more to the point, has a very virulent personality cult that must be opposed whatever the merits of any particular action of Trump's.

I'll agree with what makes sense, but I will not tolerate, and will not be silent about, the stupidities and inanities, such as the latest immigration idiocy, the threats against Mexico, etc, etc, etc.

I agree that personality cults are distasteful, and potentially dangerous. It seems to me that almost all public figures acquire them to some extent. 

I would like to see as much attention placed on the Congress as on the President.

[Cripplecreek]

Yep. No person who has power is so worthy they are not worthy of scrutiny in the way they use that power, and of opposition when they are wrong. Had other presidents been watched thus, perhaps we would not have the mess we do. And Congress is, as ever, part of the problem.

The worshipers will never criticize. They will ignore, excuse and accuse but it will never EVER be the fault of the object of their devotion. I mention the fact that Trump won't remove the workplace protections (Special rights) for gays and lesbians that obama signed into existence with an executive order and its met with crickets or accusations that I want to throw gays off buildings. Apparently not supporting Orange Glorious not only makes me a traitor but it makes me a muslim as well.

I don't doubt for a second that a huge portion of these people could find a way to justify lining up a vague list of "enemies" in a ditch and shooting them in the head. The Germans did and they were the most civilized advanced society on the planet known for their compassion.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The worshipers will never criticize. They will ignore, excuse and accuse but it will never EVER be the fault of the object of their devotion. I mention the fact that Trump won't remove the workplace protections (Special rights) for gays and lesbians that obama signed into existence with an executive order and its met with crickets or accusations that I want to throw gays off buildings. Apparently not supporting Orange Glorious not only makes me a traitor but it makes me a muslim as well.

I don't doubt for a second that a huge portion of these people could find a way to justify lining up a vague list of "enemies" in a ditch and shooting them in the head. The Germans did and they were the most civilized advanced society on the planet known for their compassion.

You are delusional to the extreme.

I see a President who has been office for less than two weeks executing well, especially for conservatives.

All you see is a vast conspiracy to enslave the populace that are not killed outright.

You really need to emigrate to North Korea to see your wishes fulfilled.

[Cripplecreek]

You are delusional to the extreme.

I see a President who has been office for less than two weeks executing well, especially for conservatives.

All you see is a vast conspiracy to enslave the populace that are not killed outright.

You really need to emigrate to North Korea to see your wishes fulfilled.

Don't worry subject, you'll dutifully do as you're told when the king decrees it just like you abandoned federalism without so much as a whimper.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yep. No person who has power is so worthy they are not worthy of scrutiny in the way they use that power, and of opposition when they are wrong. Had other presidents been watched thus, perhaps we would not have the mess we do. And Congress is, as ever, part of the problem.

The Constitution of the US, so brilliantly created by the Founders, gave total countrol of the Executive to a single man.  That is the way we operate.

To control that man, they also brilliantly gave the people and states powerful representation in the form of Congress.

It is evil to the extreme that Congress does not, through its Constitutional prerogative and duty, reign in no matter who sits in the WH, as a single man by human nature, will allow power go to his head.

Your comments are the same for every present and prior occupants of the WH.

BTW, I was far more scared of the previous occupant than the present.

[Sanguine]

The Constitution of the US, so brilliantly created by the Founders, gave total countrol of the Executive to a single man.  That is the way we operate.

To control that man, they also brilliantly gave the people and states powerful representation in the form of Congress.

It is evil to the extreme that Congress does not, through its Constitutional prerogative and duty, reign in no matter who sits in the WH, as a single man by human nature, will allow power go to his head.

Your comments are the same for every present and prior occupants of the WH.

BTW, I was far more scared of the previous occupant than the present.

Yes, but it was a very, very much smaller executive and answerable to the States.

[XenaLee]

My issue with that is that I cannot see what you are trying to accomplish.

It is very clear that a large chunk of the country not only dislikes Trump personally, but opposes everything he does.  Including a lot of things that conservatives in general would otherwise support.   And if you look out in "the streets", it seems to me that spectre of anti-Trumpers "being hunted down like dogs" isn't exactly on the horizon.  The real threat to liberty and our democratic system comes, as always, from the militant left.   The other stuff was just a bunch of overheated rhetoric from a few overly-excited Trump supporters.  But there is no discernable evidence of that ("hunting down with dogs", etc.) actually happening.

I just don't see what purposes it serves to pile on the guy when he commits one of his verbal gaffes.  The left does enough of that for both sides, and are aided in that by an extremely compliant media and pop culture.  They do that not for personal reasons, but to try to derail his agenda.  And I don't think it is out of line to say that in terms of the things he is actually doing so far, he has been almost shockingly conservative.  How does assisting the left in derailing that agenda help the conservative cause?  Do you truly not care about "the merits of any particular action of Trump's?"

You have encapsulated and verbalized my feelings exactly.  Thanks.

I find much of this 'scare tactics' mantra against Trump to be extremely silly.  And no, I didn't vote for him...but I am willing to stand behind him against the radical left unless or until he gives me reason not to.  That hasn't happened yet.

[SZonian]

When he is right, I will support that. When he is wrong, I will oppose that. That's as good as any get. What I will not do is tie myself into logical knots trying to support the man when I think he is wrong, and there are plenty who have abandoned principle for personality and done exactly that.
It isn't a question of supporting or opposing the man in the office so much as the actions which come from that office at this point, and to frame any opposition to policy as 'just being #nevertrump' is only a device to ignore the policy.

This, thanks for posting that, saved me the time.