A Tale of Two Pities
Two things happened last Friday that I think pretty effectively summarizes the state of affairs on the American Right. The first is that Ben Shapiro, one of the original #NeverTrump-ers, now says he will “walk over broken glass” to vote for Donald Trump and is, in fact, holding a fundraiser for the once and possibly future president. I know I’ve done it before, but it’s worth noting what Shapiro used to publicly say about Donald Trump:
I will never vote for Donald Trump.
Ever.
I will never vote for Donald Trump because I stand with certain principles. I stand with small government and free markets and religious freedom and personal responsibility. Donald Trump stands against all of these things. He stands for Planned Parenthood and trade restrictions and targeting of political enemies and an anti-morality foreign policy and government domination of religion and nastiness toward women and tacit appeals to racism and unbounded personal power. I stand with the Constitution of the United States, and its embedded protection of my God-given rights through governmental checks and balances. Donald Trump does not. I stand with conservatism. Donald Trump stands against it. […]
We must have a conservative party. The Republican Party is not that party, and has not been for a very long time. The Obama administration has brought about a unique moment – a transformational choice for the Party. Will they abandon all conservative principle in pursuit of victory, or will they turn back to the conservatism they supposedly espouse? […] Establishment Republicans abandoned Reaganism for Bushism, and then abandoned Bushism for McCainism, and then abandoned McCainism for Romneyism. Until the last five minutes, they were ready to embrace Trump himself rather getting behind Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Now they call for conservatives to swallow hard and unify behind a man who opposes all conservative principles – to save conservatism!
In every election cycle, the establishment insists that we unify behind a candidate who does not reflect conservatism because elections are always a choice between the two worst options. They blackmail conservatives into supporting candidates who undermine the message and morality of our mission. Now Trump does the same. The establishment created the Donald Trump phenomenon with their “best of two bad options” logic, and now Trump is using that logic to destroy conservatism openly. […]
We don’t have to be complicit. As Ben Domenech is fond of citing, Alexander Hamilton once wrote, “If we must have an enemy at the head of government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.” Let us not be our own enemies. […]
And if we don’t say “no” to Donald Trump now, we will continue drifting ever further left, diluting conservatism into the vacillating, demagogic absurdity of Trumpism. Conservatism will become the crypto-racist, pseudo-strong, quasi-tyrannical, toxic brew leftists have always accused it of being.
And we will have been complicit in that.
I will not be complicit in that. I stand against the establishment that sowed the seeds of Trumpism. I stand against the Republican Party that insists that victory matters more than principle, because victory without principle isn’t just meaningless, it’s counterproductive to my belief system.
It’s difficult for me to envision someone who could have more thoroughly predicted their own debasement than Ben Shapiro. The thing is, he was right in 2016. Donald Trump stands against small government, free markets, religious freedom, and personal responsibility? Check, check, check, and check. Donald Trump stands against the Constitution? Chuh-heck. Donald Trump stands against conservatism? Mmm-hmm. “Will [Republicans] abandon all conservative principle in pursuit of victory, or will they turn back to the conservatism they supposedly espouse?” Boy do I have some news. “They blackmail conservatives into supporting candidates who undermine the message and morality of our mission.” And it works! “And if we don’t say “no” to Donald Trump now, we will continue drifting ever further left, diluting conservatism into the vacillating, demagogic absurdity of Trumpism.” That is exactly what happened; cudos on your foresight. “I will not be complicit in that. I stand against the establishment that sowed the seeds of Trumpism. I stand against the Republican Party that insists that victory matters more than principle, because victory without principle isn’t just meaningless, it’s counterproductive to my belief system.” And here’s poor Ben, being complicit in it. Now a full-fledged member of the establishment, insisting that victory matters more than principle. He loves Big Brother.
The other event was former Vice President Mike Pence making the rounds on various news shows saying that he “cannot, in good conscience, endorse Donald Trump.”
Normally it would be campaign-ending for the former vice president of a presidential candidate to say they could not “in good conscience” support their previous running mate. It seems like that should be a bigger deal than it has been so far, y’know? I’m not aware of anything similar happening before in American history. But then again, Donald Trump has strung together an impressive litany of what should be career-ending moments — not least of which fomenting an angry mob to attack the Capitol building in an effort to stay in power despite having lost the election — but his most ardent supporters have made it a point of pride to declare that there is no standard to which they are willing to hold their avatar. In fact, the worse he behaves, the better because that means we’re triggered or whatever the hell, and they’re determined to never give us the satisfaction of admitting that perhaps they gleefully supported a degenerate for president.
As I said, Ben Shapiro has embarked on a political journey over the last several years that I admit I cannot fathom. In 2016, we were quite similar: both refusing to support Donald Trump out of fear of what he would do to the conservative movement specifically and America generally. I don’t understand how, barring some sort of traumatic brain injury, Shapiro now says he would “crawl over broken glass to vote for Donald Trump.” I simply do not understand how someone gets from there to here. I mean, I suppose I can understand it, it just speaks ill of Shapiro and those like him: it’s either some deep financial cynicism or profound moral diminishment. Or maybe one leads to the other, I dunno. But by Shapiro’s own standards in 2016, Donald Trump is doing everything Shapiro said he would never support, and yet here he is nevertheless supporting it. It’s the latest piece of evidence that the real economic incentive for conservative pundits is to genuflect before Trump, as first indicated chiefly by Rush Limbaugh.
To arrive at a point where someone who so ardently opposed Trump in 2016 would be willing to “walk across broken glass” to vote for him in 2024, I think they would have to convince themselves of at least one of two things: 1. That a second Joe Biden term would be worse than a Hillary Clinton presidency — because remember, the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency was not enough to convince Ben Shapiro to vote for Trump the first time around; or 2. That a second Trump term would be better than the first.
Again I ask, on what planet is Joe Biden worse than Hillary Clinton? Joe Biden isn’t even Barack Obama. The idea that we could catastrophize his presidency to the point of justifying a vote for Donald Trump is just baffling to me. He’s been roughly what I expected — a median Democrat who has been in Washington longer than I’ve been alive. More importantly, what reason is there to believe that a Trump second term will in any way resemble the first? I can admit that there were some small ponies in that stable otherwise full of horseshit: Tax cuts, moderate regulatory rollback, judicial nominations, etc. But all of the forces that led to those policies — most notably, Mitch McConnell — are or will be gone. Instead of the erstwhile Reaganites by whom Trump was surrounded in his first term, and who often redirected Trump’s worst instincts, his second term will be [even more] populated with craven yes-men more likely to indulge his worst instincts.
As Edmund Burke, British statesman and philosopher [as well as one of the fathers of conservative thought], once noted: “I must tolerate infirmities until they fester into crimes.” Joe Biden is an infirmity, perhaps literally. His presidency has not been altogether pleasant. He has done things I would prefer he had not, he has chosen not to do things I wish he would. But it has been nevertheless tolerable. Donald Trump, however, is — also sometimes literally — a crime. He has proven himself, repeatedly, to be unworthy of any office of public trust, much less the highest our country has to offer.
I don’t begrudge people changing their minds. When new information becomes available that contradicts your previous belief, there’s no sense [literally] in stubbornly holding onto that belief. But I do begrudge people for changing their mind in the wrong direction, in spite of available evidence. Which is to say, Mike Pence was wrong about Donald Trump in 2016, Ben Shapiro was right. And now, after having witnessed the same course of events and evaluating the same set of facts, Mike Pence is right about Donald Trump, and Ben Shapiro is — again to my complete befuddlement — wrong. Mike Pence should be welcomed [back?] into the club with open arms. Ben Shapiro should be spurned like the craven schmuck that he is. [I honestly don’t know how anyone could take him seriously ever again.]
It turns out that Mike Pence has more patriotic devotion and a more robust spine than most any of his colleagues: Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, et al. Certainly more than Ben Shapiro. And if Mike Pence can publicly refrain from endorsing Trump, what possible excuse does anyone else have? [Looking at you, Nikki Haley.] It’s merely the most recent reminder that Republican voters had other choices, but they chose this of their own free will.
Bathing in the Blood of Our Enemies
There was a bit of a tempest in the Twitter teapot over the weekend when Donald Trump said during a rally:
They think that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China. If you’re listening President Xi — and you and I are friends — but he understands the way I deal: Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re gonna get that, you’re gonna not hire Americans and you’re gonna sell the cars to us — no. We’re gonna put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not gonna be able to sell those guys, if I get elected! Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna to be the least of it — it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.
Many in the media breathlessly filed reports about how Donald Trump was “calling for a bloodbath,” which then prompted many of Trump’s defenders [or simply media critics] to say “No he wasn’t!” And some even went so far as to say that mischaracterizing his remarks actually helps Trump.
Eh.
For one thing, you can never quite tell what Donald Trump is actually saying because he talks like a mob boss, or a stroke victim, or a mob boss that is also a stroke victim. He’s always like 10 percent off from making a simple, declarative statement. For what it’s worth, I don’t think he was threatening violence if he loses, I think he was merely saying that a second Biden term would be a disaster, which is his whole schtick. [The idea that he was only talking about the auto industry is, I think plainly, nonsense.]
But it’s also sort of silly to put so much effort into Talmudic interpretations of whatever half-considered nonsense that burps out of Trump’s brain, because in so doing we have put more thought into it than he did. It’s all “how many angels can dance on the dead of a pin” academic exercises; panning through his verbal incontinence naively looking for proverbial gold. But it’s also picking nits while ignoring more damning [and more obvious] truths.
By my lights, his “bloodbath” comment wasn’t even the worst thing he said in that paragraph, not to mention the entire rally. The “bloodbath” stuff is just a variation on his “American carnage” theme that he’s been pushing pretty much the entire time he’s been a public figure. To paraphrase our 43rd president and national treasure, “it’s some weird shit.” But it’s much more concerning, to me anyway, that he preceded that by saying he was friends with Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. Why would he think that’s a point in his favor? Moreover, he started the rally by playing a rendition of the national anthem which started with the voiceover “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages.” It’s difficult to overstate how insane that is, and how blinkered his supporters have to be for that sort of language to appeal to them.
I would much rather talk about how Donald Trump insists on trying to martyrize criminals who attempted to prevent the certification of the presidential election at his behest than stroke my chin about what exactly he meant by the word “bloodbath.” But I also recognize that is also a benefit of the doubt that he has forfeited. No other major party candidate in American history has gotten such public enjoyment out of political violence. From encouraging it at his rallies in 2016, to his tear gassing of LaFayette Square for a photo op in 2020, to — again — fomenting an angry mob to attack the Capitol building in an effort to remain in power despite losing the election, Donald Trump has proven on multiple occasions that political violence is sort of his bag, baby.
So let’s not talk about what he might have meant by some ill-considered gibberish that stumbled out of his mouth. Let’s talk about the fact that his own vice president “cannot, in good conscience, endorse him.” Let’s talk about how he calls the people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted police officers are “unbelievable patriots.” Let’s talk about how 91 percent of his former cabinet officials [that’s 40 out of 44, if you’re scoring at home] have not endorsed him, with some even saying he’s a security threat. That strikes me as much more productive than trying to shoehorn meaning into admittedly ambiguous syntax.
Occasional Trivia
Answer from last time:
Category: British Royalty
Clue: In 1559, she signed the Act of Supremacy establishing the monarch as head of the Church of England.
Elizabeth I
Today’s clue:
Category: The American Revolution
Clue: Hanged as a spy on September 22, 1776, his body probably still lies somewhere in midtown Manhattan.
Dispatches from the Homefront
Last night I heard my older daughter calling for my wife, who had already started her bedtime routine, so I went in to see what the problem was.
“What’s up, kiddo?”
“I’m scared.”
“Scared of what?”
“The monster in my closet.”
“Aw, there’s no monster in your closet.” I even poked my head in to prove that I had done my due diligence.
“I want mommy to come give me a hug,” she said.
“Well, mommy’s already in bed. Would you settle for a hug from me?”
She nodded. I gave her a hug and reminded her that she was safe in her bed. “You good now?” I asked. She nodded again. “Mmmk, goodnight.”
I was vaguely annoyed by having to come all the way upstairs, but when I got back to the couch and resumed my mindless social media scrolling, I came across a meme that referenced this episode of Bluey, which deals with a child facing with fears of sleeping alone — the most relevant line of which is “I have to go; I’m a big girl now.” And damned if that didn’t run me over like a freight train. The chief job of parenting is to eventually make yourself unnecessary, I guess. Eventually they stop needing you to check their closet for monsters and you won’t believe you were ever even vaguely annoyed by it.