The Pride of the Never Trump Conservatives

Over in the Twitter-verse, I’ve noticed something of late: I now think I’ve got more Progressive followers than Never Trump Conservative followers. Over the past month, the Never Trump contingent has faded away. I admit to being the instigator of the un-follow in a couple cases (they just got too irritating), but mostly it has been them un-following me. I think I know why.

Just as Pride is the worst sin, so is Humility the best virtue, at least in my opinion. Pride gets you into all sorts of trouble, but being humble tends to keep you far away from such things. It is easy to want to take a proud person down, but it is hard to punch a humble person. Someone who has already admitted their limitations is nearly possible to insult, as it were…if someone were to really dig into me, I guess my response these days would be along the lines of, “wow, you found out I’m imperfect: alert the media!”. I used to be quite proud. I still suffer from the sin of Pride. On the other hand, I’m now 12 years into actually trying to be Christian and some humility has been able to creep into my worldview. I no longer have to win: I no longer have to be right: I no longer think I’ve got the answers – at least not in any sense which would make me want to get down and dirty with someone over it. Discuss things: fine. Fight in nasty terms about things: sorry, I’m busy. What is wrong with our Never Trump Conservatives is that they are too proud.

If pressed, I do believe they’ll admit to being wrong about their predictions in 2016 – though I suspect they wouldn’t like it if you brought that up. But one thing I’ve yet to see is a post-mortem on themselves. Not once have I seen one of our prognosticators admit, boldly, that they missed some pretty obvious things and that they are not wise and knowing beings. One of the things I kept bringing up to them last year was the about net 100,000 Democrats who switched to Republican in Pennsylvania. That was my first indication – real, solid indication – that the result in November might not be what people thought. I kept bringing it up, they kept shooting it down. And that was fine. It was just one, isolated data point…while the polling and the long-term political trends were all in favor of Hillary. But after the election, when it was all laid bare and we could see what happened, I never saw one of them say, “man, did I miss some easy-to-see things! Wow, what a fool I was. I promise to be more careful in the future and I’ll try not to fall into seeing only that which confirms my Narrative”.

The result of this lack of introspection is what we see, now. The prediction was that Trump would lose – and not only lose, but bring down the GOP Congress with him. Complete and utter electoral defeat was the result of nominating Trump! Don’t nominate him! For goodness sake, if you do that, you’ll be destroyed! But, the GOP voters went ahead and nominated him anyway. And from the point Trump wrapped it up until election day, all the Never Trumpers were gleefully reporting about just how badly Trump was going to be wiped out, and the GOP with him. It was going to show those dratted fools that you can’t nominate someone like Trump. I’ll bet that many of them were already working on their post-election articles and books about how the Lesson of Trump was to never, ever trust the yokels. That the yokels had better get with the program and start doing as their betters told them.

And then Trump won.

I think all of us have had a good laugh watching replays of election night – the way our liberals just started to go to pieces as it became ever clearer that Trump was the next President. But what we don’t have is the same thing for the Never Trump Conservatives. And that’s a pity – because they went to pieces just as badly. Fundamentally, the reason the Never Trump Conservatives are signing on to the bizarre Trump/Russia theory is that Trump still must prove to be a disaster. He was supposed to be a disaster on November 8th and, dang it, he’s going to be a disaster no matter what! Almost unconsciously, I think, the Never Trump Conservatives are falling into a weird world of paranoid conspiracy theories because that is the only place where their judgement of Trump still holds water. It doesn’t hold up to the electoral result and it doesn’t hold up to what Trump is actually doing (you know, all that repealing regulations; securing the border; rebuilding our position in the world; nominating Conservative judges and department heads). They only have two ways out – flat out admit they were wrong, or go along with theories about Trump which are increasingly divorced from reality. Pride is preventing them from doing the former and just about forcing them to do the latter.

Some of the people I used to respect are becoming unreadable these days – because what they write is ultimately based upon the stupid theory that there was collusion between Trump and Russia to throw the election. They won’t admit it, but that is what it comes down to. Trump couldn’t have won otherwise, you see? After all, they have their historical voting patterns in Pennsylvania and turnout models for Michigan which demonstrate conclusively that Trump lost the election…and if reality isn’t fitting the theory, then reality is wrong! All the stories about disarray in the White House; about Trump people turning on him; about Congressional GOPers getting ready for impeachment…it all stems from a wish that it were true, because it must be true, because if it isn’t true then the Never Trump Conservatives are wrong. Admitting to being wrong is one of the hardest things to do…and Never Trump isn’t even close to admitting it.

As I’ve stated elsewhere, I suspect that most who have persisted in being Never Trump Conservatives to this point will wind up Progressives in the near future. The only ones who won’t are those who finally climb off the high horse and actually think about things. Maybe Trump will wind up a disaster…but, meanwhile, there he is actually doing things and people of wisdom will look at what he’s doing and work on that to determine if he’s doing well or poorly. They won’t, that is, work from the assumption that he’s a disaster and then present carefully served up bits of information (true or false, it doesn’t matter) to confirm their belief. For most of them, though, it’ll be easier to say, “I stopped being a Conservative because the Conservatives proved themselves wrong by electing Trump”. They’ll then go on to work out the mental backflips necessary to ensure their friendly reception on the left – they’ll keep their desire for lower taxes and for randomly bombing things, but they’ll drop the rest of it (and, for some of them, it’ll be a gigantic relief…you can tell they don’t really like being aligned with people so out of it as to respect the traditional family and other tiresome things).

As for me, I say “good riddance”. Conservatism, as it was from the 1950’s until Reagan is now dead. It had it’s point and it’s victories – but mostly it was about defeating the scourge of Communism. In that, it patched together a coalition which was dedicated to defeating Communism…which was fine, but not everyone who is anti-Communist is Conservative. It just seemed that way, for a while. I look forward to a new Conservative movement – one which is actually in the business of conserving things. Trump is not the guy to bring this about – though in policy it looks like he’ll help matters along in a lot of areas. He’s not, however, going to tackle some crucial things like entitlements, nor does he seem particularly interested in such matters as private property rights. That’s ok. No politician is ever going to be our savior. We true Conservatives will back him as he advances what we like – and work to a future where a genuine Conservative movement can capture power of itself, and then begin the arduous task of making America a Conservative nation.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “The Pride of the Never Trump Conservatives

  1. Retired Spook May 22, 2017 / 10:58 am

    I don’t do Twitter or Facebook, so I can’t relate to what you encounter there, nor do I have any desire to. I didn’t have many Never Trumpers in my circle of friends, in fact I was the most vocal throughout the primaries and up until after the GOP Convention. I finally came to the realization that, even if he reneged on all of his promises, he’d still be better than Hillary. His 5th grade level communications skills and vocabulary still makes me cringe at times, but the lion’s share of negativity surrounding him, at least from what I can ascertain, is the result of propaganda perpetuated by his adversaries — fake news as it were. The biggest unknown at this point is how much of an impact all the fake news has on the general public, and we may not know the answer to that until the mid-terms next year.

    Last summer the radical Left threatened a “summer of rage” reminiscent of 1968, but it either failed to materialize or the media didn’t report it — I suspect a little of both. Now they’re threatening the same thing this summer. The problem is that the really radical Leftists, Fascists and anarchists are so massively outnumbered by people like me that I think the Leftist leaders know they are facing a bloodbath if they turn to violence. Patriot groups (Oathkeepers, 3%ers, volunteer militias, etc.) could easily put together a million man army, maybe more, maybe a lot more. Antifa, BLM, etc. would be lucky to assemble 50,000. And, as I’ve said in the past, the Left’s own anti-gun mentality is going to seriously bite them in the ass, as the majority of those they hope to use as cannon fodder have been taught to be deathly afraid of guns. Hopefully wiser minds will prevail.

    • M. Noonan May 23, 2017 / 3:28 am

      I’d probably dump Twitter but it’s useful for marketing the book…and the jokesters there are still quite funny. Takes talent to put something funny into 140 characters!

      But that is another issue which our Progressive friends are just not thinking all the way through. It might be cathartic for them to have their rant and rave, but people can be pushed too far. It’s why I deliberately toned down my words over the past few years…it just isn’t worth it to get into a fight over. But some people don’t seem to have this bit of wisdom…that when you issue fighting words, some people might wind up taking you seriously.

  2. Retired Spook May 22, 2017 / 1:34 pm

    OT, but one of the most hilarious accounts of trolling the Left I’ve ever read.

    A peer-reviewed academic journal was recently duped in a hilarious way.

    Two academics, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, recently used pen names to submit an academic paper to a peer-reviewed academic journal to expose the absurdity of modern gender studies by arguing that the male reproductive organ known as the penis is a “social construct.”

    The 3,000-word paper was titled, “The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct,” and was submitted, and published, to the “Cogent Social Sciences” academic journal in its May edition. Lindsay and Boghossian cited 20 sources in their paper, many of which they said they made up or never read.

    • M. Noonan May 22, 2017 / 11:05 pm

      If you want some good laughs, check out the comments over at Ace of Spades on this one…I mean, my goodness!, but people are dumb…and the really big thing about it is that the reason it got through is because this is the way all such articles sound…gibberish.

      • Retired Spook May 23, 2017 / 9:09 am

        Kind of belies the notion that Lefties are the smartest people in the room.

  3. Amazona May 23, 2017 / 9:06 am

    “….the stupid theory that there was collusion between Trump and Russia to throw the election. They won’t admit it, but that is what it comes down to. Trump couldn’t have won otherwise, you see? “

    This whole thing depends on the huge leap from a possible effect of spotlighting some ugly truths about Hillary to “collusion between Trump and Russia to throw the election”.

    I don’t think anyone can argue that Trump benefited from the exposure of Clinton lies and misdeeds, but that is a far cry from “collusion with Russia”. The “collusion” aspect is dependent on paranoia or resentment, a desire or even a need to accomplish the dual goal of excusing Hillary’s loss and maligning Trump.

    As I pointed out in an earlier post, Putin had ample reason to despise the Clintons and want to both slap them down and keep Hillary from getting into another position of power. It is funny that the same Leftists who talk about what a bad man Putin is never consider that he might be spiteful and vengeful.

    Even the most malignant of motivations, the desire to create internal unrest in the United States, could and probably did exist quite apart from caring who won the election. This kind of stirring the pot is a hallmark of Leftist strategy, and undermining the authority of a presidency while fomenting anger and even violence in the populace of a competing nation would be a predictable agenda for a once-powerful nation trying to scramble back up to the pinnacle of power and prestige.

    The radical Left has always counted on, and benefited from, the mindless cooperation of millions of “useful idiots” and this is an excellent example. The United States has had its intellect eroded by decades of Leftist influence on education, creating a nation of puppets easily manipulated and eager to pitch fits.

    Seriously—can anyone believe that no one in the Russian government ever thought, or said “There are a lot of crazed Trump-haters in the United States. All we have to do to stir them up is help him beat Hillary, with a hint of Russian participation, and those morons will go crazy. That would let the Clintons know they messed with the wrong bear, it would keep Hillary away from more power, and it would set in motion a tsunami of internal unrest we can steer in any direction we want, to keep the whole country off balance. They’ll do our work for us, keeping Trump from being very effective. and even undermining the very core of American governance. That would be quite a return for a little release of some of Hillary’s emails we already have anyway.”

    In an old book called “Games People Play” one of those games was called “Let’s you and him fight”. It is about instigating a conflict between two other people and then standing back and watching them go at each other. It’s what comes to mind when I see the effectiveness of this as a strategy to weaken the United States from the inside out. A united United States is a formidable opponent, but one torn apart by internal squabbling and an administration whose very authority is under attack is weak and not a threat.

    And in this scenario, Donald Trump is not a participant but a victim of the tactic, as everything he does is complicated by the useful idiots dancing to the tune of Russian game playing.

    • M. Noonan May 23, 2017 / 11:19 pm

      I’m certain that Putin has his experts on American political life – and I’d bet a very large amount of money that they were telling him all through 2016 that Hillary was the next President…if Putin’s hackers did get Podesta’s e-mails, then the purpose was just to cause trouble for the person everyone thought would be the next President.

      The thing is that all foreign nations attempt to interfere with our politics…just look at the bags of foreign money pouring into the anti-fracking movement. It goes on and on like that – and, really, there’s no way to stop it. We’re the most powerful nation on Earth and we’re a free nation…which means people can come and go pretty easily in this country. The only thing we can do is insist upon full disclosure of where funds come from, so that we can assess any group’s claims against who is paying the freight. But it is a gigantic – and absurd – leap to think that because Putin might have been screwing around with our politics that he was doing it to help Trump, or in collusion with Trump.

  4. Amazona May 23, 2017 / 9:45 am

    Here is another example of taking a small nugget of belief and by the use of Magical Thinking and huge leaps across chasms of logic turning it into something significant.

    We are supposed to believe (1) that James Comey took “detailed notes of conversations he had with the president” and that (2) his notes were by definition accurate representations of what was said.

    On Tuesday, the New York Times and other media outlets reported an unnamed associate of former FBI Director James Comey said Comey kept detailed notes of conversations he had with the president, including one conversation in which Comey reportedly wrote that Trump said, “I hope you can let this go,” in reference to the FBI’s investigation of Flynn.

    Ah, another anonymous “source”.

    I once worked, briefly, with a known misogynist who told me, in a private meeting in his office, that I was the “token c**t”in the company and he would either drive me out or find a way to fire me, and then smirked “And don’t even try to come back on me with this because I keep detailed notes of every conversation I have with you that will contradict anything you say”. I just moved on to a better job but I never forgot the message that “detailed notes” can only mean notes on what the note-taker will want to support later.

    And why would Comey only take “detailed notes” of conversations he had “with the president” if he wasn’t trying to set Trump up? People who take contemporaneous notes of conversations, as I have done, do it for all conversations. That is the point—to establish a baseline not only of consistency but of accuracy. When such notes are put into evidence, there are some standards. Pages in a notebook are actually counted, and if the book originally contained 100 pages and the book now has only 97, the notes are not considered evidence, as this indicates the possibility of selective editing.

    A comment on the article said, of a conversation between Tucker Carlson and Alan Dershowitz, Alan stated that even if Trump said to Comey, ”If you have something criminal, present it; if you don’t, move on.” I don’t know where Alan got this quote or reference, but it is the kind of comment that can easily be edited to show something other than what it actually meant. After all the years of howling from the Left that a statement or act was “taken out of context” one might think that the same standard would apply to the other side.

    BTW, the Blaze has sunk into a morass of hyper-emotive hyperbole. Every statement “destroys” someone, or something like that. I found Rubio’s comment to be mild, hardly “masterful”.

    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/21/did-trump-obstruct-justice-marco-rubio-delivers-masterful-response-to-cnn-question

Comments are closed.