As a conservative, one of my big frustrations over the past decade has been the willingness (and even eagerness) of self-described conservatives to support and defend initiatives and rhetoric from Donald Trump that are antithetical to conservatism.
I’ve offered countless examples of this over the years (including very recently), so I won’t run back through the list again. But my biggest problem with this tribal inclination is that it conflates the wisdom and successes of fusionist conservatism (that has greatly benefited our nation) with the unprincipled whims, musings, and posturing of a single individual whose actions have steadily chipped away at it.
We’re at the point that authentically conservative ideas (as they were widely understood from the 1950s up until the Trump era) have largely been eradicated from the Republican Party.
This has done an enormous disservice to our the country, the evidence of which presents itself in every sobering glance at the national-debt clock, our government taking equity stakes in dozens of private companies, a self-defeating trade war, the needless alienation of longtime allies, a rising abortion rate, select culture battles, and almost daily displays of federal corruption and executive abuses — many of the rationalizers and blame-shifters of which call themselves “conservatives.”
So yeah, it’s all pretty irritating to me.
What I don’t believe, however, is that the mislabeling has been done out of spite, mockery, or conscious disrespect for conservatism and conservatives. I think it’s instead a convenient rhetorical fallback that lots of people have grown accustomed to, are comfortable identifying themselves with, and continue to use mostly out of habit.
I can not say the same of other activity that comes out of Trump World. It often seems as if the president and his team are conducting some type of social experiment, in the vein of the movie “Trading Places,” in which they’re determined to see just how foolish and hypocritical they can make their most loyal defenders look.
It’s no secret that Trump and company pay very close attention to the narratives and discussions that take off in the right-wing media (heck, they shape many of them). They’re keenly aware of what types of conduct, when displayed by prominent Democrats, are found especially outrageous and contemptible by pro-Trump audiences. Thus, it’s remarkable how often they not only exhibit the same conduct themselves, but ratchet it up to a far more contemptible and outrageously corrupt degree… with the clear (and well-founded) expectation that their passionate supporters will either ignore it, or full-throatedly defend it.
There are many examples of this, but two recent stories illustrate the practice quite well.
We all know the saga of President Biden’s degenerate son, Hunter. Beyond the drug abuse, tax evasion, and exhaustively recorded sexual promiscuity is a guy who spent years trying to cash in on his dad’s name. During the Obama era, there were clear instances of Hunter at least attempting to sell foreign energy companies access to his vice-president father. That revelation later became a major, years-long, Republican and right-wing-media line of attack against Joe Biden, the Biden administration, and what was often referred to as the “Biden crime family.”
Sean Hannity alone, on his Fox News show, aired over 300 segments on Hunter Biden’s corruption, including how Hannity believed it implicated President Biden.
Fast-forward just a few years…
Last May, Donald Trump’s son, Don Jr., got married on a private island in the Bahamas. Some observers found it odd at the time that the patriarch of the Trump family — our president — wasn’t in attendance. What wasn’t known until very recently was that the lavish event was secretly paid for, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, by a Russian oligarch named Umar Kremlev.
Kremlev has a long criminal history, and has been personally sanctioned by Ukraine for his role in the abduction of Ukrainian children. He has control over major automotive and gambling assets, and perhaps more notably has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Not only did Kremlev fork over a six-figure sum to assure the Trump family had a marriage-kickoff they’ll never forget. He was also a guest at the event, the attendees of which the Trump newlyweds have described as a small group of close friends and family.
As Propublica reported, “Kremlev’s previously unreported relationship with Trump Jr. represents an extraordinary development: a member of Putin’s circle financially supporting the president’s son and gaining intimate access to the Trump family… For a decade, Putin’s government, regarded as a chief adversary of the U.S., has been accused of efforts to influence American elections… National security experts expressed alarm at Trump Jr. accepting the oligarch’s largesse, saying it raised an urgent question: What motivated Kremlev to spend a fortune cultivating the connection?”
One of those national security experts is retired FBI official Frank Montoya Jr., who told Propublica, “If I’m paying for your wedding, at some point, you’re going to owe me something… This should be unthinkable for the son of the president. End of story.”
But as we’ve learned countless times in this political era, things that were previously considered unthinkable are now just commonplace… as are the tribal obligations to overlook or defend the indefensible. Case in point, as of the time I’m writing this, Sean Hannity has yet to publicly even mention the Kremlev story. In fact, the story has received only one brief mention (less than a minute of air-time) on all of Fox News, and that was by Bret Baier.
The same has largely been true outside of Fox, with Ben Shapiro being one of the very few Trump-friendly commentators who’s bothered to respond to the controversy.
The other recent news-story of note is President Trump’s vow to send every adult U.S. citizen a check for $5,000 if — and only if — Republicans keep both the Senate and House in the midterm elections. This has received a lot of attention on the political right. But rather than framing the ploy as a shameless act of bribery, income redistribution, or socialism (the way righties justifiably described President Biden’s student-loan forgiveness efforts), many prominent right-wing commentators have twisted themselves into the rhetorical pretzels to defend it.
“It’s not a bribe because it’s not done in secret,” Fox News’s Greg Gutfeld insisted the other day. “If it’s in public, it’s a deal. And it’s not a bribe if it’s your money… Meanwhile, the Dems… it’s always other people’s money — that’s where it’s socialism. They promise people who aren’t paying taxes that they’re going to get more money. That’s socialism.”
Gutfeld’s nonsensical, fact-averse defense was widely mocked online, with a number of people pointing out that almost half of the Americans who’d receive a $5,000 check, under Trump’s “deal,” pay no federal income taxes. Another 20-25% pay less than $5,000 a year. In other words, by Gutfeld’s own definition, it would, in fact, be socialism. It would also be a bribe — at least according to the Greg Gutfeld of 2022, who routinely applied the term to Biden’s student loan stunt (which, like Trump’s proposal, was “not done in secret”).
“Kind of amazing that Gutfeld thinks Fox viewers are stupid enough to believe this,” remarked Vanity Fair’s Aidan McLaughlin. “Just extraordinary contempt for your audience.”
Indeed. And it’s not just contempt. It’s also mockery of those who’ve placed their trust in him.
Unsurprisingly, Sean Hannity defended the socialist bribe as well, calling concerns over the $1.2 trillion of additional national-debt required for the plan’s implementation to be an “intellectually lazy argument.”
Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy marveled at “how creative and rule-breaking and out of the box President Trump is.” She added, “I'm surprised no one has thought of this before.”
In reality, lots of politicians have thought of bribing voters… just like lots of political commentators have (at the behest of politicians, political movements, and business models) displayed breathtaking hypocrisy and hackery that disrespects their audience.
But audiences don’t have to go along with the nonsense. Neither do political constituencies. No one’s forcing anyone to reduce themselves to mindless political servants. That’s a choice. And when it comes to choices, it’s always better — at least in the realm of politics — to choose principles over people.
The former preserves your credibility and dignity. The latter compels you to surrender both.
"The other recent news-story of note is President Trump’s vow to send every adult U.S. citizen a check for $5,000 if — and only if — Republicans keep both the Senate and House in the midterm elections."
Of note, Bill O'Reilly said it's not a bribe because the recipients don't have to do anything, i.e. there's no quid pro quo. REALLY? Does Mr. O'Reilly think his base viewers are that stupid? Or maybe he thinks they'll want to believe his remark so much that they'll accept it without question? Or maybe Mr. O'Reilly is willfully dense when it comes to his old buddy Donald Trump.
He promised that at the so-called Mid-Term Convention when he was urging the audience - those in attendance especially but also viewers and those getting their info from right-wing screechers - to not only vote Republican but to canvass for Republicans and, yes, to vote more than once. Although on this last statement, his hardcore supporters will say "he was only joking." But he's the President of the United States delivering a primetime speech!
Although those included in his bribe were those not voting Republican, obviously for the Republicans to win the mid-terms there'd have to be collective and feverous activity.
If the bigwigs in the Democratic Party leap tall buildings to deliver the mid-terms to the Republicans, will President Trump's hardcore supporters say "He was only joking" when he reneges on his promise?
I often wonder how many people who identify as Republicans, even before the Trump era, if asked, could clearly articulate what conservatism actually is.
I think for many people, they pick a "team" at some point in their life, based on some burning issue of the day - more likely than not, a social/cultural issue, (e.g. gay marriage, or biological men playing in women's sports, or gun control).
Once they've chosen a team, they seek out media that is on the same team, and that becomes their primary source of news/information. So the tribal mentality (i.e. rooting for the team) is reinforced continuously.
It also gives them permission to stop thinking. After all, gathering information on complex issues in order to formulate an informed, principled, position is time consuming, and can be hard (or frankly boring). It's much easier to just parrot what the leaders of your chosen team (party) say, and accept their arguments, without any critical analysis, or hypocrisy checking.