By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, November 11, 2016
Last week I wrote, “Long ago, I made peace with the fact
that this election will yield one form of ass ache or another.”
So, I fully expected to wake up the day after the
election depressed and walking like the proctologist refused to take off the
catcher’s mitt. Instead, to my gleeful surprise and my detractors’ apparent
dyspeptic dismay, I’m in a great mood.
When I took out my laptop this morning to peck out my
epistolary musings, it was like the sound track to Born Free was playing in the background.
Part of it is, obviously, the unbridled joy I feel at
seeing the fetid carapace of House Clinton torn down. To have the country say
to these conniving mercenaries “Pack your knives and go” will have me whistling
zippity-doo-dah out of my nethers for a very long time. I always wanted Hillary
to lose (and my predictions about her electoral vulnerabilities were, if I do
say so myself, exactly right). I was just discomfited by the ramification of
Trump winning.
But there’s something else going on.
You see, I spent eight years as a columnist and National Review writer during the George
W. Bush administration — and it was work. When your side is in power, the pull
to defend your team is strong. Oh, I criticized Bush about plenty of things.
Barely a week went by when I didn’t accuse Bush of spending money like a “pimp
with a week to live” (a line Bill Maher stole from me, by the way). But when
the country is at war and what is supposed to be the loyal opposition starts to
lose its mind viciously slandering a wartime president for prosecuting a war
many of them initially supported, it’s hard not to rally to the guy’s defense.
And more generally, it’s just a lot more fun to be on
offense. Anyone who read The American
Spectator or listened to Rush in the ’90s knows what I mean. When you’re on
offense the perfect is your ally in any argument against not only the good, but
the bad and the lousy.
Bring Out the
Unicorn
For example, when Bush was president, progressive
arguments about health-care reform were all remarkably abstract.
The beautiful
unicorn we want to give you will solve everything. The glow of its shiny coat
will make you feel secure. The medicinal effects of its Mountain Dew–like urine
will cure everything that ails you. It will sh** gold you can pocket as
savings.
We were supposed to all live longer, have kazillions of
new jobs, and — according to, say, Nancy Pelosi — all of those plumbers and
welders who secretly wanted to be poets would finally be lifted from the
“job-locked” bondage of their prosaic vocations.
But it turned out that when progressives led the unicorn
by the bit out of its sun-dappled meadow in the Platonic realm of ideals into
the cold light of reality, it turned into a flatulent three-legged mule with a
lazy eye and a tendency to kick (which is most impressive for a three-legged
mule). And all of the smart-set wonks, Voxers,
and academics who’d not only insisted they had all the answers but that their
critics were morons and scrooges, suddenly had to defend the gassy beast.
Instantly, the sage Jonathan Gruber, who once rolled his eyes at any suggestion
he hadn’t thought of everything, was reduced to arguing, “No, no. That smell is
proof it’s working!”
The Sore Winners
Can’t Move On
Well, now Donald Trump is going to be president. His
supporters are understandably ecstatic. But that ecstasy hasn’t prevented some
of them from being very sore winners, which is a much uglier thing than being a
sore loser. (And I must say, Trump deserves praise for resisting the urge to
rub it in when he won. I’m told that was not the approach some on his staff
wanted).
Newt Gingrich, for example, is railing against
Republicans who didn’t rally to Trump as “whiny, sniveling negative cowards.”
He wants the Never Trump crowd to “drift off into the ashbin of history while
we go ahead and work with Donald Trump and with the House and Senate
Republicans to create a dramatically new future.”
I find this both sad and hilarious coming from Newt.
Gingrich’s revolt against George H. W. Bush was instrumental in making him a
one-term president. Now, I agreed with Newt on the substance of his
disagreement, but I find his passion about partisan loyalty to be awfully
selective. The same holds for his almost surgical moral outrage at sexual
impropriety. He spent much of the closing months of the election arguing that
Donald Trump’s sexual misdeeds were trivialities but the sexual misdeeds of
Bill Clinton (the man he helped impeach largely over sexual misdeeds)
disqualified his wife for the job of president. Feel free to diagram that argument
in your free time.
But, this isn’t all that startling. By Newt’s own
account, he’s always seen himself as a revolutionary, and when revolutionaries
win, their first recourse is to purge ideological allies who refused to be
partisan allies. The first to go under the Bolsheviks (other than the
aristocracy) were the Mensheviks.
The Half-Life of
Honeymoons
So, where was I? Oh right. The Trump team is ecstatic —
and they have every right to be. They pulled it off. The philosophical and
political sacrifices they made, the grief they took: It was all worth it.
Congrats!
But now they have to lead their own herd of shiny
unicorns into the light of day. For example, Trump vowed that, if elected, he
would make “make
every dream you ever dreamed for your country come true.”
Now, if you know anything — anything! — about
conservatism, or human nature, or just plain reality, then you know in your
heart this is balderdash of the highest order. It’s a less poetic version of
Obama’s crazy talk about reversing the rise of the oceans because “we are the
ones we’ve been waiting for.”
As I’ve been writing for years and years, politics can’t
immanentize the eschaton any more than basset hounds can fly or Bill Clinton’s
gaze can resist the tractor-beam pull of a nice rack.
Utopianism says there are no hard choices, no sacrifices,
no compromises. All your dreams — all of them! — can come true. Populism, to
paraphrase Bart Simpson, says if you think there are no easy answers you’re not
looking hard enough. If we have our way, There Will Be So Much Winning that
people will start complaining about the winning surplus. Populist utopianism is
like a plane without landing gear, there’s no way it can come down to earth
without crashing.
To borrow a phrase from Barack Obama — who always saw
dark forces out there barring him from rhetorical transparency — let me be
clear: I do not think it is guaranteed
that Trump’s presidency will be unalloyed disaster, with wreckage strewn across
a continent-spanning crash site (though I hardly rule it out, either).
No, my point is simply that Trump now must govern.
Rhetorically, Trump promised unicorns as far as the eye can see. He essentially
vowed that we could rewind the movie of the last 50 years. Lost jobs would come
flying back like the pieces of a shattered vase reassembling as the video plays
in reverse. He promised his own nationalist version of Hillary Clinton’s
politics of meaning, where all our insecurities and resentments would be
mollified and revenged. That won’t happen.
It won’t happen because Trump must now deal with the
tools and materials of the real world. To govern is to choose — and economics
is the science of competing preferences.
We can already see how Team Trump is trying to
orchestrate a controlled landing. Just yesterday, Newt was explaining to the
sort of clients his boss has been demonizing as system-riggers that we probably
won’t get quite the big beautiful wall Trump promised and that Mexico might not
actually pay for it.
Don’t get me wrong: I think this is fine. Though I will
not shirk from also saying it was inevitable — despite the fact that for months
if you even suggested that Trump might not bring in the whole herd of unicorns
you got an earful from the Gingrich crowd.
In other words, if Trump is going to be a successful
president — and I hope he is one — he will have to start disappointing his
biggest fans. For example, he would be a fool if he indulged the Bannonites in
an effort to destroy Paul Ryan. A successful first hundred days absolutely requires
teamwork with the party leadership. Launching a civil war among Republicans
would be incandescently stupid.
Similarly, as I predicted, he appears fast at work in
hammering out a deal on infrastructure with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. I’m
actually not opposed to an infrastructure package per se, depending on the
details, though I’m very skeptical about the Keynesian assumptions behind such
things. I also think it’s hilariously ironic that the first big priority after
a GOP victory might end up being . . . a New Deal–style jobs bill.
But my point here is simply that whatever choices he
makes now will, as a matter of epistemological, metaphysical, and ontological
fact, require trade-offs, concessions, and compromises. That’s fine with me
because I never remotely believed he could bring in the unicorn herd in the
first place. I knew, and still know, that whatever he delivers will at best be
a few nice horses, and a good number of farty mules.
I still worry deeply and sincerely about the future of
the country and the conservative movement on Trump’s watch, for all the reasons
I’ve been spelling out for over a year. The GOP is having a historic political
revival, but the conservative movement is heading into a crisis.
You Own This
But as for me personally, and very much to my surprise, I
am loving this. I have zero ownership
of Donald Trump. This is the one area where I am in full agreement with Newt
and Laura and Sean and that whole crowd. I never bought, as a matter of logic,
that I would “own” a Clinton presidency, but I certainly understand as a matter
of political and psychological perception that a great many people — including
many friends — would feel otherwise.
But now it’s all on them. They own Trump. I don’t. Never
Trump is over — by definition. Saying you were “Never Trump” only ever meant
that you wouldn’t vote for him or endorse him. We didn’t. He won anyway.
Congrats. But now those of us who held the line are liberated. I will gladly
and enthusiastically applaud when and if Trump does the right thing on judges,
taxes, spending, etc. If he proves my predictions wrong, I will admit it or, on
occasion, say, “Give it time.” I’ve constantly said that my job is to tell the
truth as I see it. I did that during the election, and I’ll keep doing it going
forward. When I’m wrong about Trump, I’ll be right about my ideology. And when
I’m right about Trump, I’ll be able to say, “I told you so.”
The simple fact is that there is just so much low-hanging
fruit where the scattered Never Trumpers and the victorious Trumpers agree. If
they get rid of Obamacare, replacing it with a plan crafted by Paul Ryan?
Great! If Trump nominates good judges and Mitch McConnell gets them confirmed?
Fan-fricking-tastic. Who has two thumbs and will be ecstatic if Trump delivers
on the Claremonsters’ dream of dismantling the administrative state? This guy. [I’m pointing my thumbs
me-ward.]
But if Trump launches an idiotic and economy-wrecking
trade war, I’ll hie to my well-stocked larder and say, “I told you so.” If his
second Supreme Court appointment is a disaster (I think his first will be
great, of necessity), I will pop a fresh batch of popcorn and watch to see who
steps up to defend Trump’s betrayal. I’m going to have a great time no matter
what.
Good Luck Carrying
That Load
You can’t say the same about the ranch hands who’ve
promised to help bring in the unicorn herd. In fact, I actually feel a little
sorry for the Bannon crowd. Not only will they be deprived of their TV network,
they will have to wake up every morning wondering, “What is this guy going to
make me defend today?” The first wave of disappointment will probably explode
like a toxic algae bloom among the alt-right racists (particularly if Trump
makes his Jewish son-in-law chief of staff). I suspect the avowed
“nationalists” will wait a while longer to see what Trump does on immigration.
I am more hopeful that the pro-tax-reform crowd won’t be so disappointed, but
time will tell.
But whichever tribe of Trump Nation we’re talking about,
my guess is that their glee is likely to have an inverse relationship with
Trump’s approval ratings in early 2017 and beyond. Trump’s bottomless yearning
for praise and popularity (and, possibly once he’s president, good press in the
mainstream media) will likely triumph in any contest with ideological rigor. We
can already see that in his entirely laudable cooperation and praise for Obama
yesterday.
Trump Nation
Versus America
This raises one last very important point (if I say so
myself). The “Trump coalition” that put him in office does not necessarily want
what Trump’s biggest fans want. Sixty-one percent of the voters didn’t think
Trump was qualified to be president, but many of them voted for him anyway. A
sizable number of his voters said they want the next president to be more liberal. A huge number of voters said
they were holding their noses and voting for Trump because they couldn’t stand
Hillary.
Politically, this could be a real advantage for Trump,
because it suggests that if he actually governs as a relatively “normal”
president with an eye to his approval ratings, voters will be reassured. The
fears and low expectations of the American people give him maneuvering room.
I sincerely hope he moves in the right directions. But
any direction he does move is likely to leave some of his biggest fans behind,
sticking them with the painful choice of finally standing their ground on their
professed principles or continuing to run after the Trump Train wherever it
goes.
Meanwhile, I’ll be right here with my popcorn.
No comments:
Post a Comment