Moderate Conservatives Struggle With Irony

There has been a plethora of concern trolling from the centre and centre-right in the US and the Anglosphere about the left protesting about Trump and/or the alt-Right and/or Milotroll*

It goes something like this:

Oh, you awful leftists! Have you not learnt anything! This is how Trump won in the first place!


Let’s step back a moment. What EXACTLY did Trump win in the first place? [Hint: it involved an elephant] ….OK…times up.

In the first place what Trump won was the Republican Party Nomination.

And who did he beat? Terrible leftist protestors? No. He beat a complete spectrum of conservatives – none of whom (except briefly and temporarily, Chris Christie) stood up to him or challenged him. This was on top of years of the centre-right not offering much in a way of challenge to the growing detached-from-reality wing of the GOP.

We all saw in 2016 how the policy of polite engagement and diplomatic appeasement worked as a strategy for the people who now prescribe the same solution for everybody else.

It’s not the left’s job to engage the right or make the right feel comfortable or to address their insecurities, feels, or sense of political decorum.

Trump won ‘in the first place’ because the right sold its principles to religious bigots and fossil fuels.

*[who may be being disappeared by the alt-right as we speak]



  1. JJ

    Gah, I’m so tired of that argument: “We conservatives voted to put into the highest office of the land an incompetent, tantrum-throwing imbecile, and it’s all you liberals’ fault that we behaved like assholes in doing so!!!”

    It’s time that conservatives started taking responsibility for their own horrible choices instead of trying to blame them on others. 😐


      • peer sylvester

        Some time ago, conservatives in my country had the chance to stop a madman to get in the highest possible position. They said: “Better him, than anyone from the left!” They said “The checks and balances of our country will make sure he wont be able to able his power” they said “The position will change him, make him more esponsible”.
        So they didnt stop him. The votes of the Left were not enough to stop him. It didnt end well.

        The irony is: In my opinion the left is much more diverse and they are much more prone to infighting then the right. The “Left” is so fragmented, that its rare that they are actually forming a front against (or for) something – think the Sanders/Hillary -divide. The right is more loyal to other rights, more prone to “Well, we have to follow him, no matter what – Its OUR side!”.Probably thats why they expected the left to have stopped a madman, when it was their turn to do so. Back then as well as now.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ligne

        “the left is much more diverse and they are much more prone to infighting then the right.”

        i definitely agree with the second point, but i think there is a fair amount of diversity within the right. the main difference i see is that the libertarian wing of the party is perfectly happy to support the authoritarians (both the “i like strong leaders like Putin and Saddam Hussein”-ers and the theocrats) so long as they have an opportunity to gut social programs and cut taxes.


  2. Mark

    It’s also an argument that tends to be a bit SFnal, often requiring either time travel or precognition to vote based on other people’s future reactions.