I asked a successful businessman the other day what he thought about Donald Trump. He turned his thumb down. Wow. "Are you going to vote for Hillary?" I asked with trepidation. "Of course not," he replied, almost insulted by the question. "I understand the concept of a binary decision."
I got a similar response when I asked oil magnate T. Boone Pickens whether he would vote for Trump. He looked at me with a quizzical expression and replied: "Well, who else is there to vote for?"
Right. Who else is there? Yet, amazingly, a caucus of lifelong Republican politicos in Washington are announcing to the world with defiance and self- righteousness that they will vote for Hillary Clinton.
They are mostly former Mitt Romney and George W. Bush operatives. They lost, and now they want people to believe that their anti-Trumpism is a principled act of heroism. They ingratiate themselves to The New York Times, Washington Post and team Clinton -- the sworn enemies of free markets and conservative values.
Somehow this doesn't offend their moral compass.
I certainly don't mean to disparage conservatives who say they won't vote for Trump. One's vote is a matter of personal conscience. But to actively support Clinton is to put the other team's jersey on and then run a lap around the stadium.
It's worth examining the case of the Republicans for Clinton, because none of the arguments make much sense.
First, many say that Trump can't win, that it's hopeless. These are the same political geniuses who a year ago assured us that Trump could never win a primary (he won most of them), then that he couldn't win 50 percent of the vote (he did), then that he couldn't win 50 percent outside of New York (he did), then that he couldn't win a majority of the delegates (he did). On every occasion, the Trump haters were wrong. How about a little humility, since they are batting 0.00?
The "Trump can't win" mantra isn't just wrong; it's subversive. Of course he can win. He is running against Hillary Clinton, for goodness' sakes. So why do they say this? Because the never-Trumpers want Trump to lose, because he is to the political class (Republicans and Democrats) the disruptor that Uber is to taxicab drivers.
Second is the complaint by some economists that Trump can't be supported because he is not for free trade. Longtime Washington insider Vin Weber reportedly has said: "The world economic order and the Republican Party" would be "all in shambles" if Trump wins. "I think markets would collapse."
Really? Hillary Clinton flip-flops every day on free trade, so why is it that only Trump would cause a recession? He doesn't get that the Trump movement is a revolt against the world order.
Meanwhile, Trump is calling for the biggest tax cuts and reforms since Reagan. He supports massive regulatory relief and school choice. Trump wants to kill Obamacare. On energy, Trump wants a pro-America drilling policy. Clinton wants to soak the rich, increase the debt, stop energy development, expand entitlements and double down on Obamacare. How is this a difficult choice for a free marketeer?
Third, the Trump haters say we must throw Trump under the bus and concentrate on saving the Senate and House.
This is a foolhardy strategy, because one can't win without the other. As economist Donald Luskin puts it in his historical analysis of presidential races and Senate gains: "It is clear from history that the House and the Senate move in the same party direction as the White House, and with the same magnitude. That means the presidential candidate is like a boat that congressional candidates are riding on. It's really stupid to torpedo that boat."
Finally, there is the view expressed by Bret Stephens, my former colleague at The Wall Street Journal, who wants to "make sure Trump is the biggest loser in presidential history" so that we can "rebuild the conservative movement."
If Obama/Clinton win a third straight presidential race, there won't be a conservative movement left to rebuild. The Republicans will move to the left. Worse, for Obama to effectively win a third term will validate all of the destructive policies of the last eight years. This will be one of the greatest victories for liberal governance of all time.
Do the "never-Trumpers" want to facilitate that? Do they want to hand the left its greatest victory for liberal governance of all time? If they do, they are the unforgivable betrayers of conservative principles
Ryan Grim explains why some Republicans think Never-Trumpers are missing the point – and why they should keep their “commercial self-interest masquerading as ideological purity” to themselves.
Every day of the Donald Trump campaign seems to bring with it a new article about an establishment Republican whose conscience can’t bear to back the reality TV star.
For those who haven’t made that decision, these relentless news items are starting to smart. Some Washington Republicans wish these folks and their consciences would shut up.
…
One establishment Republican, who like Geduldig is a former aide to House GOP leadership, said that many of the defectors had already defected. “Looks like she gave to Obama in 2008,” he said (accurately) of Westine. “Weird, I don’t remember The Washington Post covering her endorsement then.”
Another member of the GOP establishment, who also offered his criticism anonymously, called the public parade of conscience “commercial self-interest masquerading as ideological purity.”
A fourth Washington Republican, who is voting for Trump but doing so quietly, lamented:
“The slick moral preening in the media by former Bushies and NeverTrumpers at bottom reflects their desperate need to be accepted in the liberals’ putative morally superior universe. Thus their public shaming of Trump and his supporters has nothing to do with the Republican Party or conservatism ? the latter of which they know very little, as evidenced by the egregious big-government achievements that they enabled and advanced in the Bush administration. What they really want is to be liked by their enemies. And oh yes: to assure their well-paying clients who may be thinking of cutting them loose that they are on the side of the right and the true. It’s all so pathetic and disgusting.”
That assessment is shared by others around K Street, albeit not for attribution.
Read the rest of the article here.
When Hell freezes over!
He doesn't have that in him.
Sorry, but Trump doesn't need your tainted vote.
I am not going to apologizes for anything thy slithering dishonest butt-hurt seven mountain nationalists feel jilted about, same goes for the establishment boot lickers along with the Hillary enablers and their crystal ball predictions...
Ly'n Ted is nothing more than a big money establishment pious carnival barker controlled by wall street,now he's nothing more than a has-been who will go back to the Washington cartel when he loses his senate seat and Heidi will go back to Goldman Sachs at the same time if not sooner.
So nice to see the feeble ankle biter is still at it.
Could be Clinton does pay well.... very well.....
If they think that their undies are in a wad now, just wait until Hellary is President, then those undies will be jammed up to their throat. But wait...they'll still have their "principles"!!!
Well la-de-fricken'-da.
I hope they know that their actions in this election are INSURING that many of us will NEVER, EVER cast a vote again for any of them, or the people they endorse, and I don't give a crap what they claim to profess (for now) to believe.
They've shown their true colors and are sticking the knife in...deep.
Other than Hellary not being President, the best part if Trump wins is the symbolic "**** YOU!!" to the above mentioned sh*tbags.
I am still trying to decide if trump is like slade.
Unbelievable.....
Sorry, but honest discussion and your twaddle is about as worthless at Ly'n Ted and his Seven Mountain brigadiers. Go pee down someone else's leg.
I hope you realize that Trump's "new" immigration position is just the same as Jeb's and Rubio's was. You know, the same Jeb and the same Rubio who we pilloried mercilessly over their support for Amnesty.....
-Ridiculously false and you know it. What you don't or won't see is that people are PRAYING for a reason to vote for the GOP candidate. Any reason that would, unfortunately, contradict what sober study and rational evaluation reveals: that the candidate in question is a frothing-at-the-mouth leftist with a rudimentary but emotionally effective toolbag of lies.
-So what is the point of this thread but to persuade? Your clumsy bludgeoning aside, that is the best, most productive motive you could have. If not that, what? To convict? To condemn?
I won't speak for HA but my take is that he wanted to see some evidence of rational perspective from you to vote for Trump because, like it or not, folks have a legitimate fear that there is none in the Trump camp. Every time you post this dishonest nonsense, you only reinforce the appearance of personality cultism.
If Trump croaks before the election I will vote for him....otherwise it is not looking good.
Henry is an idealist and a dreamer. Unfortunately, that dream ain't coming true.
Nice spin twist & deflect, HA offered his vote for sale/trade. So either all this BS about morals & convictions is pure poppycock or once again someone was being disingenuous at best.
If you do not like the articles I post, then simply do not read them, no one asked for your pontificating twaddle nor do I care. So take your butt-hurt crystal ball elsewhere, find a safe space where thy negative nancy's can PRAY to your lessor god with thy lack of faith.
Nothing but spineless sheeple, cry for change then quiver when it's upon them.
PS: Anyone who calls Trump a leftist and then has the gall to promote those two Libertarian ninnies has zip,zero,nada credibility.
I believe there are several on here that I truly admire, that think it violates their morality to vote for Trump. And though I appreciate their principles, since they are the same principles I live my life by, I fail to understand how they justify the act of voting in such a way that ensures the worst outcome.
I would truly like to hear a reasoned explanation for not voting for the one most likely to encourage the best outcome.
Again, T-pro-life, pro-smaller govt, pro-limited govt,, pro-2nd amendment, pro-tough on illegal immigrants, anti-obamacare, pro-lower taxes......while Clinton is the antithesis of these things.
Perhaps the same way Christian martyrs me their outcome. Instead of denying who they were and what they stood for, the voted in a manner that ensured the worse possible outcome. At least physically.... Burned at the stake, drawn & quartered, racked, crucified, beheaded....
"Again, T-pro-life, pro-smaller govt, pro-limited govt,, pro-2nd amendment, pro-tough on illegal immigrants, anti-obamacare, pro-lower taxes......while Clinton is the antithesis of these things."
And until a few short years ago, Trump was the antithesis as well.
Either you have principles and a moral center..... or you don't. Trumps' not gonna lose because of the #butthurtnevertrumpers. He's gonna lose cuz he's a ****ing loudmouth idiot, whose position is constantly walked back the following day, and is turning off droves of voters. Don't blame me cuz you brought a fat ugly chick to the dance. She's your date, dance with her.
hahahaha...now that's a good post there Bb. This election is essentially already over....Hillary just trying to decide which bedroom in the White House she is gonna make Bill sleep in.....
Glad I could amuse you. Now, tell where I'm wrong. It shouldn't be hard. Right?
At some point in his adult life, Donald Trump has been on the opposite side of Every. Single. Issue you listed above. He's been on the opposite side of multiple of them just during this campaign!.
If you really believe he is any of those things, you haven't been paying attention. I'm sorry, but that is the truth.
"Perhaps the same way Christian martyrs me their outcome. Instead of denying who they were and what they stood for, the voted in a manner that ensured the worse possible outcome. At least physically.... Burned at the stake, drawn & quartered, racked, crucified, beheaded...."
Ok, this is the principle I referred to in my first post...I get it. It's quite a big stretch, however, to tie ones acknowledgement in the Savior of the world to ones desire to retain personal liberties. Voting for Trump is not to reject Jesus as in your example. And voting for Trump won't cause one to lose ones life or salvation. The Bible does tell us to pray for our leaders, however.
"And until a few short years ago, Trump was the antithesis as well."
I'll give you that but it seems he has changed his position on a number of things. Do I know for sure he will make good on these positions, NO. But I DO KNOW for sure the Hildabeast won't and a reasonable person will come to the same conclusion. He is not a king, so he will have to approve votes that come his way. If congress stays even slightly conservative, that bodes well for the things important to us.
"Either you have principles and a moral center..... or you don't. Trumps' not gonna lose because of the #butthurtnevertrumpers. He's gonna lose cuz he's a ****ing loudmouth idiot, whose position is constantly walked back the following day, and is turning off droves of voters. Don't blame me cuz you brought a fat ugly chick to the dance. She's your date, dance with her."
I don't like Trump any more than you. I was a Cruz guy all the way but now that we have either Trump or Clinton, we need to pray for what helps conservatives the most and hold whoever it is accountable, that's it. It's not about personality, looks, age, party, preference, or past experience.
Another thing it's about is what will happen to the SC for a generation if Hillary gets in.
"At some point in his adult life, Donald Trump has been on the opposite side of Every. Single. Issue you listed above. He's been on the opposite side of multiple of them just during this campaign!."
Nearly so, Josh, I'll give you that. A lot of that could be said for Reagan, too. The good thing about conservative principles is that they are based on truth and they work. Trump seems to have come around on a number of these principles. Hillary sure hasn't and as a line towing Democrat, likely never will.
I'd like to think that people can change, by the Grace of God, he has changed many people. I like what he did with Reagan. Let's see what he can do with Trump.
After creeping along the road to socialist nirvana for years and then seeing the acceleration of two terms of obamnunism and a future of it being brought to a new level:
...with certain destruction of our Constitutional Republic via living document justices at all levels of the federal judiciary.
...where borders no longer exist and invaders cross the border and are given handouts paid for by the taxpayer.
...where basic morality and religious freedoms are quashed by Presidential dictate.
...where faceless bureaucrats impose law and regulations upon the people not passed by Congress.
...where koranderthals are imported and given special considerations WRT their religion in spite of conflict with our laws.
...where the PIC (political industrial complex)lives under a separate system of justice--culminating where the Democrat candidate for the office of the Presidency has been documented selling access to government officials to foreign governments and special interests.
...etc,
Perhaps a business man can actually have a "come to God" realization and stand up for an oppressed citizenry.
Not saying that this is true for Trump--but in spite of his documented past, what if he actually wants to attempt to reverse the course that our country has been set by our political elite?
I've been setting up a new computer today and reading some old files and came across some that made me wonder:
What would we think if GJ were to post an apology and retraction of his legacy comment (TBVIEC)? How would many here react?
There have been comments made about personal moral stances...and with well reasoning. Does not a high moral position allow for forgiveness and redemption? Isn't it taught to hate the sin and not the sinner?
I think it was sundowner elsewhere made it clear that this country is at a point where we have just two choices...Hillary or Trump--both are terrible, but one is more certainly "terribler". There was a link the last couple of days (Drudge?)that America is loosing faith in God...
Maybe that is why there is no forgiveness or belief that Trump might be actually serious about "making America great again".
For josh's clarification: this post was NOT an endorsement of Trump, but a view that has not been addressed. My vote for Trump is and always will be a vote for #nothillary because there is no other alternative.
I also believe that there are valid reasons to not vote for him.
I cannot fathom ANY valid reason to vote for hilary.
No, actually, it couldn't, because by the time we elected Reagan President, he had a significant record as a Republican and as a Conservative. Plus, as I said elsewhere, even as a Democrat, Reagan believed in a lot of Conservative principles.
"Trump seems to have come around on a number of these principles."
Deep down in your gut, can you honestly tell me there is reason to believe he actually, sincerely has, or are you just giving him the benefit of the doubt because he claims to believe in some of these things? Because see, I have a real problem giving a serial liar the benefit of the doubt on ANYthing, I just expect them to lie. And Trump never disappoints.
"but a view that has not been addressed"
Yeah, actually, it has. Quite a few times.
The Bible says you will know Christians by their fruits. All I see from Trump is rotten fruit.
And what is this "forgiveness" of which you speak? Trump knows nothing of that, he has said himself that he has never asked God for forgiveness.
When Trump stops acting like a Con Man, Snake Oil Salesman and Grifter, and starts talking about Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitution on a regular basis, like he knows what they mean and actually loves the principles this country was founded upon, then and only then will I even consider that maybe he has changed from the man that he has always been.
But I'm not holding my breath.
I know it is getting more and more painful for you and others to defend him so you're reaching, grasping, hoping for anything to hang your hat and your hopes upon, but in the end Trump is just going to make you look like fools, like almost everyone who defends him and then he uses up for his purposes and discards them. The phrase for that is "Useful Idiots". Nancy Pelosi once claimed that we would have to pass Obamacare to see what was in it. I said "Thanks, but No Thanks". You're essentially using the same argument for electing Donald Trump. And, again, I'll say "Thanks, but No Thanks". As I've said 100 times before, he and Hillary are both a manifest disaster, and there is no evidence that one will be better or worse than the other. I'm not voting for either one and then crossing my fingers and hoping I didn't just make a huge mistake.
Have you spent time with his kids?
Opps...peeling, not preening.
Nope, sure haven't. I keep seeing people say how wonderful his kids are...several are Democrats, most of them are working right alongside of him in this Scampaign, and from what Donald has been quoted as saying in the past about raising kids (and him not doing it), I'd say it's very likely that their mother, Ivana, had more of an influence on them than their father did.
You cannot make this stuff up!
Show your work.
Document your case!
What? You can't?
Who knew?
LOL!
BTW, how can a person who's been here since the late '90's be a 'troll?'
You, OTOH, have been here for what, two weeks?
I thought we had this conversation, take the high road and pray for the feeble who have the attention span of a gnat.
-lol, can't make that up. Answer my question slade.
"There have been comments made about personal moral stances...and with well reasoning. Does not a high moral position allow for forgiveness and redemption? Isn't it taught to hate the sin and not the sinner?"
Great point. So, let's say we have a COO that has embezzled thousands or millions of dollars. He's caught, sentenced, pays his dues, admits his guilt. Upon release he seeks a job where he has access to money. You gonna give him the job? Or you gonna wait till he proves himself trustworthy, redeems himself so to speak.
Trump hasn't proved himself a conservative yet. He made the claim on the way to announce his candidacy, but that's a far cry from redemption.
This election is not about political theology, but survival. Liberal judges who look at the Constitution as a piece of paper may well put this country past any point of redemption. Good bye 1A,2A and welcome to Democrat Party rule for for a generation or more.
Sadly, there is only a choice between him and Hillary--one of which will become POTUS.
I have seen no disagreement from any on the CF as to what we can expect should Hillary win.
Unfortunately, there is no opportunity for Trump to prove himself with other than words and perhaps whom he has surrounded himself as advisers and, of course, his list of possible SCOTUS nominees.
"Answer my question slade."
LOL!
No way will THAT happen!
Like it or not, for numerous reasons, conservatism lost in the primaries.
This election is about the survival of this country--not political philosophy.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This from a guy who can't stop saying "Lyin' Ted!"
I swear, you cannot make this stuff up!
This election is about the survival of this country--not political philosophy."
-There is no 'survival' if Trump is the "alternative" to Hillary. That's a pipe dream. Start rationing the ammo and get on with it.
OTOH, a Trump victory would surely kill the GOP as a political party and that is long overdue. I just fear we'll lose a ton of decent congressmen in the aftermath. That would be an incalculable blow. I have also pondered that Trump may be a poisoned pill for entire central political establishment - that his almost assuredly repugnant presence in the system could weaken DC's grip on the American psyche. But that likely will not materialize.
But wait! One arises who did, and who has no fear that her SCOTUS picks will signal the end of the Republic.
And all the other apocalyptic nonsense spouted here.
Or in Liberalspeak.... "compromising"?
"A lot of that could be said for Reagan, too." No, actually, it couldn't, because by the time we elected Reagan President, he had a significant record as a Republican and as a Conservative. Plus, as I said elsewhere, even as a Democrat, Reagan believed in a lot of Conservative principles.
I agree Reagan was elected after a significant record of conservative actions. But let's not forget he was proud Dem, head of a union, and divorced. People can change and any believer knows this.
"Trump seems to have come around on a number of these principles."
Deep down in your gut, can you honestly tell me there is reason to believe he actually, sincerely has, or are you just giving him the benefit of the doubt because he claims to believe in some of these things? Because see, I have a real problem giving a serial liar the benefit of the doubt on ANYthing, I just expect them to lie. And Trump never disappoints.
I've already said I don't know what he ultimately will do. I AM giving him the benefit of the doubt. I also admit it is a difficult position to be in. I was horribly disappointed in some of both Bush's decisions and expect I'll be disappointed in Trump. But where I see absolute utter destruction from Hillary, I at least see some benefit from Trump.
"The Bible says you will know Christians by their fruits. All I see from Trump is rotten fruit."
That's right, Josh. I am not about to make any claims that Trump is a believer. That isn't my business....and it's not yours. He has a fairly lengthy history that could point to the opposite, I'll agree. But no-where in scripture does it say we should only vote for believers and that if a candidate is not a true believer we enact judgement on ourselves by electing the devil personified.
"And what is this "forgiveness" of which you speak? Trump knows nothing of that, he has said himself that he has never asked God for forgiveness."
Josh, you know those commands are given to believers. If Trump is a believer, he'll be held accountable; not, he's got other concerns. Forgiveness is asked of you, brother, not unbelievers.
"When Trump stops acting like a Con Man, Snake Oil Salesman and Grifter, and starts talking about Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitution on a regular basis, like he knows what they mean and actually loves the principles this country was founded upon, then and only then will I even consider that maybe he has changed from the man that he has always been. But I'm not holding my breath."
Fair enough but I'd take care not to throw stones in the meantime.
"I know it is getting more and more painful for you and others to defend him so you're reaching, grasping, hoping for anything to hang your hat and your hopes upon, but in the end Trump is just going to make you look like fools, like almost everyone who defends him and then he uses up for his purposes and discards them. The phrase for that is "Useful Idiots". Nancy Pelosi once claimed that we would have to pass Obamacare to see what was in it. I said "Thanks, but No Thanks". You're essentially using the same argument for electing Donald Trump. And, again, I'll say "Thanks, but No Thanks". As I've said 100 times before, he and Hillary are both a manifest disaster, and there is no evidence that one will be better or worse than the other. I'm not voting for either one and then crossing my fingers and hoping I didn't just make a huge mistake."
Josh, this past paragraph is the stones I speak of. I AM hoping as none of us knows what will ultimately happen if Trump is elected. I am not defending any of Trumps actions nor defending them but neither am I being an enabler for that train wreck we know as Hillary.
I do not see any threatened by a Clinton presidency. For example, even if she were in favor of eviscerating the 2nd Amendment (she is not), she would have to find a SC nominee who has so abandoned the constraints on the judiciary that he or she would ignore precedent -- and have that nominee confirmed. Not very likely.
By the way, look up the term "Useful Idiots" and read the definition. I think if you have an open mind you'll be able to see why some people see GOP voters supporting Trump as playing that role for him. Particularly the ones who have supported him from the beginning.
"I am not defending any of Trumps actions nor defending them but neither am I being an enabler for that train wreck we know as Hillary."
And if you want to talk about not throwing stones....let's start here: you can't say that in voting for Trump you are not defending him or his actions, then in the next breath say by me NOT voting for either of them, I am a Hillary enabler. That does not pass the test of basic Logic.
Heller is an interesting case. the majority found an individual, as opposed to collective, right in the 2nd Amendment. This was a significant departure from precedent, but note that since is strengthened the amendment, it came under little criticism from the right. The dissenters were not seeking to abolish the 2nd, but did not find an individual right in the text. Note that Scalia himself noted that the states and municipalities could still enforce gun control laws, just not as restrictively as DC attempted.
"And if you want to talk about not throwing stones....let's start here: you can't say that in voting for Trump you are not defending him or his actions, then in the next breath say by me NOT voting for either of them, I am a Hillary enabler. That does not pass the test of basic Logic."
Oh, I have to disagree. When I vote for Trump, it will be for his stance against abortion, for quality SC judges, against obamacare, for lower taxes, against overregulation, against illegal trespassers, etc. The only option you get when you hang on the POSSIBILITY that Trump doesn't come through, is Hilliary who you KNOW will dismantle the country.
Perhaps it is you sincerely held belief that Trump is just as bad as Hillary, and for that, perhaps it was too rough to say you are purposely putting Hillary in POTUS chair, but man, even if Trump comes through on half of what he wants, we are still better off.
See Dan, there is the rub. I don't believe Trump is any of the things you say above that he is. You choose to believe his words (even though he has flatly contradicted, DURING the campaign, some of the things above), I choose to believe his actions, and look at the politicians he has supported the most throughout his adult life. All before the scrutiny he knew he'd receive while running for President. I am not willing to take the word of a pathological liar. You are.
;0)
Narcissistic ego is not the same as integrity. Why people STILL take him at his word is a case study in the art of the grift. They WANT to believe... so they do....
Some also believed he was going to deport all illegals and build a giant impenetrable wall, making Mexico pay for it.....
I get it, shut up and eat your crap sandwich..... folks can dig for reasons why it doesn't taste all THAT bad to make themselves feel better. Or maybe some just like the crap and enjoy making others eat it.... burn it down, blow it up.... throw that middle finger out at everybody. Well, good luck, that's what you have now. And you're shocked that everyone isn't happily going along with the menu...
So as to Owl's question... what exactly was the point of this thread in the first place??? In some world that is going to make people crawl in shame to Trump? Or just felt the need to disrespect people... again? Post something on WHY I should vote for this guy. Not "all you people are a-holes that aren't going to vote for him...." boo hoo.
"You make me pull, I'll put you down."
First of all, I'm not even sure what "populist" means. It seems to me to mean someone who believes the people running things are dishonest, self-serving, and inept.
Who disagrees with that? I don't remember, until this very contentious year, conservatives arguing so vigorously that we must Trust our Beloved Government and of course our Venerable White-Jacketed Expert Class.
Before Trump, populism -- generalized, inchoate resistance/defiance of self-proclaimed authority -- was generally acknowledged to be an important and vital part of conservatism. The heat in its blood, actually.
Now a lot of people are screaming about "populism" as if it's Jacobinism or Robspierrism.
But that's not the point of this interesting article. The author here makes the case, effectively, that the left has been deliberately and constantly undermining the pillars of our system of ordered liberty for 70 years, even as they have moved into positions of controlling the institutions they brand as corrupt, imperialist, and racist.
It's like Obama, president of the United States, running as perpetual outsider and external critic of government.
Consider the writing of Ta-Nehisi Coates. If there is anywhere we can look into the heart of the sort of people running the world, it is here. The Left has lauded this author up and down as one of their most outstanding thinkers for his writing on race. I do not wish to enter into the quality of his arguments here. Rather, I want to call attention to the attitude or spirit that pervades his work.
...
I’m a Victim of My Privileged Circumstances
Only the accidents of partisan politics obscure this affinity. Because Coates’ brand of racial politics is typically associated with the progressive movement, we tend to see it as a thing entirely apart from, even antagonistic to, the populist fervor percolating among supposedly conservative groups. But if we peek beneath the superficial postures of left-right politics, we will find the same fundamental mentality evident on both sides of the divide—the same eternal rage against the powers that be. It would no doubt cause Coates and his many besotted admirers horror to learn they are close spiritual kin to the Trumpistas of the world. Nonetheless, it’s true.
Of course, the seething resentment that burns in every paragraph of Coates’ work did not originate with him. This attitude of permanent disaffection has been the primary psychological note of modern progressivism ever since the uprisings of the 1960s. Over the last half-century, even as the Left has conquered one institution after another—the university, the media, the federal bureaucracy—this disposition to revolt has remained the chief feature of the progressive mind.
It is why the people running our civilization have never developed the virtues necessary to carry out their duties adequately. Determined to always think of themselves as persons out of power, they never learned to regard themselves as persons with power, and all the responsibilities power entails. They never learned to imagine the kinds of moral formation that would fit a person for rule, rather than for protest.
This is why we can listen to a close advisor to the president—a woman with access to the most effective levers of power in the world—declare her intention to “speak truth to power.” But as for speaking truth as power, as for directing their policies with the wisdom and prudence requisite to their offices, the populist elite in control of the Western world have never learned how to do this, because their own modes of juvenile self-fashioning have precluded them from ever admitting that they do indeed occupy such offices.
This is the dimension missing from most analyses of our present political circumstances—the historical dimension. We find ourselves saddled with a teetering institutional structure without considering the decades of populist agitation that went into making this wreckage.
-Great show, Justified. Best while Elmore Leonard was alive. Memorable characters and dialogue.
Something to keep in mind.
