More Publius, more Flight 93 Election
My post a couple of days ago on the Publius Flight 93 Election essay drew a hefty amount of discussion, and quite a few people have suggested that I look at a further offering of his: this interview with the writer on essentially the same subject. So now I’m going to tackle it.
My opinion? No, it’s not better than the original essay.
Publius is not a stupid person. On the contrary, he (or she? let’s go with “he”) is very smart, and uses that intelligence to weave a web of argument that just doesn’t make sense to me when I reflect on it. I remain puzzled not only as to why so many people I respect find him persuasive, but also in particular why they think that such reasoning might persuade me. It’s mostly very familiar stuff, the same sort of thing we’ve been hearing about Trump for over a year, trotting out the same old strawmen, the same old assumptions and generalities, and the same omissions.
In the interview, Publius says some very generalized things about “conservatives,” such as this:
We just lived through a summer in which police were targeted simply for being police officers””risking death to protect low income, primarily non-white lives. It wasn’t Trump supporters who were doing that or egging it on. But the Left and its propaganda arm instantaneously disavow any connection between that kind of fringe violence and official leftism or Democratic politics and that norm is enforced….
“The ‘conservatives’ have at least two motives for band-wagoning with this nonsense. One is that they simply don’t understand higher principle anymore, because their whole mindset is unconsciously leftist, so they believe that everything the Left calls “racist” is in fact racist. Oppose more immigration? Racist! Don’t believe the police systematically try to kill blacks? Racist!”
The other is simple cowardice. Conservatives are terrified of being called racist. I don’t know if this is bad conscience or what””maybe at heart they really believe it? Maybe living in all-white neighborhoods perhaps makes them feel guilty. But being called out for it scares them above all so they are always desperate to make public declarations of their purity as non-racists. They think they will get credit from the Left, which of course they never do, but that never stops them from trying.
I had to read that passage several times to even try to comprehend who and what Publius is talking about in it. What conservatives are “band-wagoning” with what “nonsense”? I missed the news of all the conservatives jumping on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon in order to not be called racists. I missed the conservative non-Trump supporters who were “egging on” the police killers or making excuses for them.
Nor does Publius see fit to help us out by naming those conservatives or offering something as concrete as a quote from them. Now, it’s certainly possible that some very moderate GOPe/RINO type said something or other that was a bit hedgy about it; I don’t pretend to have scoured the comments of every single member of the Republican party on the subject (which of course is not the same as conservatives, who seem to be Publius’ target). I can’t escape the notion that Publius has a bee in his bonnet about a couple of pundits and is generalizing to a huge huge group he wants to discredit, and thinks he can get away with it by being vague about it.
Apparently he is correct about that; he’s not only gotten away with it, he’s been highly praised for it and widely read.
As for Publius’ statements about conservatives’ cowardly “terror” at being called racists: that isn’t necessarily cowardice nor are they terrified. If a person is called a racist and knows that he/she is not, why not say one is not, and why? No one in America wants to seem racist or be called racist if that person knows that he/she is not. Hey, actually, even Donald Trump has gone to some pains to deflect the charge of racism. Is he, too, “terrified” about it and a coward?:
“Well, I am not a racist, in fact, I am the least racist person that you’ve ever encountered. I’ll give you an example. It’s funny, I just got this, it was just sent to me by Don King. Now, Don knows more about race than anybody. He owns this newspaper, you know ”” Don’s made a lot of money. He just sent this to me, look at this.”
He handed me a copy of the latest edition of the Call & Post, a black weekly based in Cleveland that King owns. On the back of the paper was a full-page announcement endorsing Trump for president and Bernie Sanders for vice president.
“Isn’t that funny?” Trump continued. “You know, Don endorsed me. You wanna take that back with you? You know, this could be a story…
If it’s a story, it’s a story Publius seemed to miss. He misses it because it suits his argument to miss it, and then he invents another story: that conservatives sympathize with Black Lives Matter and cop killings because they are cowards who are afraid of being called racists, unlike the unafraid Trump.
Publius also claims that “[Trump] wants to assert the right of the sovereign American people to control their government, which is the core constitutional principle… I think the idea that Trump wants to be a tyrant is preposterous.”
I submit that if he thinks that it’s preposterous to disagree with him on that, then he hasn’t been paying attention either to history or to Trump. Of course, Trump may not want to be a tyrant, and it definitely is possible that Trump really does want the American people to control their government. But the idea that Trump wants to be a tyrant (or at least somewhat of a tyrant in terms of executive action and the balance of powers, or to ride roughshod over certain rights such as free speech), and that Trump’s wanting the people to control government is a mere rhetorical device of Trump’s in order for him to gain power, is not the least bit “preposterous.” In fact, I’ve written several posts giving evidence that Trump is quite interested in being a tyrant, such as this and this. Whether you agree with the idea or not, there’s nothing “preposterous” about the notion or having the discussion.
Then Publius makes a statement with which we’re very very familiar—the old “Trump’s the only one who…” argument:
…Trump did something no one else has done in a long time. He broke through the taboo on talking about immigration, trade and economic policy in ways not reflective of Davos-class, administrative state ideology…
All the other “conservatives” who’ve run in the past 20 years either opposed Trump’s take on those questions or ran from them or ignored them.
No, Trump did not break through a taboo on talking tough on immigration. I’ve written several posts about that, the earliest being in October of 2015. No one has talked quite as tough as Trump, it’s true (although it’s a matter of slight degree if you compare him to Cruz, and mostly a matter of tone)—but funny thing, Trump has retreated from just about all the toughest of his initial statements. And who can forgot (of course, Publius has) Trump’s post-2012-election statements about Romney’s “mean-spirited” stance on immigration?:
“Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” the billionaire developer says.
“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump says. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”
Romney’s solution of “self deportation” for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.
“He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”
The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.
Moving right along, nothing PC to see there.
Ah, but Trump’s changed, don’t you see?
Then there’s Publius on Trump’s character issues:
I’ve read troubling things about Trump’s character so I don’t dismiss those concerns. But character isn’t everything. Aside from smoking a lot of pot, Obama’s character seems sterling. He’s a good family man, was a good student, has had a good career (in the narrow sense), does not appear to be corrupt in any way, and so on. But he is an ideological disaster for America.
He’s read troubling things about Trump’s character? He hasn’t observed them himself? Is he too busy trashing his phantom “conservatives” to notice? And then there’s more:
If I thought Trump were an Aaron Burr, I would feel differently. But I don’t. He’s a showboat and a ladies’ man and I gather he has done some shady things in business. But I don’t think he wants to use the presidency for his own ends, beyond self-aggrandizement, which I noted above, can correlate with the common good. Bottom line, if he builds a wall, gets serious about trade and economics, stops the bleeding overseas, and takes on the administrative state, then I can overlook his sins. I would rather have a sinless president, sure. But I wonder if a sinless man could win in these times. Plus, all the sinless men””such as Jeb””are horrible on the issues that really matter.
There are so many errors there and so much wrong there it’s almost overwhelming, and that’s just one paragraph (his entire interview is shot through with things like this). Publius minimizes Trump’s character flaws, lists only his least important ones and acts as though they’re what’s being criticized (no, we’re not against him because he’s a ladies’ man), ignores evidence that Trump might indeed have impulses towards tyranny or at least executive power squared, and advances the irrelevant argument that self-aggrandizement can correlate with the common good (so what? It so often doesn’t).
And then there’s Publius’ statement that “if [Trump] builds a wall, stops the bleeding overseas. etc. etc.” all will be forgiven. Those are some mighty big “ifs,” and they leave out an awful lot, such as the fact that many of those who oppose Trump doubt that he’ll actually do any of that, and think it more likely that he’ll do things that are worse in certain fields—particularly in foreign relations.
Also, what “bleeding” overseas is Publius talking about? He sounds like a leftist himself at this point (or a Buchanan-esque paleoconservative, which is actually what I think he is). ISIS? Afghanistan? What magical powers does he think Trump has? How will Trump do this?
And then Publius introduces the familiar straw man of a “sinless president” vs. Trump (some people prefer a “perfect candidate” as the Trump foil, but it’s the same idea and the same sophistry). Publius acts as though pointing out the deep and myriad and really quite potentially dangerous character flaws of Trump is the same as a request for a “sinless” president, which no one has made.
There’s a lot more in that Publius interview with which I disagree, but I think this essay is already long enough. I’ll just mention that one of those other things is Publius’ general insistence on ignoring the mutability of virtually all of Trump’s statements and positions, and picking and choosing among them, taking seriously only the ones Publius prefers. Publius seems to be one of the many many people who invent the Trump they want Trump to be rather than the Trump that is (a criticism Publius blithely and characteristically dismisses in the interview as “silly”).
I well understand the impulse to believe the best of Trump, since I’m a person who may end up reluctantly voting for him. I can assure you that if Trump wins the election, I will be very happy that Hillary Clinton has not, and I will sincerely hope the Trump that shows up to be president is the Trump I would want him to be, or at least a lot better than the Trump I believe him to be. But if I do vote for Trump, nothing Publius has said or written has done a thing to convince me to do so.
William Voegeli, Sept. 19, writing at Claremont Review in response to Decius: Trump and Prudence: A Reply to Decius
I confess I don’t understand what tendencies toward “tyranny” Trump has ever displayed. He’s not a caudillo with a private army, he’s a retired builder of hotels and apartment buildings. The only “evidence” of Trump’s seething fascism is the endless drumbeat from the Hillary supporters in the media.
You know they’re biased, you know they’re dishonest, so why do you believe what they say about Trump?
I read the first couple of paragraphs of the original article, and I think it comes down to how you feel about this statement:
If you do not think so, you probably see 4 or 8 years of Hillary as a trial and tribulation that can be endured.
I do think we stand at a precipice, and that 4 years or more of the same policies will finally cement a Democrat majority that will last several generations. She will throw open our doors to a small army of “Syrian” refugees, she will manage to open our borders to all comers (something the GOPe and the US Chamber of Commerce desires) and give them the vote, she will appoint at least 1 and probably more Supreme Court justices to affirm anything she and her successors do as being legal, and she will go after our rights.
She’s on record as stating that the Citizens United ruling as being “job 1”. I’ll predict that the Second Amendment will be reinterpreted such that both Heller and McDonald decisions will be overturned.
But flooding the country with new, voting immigrants is the key. Because they’ll vote reliably for the Democrats even if the person on the ballot is a mangy yeller dawg.
As far as Trump goes…South Park has it right. But the Giant Douche doesn’t see me as an enemy of the state, vermin to be disposed of. He may not heed me, he may dismiss my concerns about a great many things, but he will at least give me a listen.
Hillary will not, not ever. Or, as I remarked about Obama after his first election you are the president of the United States, not just the people who voted for you. I see Hillary being the same, just more corrupt.
“There are so many errors there and so much wrong there it’s almost overwhelming, and that’s just one paragraph (his entire interview is shot through with things like this) … Publius seems to be one of the many many people who invent the Trump they want Trump to be rather than the Trump that is” – Neo
Neo captures the essence of the situation.
There is an overwhelming aspect to everything trump. There is just so much there that constantly changes that one gets fatigued at trying to address the volume.
It is similar to the media “oxygen” argument in the GOP primaries. trump overwhelmed the others with coverage. clinton has had a much more disciplined and on point campaign, but the news cycle turnover and weighting of newsworthy items seems to favor trump, despite the media bias.
IOW, the volume of things and fatigue makes it easier to shrug off much of what is coming from trump. clinton has far fewer which becomes much less “shrugable”.
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. — Churchill
“I do think we stand at a precipice, and that 4 years or more of the same policies will finally cement a Democrat majority that will last several generations. “ – IRA Darth Aggie
The problem is, is this statement just another instance of “crying wolf”?
What makes this more real than 2008 and 2012, when similar arguments were made?
Ah, we are four or eight more years down that path. But, we had an election again after those four and eight years. Will we not have an election again in 2020?
If we do, we have the opportunity to change.
.
To think that it is not so, is to give up. It is based on the false notion that nobody can be convinced, that people are not individuals but behave as a voting bloc, never to change.
This reflects a built in stereotyping way of thinking. One also has to wonder if people who think like this really bothered to try to engage those “others”, that they assume this is intractably so.
Conservative principles should have universal appeal.
It is defeatist to think otherwise, or that it doesn’t have an audience beyond the “few of us”.
Stop being a victim.
Maybe you’ll listen to Victor Davis Hanson. His essay in the National Review has gone viral:
A taste:
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440198/never-nevertrump-not-voting-trump-republican-suicide?target=author&tid=900280
“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. – Churchill” – Vanderloon
Rather obtuse. Not sure who VDL is thinking is the modern day “fanatic” in this quote.
Sure seems applicable to folks who are “one of the many many people who invent the Trump they want Trump to be rather than the Trump that is”.
@Beverly – carl already referenced that article here:
http://neoneocon.com/2016/09/17/on-the-flight-93-election-article/#comment-1696022
Please read the comments that follow that re: VDH. For instance, this one…
http://neoneocon.com/2016/09/17/on-the-flight-93-election-article/#comment-1696216
VDH has seemed more of a trump apologist during the GOP primaries, so not a surprise he writes this article.
@Beverly – Now, if you tell me that Jonah Goldberg (to name one example of a high profile media personality / commentator who has been rather critical of trump), then you have something notable.
Mark Levin’s recent statement that he’d vote for trump is an example of something a little more remarkable than VDH (though Levin was also a trump apologist right up to January, whereas Goldberg was on about trump practically from day one).
@sdferr – excellent article! Thanks for the link!
Voegeli makes a rather critical point re: plebius’ argument…
“Stipulating all that for the sake of the argument does nothing to clarify how a Trump presidency remedies the afflictions catalogued in this sprawling diagnosis.” – on the litany of societal and governing ills plebius provided.
‘Also, what “bleeding” overseas is Publius talking about?’
Bleeding jobs, I think.
@sdferr – Should clear up that while I like the argument… how he gets to his conclusion is a bit of a leap.
I could make much of the same argument on all the points through to #6, but come to a different conclusion altogether.
Eight years of realized: executive lawlessness, judicial usurpation, politically directed administrative persecution of the citizenry, not to mention the social contract breaking “shared individual responsibility mandate”.
And if that last mentioned is not enough to define its proponents’ moral sensibilities as being “other”, and as demonstrated examples of real and alien moral others who for the first time in American history now have the right to hang their albatross carcasses around the neck of future generations, then either there are simply no possibilities of limit violations in your world, or you just don’t understand the predicate changing nature of this damnable law and its damnable supporters.
Hansen has vineyards and has worked the farm as well as being a classics scholar well-versed in both the historical record and the development of the western idea of political freedom.
Thus he knows firsthand 1, more about actually producing material wealth, 2, about the deteriorating environmental conditions for free and independent enterprise (as opposed to crony and license based capitalism) under progressive regimes in California, and 3, the historical record in depth, than do most of his “conservative” feedbag critics.
Using the term “precipice” is perhaps off-putting.
Given the pyramid of Constitution-ignorers the Democrats have built within the Federal judicial system, all they need is one more Supreme Court Justice and traditional America is no more.
Look at college campuses for the paradigm. Dissent will be crushed. See today’s stories about “Twitter” and InstaPundit for a real-life current example.
I have to say that with these black and white blatant examples staring one in the face – giving all of the elements – intent, attitude, methodology, etc. – of the threat we face from the Left – I read the quibblers and can only say WTF.
If we are only one election away from the precipice then we are already lost.
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/09/22/usa-today-writer-tells-motorists-to-run-down-charlotte-protest/21477200/
I should have included this with my comment. Sorry.
What we have also seen on the part of certain conservatives is a willingness to slide into servitude for a while in the belief that it is somehow the better thing to do than draw a halt to the miserable proceedings if necessary, and figure out a new game with new players if one must.
It is this solidarity thang, rather than a freedom and self-interest thang that they have going on. It is ideological conservatism conditioned by some altruistic social premise, rather than political conservatism conditioned by a natural law libertarianism premise.
So really, get on board. What’s the sacrifice of another mere decade or so of your life and prosperity, the suffering of a few hands-full more of statist burdens, and the deterioration of what remains of constitutional governance, when By Gosh by Golly!!!, a new dawn of human liberty and individualism surely awaits us when, ‘some day, some way, somewhere, we’ll find a new way of living …’ or however their moronic lullaby goes.
But don’t ask when or how. That is asking to much.
Just trust that if you just wait it out … this too will pass … just as surely as does your life and liberty …
“What we have also seen on the part of certain conservatives is a willingness to slide into servitude … Just trust that if you just wait it out “ – DNW
Strawman. Nobody here opposed to both clinton and trump are suggesting this.
Overall, just another “not clinton” argument.
No real case there that says how trump will accomplish the hoped for “halt to the miserable proceedings”.
“Eight years of realized: executive lawlessness, judicial usurpation, politically directed administrative persecution of the citizenry, not to mention the social contract breaking “shared individual responsibility mandate”.” – DNW
And?
You seem to forget to say exactly how it is that trump will resolve all this.
It is always about “not clinton”.
We are perpetually at the “precipice”. I suppose like all doomsayers EVENTUALLY they will be right.
In the meantime, we are supposed to trust that their judgement is true THIS TIME.
Make the case about what trump will do that actually fixes things.
Although I did not specify anyone here, you certainly -and if you object to the specific term – have been in effect.
You asked what had happened that was so bad since you pooh poohed dire consequences in 2008 and 2012, and you were given lists of lawless freedom killing actions. Repeatedly, by myself and others.
You asked what was predicted to further happen if Clinton was chosen Chief Executive, and many have supplied you with the information in point and detail.
I don’t know what your gripe is Maq. Maybe it is with the word “servitude”. Perhaps “putting up with more statism” or “suffering more onerous government imposed redistribution burdens” or something along those lines would seem more acceptable to you.
I cannot say what you find tolerable in the way of further burdens on autonomy and losses of liberty, because although you have been told what others find intolerable when you have asked them, you have not stated what you find to be a deal breaker, or how you propose to get back to the promised land of constitutional restraint and personal liberty once your period in the legal wilderness is supposedly over.
That was asking too much, you have said.
Well, your scenario sounds more like magical thinking, than it does a plan, Maq.
And with Clinton we can be sure of a veto, just as with Obama.
Now your turn: What’s your road map?
Oh yeah, you were already asked that, don’t have one, and don’t like being asked about it.
Looks like we are done conversing, doesn’t it.
What IRA Darth Aggie said.
A small but important thing to me is driving a stake through CAGW. Hillary is owned by the Greens.
I have been reading InstaPundit almost from its inception. Something is up with his comment on the rioters that is NEW and unless Mr. Reynolds has gone off the deep end, is extremely newsworthy.
Neo and commenters here, instead of rehashing tired material and concluding that everyone is fixed in place, how about taking on something NEW?
Liberals and leftists (BIRM) invested all their hopes into Obama, and project all their fears onto Trump.
Illusion in both cases. Obama is nowhere near as good, intelligent, educated, or ‘healing’ (whatever that means) as he was believed to be by the Left, and Trump is not racist, tyrannical, or power hungry, etc., etc. ad infinitum as the left fears he is.
On the other hand, we have a very clear picture of what and who Hillary Clinton is, and she’s pretty repugnant to anyone who has actually been paying attention.
Cornhead:
As if Trump has been consistent on that problem (CCAGW) either.
“You asked what had happened that was so bad since you pooh poohed dire consequences in 2008 and 2012, and you were given lists of lawless freedom killing actions. Repeatedly, by myself and others.
You asked what was predicted to further happen if Clinton was chosen Chief Executive, and many have supplied you with the information in point and detail.” – DNW
I didn’t ask about this, I asked about your positive case for trump.
Still, to address this point… When challenged about those “dire consequences” you are the one that brought up as your prime example Obamacare.
Being well aware of the many issues under obama and what is likely with clinton, that is rather a weak sauce argument for how all is lost with clinton within the next four years.
As I have said, that is a continuation of the G-march Europeanization, but hardly the “plane crash” of the flight 93 that you ascribe to clinton this election.
http://neoneocon.com/2016/09/17/on-the-flight-93-election-article/#comment-1695864
.
“I cannot say what you find tolerable in the way of further burdens on autonomy and losses of liberty, because although you have been told what others find intolerable when you have asked them”
I’ve asked what limit is there in opposing clinton – haven’t received an answer yet.
Seems to me we will have “further burdens on autonomy and losses of liberty” be it clinton or trump as president.
About the only thing people seem to be finding “intolerable” is that it would be clinton bringing that on rather than trump.
.
“you have not stated what you find to be a deal breaker”
This election, since folks are so beholding to a binary paradigm, is going to be a “lose, lose” election.
BOTH candidates are beyond my threshold of acceptable.
They BOTH represent a huge step backwards for us.
NEITHER will get my support.
.
“how you propose to get back to the promised land of constitutional restraint and personal liberty once your period in the legal wilderness is supposedly over. … your scenario sounds more like magical thinking, than it does a plan”
“legal wilderness”? Not sure what is illegal about opposing these two candidates.
You asked earlier and it was answered.
Asking a question like that is like asking for a plan to make a million dollars. Then, no doubt wanting to critique that – strawman all the way down.
Let us recognize that there really isn’t a plan that could be articulated to your satisfaction. You want something that is handed to you on a bow. That is just unrealistic.
Essentially, it comes to something like this… We need to reconstitute a conservative movement, bring the case to a much wider audience than we have, and position ourselves to win the next election.
How we do that has no easy answers, but it starts with getting involved vs hoping for a shortcut with a strongman.
How about you help in getting that plan formulated and into action rather than defending trump, as if he is the right answer to all things clinton?
.
“And with Clinton we can be sure of a veto, just as with Obama.” – DNW
Not like I didn’t say there were consequences of electing clinton.
And, you still fail to make that positive case of how trump is going to resolve all this – this is still a “not clinton” argument.
.
“Looks like we are done conversing, doesn’t it.” – DNW
Perhaps so, if you don’t have a postive case to make about trump and how those issues are resolved with him.
Perhaps this is because it is a rather embarassingly bare case to make, relying on spurious assumptions about what trump will actually do.
The magical thinking seems to be on the other foot.
Still waiting for someone to explain how Trump is a threat to our freedoms or our safety.
I’m more averse to be associated with [class] diversity mongers. Can you imagine judging people by the “color of their skin”, not the content of their character (e.g. principles)?
A colorful clump of cells, indeed.
Interesting to see Republicans arguing themselves into supporting Hillary.
Wonders never cease.
Good lord. A period in the legal wilderness obviously refers to eight more years of “conservative” wandering in a political environment featuring precedent setting and socially habituating executive and administrative lawlessness, of constitutional subversion, and of judicial appropriation of the legislative function; not to your right to oppose Trump.
How, after experiencing another decade or so of this crap, do you expect to find your way back, or lead your children peaceably back?
I asked if you have a plan to re-emerge from your legal marginalization in the out lands, and it is clear that you don’t.
No, it is like asking you how you are going to get the keys back to your house after giving them up for 16 years.
Let us recognize that you have no plan, no path, no vision of how to get back home once you have left, at all.
I don’t mean to sneer, but that is simply hilarious. Reminds me of a board meeting I attended where a number of regional managers for an engineered product line were asked what they were going to do to improve market share in their territories. None of them had the faintest idea of what to do, each and in series mumbling platitudes about spending money on increased advertising. I could not believe what I a newcomer at the time, was witnessing in terms of incompetence.
Only one, had actually analyzed the territory and identified the population of potential end-users and accounted for those already customers, and then matched the profiles of the others against the product line offering and estimated their potential for actually purchasing huge aerospace or automotive profilers.
What is happening right now, is that the progressive left is deliberately changing the nature of the marketplace, and so when in 8 years from now you go peddling your “conservatism”, you are going to be pissing in the wind, if your product is even a lawful product anymore. LOL
Mike G:
UNinteresting to see Trump supporters setting up misleading and incorrect strawman—such as the idea that people here are ” arguing themselves into supporting Hillary.”
Trimegistus:
I gave links in the other Flight 93 post, and have written several other posts and comments, to answer that question. If you don’t agree with the answers, that’s your prerogative. But I’ve written about the question many many times, as have others. See also this comment of mine.
Neo:
My gut reaction is that Publius has consumed more of your — and our — time than he deserves.
Fall arrived in northern Nevada with cold temps and light sprinkles. I am ready for the change.
‘Nuff said. F
F:
I’m in agreement with you.
However, I wrote this post (and the first one on Publius, actually) because SO many people kept telling me to read the first one of his pieces, and when I didn’t like it they told me to read the second and that I would like it better.
The praise and attention his pieces have gotten puzzled me. I feel like it’s an Emperor’s New Clothes situation.
Notherbob,
Instapundit may well have been relating advice many of our fathers have given us: (i) do not get into a strange car driven by criminals; and (ii) do not allow your vehicle to be surrounded by a mob of rioters.
The vehicular equivalent of better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
“I don’t mean to sneer, but that is simply hilarious. Reminds me of a board meeting I attended where a number of regional managers for an engineered product line were asked what they were going to do to improve market share in their territories. None of them had the faintest idea of what to do, each and in series mumbling platitudes about spending money on increased advertising. I could not believe what I a newcomer at the time, was witnessing in terms of incompetence.”
Thought this is the direction this line of argument would end up going.
For one, it is nowhere near the same. Those managers had a responsibility to market a product, and had the expertise (or were supposed to).
Second, I could write a whole detailed plan, but that would be out of whole cloth as I have no expertise in the political process. And neither do you, I would bet – so don’t make like you are any better position to judge.
Third, as a result, it would, no doubt, be easy to nitpick apart.
Is that a worthwhile effort? NO! But, you know that already.
It is a spurious argument at best to say because one does not have a plan for the alternative that one must accept the (binary paradigm) choices before us.
.
Dude, voting trump is not a “plan”.
If you cannot articulate how he will “fix” all those problems you see with clinton, then you are blowing smoke, as all you have is “not clinton”.
Hardly a plan nor an argument at all.
A bit of a tangent, but, having recently been in several discussions where I tried to talk liberals out of their conviction that by far the most significant thing about Trump and his supporters is their racism, this caught me eye in the post:
“If a person is called a racist and knows that he/she is not, why not say one is not, and why?”
I’ve recently concluded that doing so is a mistake. To the people who run these games, denying that one is a racist is a pretty good indication that you are. It’s blood in the water. At very best it shows that you are clueless and insensitive, and it places you in the impossible position of trying to prove that you aren’t. The denial is blood in the water to the race-mongers. Better to just ignore the suggestion or figure out a way to make it sound stupid(er).
@Mac – right – it is a no win argument. Better to ignore or just say “I disagree” and walk on.
Actions speak louder than words.
If we are walking and talking like racists it will be apparent.
If we are not, it will be our testament of who we are.
Big Maq:
DNW’s plan is to burn it all down and then say “I am the law, it’s all better now” End of conversation. An then the flourish “LOL”
How droll and clever.
“Big Maq:
DNW’s plan is to burn it all down and then say “I am the law, it’s all better now” End of conversation. An then the flourish “LOL”
How droll and clever.” – OM
Thanks.
Sometimes “I feel like it’s an Emperor’s New Clothes situation.”, given the focus of the responses.
Interesting article here re: how trump came to be….
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/15/debating-myself-on-trump-and-the-elites/
I agree with you, neo-neocon. One of the regulars at my blog asked me to read the 93 essay and post on it. I was surprised when I read it. Like you, I found it weakly reasoned, based on strawmen and accusing Conservatives of unfounded cowardice and Trump of unwarranted steadfastness.
The author could be a good egg, and maybe this isn’t his best work, but I can’t understand all the hub-bub. I’ve read far better accounts of this election and theories explaining where we are and why. As a matter of fact, you’ve written far better stuff on the topic.
IRA Darth Aggie, we went over the precipice years ago. Did you notice Uncle Sam gets your wages before you do, the IRS defies Congress and persecuted tax payers based on how they vote, the FBI determines who they will prosecute based on their party affiliation, an unelected woman controls our money supply, decides to inflate or deflate your savings, your home, the interest rate your bank will charge for a loan based on her personal whim… I could go on for pages. You can’t educate your children as you choose. Nuns have to hand out condoms in their hospitals. Our tax dollars pay surgeons to dissect fetuses and sell their parts to make a Lamborghini payment. And on and on.
We fell off the precipice long ago.
Big Mag, Trump is the Hail Mary pass of a dying country and culture. Sad, isn’t it, that he’s the best we have to offer.
Many assume and hope that Trump is on their team, others feel that Trump is on his own team and doesn’t really care who wins the game as long as Trump gets to control the selling of tickets.
You see now why I had such a visceral, violent reaction to the original piece. Publius is a sophist and a hack. A propagandist trapped in an echo chamber that he doesn’t notice and wouldn’t want to be free of even if he did.
Sycophants like him swelled the ranks of the Chavistas, I’m sure.
Publius is not a stupid person. On the contrary, he (or she? let’s go with “he”) is very smart, and uses that intelligence to weave a web of argument that just doesn’t make sense to me when I reflect on it. I remain puzzled not only as to why so many people I respect find him persuasive, but also in particular why they think that such reasoning might persuade me.
What they use is generally what I call another application of the Art of Propaganda. It’s little different as a tool from what the Left uses, just the goals switch around.
People, even some here, have complained at times that the GOP or Republicans aren’t good at PR and managing the perception of the issues. Well, this is how Propaganda “manages people”, so to speak.
Trimegistus Says:
September 22nd, 2016 at 5:06 pm
Still waiting for someone to explain how Trump is a threat to our freedoms or our safety.
The threat to US freedoms comes from the behavior of the voters, meaning Americans. Americans who didn’t notice what was going on in their country until it was too late, and voting more power to DC, Trum or no Trum, isn’t going to do anything to remove the mistakes of those people.
And those people, btw, Trim, also includes you and anyone else that only woke up a few years ago to what the Leftist alliance was doing. The people who visited here or who made certain remarks about what was going on in their country, online, as if it was a surprise to me, is what makes them guilty. You and other Americans and non Americans, had more than 10 years to figure it out. Figure the Clintons out. Figure the Left out. Figure Islam out.
America is what it is because Americans have created the hell they are living in, whether through action or inaction, they are guilty of the same. No Hero King can sacrifice enough of their lives and blood to recover a nation of the guilty, from their own mistakes and sins.
DNW Says:
Now your turn: What’s your road map?
There isn’t one, now that you’ve strapped us all to the Trump Train. We all have to HOPE that he’ll CHANGE the system instead of selling out to it, if he hasn’t already.
Based on his character, that’s not a bet I’d be willing to take.
The praise and attention his pieces have gotten puzzled me. I feel like it’s an Emperor’s New Clothes situation.
Republicans in America, at least, aren’t used to certain types of propaganda being used against them. I’m not sure if it is a matter of too much sensitivity or whether people have trusted GOP/conservative culture sources for so long online that they think anything that sounds patriotic has to be true. Shrugs.
Certainly between 2001 and 2008 *before Hussein’s regime*, conservatives online and Republicans in general (not the pols tho) tried to fact check and ensure any propaganda we used was 100% the truth. Which makes for horrible propaganda, but that was the “good news” about Iraq to counter act the media bias of bad news and violence.
I tended to see it in a slightly different lens at the time, but for most people, their side was just and correct. And the other side also thought their side was just and correct. But a lot of the manipulation and lies, were mostly Democrat operations.
If a Republican did it, conservatives seem to assume that we are better and our side will somehow sniff it out.
That probably broke down a little before and after 2012, which leads us to Trum’s Bart campaign.
We all have to HOPE that he’ll CHANGE the system instead of selling out to it, if he hasn’t already.
Matt, you might as well join the survivalist and preparation/defense communities while you can. Assume the worst, prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best.
Or in this case, even if Trum sells you out, at least you’ll have stocked up your own supplies and resources to survive another civil war.
Trimegistus Says:
Still waiting for someone to explain how Trump is a threat to our freedoms or our safety.
Freedoms: Trump has hinted he’d erode 1st amendment rights. While it’s directed at the scurrilous press, his supporters have no problem with it. When it turns on critics with more substantive complaints, it won’t seem as beneficial.
Lest you think I’m dramatizing the danger of such, Trump already has a history of persecuting people who got in his way, even when they were right.
Safety: Trump is antagonistic at times. If he shoots his mouth off to the Chinese, I can imagine a large number of Americans dying in various ways.
Trump is apathetic about nuclear non-proliferation. That’s an attitude which could kill a lot of Americans.
Trump may be dedicated to an Obama-esque isolationary policy. We already know that gets a lot of Americans killed.
And before you mention it, yes, all these are future projections. Trump hasn’t had political power before, so he has no track record.
In such instances, conservatives try to rely on character as the predictor of future actions. Another strike against Trump.
Ymarsakar Says:
Matt, you might as well join the survivalist and preparation/defense communities while you can. Assume the worst, prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best.
Nope. That’s magical thinking.
There’s no escape, for anyone. This is the only country we have.
There’s no escape, for anyone. This is the only country we have.
Survival preparation isn’t escaping the country. Or are you speaking from ignorance on this topic?
“Or are you speaking from ignorance on this topic?”
It must be difficult in life being the only one who knows it all. /s
Allan Bloom’s descriptive work The Closing of the American Mind, subtitled “How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students” was published in 1987 and accounted for phenomena Bloom had been observing for roughly two and a half decades prior to publication.
“Souls”, he said.
Imagine.
Moreover, we might ask: “Where are they now?”.
We won’t have far to look.
Ymarsakar Says:
Survival preparation isn’t escaping the country. Or are you speaking from ignorance on this topic?
It’s escaping the problem. It’s no different than going to live in a mountaintop monastery. I intend to be on the frontlines instead.
1. The question was what Bill and Maq’s road map to a bright and shining constitutional recovery in a distant post-Hillary future, was. The near future of course being one in which Bill at least, admitted he would positively prefer Hillary to Trump.
So the question to them was, given all of the Cesarean inertia we have already experienced under the Demonicrats and Obama, and assuming 4 to 8 more years of post constitutional Democrat administrative rule and governmentally directed political persecution; how are you going to get your freedom back, peaceably?
2. I supported and voted for Cruz. I didn’t strap you to anything. Why you feel the need to lie like that, I can only guess.
“I supported and voted for Cruz. I didn’t strap you to anything. Why you feel the need to lie like that, I can only guess.”
It comes down to credibility. Who to believe. LOL
No, in fact it is much the same dynamic; they couldn’t really even grasp the exact nature or extent of the problem; which was a result of their ignorance of the fact situation they confronted.
They did not know, or understand, the character of the domain they confronted … it was to them an amorphous almost mysterious body of uniform potential just waiting to be sold if only the magic words or glossy vision could be placed before them.
The Democrats make no such mistake. They are attempting to change the character of the marketplace by increasing their client class illegally … while you daydream about the magic words sales pitch you are going to deliver to people who currently don’t want and are not interested in what you are selling, and are just as unlikely to be another 4 years or decade from now, when a post constitutional trend driven by Democrat administrative subversion has been further solidified.
You don’t even seem to know what a map is; or imagine that it must include everything down to they type of the coffee served along the way.
For example you might have just said that with Hillary in office, you planned to use the judiciary in order to forestall her certain attempts at overreach. Except you know that will not work, since the SC is dubious and the lower courts unreliable as well.
Or you could say that you planned to rally all of Congress to impose her imperial pretensions and constitutional subversion. But you cannot, because you know the Democrat Party is all in with post-constitutional governance and one will never find even minimal support there for placing limits on her activities.
Or you could say that you knew how to spend the next 8 years enticing the millions of immigrants on government assistance into the Republican ranks. But you know you don’t, since you have nothing to offer them, and don’t know how to get it.
So while the polity is literally being transformed beneath your feet by Democrat lawlessness – decaying infrastructure sacrificed to transfer payments and entitlements, the border collapsing, administrative lawlessness and persecution of private citizens on a political basis, you dream the dream you dream …
You will make a great speech, and they will come, crying out, “Yes we want to be free! Above all else we want to be free!”
Ymarsakar:
“What they use is generally what I call another application of the Art of Propaganda. It’s little different as a tool from what the Left uses, just the goals switch around.”
Yep. That’s why I’ve called it the Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right. The Trump phenomenon is simply an application of the Left activist method just with content tailored for a different audience. The tack’s been obvious since the GOP primaries.
Conservatives are vulnerable to the Left activist method because their congenital aversion to activism severely retards them in competing in or even sufficiently comprehending the character of the competition of the only social cultural/political game there is.
Understanding Publius requires looking through the tailored content to the method. Same tricks of the trade Left activists used to displace liberals and usurp the Democrats in their larger Gramscian march.
“When they were asked to describe Clinton, the words used included “deceitful”, “entitled”, “unpleasant”, “untrustworthy”, “liar”, “corruption”, “uninspiring” and “crooked”.
Any comfort this might have given Trump was quickly dispelled as the mention of his name prompted the labels “crazy”, “unstable”, “arrogant”, “megalomaniac”, “vindictive, “unbalanced”, “dumb”, “charlatan”, “bigot” and “hateful”.” – Most recent Frank Luntz focus group describing the candidates
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/23/election_of_the_deplorables_swing_voters_loathe_both_candidates_131877.html
.
To those not already sold on trump, it seems “crazy” and “unstable” are worse than “deceitful” and “crooked”, given the opportunity to really focus on them…
“Over the course of the focus group session there was a slight movement in Clinton’s direction, with eight of the 30 voters leaning towards her at the start and 11 by the end.
Those leaning towards Trump went from six down to three. The rest did not much like either of them.” – same article
.
The flight 93 article and much of the follow up is not designed to convince those swing voters, but to shore up those already on the trump train, who won’t bother to give it a critical eye.
For them it has a surface level ring of truth, but doesn’t hold up under minimal scrutiny.
‘The flight 93 article and much of the follow up is not designed to convince those swing voters, but to shore up those already on the trump train…’
Exactly. It seems people here can’t distinguish between the premise of a metaphor and the metaphor itself. Flight 93 is not a bad metaphor, if you already believe what the author is telling you. If not you disagree with the premise, not the metaphor. And it is only a metaphor for crying out loud.
It is a plan for keeping Hillary out of office; it is that much of a plan … and a little more as well
Not Clinton, but instead Trump, is a positive plan insofar as he promises to get control of and secure the borders which is something she has a positive interest in not doing. So the plan grows: If he is elected and does what he says then, her subversion ends, and the border is secured.
Furthermore, the plan on the part of skeptical and reluctant Trump supporters in his own party is to hold his feet to the fire, and it is expected that Democrats will not align themselves with a Republican who has Cesarian personal ambitions . So that is another element of the plan; a contingency plan you might say.
It’s: A plan to keep Hillary a known political crook and possibly a vector for traitors, out of the highest executive office in the land.
A plan to secure the borders.
A plan to at least keep Hillary’s assuredly bad picks off the S.C. and out of the judiciary
A plan to end the war on the American middle and their constitutional and natural rights waged by Democrats in the administrative bureaus of the Executive.
A contingency plan involving Congress exercising a restraining influence which has a better chance of succeeding with a Republican Executive than the no chance at all it has with a Democrat in office.
It is a minimal plan with outlined contingencies: as opposed to your daydreamy expectations of a new dawn a decade or so further down the road of administrative lawlessness.
It is that much of a plan at least. Just as taking your foot off the gas peddle when racing toward a cliff, rather than hoping the crash will be survivable as you do, is a real plan as opposed to a dream.
What SteveD just said.
Well if they are interested enough to look at the evidence rather than just giggling, they could always advert to the many early supporting comments I made on Neo’s blog in support of Cruz.
As for your own obsession manifested here and once again in this thread, I don’t know what to make of it. I must have kicked your dog without noticing it.
ROFLOL GUFFAW
It’s escaping the problem. It’s no different than going to live in a mountaintop monastery. I intend to be on the frontlines instead.
Tactics < Strategy < Logistics, the old problem I would generally describe still applies to us in this context.
Soldiers can't fight if they don't have a home base and no food or necessities to back them. Not even guerillas can fight for long without certain supplies and bases.
So what do you plan to do when the riots or a Katrina type situation comes to your neighborhood, Matt? Rely on FEMA or whoever is President for food?
In an insurgency vs occupation situation, everywhere is the front lines. Charlotte isn't safe just because it's in the South or Deep South.
It must be difficult in life being the only one who knows it all. /s
It must be wearying to call yourself a Christian when you don’t even believe in the Christian Gospel, OM.
But I suppose being bitter and angsty online here is a better replacement for your lack of human compassion than rioting in the streets would accomplish. That’s not sarcasm, it’s just a statement of fact.
Much of OM’s attempt to Other people here, is no different from the black tribalism of Black Panthers. Except at least Islam and Black Panthers put physical action to their fanatical beliefs. They aren’t mere hypocrites that talk but do nothing, at least.
while you daydream about the magic words sales pitch you are going to deliver to people who currently don’t want and are not interested in what you are selling, and are just as unlikely to be another 4 years or decade from now, when a post constitutional trend driven by Democrat administrative subversion has been further solidified.
Well, to me, everyone was like what DNW describes of others here. Everyone online that is, minus a few sub cultures.
It’s also why I’m not blaming them as much as before, since now a days it doesn’t matter. So what if people believe in the Magic of the US Constitution still. It’s no different from what people did in 2007 to 2012, or what the Tea Party did. If people are idealistic fools who continue to assume the best… well, it’s not like the humans here have always refused to use that point of view. I’m sure people here, me included, have at times tried to give the Left and enemies of America and humanity itself, the “benefit of the doubt” so to speak.
The Alternative Right is a coalition, as proven by how many of the so called “doomsayers” here and elsewhere, have joined up with them. They would have done so even without Trum of course, but the internet election season fervor hasn’t yet died down. To me, though, “doomsayers” here are a little bit too late and not saying enough doom sayings. Neo Neo, being far ahead of the intellectual and cultural gap masses, are still ahead of the curve. That’s why it is ironic. They may be ahead of the curve, here at least, but they were still too late as it happens to be.
If he is elected and does what he says then, her subversion ends, and the border is secured.
If the Leftist alliance was so easily defeated, so weak as that, people would never have needed the Tea Party, Cruz, Trum, or the Alt Right.
It is because Americans, humans in general even, underestimate the power of the Leftist alliance, that they keep falling for traps. They get more and more desperate, like rats trapped in a maze.
Back when ObamaCare was the big news, did anyone realize that even if they defeated ObamaCare, the IRS would still destroy them? Was that not even on the horizon of people who were so desperate that they were blind to the power of the Leftist alliance. It’s just how people are. If they were any better at fighting the Left, the Left would already be defeated or on the ropes.
I don’t know itch OM is trying perpetually to scratch by scampering along behind me and yelping that I am a know it all or unjustifiably self-confident in my opinions, but if it is to morally “other” me, whatever that really means, I would welcome the contrast.
Ynot and DNW
T
Ynot and DNW:
Conversations with a know it all and a heartless whatever, who both seem to lack discernment regarding how they treat others, engenders ridicule. Play the snark and contempt card and it may come back. Kapish?
“I must have kicked your dog without noticing it.” Is it something you do often, kick dogs? /s
Cruz endorses Trump.
I know I said I wasn’t going to weigh in further on the “93” threads but I just received a rather lengthy email from Ted Cruz ted@tedcruz.org stating that he’s endorsing Trump. I’m sure they’ve sent the same e-mail to hundreds of thousands of other former Cruz contributors.
The timing is interesting and puzzling: right before the debates but late on a Friday afternoon (close to Friday afternoon news-dump time, at least in the EDT time zone?).
OM Says:
September 23rd, 2016 at 4:05 pm
You’re on the stick Carl. As usual.
I was about to post up the entire endorsement, sans an attribution, but in quotes.
But, what’s the point? Cruz is largely saying the same things other reluctant Trump supporters have been saying … apart from the fact he was able to get explicit SC pick commitments out of Trump.
Oh yes, the point is he is the very candidate and the judge of the critical issues who many of us endorsed and supported from the start; as well as the one bearing the brunt of some of Trump’s most uninhibited attacks.
Yet, …
Some highlights
I still don’t want to vote for Trump; but the calculus seems to indicate that it might be the best option available.
I was glad to see this but I agree that the choice sucks.
For you, me, Neo, Ted; all of us!
Me and mine have preperations for if everything falls apart for whatever reason. That does not make us paranoid, it does not mean we have given up, and it does not mean we believe in conspiracy theories. Things happen that are beyond the control of anyone and everyone.
Some of you misunderstand what Y is saying. Me and mine are prepped because we come from people who in their DNA deeply distrusted authority, who experienced first hand what authoritarians always do if given the keys to absolute power. My parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts preached self-alliance, distrust of government, and the need to grow and store food, and assume responsibility for our own self-defense.
That is not paranoid, to me, that is common sense. Two of our three children and their spouses, and 5 of our grandchildren are arriving tonight to celebrate the first birthday of our youngest grandchild. They are my country and my responsibility for as long as I am able. I am relentless when it comes to my duty to what is mine.
It’s kind of funny watching OM freak out and lose what little emotional control he has left. Claiming to be a Christian while doing so, is perhaps the cherry on top. OM might as well be Oh My god, it has the same dramatic tension to it as that line.
Anger and bitterness can indeed change a person’s soul. As Lucifer’s shackles surround it and convert the soul to his tool. Watch out for it, but also observe it, because it is an interesting process. It always was, even when people tried to contradict me by saying Hussein wasn’t really evil, just stupid or misguided.
To my Eyes, when evil takes hold of a person’s soul, it is visible to me. Quite visible. I also poke and prod at it using tests, to see if it is really evil or just humans being humans.
engenders ridicule. Play the snark and contempt card and it may come back. Kapish?
Are you trying to emulate Y here, by becoming the mirror to our sins?
Oh boy, here we go.
Parker, I suspect most people are ignorant about preparation and survival supplies. If they are, then I won’t need to take what they say as serious as if they were saying they really didn’t need such things.
But that’s why this country is going to blow up. People rely too much on government, even when they talk about self reliance.
When the power, food, and water goes out, what else are they going to rely, except government? They won’t have a choice then. That’s how you Break Humans.
Ynot -“Intellectual Yet Idiot” fits you to the T. You are a bizarre and strange individual, speaking one human to another.
Shy Tory effect:
The most arresting sentence of the week came from a sophisticated Manhattan man friendly with all sides. I asked if he knows what he’ll do in November. “I know exactly,” he said with some spirit. “I will be one of the 40 million who will deny, the day after the election, that they voted for him. But I will.”
The main premise of Publius’ Flight 93 Election thesis is that demography is inexorably working against conservatism in the political sphere. But if this is the case, why does 94 percent white Vermont elect Bernie Sanders and 70 percent white Texas elect Ted Cruz? Back in the 1930s, when many if not most African Americans were unable to vote, conservatism was in retreat in the face of the New Deal. Also, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, lily white Sweden and Denmark embraced democratic socialism. Also, Donald Trump himself has praised socialized medicine and has donated to ultra left wingers like Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Terry McAuliffe. It’s hard to take Publius’ argument seriously.
Aren’t you implicitly granting what you would presumably criticize: i.e., identifying culture with color?
For example, to say that Muslim immigration into the United States is undesirable and results in the importation of pernicious and anti-libertarian ideals, is not to say that no Iraqi’s or Syrians could make desireable neighbors. Chaldeans or Assyrians might serve as a good counter example, and a reminder that Middle Easterner and Muslim are not synonymous, though Muslims from that area have in general done their best to make it so.
The story of the cultural transformation of Vermont politically, as it became a playground for New Yorkers, was documented at the time it was occurring.
Spiral:
Facts are like lighted matches to a strawman.
DNW wrote: “Aren’t you implicitly granting what you would presumably criticize: i.e., identifying culture with color?”
No. I am saying that the argument made by some, that by 2020 the nation will be resistant to conservatism based on demographics, simply does not hold up when one looks at which states are electing conservatives and which state are electing socialists.
Also, it wasn’t that long ago when Donald Trump, a white guy, was praising socialized medicine. It was not that long ago (2013) when Donald Trump was donating money to a Left-Wing Democrat named Terry McAuliffe as McAuliffe was seeking to become Governor of Virginia.
Yet, Publius argues that the only person who can save us from the socialist abyss is Donald Trump. If we are relying on a Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi ally to save us from socialism, it’s a no hoper.
Spiral:
Good reply! It takes a lot of matches to burn that strawman at times, strawman’s friends like to distract and divert.
You referred to the argument of others as demographic arguments.
You then referred to “94 percent white Vermont” and “lily white Sweden and Denmark” as examples of what you understood “demographic” to mean
Thus, in your rebuttal of their supposed argument, you “rebut” it in terms of color.
Hence, you appear to define or to understand the term “demographic” as it is used in the demographic change alarms, which are raised by those fearing conservatism is slated for demography driven extinction, to refer to demography in terms of population color.
Yet the case of Vermont’s change into a reliably blue state, was in fact the result of demographic changes; changes in the type of population within the state. Changes which occurred as a result of the deliberate migration of culturally different people into Vermont, and basically taking it over politically. This is nothing that is news.
A demographic change; and the state nonetheless, remaining according to you, as “94 percent white”
Population demographics are also an historically accepted explanation for the unusual success of a particular left-liberal tradition in Minnesota … one based on a particular white ethnic ethos which has often been casually referred to:
The case of German immigration into the United States after the Revolution of 1848, and just prior to the Civil War, and which in part helped drive the domestic politics that set it off, is another well-known example of demographic change influencing elections and politics.
And the Irish hardly need be mentioned.
All, of them white skinned, at least.
Thus, you have not on your own terms rebutted the validity of any arguments or projections based on demographic change per se, but only – ostensibly – on racial or color change.
And whether you have even successfully argued that, would depend on whether the mixed color polities in which you assume color as denoting demography, do in fact distributively enable the election of Republicans, or whether it is merely that a critical opposing cultural mass has not yet been reached in, say, Texas, in contrast to, say, California.
I’ll leave it to you to take up that argument.