Post-debate ennui
I watched most (not all) of the debate last night. Regular readers may recall that I detest political debates in general, but this one bothered me especially much. Mulling over why that might be, I’ve come to the conclusion that—at least to me—just about everyone looked small, petty, and nitpicky when they weren’t being sanctimonious and cliched.
Actually, I didn’t think Ben Carson looked that way. But I don’t see him as having the right experience, and I don’t think he could win the nomination at this point anyway, so I can’t get excited about him. I was particularly studying the people I consider the front runners: Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. Trump was Trump (which to me is not a good thing, for reasons I’ve already explained ad nauseam), and he was particularly awful when doing his childish schoolyard taunt bit (and no, I don’t mind fighting words, but he sounds like a boastful, teasy fourth-grader). Cruz: there is always something off about him for me, and that makes me doubt he could win the general, because of that seemingly important “likability” factor. With Rubio there are just too many things for him to explain away that the base will never forgive him for.
At the end of the debate I had the gloomy sensation that Hillary is going to win no matter what. Now, that feeling could be a function of a lot of things other than prescient judgment. One is that this time of year it gets dark almost as soon as I get out of bed to start my day. Yeah, that’s hyperbole, but it does get dark way way too early for my tastes. So maybe it’s that.
In addition, yesterday afternoon I had spoken to a liberal but relatively apolitical friend of mine, and she mentioned casually that she would be busy that night, having volunteered to do phoning for the Hillary Clinton campaign. This shocked me, although it shouldn’t have. The reason it did, though, was that this particular friend has (unlike some) always been respectful of my point of view, sometimes asks me questions about it, listens with interest and without condemnation, and sometimes even agrees with me. I know she’s been disturbed by many things that have happened under Obama, particularly in the field of foreign policy. And yet here she is, phone-banking for Hillary.
I was so taken aback that I couldn’t come up with a thing to say. But it reminded me of something I didn’t think I needed reminding about: that a mind is a difficult thing to change, and that a person has to be motivated and engaged in order to do the work to change his/her mind, and that few people—even seemingly intelligent and reasonable people—are going to do it, no matter how dire things are and no matter how bad the candidate their party supports.
We were lucky in America for a great many years. Candidates didn’t think snark would go over well with the American people, and they were expected to be well-prepared. Voters didn’t get off on petulance and anger (although a little judicious dose of it was all right), nor did they expect candidates to be perfectly aligned with their point of view on all issues. I’ve never liked politicians all that much, with just a couple of exceptions, but now I like them even less. And the irony is that we need a competent, honest, bold and wise person as president even more than in the past, because the Obama administration and the left have trashed so much that used to be taken for granted by both parties that I sometimes despair that even the finest president could ever undo the damage, because it is global, societal, cultural, personal. And of course I’m aware that a president can’t just wave a hand and change things—it takes political office-holders, too, as well as bureaucrats, and in particular a people willing to support that change. Just as Obama could not possibly have done what he’s done alone, neither can it be undone alone.
Yeah, I know. All of this is not what I wanted to write, either. Maybe this down feeling is just a passing phase.
And speaking of passing phases, the sun has already started to set later in the day. That’s a turning point—literally.
My sympathies, Neo. My wife and I feel pretty much the same way about the upcoming election. I keep hoping — perhaps in vain — that Hillary will crash and burn in the coming few months. I’m impatient for it to happen, but admit that the later the better. If she is clearly unelectable after March the Dems will have a very hard time coming up with an alternative. Biden, probably, and he has a lot of baggage. Certainly not Sanders.
The good news is the quarter point hike by the Fed. That might slow down what has been hidden (because of decreasing gas prices) inflation. The first rise in 9 years, BTW — how’s that for protecting Obama?
I turned it off at about 1100; just was bored watching it. CNN was trying to do MSNBC part 2 and it wasn’t working, the candidates all looked like they need a break for the holidays, and there was a lot of “already heard that”.
Hopefully, Neo, we all are just in the midst of that common New England malady: SAD (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/seasonal-affective-disorder/basics/definition/con-20021047). Sit under some bright lights and know Dec 21 is just a few days away, and so far be thankful the winter has been mild. I do HATE this time of year.
I meant to say turned it off at 10pm
I didn’t watch the debate, though I read the transcript until the mediocrity of the occasion overwhelmed my interest. Which leads to the following:
“just about everyone looked small, petty, and nitpicky when they weren’t being sanctimonious and cliched.”
So neo, are you now less sanguine with the quality of the Republican field?
Frankly, I’ve had my doubts about them for some time. Other than Cruz and Fiorina, I see a decidedly lack luster field.
And, while I think Carson to be a fine man, his grasp of the issues appears to me to be shallow.
“At the end of the debate I had the gloomy sensation that Hillary is going to win no matter what.”
A few more jihadist attacks will sink her ship and make Trump the far more likely winner. Which, if less catastrophic is still something to be gloomy about.
“we need a competent, honest, bold and wise person as president even more than in the past, because the Obama administration and the left have trashed so much that used to be taken for granted by both parties that I sometimes despair that even the finest president could ever undo the damage, because it is global, societal, cultural, personal. And of course I’m aware that a president can’t just wave a hand and change things–it takes political office-holders, too, as well as bureaucrats, and in particular a people willing to support that change.”
That is as succinct and comprehensive a reading of the obstacles that will face even a wise President, that I have yet read.
I have long been of the opinion that only disastrous circumstance (another Dunkirk) will lead that portion of the American public supportive of democrats to change.
Everything the left and their liberal useful idiots are advocating and doing is leading to the certain visitation of disaster.
I’ve been telling Mr Whatsit that Hillary will be our next president ever since Trump first emerged ascendant. He’s likely to be the GOP nominee, which will hand her the presidency. And even if he’s not, I share your serious doubts about the rest of the field.
It’s a depressing time of year, all right.
Neo:
“I know she’s been disturbed by many things that have happened under Obama, particularly in the field of foreign policy. And yet here she is, phone-banking for Hillary.
… the Obama administration and the left have trashed so much that used to be taken for granted by both parties …”
That status quo ante is the point of focus with your friend to construct a political alternative.
With people like your friend, it’s not enough to debate issues in the Overton Window. You need to re-lay the foundation at the premise level and reframe the narrative.
Retrace her steps to the point of deviation where the Left blew up the status quo ante: the (demonstrably) false narrative of the Iraq intervention used to purge Democrats like Joe Lieberman and re-educate Democrats like Hillary Clinton.
Remember, my OIF FAQ explanation of the law and policy, fact basis of OIF – which refers to President Clinton’s Iraq enforcement carried forward by his successor – is tailored for people like your friend. Share this with her, too: Recommendation: How to talk about your Iraq vote (advice to Hillary Clinton).
Setting the record straight on OIF isn’t just about history. It’s active premise in our politics and policy decision-making because the Iraq intervention manifested every principle of American leadership of the free world. Thus, the stigma bolted onto OIF has shunted the strong-horse American approach to foreign affairs off the table, which leaves little substantive separation for Republicans from Democrats. In effect, Republicans criticize Obama’s choices, but without restoring the paradigm of OIF in the Overton Window, they lack a sufficiently differentiated alternative to advocate.
Thus, Republicans are reduced to debating the issues in the Left’s preferred frame, focused more on refugee immigration policy here rather than decisively defeating ISIS there.
Setting the record straight on OIF is necessary to re-lay the foundation to re-normalize the paradigm of American leadership of the free world “that used to be taken for granted by both parties”, which was principally manifested with the Iraq intervention through the Clinton and Bush administrations.
If your friend is disturbed by Obama’s foreign policy decisions and supports Hillary Clinton with the notion she would restore the status quo ante for American leadership of the free world, then establish with her that Presidents Clinton and Bush were right on Iraq and OIF upheld the fundamental principles of American leadership of the free world. Then analyze with your friend what it shows about Hillary Clinton that she switched her position on the 9/11 era’s most critical endeavor, OIF, as Senator then failed to uphold the vital US-led peace operations in Iraq as SecState, despite that she was in position to understand better than anyone – as First Lady, Senator, and SecState – that the Iraq intervention was right and critical.
Did most of them last night look “small, petty, and nitpicky” because they were pussyfooting around Trump out of fear of alienating his supporters? Christie, for example, is doing well it seems in New Hampshire and would love to pick up some of Trump’s votes there.
Neo,
Cheer up, your friend lives in MA just like you and I do. Of course she’s for Hillary as are a majority of our fellow Bay Staters. Much of the rest of the US is not so blind, I hope.
At the start, I agreed with many who said the Republicans had the “strongest bench” ever. That was before Trump. I still think he is a disaster for the Republicans. I never got enthusiastic about Cruz even though he championed all my important positions. I don’t think many in the necessary middle will find him likable. Polls still show that Rubio is the best for beating Hillary Clinton. That is definitely my most important criterion. Unfortunately, Rubio got extreme in his condemnation of Planned Parenthood. I worry that that will haunt all Republicans with choice-leaning Low Info Voters in the general election.
At my age, 70, I feel very bothered by winter weather. Until recently, I skied and even camped in the snow a lot. So, I really think winter bears on us harder. Yesterday, I was relieved to cancel a ski trip because of a mild cold.
Eric,
Did you see this? Some of the people supposedly on our side seem to think that OIF was a result of Bush’s desire to build nations, therby sticking a pin randomly into a middle east map to decide where to attack. Cruz seems to be using this argument too. It is unbelievable how many people have forgotten (or never read about) what Saddam had been doing.
Maybe you should submit a piece to PJM.
St. Lucy’s Day was three days ago. Always a good time to re-read Donne’s poem, if not to take the opportunity again on the solstice itself.
Alan,
The sad thing is that we do have a strong bench. If they could work together to formulate and execute policy, they would be very good. But I think we are hurt by the”true conservatives” and Trumpkins who see honest discussion and any compromise as selling out to the REPe. The simply don’t want anyone to complicate their simple path to utopia.
I have to add that I wish I could sit in the front row of the next debate with a messy cream pie that I could toss at Trump when he makes those obnoxious facial gestures while others are speaking.
Ann Says:
December 16th, 2015 at 4:02 pm
Did most of them last night look “small, petty, and nitpicky” because they were pussyfooting around Trump out of fear of alienating his supporters? Christie, for example, is doing well it seems in New Hampshire and would love to pick up some of Trump’s votes there.
I was wondering if any of them would make efforts to co-opt Trump’s voters base. I didn’t see any indications of it.
I was excruciating to watch.
Neo wrote
“And the irony is that we need a competent, honest, bold and wise person as president even more than in the past, because the Obama administration and the left have trashed so much that used to be taken for granted by both parties that I sometimes despair that even the finest president could ever undo the damage, because it is global, societal, cultural, personal.”
Saw Hillary in Omaha today. She is not competent, honest or wise. But she is slick and powerful. GOP has to win. But who?
I am worried. Cruz is our best hope.
I was not impressed. First of all, because of the format. Who can say anything intelligent in that format – “You have 90 seconds to explain your position on the nuclear triad.” Pul-eazzze! And why is every debate focused on Trump: “How do you reply to what Mr. Trump said on . . .” Give me a break, already!
Kasich — why is the guy so whiny? Hasn’t his staff told him to stop being so petulant? And what’s with the hand-pointing gestures?
Paul – living in the world of William Howard Taft. It’s not coming back. We have to be the world’s policeman because we ARE the world’s policeman. Do we want Russia to be it? China? Iran?
Bush looks like a deer in the headlights. He’s a non-starter.
Rubio and Cruz are two good speakers and thinkers, but haven’t we learned that being a lawyer and a Senator doesn’t give you the skill set to be the Chief Executive? I’ve never been a Senator, but I am a lawyer, and I can say with absolute certainly that being a lawyer, even a great lawyer, as Cruz undoubtedly is, gives you no management skills whatsoever.
Trump is just a loose cannon. He’ll do whatever he wants, and he might change his mind at any minute. He would be a good executive — I would just love to hear “You’re fired!” echoing through the federal bureaucracy — but he really has no feeling for or understanding of the fact that we have a three-branch government or a Constitution.
To me it’s obvious that Fiorina and Christie, and possibly Carson, should be at the head of the pack, and I don’t understand why they’re not. They have the experience, the temperament, the resolution, and the ideas to be President.
Carson may not have the knowledge or the political experience, but anyone who has the brass balls necessary to open up somebody’s skull and remove part of her brain, and the skill and resolution to do it right, will be able to handle the job of President. Plus, any surgeon knows you don’t do the operation by yourself — you have anesthesiologists, pulmonologists, nurses, technicians, etc., etc., etc. Unlike certain people we know who say, “I think I know more about foreign policy than my foreign policy advisors, more about politics than my political advisors, more about . . .” or “I’m rich! I’m successful! I’m worth many, many billions! So elect me!”
As I’ve said before, the question comes down to who can best beat Hillary. Remember what Bill Buckley said, you pick “the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate.”
My wife and daughter are both pretty conservative, but they will vote for Hillary, even knowing what a despicable, corrupt person she is, just because she’s a woman. I think there are millions out there, both women and men, who will do the same.
Which leads me to one ineluctable conclusion — Fiorina and Christie or Carson. Announce all the rest’s Cabinet positions, give Carly some likeability lessons, and BEAT HILLARY!
Neo: I am genuinely sorry about your friend. For someone that had been fairly apolitical, it probably was pretty surprising to hear about her volunteering for a campaign – especially this early in the process. I imagine a lot of women are going to get caught up in the historic nature of electing the first woman president.
Sounds like she is a good friend, since she was respectful and interested in your opinions. I guess it might be best to avoid discussions about campaign politics with her, for now. I’m glad you have your blog – we are here for you, when you need to escape liberal land.
Eric,
I orgot to add the link to my comment.
https://pjmedia.com/election/2015/12/16/in-the-shadow-of-george-w-bush-rubio-and-cruz
KLSmith:
Thank you.
Actually, I do tend to avoid political discussions with her, unless she brings it up, or unless I am really really curious about a particular thing. I might bring it up once a year, if that. In this case, she suddenly just said it, in the midst of a discussion about getting together and trying to figure out a good time to do so.
I have very few friends who are political, but almost all my friends vote Democratic. We never used to discuss politics back when I agreed with them, and it doesn’t come up that often now. But when it does, it tends to be depressing.
This particular friend, who is more or less my age (which makes her not young), had never before done any political volunteering till Obama. She REALLY liked Obama and volunteered to work on his campaign. However, during the past 7 years, she had become more and more disillusioned with him, particularly foreign policy but not just that. She has many conservative traits (gun owner, for example) and some beliefs that I would consider conservative. Putting that all together, I thought that perhaps her enthusiasm for Hillary would be low or even non-existent (not that I thought she’d consider voting Republican, exactly). But that she is all in for Hillary at this point, enough to work on her campaign, is truly surprising to me. I assume it’s the woman thing, although I was too surprised to ask.
Why be gloomy about Hillary Clinton getting elected? In order for this to happen, first she has to avoid being indicted for the e-mail server scandal, an open-and-shut case where she is obviously guilty. Then there have to be no terrorist attacks in either the U.S., Europe, or even the Olympics in Rio, between now and November 2016. And there also have to be no foreign crises in the next year, led by the usual anti-American countries, taking advantage of Obama’s last year in power. And on top of all that, there can’t be another surge of “refugees” and “migrants” into either the U.S. or Europe between now and November 2016, and good luck with that next summer.
Considering those hypothetical scenarios she has to avoid, plus on-going messes from Obamacare to the Bergdahl court-martial, we should feel more encouraged. I voted with pride for Romney in the last election, and I will do the same for the Republican candidate in 2016.
Why do the Democrats need to run anyone for president, ever, ever again? What’s left undone that the Boy King has not perfected once, and for all time? He was the ‘Lightworker’, the ‘One We Have been Waiting for’, etc.
neo writes, “I’ve come to the conclusion that — at least to me — just about everyone looked small, petty, and nitpicky when they weren’t being sanctimonious and cliched.”
I can say this [and I *will* — just watch!]:
Chris Christie was dead-on right when he excoriated *Senators* Cruz and Rubio for niggling over this or that detail in this or that bill — who says tomayyto and who says tomahhto — with Rubio obviously trying to take Cruz down a notch and Cruz defending himself and parrying back.
Who gives a [————]?? As Christie pointed out, they were very much acting like senators and not as executives, focusing on so-what-who-cares rather than on the broader picture of what may get voters to exclaim, I want *that* dude. Those two guys definitely “looked small, petty, and nitpicky,” — and they’re two of the front-runners after Trump, who must have *loved* the niggling.
By the way, I’ve never been a Christie fan, but I do not perceive that Christie “looked small, petty, and nitpicky,” and that’s not because of Christie’s girth [bad pun]. I think he grew in stature last night, for me, anyway. For what it’s worth . . .
(I’ll leave critiquing the others to other commenters.)
M J R:
Actually, I’ve always liked Christie.
You may recall that I wanted him to run in 2012, but he didn’t. But I guess I don’t take him seriously as a candidate because he’s low in the polls, and because the base turned on him in 2012 because of his speech at the convention and the famous hug (and the smear campaign that he’s for gun control, which he is not).
However, since I already happen to like Christie, last night he didn’t grow in stature. The bit about bombing the Russian plane seemed kind of Trumpian, and he harps on 9/11 too much. That said, I would trust him as president long before I would trust Trump. If Christie’s stock starts rising, I’m fine with it.
Cornhead:
Yes, there are still plenty of people who adore Hillary, or at least like her well enough. Her performance in the Democratic debate was surprisingly solid, considering her recent floundering in interviews. A debate plays into her strong suits (lawyerly stuff), especially since she has no one really challenging her and the small field allows her to speak at length.
See this.
Eric:
Wouldn’t work with my friends, for the simple reason that it’s not what their political leanings are based on at all, and they have NO interest in the topic and would not be amenable to any discussion of it.
For them, it’s about things like being nice to poor people and having a good heart, and not being a Republican meanie old bigot. Can’t we all just get along? And it’s hard to make any argument at all, even about those things, if people have no patience for discussing politics and no reason to want to change their points of view.
Yeah, it’s hard to imagine phone banking for Trump.
Richard Smith:
In Omaha today, 60% plus were women. And she plays the gender card HARD despite the facts. Unequal pay, abortion etc.
Talked to some old white rich liberal women in the line for Hillary today. Trump is “icky.” They didn’t even watch the GOP debate. Carly is off the map. Carly is no leader. Stunning.
Cornhead:
Well, Trump is “icky” 🙂 .
Don’t expect true liberals to change their minds or desert Hillary. The ones to watch for are middle-of-the-roaders.
And remember, conservative women are not women, so there’s no need to even look at Fiorina.
Neo:
You make an important point. Trump doesn’t appeal to middle of the road or apolitical women because he is icky and a meany. And read Hideraker’s piece today about Donald. Recipe for defeat.
I, too, have the feeling that Hillary as president is inevitable. I wonder if Trump senses this as well. Which then makes me wonder why he’d want to even risk becoming what he seems to dread most — a loser — by losing to her. Maybe at some point, he’ll just say the heck with it. He probably got into all this anyway just to stop Jeb.
I am more optimistic about Trump than others are here. Sure he is bombastic, boastful and likely untrustworthy. But he has grasped a central reality that US elections are now not Repub vs Dem, they are Repub vs The Media, with Dems sliding in by default.
Remember how well-placed, well-funded, amiable and qualified Romney was? And The Media took him out with a couple of neat kill shots without trying too hard.They will do the same with every single half-decent candidate who is still playing by the old rules. So candidate A has a stronger platform than candidate B. The Media does not care about that, neither does the LIV, neither to be honest does the average partly-informed voter. Only political mavens care about policy details.
The only candidate on the Right who can get cut-through is one who can play The Media like a violin, project the image of strength, charisma, energy that appeals to the general voter and play hardball to the max with special interests and party establishments.
Yessir:
Except for the fact that if you look at all the polls, Trump is not appealing to Democrats, and is doing worse than the other candidates against Clinton. He also has the highest unfavorables.
Many people advance arguments similar to yours, but they don’t back the assertion up with any evidence for it. That’s because there doesn’t seem to be any evidence for it, except the anecdotal, and Trump’s own claims (by the way, the article I just linked starts with Trump mentioning a myth as though it were true—that of the missing GOP votes in 2012).
With his meeting with Bill Clinton before ‘deciding” to run for president, his previous support for Democrats, and his admission that he has bought politicians in the past, I truly worry that Trump is actually working for the election of Hillary.
I wonder what his payoff will be? I do not trust Trump in the least, he comes of as the type of person that, when he does not get his way, will take his ball, and go home.
neo-neocon Says:
December 16th, 2015 at 7:17 pm
Eric:
Wouldn’t work with my friends, for the simple reason that it’s not what their political leanings are based on at all, and they have NO interest in the topic and would not be amenable to any discussion of it.
For them, it’s about things like being nice to poor people and having a good heart, and not being a Republican meanie old bigot. Can’t we all just get along? And it’s hard to make any argument at all, even about those things, if people have no patience for discussing politics and no reason to want to change their points of view.
By hanging out with them you provide aid and comfort and social validation.
We are at war. In a WW2 context that would be called collaboration with the enemy within.
You don’t want to fight. The enemy doesn’t want you to fight. You therefore are on the side of the enemy.
Dumb.
But then, hanging around such nits makes you dumber:
Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own
My report on HRC is posted on Power Line.
RCP average has Trump losing to her by 5.6%.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/live-from-omaha-its-madam-hillary.php
Maybe not. But he should be able to at least recognize valid law when he sees it, and might even be expected to have some respect for it.
And that might be enough to manage us out of at least some of our current difficulties. Not that everyone wishes to be extricated.
I get a sense that any number of the Republican candidates would rather destroy the field and lose the general than see not only Trump elected, but more significantly as it relates to governing principles, Cruz.
“Squabbles are good. Squabbles tear down. Toss a turd in the punch bowl if you have to. giggle giggle”
These butterball turkey Republican candidates really don’t want a nation governed by law … they have I think, actually bought into feel-goodism themselves, and are not just paying it the obligatory public homage.
The more of Jeb Bush I see, the more utterly contemptible, petulant, and destructive he seems. What a putty-faced putz. And to imagine … at that, he would be vastly better than Hillary.
They hate Trump, they fear Cruz.
To add to your points DNW I find it amazing that none of them, along with the Repubics establishment, attempted to co-opt the Trump enthusiasts. Not a good portent of things to come.
Here’s an analysis that cheered me up:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/16/military-strategist-explains-why-donald-trump-leads-and-how-he-will-fail/
Fair warning: it’s very long. JJ, you will like it.
This analysis cheered me up not just because I don’t like Trump and am happy to see a cogent argument that he will not be the nominee, but also because it’s cheering to read such an incredibly good analysis! There are so many people in the world who are serious thinkers, doing great work to truly understand painful and difficult things. It’s easy to forget they are out there — they’re not usually the ones on TV. (Although there are plenty of exceptions. I’ve been appreciating Michael Weiss on CNN lately.)
This analysis is also helpful in that it takes into account what most others don’t seem to, the huge changes in the nature of the election process, with the rise of social media etc.
It is not cheering, however, to learn (maybe others knew this, I didn’t) that Hillary has created her own get-out-the-vote machine to rival Obama’s (since Obama refused to give Hillary access to the one he built, reportedly, reportedly breaking a former promise to Clinton). Here’s the link to that story:
http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/
Finally, I want to heartily disagree with this comment:
“By hanging out with them you provide aid and comfort and social validation.”
Neo has made it clear that her friends know her views. So she is not validating their views, she is validating only their humanity.
We are not at war with one another. Depriving all leftists of our friendship is not going to end the war against the West. Most of the leftists I know are simply misinformed. They have strange views that they need to be disabused of, but as neo says, a mind is a very difficult thing to change. It’s even more difficult if you don’t know anyone who disagrees with you.
In my view, it’s useful to mix with leftists and make sure they know you aren’t one. Ask them questions and encourage them to ask you. If people are willing to have a discussion, things can change. I remember one young woman at a college-reunion type event who insisted that the rich should pay more taxes. I asked her why. She had no idea. Nobody had ever asked her to make an argument to defend her views. Probably because she only hung out with people who held the same views. Because I wasn’t rude about it, she learned something important — she realized that she hadn’t actually thought about this issue. I think this sort of thing helps.
I spend a lot of time in West Marin County, California, where leftists are very thick on the ground. Some of them are honest people who are interested to learn about things like what the teaparty movement was actually about. When they find out that someone they respect for other reasons holds these views, that’s one blow against the stereotype.
Sarah Rolph Says:
December 17th, 2015 at 12:26 pm
We are not at war with one another.
We are.
Look all around you. The “Church Lady” approach has worked real well hasn’t it?
It is war. A culture war so far albeit intense.
Rather likely you’ll soon be marched off to the cattle car.
Look at Europe now.
Last time they boarded sheepishly.
Join the struggle or be gone.
The other side is working the phones for Hiltlery…
And for a different perspective on Trump here’s this:
http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2015/12/17/explaining-why-trump-will-be-president-up-close–personal-n2094511
Basically his thesis is that Trump is appealing to the working class, “mad as hell”, group.
” physicsguy Says:
December 17th, 2015 at 12:57 pm
And for a different perspective on Trump here’s this:
http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2015/12/17/explaining-why-trump-will-be-president-up-close—personal-n2094511
Basically his thesis is that Trump is appealing to the working class, “mad as hell”, group.”
That is why we have to import as many state dependent immigrants as quickly as possible, and issue them voter registration cards. So those bitter clinger bigots who remember what an economic future in a fee market nation used to feel like, will not be able to stymie progress.
Do you mean that they don’t realize that the PPACA radically transformed the relationship of the citizen to the Federal state, by placing an unlimited – by income, or service age, or national emergency – social claim against his life?
Do you mean that they didn’t understand that the young are now legally liable to fines and punishment for not underwriting the costs of an older generation in a way the older generation never was obliged by law to do?
You don’t really mean they don’t know.
What you mean is that they can successfully ignore these changes and legal imposition because it suits and profits them personally – either materially or psychologically – to do so.
And really … how can you be so brutal as to tell that cousin with the type two diabetes she has brought on herself, to drop dead or quit eating pastries, when there are so many young people with so much of their life ahead of them, to be exploited?
Pass the insulin please … I feel a craving for a doughnut coming on.
And after all aren’t we all our brother’s keeper or something? And who are we to judge another’s need? And who knows, you might just catch with Sickle Cell, or alcoholism or HIV yourself – it’s in the air I hear – and then you will have to eat your words …
DNW:
This argument has been going on for many years on this blog. You know that I disagree strongly with you and others who advocate this. But I believe it’s futile to waste more time arguing with you.
However, I will add that the answer to your questions is “no.” They do not “realize” or “understand” what you think is so widely known and obvious that to differ or disagree with your knowledge and your conclusions is to “willfully ignore” the obviousness of them.
No, many many people do not spend their lives reading newspapers in detail or blogs, or listening to cable news. They read the lead stories, they consider themselves well-informed enough because they have read the gist of the article—and after all, it’s in the Globe or the Times or some other well-known newspaper that has a good reputation among virtually all the people they know. Then they go out and live their lives, assuming they know, and don’t realize what they don’t know.
Unlike you, font of all wisdom/knowledge.
“In my view, it’s useful to mix with leftists and make sure they know you aren’t one. Ask them questions and encourage them to ask you. If people are willing to have a discussion, things can change. I remember one young woman at a college-reunion type event who insisted that the rich should pay more taxes. I asked her why. She had no idea. Nobody had ever asked her to make an argument to defend her views. Probably because she only hung out with people who held the same views. Because I wasn’t rude about it, she learned something important – she realized that she hadn’t actually thought about this issue. I think this sort of thing helps.
I spend a lot of time in West Marin County, California, where leftists are very thick on the ground. Some of them are honest people who are interested to learn about things like what the teaparty movement was actually about. When they find out that someone they respect for other reasons holds these views, that’s one blow against the stereotype.”
Now I will try to give a more nuanced response …
I would say that I may be able to recall one, who had no idea, and was unsettled by the fact enough to wonder why he didn’t.
The other responses are: “Where’s your compassion!” (Who’s stopping you?); “What kind of society would we have if people were not forced to share?” (One where people with your heightened sense of altrusim should be able to construct attractive association opportunities for the like-minded); “What are you, an island unto yourself? People need people!” But if you are now going to shift to a reciprocity claim, because not everyone needs everyone else indiscriminately and therefore cannot be subject to the same moral liability claim)
Usually, they either shut down or launch into a diversionary rant. Anything but to follow the logic trail. And this outcome makes a certain amount of sense if you read what progressives themselves have to say about the role of reason in human life. It’s strictly subsidiary to wants … just a means of calculating how to get what you want from others people, and of no use in arbitrating the validity of those wants or claims.
Basically, you can farm the land or farm the farmers, so to speak. We all know the paradigm alternative the left tries to morally legitimize.
Thank you Neo. It’s almost embarrassing. I had no idea you had such an elevated opinion of my grasp of all things. Though I am sure it was not your intention, such effusive praise almost makes me feel humbled, and ready to look more critically at my own opinions.
I should probably take a break from reading news articles commenting and do a little Christmas shopping, since I cannot really expect my secretary to do that work for me as well.
DNW:
Sarcasm is not the point.
My point is that you really seem to consider that anyone without as much interest and knowledge as you, and who disagrees with you, should be reviled and shunned. If you care to do that, go right ahead. But other people are not going to forsake their friends and relatives that way. And if they did, the world would not end up a better place, or the way you might think it would.
Realize that not everyone is going to spend a lot of time every day on this stuff, or read the sources YOU want them to, or even agree with you if they do, and that failure to do that does not mean it is willful failure or evil.
Standards and boundaries Néo!
The province of womyn. They’re failing!
Enablers are a big problem.
Parents Question Choice To Sing
‘Allahu Akbar’ At Holiday Concert
Standards and boundaries!
Eventually it’ll come to these words:
You have screwed up my country, prepare to die …
People have been dying.
Some would like you to believe they deserved it:
san-bernardino-victim-got-what-he-deserved
CNN Asks Slain San Bernardino Man’s Widow If He Was Asking For It
I recognize the linguistic tricks at play ….
I smell the enablers …