The Legal Insurrection authors react to the probable Trump nomination
An interesting mix of responses from the crew at Legal Insurrection. You can’t say we’re not a varied bunch.
I especially identified with the response of blog host William A. Jacobson.
We, Mrs. Paker and parker are in the left coast (Eugene, Oregon) visiting son, daughter inlaw, and youngest grandchild to celebrate his 1st birthday. They are here because our youngest son is one year away from completing his PhD at U of O. They are anxious to leave this leftist ‘utopia’ of homeless addicts and aged hippie insanity. They are 36 and 32 years old, generation parker conservatives.
None of us will vote for hrc or djt. We have agreed to vote Libertarian. Gary Johnson, the likely Libertarian nominee, has his faults like any othe politician, but he is a former 2 time governor of NM. If 10 or 20 million vote for the Libertarian candidate it will send a message to the gop (e). And bear in mind Johnson is not Ron Paulian. Futile, yes, but a message must be sent. Smaller DC, fiscal restraint, more power to the states and the people, the 9th and 10th are the most important amendments.
BTW, its beautiful here the rhododendrons are 10 plus feet high and covered in a kaleidoscope of colors and it is lush and fragrant. Hippie utopia has turned this lush landscape into a drugged out dystopia.
I liked Anne Sorock’s — pretty close to what I think.
Just found this. Might be of interest:
Lynne Patton – “The Trump Family That I Know” – A Black Female Trump Executive Speaks
I’m in complete agreement with Prof. Miriam Elman, who wrote:
Conservatives could use up every minute in the day rejecting accusations from liberals and it would still mean nothing.
To use the Aubrey acronym, EKBA. Everybody Knows Better Already.
Opposing, rejecting, disowning such accusation are a waste of time. If a republican candidate “rejects” racism, it matters not at all. He and republicans are still racists.
The accusers lie, they know they lie, and so does everybody else. But the accusations are designed to move the discussion or argument to the subject of the accusation and, possibly, leave a smear on republicans and conservatives.
One of Trump’s appeals is that he doesn’t seem to be interested in dancing to that tune.
Whether Trump actively and verbally rejects, say, KKK support is irrelevant. The accusation is the thing and no rejection is going to matter.
So there’s no point to it, it reminds people of the subject, and ignoring it is positively attractive to people who’ve been self-censoring because somebody might say the same thing about them, false as it may be.
I’m with parker and family… Libertarian is it.
Maybe downticket GOP, IF they don’t get cozy with Trump.
Parker:
Enjoy the Willamette Valley and the “coast” if you get the chance. Western Oregon is a beautiful place with a great climate from June to early November, before it starts to rain, and rain, and rain, and …. Well, been there, lived through that, and the hippies from the 70’s never left or matured.
Agree about the alternatives to HRC and the evil one. The election is over for me, hope Neo keeps the alternate topics coming.
Big Maq,
I say downticket definitely. That’s the only chance to rein in either winner. What these people may hedge on during the election is not predictive of how they will act in office, where they will feel pressure from their peers. And the more decent peers we have in office, the better our chances will be to affect the system.
Assuming that Trump is the nominee–which seems a pretty safe assumption now–I expect I’ll also vote Libertarian. I’ve voted Libertarian before, so it won’t be the first time. The LP ought to get quite a bump out of the Republican Party cutting its own throat.
Downticket is incredibly important this election cycle, but here in NV I am faced with Congress people who treasure office over principle, and that is sad. Nonetheless, I will support them.
As for Trump — I am still undecided. Like many others, I would have preferred Cruz and supported him to the last. That is now over, although I hope he gets a Supreme Court nomination. Would he get the Senate’s consent (even with a GOP majority)? That is still questionable, so deep is the hatred for him. Perhaps the Senate would consent just to get him out of the chamber.
Back to Trump. I will be making up my mind over the course of the coming months. If I see him take on good advisers (rumors are floating that he’ll tap Gingrich as his VP), I will support him while holding my nose. As so many others have said, Hillary is so much worse a choice. If I see him picking up good advisers then ignoring them, I will be seriously conflicted.
But we still don’t have a nomination. The word “presumptive” when attached to both Hillary and Trump is a big “if”. I will continue to be engaged, and to follow the electoral process with great attention.
Oh, and thanks, Neo, for the link to Legal Insurrection. Lots of good thoughts in that post.
@expat and F – Agree on the importance of getting down-ticket GOP into Congress, but it matters if the people are Chris Christies (who would acquiesce/fold before Trump), or if they are more like Ben Sasse (who would could count on to be vigilant to and defending against the darker paths Trump could/would lead).
Even Sen Ayotte is not quite hitting it right by me, but maybe it is her choice of framing that is wrong. It is early. We have until Nov to see how she and the rest position themselves.
Excellent article here on why the arguments to vote for Trump are weak, at best.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5474/5-arguments-voting-trump-and-why-they-fail-ben-shapiro
Agree with F – thanks for link to LI. Surprisingly haven’t run into them before.
Our new list of conservative thought leaders are probably all found on Neo’s link and on this one, both from LI…
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/05/conservative-reaction-to-the-trumpublican-party/
Thanks Neo!
‘They are flip sides of the same coin.’
In terms of the short term damage they could do perhaps. But what of the long term for those of us who can think beyond two election cycles? What about the effect on people’s beliefs? Trump will be blamed on us while Clinton will not. Trump will give capitalism a bad name while Clinton will not. Clinton might galvanize Republican opposition while Trump most definitely will not. A massive loss by Trump might make the Republican party reexamine itself. A win (or close loss) by him will not.
Though none of this is certain; it is highly likely.
The long term damage Trump will do is far greater than Hillary even if he doesn’t get us into a nuclear war.
I will have no part of it.
Parker, OM, the protest vote is worth something. I wasn’t going to vote for pres but you make a good point. Libertarian it is.
My long response is on LI – but let’s remember.
It’s Clinton plus Dems in Congress, or it’s Trump plus Reps in Congress.
I’m comfy with a fighting, insulting but also insult-proof Trump plus Reps in Congress.
I won’t be too unhappy if more small-gov’t folk go Libertarins (been there, done that; twice a Lib candidate in CA in ’86 & ’88) — but if this means Clinton wins, there will be further degradation of America.
Milo Y has a note about it to the effect: elite anti-Trump folk prefer being virtuous to winning.
I’m now more interested in winning than ‘virtue’.
I remain committed to Free Trade, and yet …
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/reading-david-brooks-altoona
M. Sitman gets upset at David Brooks and notes:
>>There is no reconsideration of “free trade,” no pondering our Forever War in the Middle East, no questioning what kind of healthcare system might reduce the risk of financial catastrophe for downscale Americans.
…
What Brooks and his fellow conservatives have not done is reconsider how their ideology and policy agenda have helped deliver us to this moment, or ask themselves how they might improve the material circumstances of those who have now turned to Trump.” <<
Here in Slovakia, the Christian Democrats, full of virtue, failed to get the 5% needed to get any members of Parliament.
Other new parties, mostly offering more benefits and "new faces", with far inferior policies, did get elected.
Republicans have almost lost the culture war … winning with a flawed Rep, under these circumstances, seems the likeliest way to limit further damage.
I'm moving towards that famous Lombaridi quote:
winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.
I don't like that reality, but that's the Obama-Clinton-Bush-Dem Media reality I see.
Libertarian — only slightly less bad as a word than entrepreneur.
The Free Trade / Free Marketeers (like me!) need to accept that Reps haven’t yet eased the pain of middle and lower middle class workers.
Voters are voting for promises of gov’t action.
Trump & more Reps for the middle worker voters.
I’m flirting with a new idea here — one which, just possibly, could see me not only voting for Trump in November, but being comfortable doing so.
We’ve been noting with alarm, for years, the American Left’s descent into the mud. We saw ridiculous charges leveled against a sitting President (GWB) to derail his re-election. We saw no expense spared, no depth unplumbed, to drag Gov. Sarah Palin’s name through the muck, for no reason other than that she was a Republican VP nominee. We saw journalists willing to dig through to prehistoric times to find the tiniest bit of dirt they could use against Mitt Romney, when they wouldn’t ask Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton a single hard-hitting question.
We’ve seen, in short, the mainstreaming of horrific tactics used against Republicans, which no Democrat need endure one-tenth of. And we’ve been saying, for years, that this will continue, so long as the tactics continue to get results. As Glenn Reynolds likes to say, people will continue to do what they think is working for them.
Is there anything that can stop this ongoing flow of rancid political poison? Yes — a Republican candidate willing to give as good — or as nasty — as he gets.
If all Trump accomplishes is to tone down the filth coming from the American Left for a few election cycles, I’ll count that as a win.
And as for the disaster that a Trump Presidency would no doubt be — well, you know what? In theory I agree… but it occurs to me that I’m hearing that from many of the same people who advocate letting Hillary win. If we’re going to “burn the whole thing down” anyway — and I see a good chance of chaos from a President Trump, Clinton, OR Sanders — then let’s have it happen in a fashion that lances this particular boil. It’s been festering for far too long.
If Trump will fight — and that’s an open question for me right now, to be settled by tomorrow’s headlines — then it’ll be a fight the Left has long deserved. We have some people fighting the battles locally, such as Steven Crowder and Bill Whittle (and the late Andrew Breitbart)… but we haven’t had a bare-knuckle fighter as a Presidential nominee for a long, long time.
The American Left has made it clear that THEY will fight that way, until and unless we make them stop. The only way to make them stop is by making such tactics hurtful to them.
If Trump can do that — if he can draw political blood from Hillary and/or Bernie, and in the process, show the Left just how noxious they’ve been, and how damaging it is to us all — then I’ll not only vote for Trump, I’ll sleep soundly that night after having done so.
And then I’ll hope, pray, and work for a saner political future.
@Neo – on your “burning it down” post, I am reminded of your post which mentions F. L. Lucas’ assessment in his day of the “blindness” that befalls a great many in the face of the “obvious”, especially of Neville Chamberlain’s folly.
http://neoneocon.com/2015/09/26/more-on-facing-the-truth/
Trump is no Hitler, as we can tell. But, I’ve just read a post from someone who prior essentially said “Trump is not qualified”, and now says (to paraphrase) “Look at his accomplishments in life, his actions have never been crazy, though his words are”… IOW, don’t believe what he says, his actions speak for themselves.
Sometimes we have to fall back on Occam’s Razor and simply believe what someone is telling us they will do, rather than guess at there being a complex, brilliant strategy behind what Trump is saying and what he really will be offering.
Sure he is a business “success”. So was Henry Ford. Doesn’t mean what he politically advocates is any good.
Sometimes the “truth” is in plain sight, if only we want to look at it.
It is one of those things that once you “see it”, there is no going back.
I’m adding a comment to serve as a public bookmark for my current thoughts, which are pretty commonplace. Maybe I’ll change my mind; maybe I’ll change it more than once.
I plan to vote for Trump, but I can’t possibly support him or work for him. If I could somehow cast a negative vote against Hillary, then that’s what I’d do.
For me, this will be a choice driven by fear. Which list is longest? Trump’s or Hillary’s?
As we get closer to November, polls should provide a good idea about how the electoral college will go. If Hillary looks to be an overwhelming favorite, then I’ll vote for the Libertarian nominee, even though any message sent by that vote would be weak tea.
Finally, I agree with all those who plan to work for down-ticket candidates. There’s still a good chance that Trump won’t destroy the Republican Party, but it depends on a lot of conservatives doing at least a little work at the local level. If the Republican Party does survive Trump, then I think that small-government conservatives can be an important and influential minority within the Party. Without the GOP, small-government conservatives will be excluded from universities, the media, and the government. We’ll be reduced to muttering ominously to each other and drinking decaf — or too many distilled beverages.
‘Gary Johnson, the likely Libertarian nominee’
The only problem is that’s half a vote for Trump but I understand your reasons. There comes a point where you have to be able to look at yourself in the mirror after the election. As the former 2 term governor of New Mexico Johnson has more executive experience than anyone else running for president and (mostly) the correct ideas.
But what if Gary Johnson isn’t the Libertarian nominee? We’ll find out in a few days. The convention is at the end of May.
I’ll hold off on the lawn sign until he is confirmed and has a running mate.
If you want to take a break from Trump for a few minutes, here is an excellent post of faith from Ricochet:
https://ricochet.com/a-jewish-atheist-for-a-more-christian-america/
Read also Benedicts address at the WH. It’s the second comment.
This is, I believe, our problem with Trump. He has no awareness of things like faith, sacrifice,or responsibility. How can someone make our country great again when he has no understanding of what made it great in the first place.
@Tom G and Daniel – read reason #1…
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5474/5-arguments-voting-trump-and-why-they-fail-ben-shapiro
You are fooling yourselves, if you think that we are any better off with Trump as the leader to stop or “tone down” the left. (Tom, we are not Slovakia, so that may be the difference in how you see things, IDK).
It is not stop the left at any cost, when that cost is likely the destruction of the party that best represents our ideals.
Folks have to separate methods / tactics from substance.
Fighting fire with fire, is an interesting concept, but that usually results in escalation, not a mutual agreement to tone things down. Ask any street thug who gets down and dirty.
On substance, Trump has largely been left of any GOP candidate in generations. And, on the few polices he’s been “conservative” on, there is evidence of his back-pedaling. So, Trump is hardly reliable as a candidate to deliver anything resembling a conservative governing philosophy.
At best, it will be hit and miss, and largely unpredictable / situational.
At worst, he actually does what he says, and we are in a heap of trouble.
‘Trump is no Hitler, as we can tell.’
But he is paving the way for a tyrant. That is the problem.
Big Maq:
“Trump is no Hitler, as we can tell.”
But. How do the Trump-front alt-Right activists that are the creative engine of the Trump phenomenon compare to the Nazis?
What’s the attendant social political hierarchy if the Trump phenomenon expands and normalizes in American society whether or not, and moreso if, Trump wins the White House?
In other words, prioritize evaluation of the social activist movement, not just the front man. The failure of the Right and GOP to make the proper activist evaluation of the Obama 2012 victory led to their unpreparedness in the 2016 nomination race. The same inadequate scope would have defeated the GOP candidate in the general election had the Trump phenomenon not risen to exploit the market inefficiency for the GOP nomination.
Big Maq:
“But, I’ve just read a post from someone who prior essentially said “Trump is not qualified”, and now says (to paraphrase) “Look at his accomplishments in life, his actions have never been crazy, though his words are”… IOW, don’t believe what he says, his actions speak for themselves.”
Excerpt:
Big Maq:
“Sometimes the “truth” is in plain sight, if only we want to look at it.
It is one of those things that once you “see it”, there is no going back.”
Per Ann’s comment quoting Miriam Elman, the Left-mimicking Trump-front (for now) alt-Right social activist movement is establishing their Gramscian long march to reify their preferred social condition for America with paradigm shift in plain sight.
Regarding a Libertarian vote.
As was the case with many here, my first votes decades ago, were for libertarian candidates. In the age of Carter, it seemed to make sense.
I voted for them not because I personally endorsed all of their ideas, nor all of the behaviors they were willing to tolerate (as they themselves stipulate and acknowledge) , but because under a libertarian regime, at least in theory, the obnoxious assholes can be what they are and kill themselves off, and you still don’t have to pay for it.
And if they insist on putting their barely human faces in your face and squawking their demands, well then, under a libertarian regime, you could in theory do what is necessary to repel the intrusion.
However, the libertarian party somehow became to all extents and purposes the drug user party, and the arguments in favor of allowing pushers to push to schoolkids, and peddling human organs in the name of the technically inchoate notion of “self-ownership” just went to show how completely the party had drifted from classical liberalism to a philosophically incoherent daydream of drug addled solipsists.
Affiliation without any moral affinity whatsoever seems to be their premise.
Ostracism, shunning, boycotting, are all great ideas for expressing moral disapproval without resorting to violence. The problem is that it is and has been for decades now, the very notion of the private that has been under attack; and while libertarians have a manifesto of sorts, and speak in terms of “inherent rights” they have no positive philosophical rejoinders to offer to the collectivist, other than technically outdated slogans.
They are “fighting” Marcuse, Marx, and a host of others who deny the very existence of the individual as traditionally understood, with platitudes based on free-market exchange – completely missing the bloody anthropological point actually in dispute.
In the fifth paragraph, I should have said ‘arguments’ advanced by those identifying with the party … rather than the party itself.
As far as I know, no official libertarian candidate has ever suggested tort law as a sufficient remedy in the case of someone standing outside your kid’s school and trying to entice them.
I’ll expand on this with an illustration in a different context below.
I’ve told this before so …
Sometime ago, I had what became a relatively violent encounter with a youth, who in defense of his behavior began mouthing libertarian-like propositions.
The context, not to go into too much detail, was in front of small public serving business, on private property.
The “kid” was using the walk-way immediately in front of the business as a runway and ramp from which to launch his skateboard off the drop-off at the end of the walk.
Now by walk-way, I am referring not to a side walk near the street out beyond the parking lot, nor the parking lot itself, but to the 4 ft wide strip of concrete between the parking lot and the building face, and over which the glass access door opened to allow entrance inside.
The “kid”, was racing his board along the walk way and launching off the 3 foot drop at its end and landing on a drive, as a kind of thrill or stunt.
Old women had to stop and wait for him to go by, before they could enter. Then they had to look out as they left so as not to be broadsided.
The Asian proprietors, did nothing to intervene.
So, I dropped my shirts on the counter, and went outside, holding the door open, and just stared off into space admiring the lovely day, for a minute or two.
As I eventually turned to go inside, I heard from some yards behind me, “Are you done yet?”
Turing to face him, I replied, “No, but you are”.
You can imagine how it went downhill from there when he boarded up to me and began to try and argue for his privilege.
One of the more remarkable things he said when I inquired what he would do if he knocked into some old lady and they both went through the plate glass, was that if he went to the hospital all cut up it was his problem.
As I mentioned before, I informed him it was not his bleeding to death that was the issue, but rather his victim and her costs; to which this 17 year old with just enough resources to pay for a skateboard, informed me that if that were the case then he would pay her bills.
When he became alarmed that he might if he persisted in pestering me suffer such injuries at my hands however, he went not to self-help, but to the police; after asking me for the money to make a phone call since his cell phone was not working properly.
In a libertarian society he would be dead, and his dad picking up the carcass. So much for the libertarian druggies as well.
They don’t know what they are really asking for.
Thanks for the link. I used to read LI regularly, but drifted away. Interesting divergence of opinions, and supporting rationale on either side.
Seems as though many of those who support Trump do so primarily because they detest the egotistical, elitist Pundits who oppose him. As opposed to Christie, Guliani, Gingrich, O’Reilly, Hannity, et al, I suppose Oh, well.
Good points here. Trump seems to me, from his own statements, to advocate increased extra-constitutional executive authority. We have gone much too far in that direction already with the current DOJ, IRS and its Swat teams, EPA and a host of other agencies of the executive branch operating willy nilly in support of an agenda that no President would take before Congress, or the Courts. Proceeding on down that road is a troubling thought.
Trump needs to somehow demonstrate reverence for the constitution, and an appreciation for the limitations, as well as the power, of the Presidency. Otherwise, no deal Mr Deal Maker.
Living in California, my vote means little. I though it might in a primary, but alas. Still, I have a vote to award as I see fit. It is a right that needs to be exercised. That vote has value and must be earned. Would a Libertarian vote have any significance? I doubt it; but, perhaps they can convince me that it would mean something. All I know at this point is that HRC’s chance of earning it is akin to a snow ball’s chance in…
Neo:
“I especially identified with the response of blog host William A. Jacobson.”
William Jacobson:
“Possible loss of years of hard work by thousands of conservative activists who have changed the nation, even if they did not change D.C.”
People like Professor Jacobson need to evaluate the sufficiency of conservative “activists” with a more critical and pragmatic diagnosis of the needs of the activist game and scope of the arena. Then follow up that diagnosis with sufficient prescription and treatment.
That’s not to say Jacobson’s conservative “activists” are doing it wrong or their achievements are negligible, but it is clear that at minimum, they’ve been insufficient for the needs of the competition.
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is and the Trump phenomenon has been a clarion fitness test for Republicans, in particular Jacobson’s conservative “activists”. They failed the fitness test in the judgement of the GOP constituency in front of America and the world.
That being said, failure is not a dead end. Competing for real in the activist game is iterative. Defeat at the hands of superior activists is a normal and expected part of the learning curve. It’s up to conservatives to properly learn the lessons of the arena taught to them by Left activists and now Left-mimicking alt-Right activists and apply the lessons sufficiently.
Cornflour:
“There’s still a good chance that Trump won’t destroy the Republican Party, but it depends on a lot of conservatives doing at least a little work at the local level.”
Per Jacobson’s conservative “activists”, “a little work at the local level” is necessary, but insufficient.
To compete for real, conservatives must scale up local efforts to a greater, full-spectrum – full-nation – social activist movement distinct from the GOP.
Conservative activists can and should work with, equip, and influence the GOP on conservatives’ terms, but to be competitive and effective, the conservative social activist movement cannot be contained and subordinate to the GOP. It should be comparable to the relationship between Left and Democrats, albeit their distinction has been blurred because the Left social activist movement has largely subsumed the Democrats.
Cornflour:
“Without the GOP, small-government conservatives will be excluded from universities, the media, and the government. We’ll be reduced to muttering ominously to each other and drinking decaf – or too many distilled beverages.”
Your premise of structural dependency on the GOP will reduce conservatives to irrelevance.
The “reduced to muttering ominously to each other” stature for conservatives is already happening with the alt-Right plundering of the GOP constituency and takeover of the GOP. For a ready reference, they’re following the model of the dominant leftists who progressively displaced and replaced liberals, except they’re more open about marginalizing “cuckservatives”.
Similarly, depending on the charity of alt-Right activists who ‘other’ conservatives as “cuckservatives” is not a reliable way to become an “important and influential minority within the Party”. Like leftists have displaced and replaced liberals in the progressive course of the Left’s Gramscian march, the alt-Right (who are on their way to dropping the ‘alt-‘ part of that label) might buy off conservatives’ acquiescence with political nuggets, but their charity will progressively move away from an “important and influential” role for conservatives and towards diminishment of conservatives in the re-purposed “Party”.
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is. Collectively going full activist is the only way for conservatives to compete for real. Your premise of structural dependency on the GOP is tantamount to surrendering to the political obsolescence of conservatives.
” Trump seems to me, from his own statements, to advocate increased extra-constitutional executive authority.” – Oldflyer
“alt-Right social activist movement is establishing their Gramscian long march to reify their preferred social condition for America with paradigm shift in plain sight” – Eric
“But he is paving the way for a tyrant. That is the problem.” – Steve D
I cannot say he is conclusively himself a would-be tyrant, but he and his most vociferous supporters have given many indications in that direction, and we ought to believe him/them. It may not be him, but those that come after.
Either way, that makes him more dangerous, IMHO than even Hillary, as bad as she would be.
I’d rather Hillary for four years and a likely resulting public revulsion that sees a “proper conservative” (with a hopefully revitalized GOP party) candidate in 2020.
If it is Trump, there will likely be an even worse leftist backlash in 2020, whose leader will have powers Obama never imagined.
.
@DNW – an anecdotal story of a misguided “druggie” youth who obviously has entitlement issues is not illustrative of the libertarian movement.
Haven’t we seen how many have appropriated the identity of “conservative” only to abandon the basic tenets in support of someone who is hardly one of “them”?
But you raise a point about The Libertarian Party, as they also has a communication and strategy problem, aside from policy issues that don’t fit today’s reality, IMHO. They tend to talk in theoreticals, with difficulty in translating that to something meaningful to the everyday joe, where the “rubber meets the road” so to speak.
So, it appeals to either idealists, or those who want an excuse to do “whatever” without personal responsibility for it, under the guise of living a guilt-free, “free-libertarian” life.
Maybe in November they will see support like they never had it. Unless the vast majority of GOP supporters remaining acquiesce to the Trump side, just to be “anti-Dem”.
Another XGOPer:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/05/05/dear-gop-ive-decided-to-start-seeing-other-parties/
I’ve long believed this to be true. Our Constitution came out of Western Civilization. It could not have been written anywhere else. Western Civilization came out of Christianity. It could not have developed anywhere else. Attacking Christianity had the dual effect of gutting both Western Civilization and our Constitution.
I recently read an article by Dennis Prager that I think sums things up nicely. It’s at http://www.dennisprager.com/a-note-to-conservatives-who-are-secular/.
I’ll most likely vote for Trump. Largely because I think he’ll do less harm. He doesn’t seem to me to be hostile to Christianity. It’s possible Trump will do or say something between now and November that will prompt me to sit out the election.
But I don’t think anyone can restore the American Republic. Or has any real desire to try.
Waidmann
‘In a libertarian society he would be dead, and his dad picking up the carcass.’
I don’t get it? Why would the story end any differently under libertarianism? There would still be police and firemen etc., only funded by voluntary or strictly limited means I think you have anarchy and small government Libertarianism mixed up…or something.
‘They are flip sides of the same coin.’
Actually Trump and Sanders are flip sides of the same coin. (nationalism and socialism – two of the worst ideas in all of history).
Eric, please be more specific about “activist tactics.” Near as I can tell they involve trolling political websites and tweeting and re-tweeting obnoxious insults.
They have certainly had an influence on the local conservative (maybe) radio talk show hosts. They repeatedly say they are getting many angry emails and text messages from Trumpers.
I am also aware of a few isolated successes by activists on college campuses but AFAIK they have had zero influence on the left wing culture.
I read Theodore Beale’s (Vox Day) book “Social Justice Warriors always Lie” with his description of the Gamergate tactics. They have had some success damaging the left-wing SJW media businesses but no changes in their actual content AFAIK.
What are the tactics you are proposing? I am serious and genuinely curious.
I’ll wait until I see the VP choices – after all, both Clinton and Trump are older, have legal issues and may have health issues. At least we know that Hillary does have health issues.
If Clinton choses another far left person as her VP, then I’ll vote for Trump to try to ensure that the Dem VP doesn’t become president.
I don’t think anyone here can profit from a long argument about small-government conservatism, proposals for conservative activism, and the alt-right’s role in Trump’s rise. On these issues, it’s clear I have some disagreements with “Eric,” but our differences aren’t as great as he seems to think.
Having said that, I’ll add a few quick notes. I sincerely hope that they don’t lead to quarrels about how best to slice doctrine.
In response to Eric’s comment, I don’t think that the actions of small-government conservatives should be structurally dependent on the GOP; but without the Party, our influence is diminished — even trivialized. I’m certainly not saying that the GOP should circumscribe the activities of small-government conservatives. In fact, almost by definition, small-government conservatives want to maximize their freedom to live outside the bounds of government and party.
Neither do I think that small-government conservatives should limit their activities to GOP election campaigns — especially to national campaigns. In both European and American political thought, there is a long conservative tradition advocating involvement in local and regional organizations and institutions. I’d like to see a revitalization of this tradition, and to rebuilding a conservative base. I don’t think that the phrase “culturally conservative” should be synonymous with Evangelical Christianity, but Christian churches should remain an important part of a conservative culture, and Evangelicals have provided a good example for other conservative organizations. Of course, such organizations should not be structurally dependent on Evangelicals, any more than they should be on the GOP.
I don’t look forward to a conservative version of the Left’s politicization of the personal. I think that would be a mistake, because it’s antithetical to conservatism itself, not because it’s too icky. I understand that Eric hasn’t advocated anything of the sort; but, to me, politicizing the personal is always a danger for what we’ve come to call “political activists.” We saw this with the New Left, then with the new Progressives, and now with some factions of the alt-right. I wouldn’t want to see the practice imitated by small-government conservatives.
There, I think that’s more than enough. Really, these topics are too big for a blog comment. Neo’s written quite a bit on these themes, and I’m sure there will be more to come.
The choice before us is simple.
Hillary leads to Stalin and Trump leads to Ceasar. One or the other shall prevail.
Ceasar may be overthrown but 1984 will be here to stay.
Why is that our only choice?
In 2008, again in 2012 and now with Trump and Hillary… a majority of the American people have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be incapable of rising to the responsibilities that liberty requires.
Whether due to leftist indoctrination, cultural dissolution and/or outright subversion and treason, it all has brought us to the precipice upon which America now stands. We are at that precipice because too many have abandoned allegiance to our Constitution, which was America’s entire ‘raison d’etre’.
Once a majority rejects the self-discipline that liberty requires, the process that leads to the emergence of a ‘dear leader’ is initiated because nature will no more tolerate a vacuum in leadership, than it will a physical vacuum. Someone must be in charge and, if not the maturity of self-governance, then the iron fist of the demagogue, who promises the mob its “bread and circuses”.
If elected, a Trump Presidency will lead to ‘Ceasar’ (whether him or another) because Trump cannot accomplish his stated goals constitutionally. He will have to greatly extend ‘Executive orders’. He will expand upon Obama’s dismissal of the legislature’s prerogatives and be forced to make his own laws or be seen as a failure (something intolerable to his ego).
Trump will follow Obama’s example and use regulatory legerdemain, such as Obama’s D.O.J. today declaring that N.Carolina’s ‘bathroom law’ is unconstitutional and therefore in violation of Title IX’s requirements for educational funding. (billions at stake).
Note that this is not a federal court declaring a state law to be unconstitutional but the Executive branch doing so, while declaring a unilateral right to punish.
But our problem is NOT Hillary or Trump. Our problem is a depraved electorate that first chose Barack Obama and now presents itself with the ‘choice’ of a Stalin or a Ceasar.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Abraham Lincoln
Nor can spoilt children and juveniles rule themselves.
Geoffrey Britain:
I keep reading (not just from you) that Hillary Clinton is (or will lead to) Stalin. Exactly what do you mean? Gulags? Show trials?
Strangely enough, I see Trump as just as “Stalinesque” as Hillary if not more so. Even as a private citizen, he loves using the legal system to harm his foes or anyone who crosses or criticizes him (which to him is a “foe”), or to at least harass them with frivolous (and to them very expensive) lawsuits. He has little to no respect for the Constitution if it stands in his way, either. He is all for a strongman executive. He also likes a lot of leftist policies.
So I fail to get this “Stalin vs. Caesar” distinction.
neo…
Folks may hate Trump years after they crossed swords with him, but they don’t fear him for a lifetime.
That cannot be said of Hillary.
Those she’s tangled with are — time and again — claiming that they’re afraid for their lives. Indeed, that she’s a revenger of the first water.
Trump may be rude, a financial bully…
Hillary is Stalin in a pants suite.
Her class enemies list is long — and domestic.
Trump does not have class enemies — just a rightful concern about aliens.
Trump can work across party lines — always has.
Hillary can barely work with inside her own party.
Hillary is BOUGHT and PAID for by Wall Street… the TOP source of our malaise.
Trump largely knows where the bodies are buried.
Hillary largely put them in their graves.
Hillary is in debt — BIG TIME — to alien dictators.
Think of the implications… Sheesh… look at Barry Soetoro’s Iran game.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2002252
Miriam Elman’s assumption that Trump is anti-Semitic ( She means anti-Jewish, of course ) has no basis whatsoever.
She’s conflating the rabble within the Alt-Right that is flamingly paranoid, anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim — the works.
He’ll take their votes — why not ? — but that does not in any way mean that Donald Trump, New Yorker, is aligned with such opinions.
%%%
I see this jumping to emotions ALL THE TIME on the Internet.
The result is emotional screeds that don’t connect with the facts at hand — even the opinions of the other factions of American politics.
&&&&
I have a blessing. I live in a state so out of play that my vote can’t possibly count.
I might as well be an illegal alien as far as my voting power goes.
&&&&&
For those thinking — imagining — that America can survive Hillary — get over it.
Four straight terms of lunacy — and WIDE OPEN borders — must mean that demographically our votes will be meaningless forever after.
Something like this can be seen in Hawaii and Southern California. The White vote has no impact. It’s fractured. The other racial// ethnic faction votes lock-step — and totally controls government and the civil service.
( With 26% of the local population, Japanese Hawaiians controlled a full 100% of the secretarial positions in government. They were then in a position to direct business to their husbands — who contracted with the Hawaii state government and Honolulu city&county. Federal laws are simply not applied in Hawaii. No-one ever calls the Japanese down on their racism — EVER.)
neo,
A “strongman” ‘executive’ is a Ceasar. And the distinction between an ideological Marxist dictator and a fascist strongman dictator is an important one. At base, fascism is about domination. Fascists have no respect for constitutional restraint, as any restraints are an inherent barrier to establishing and maintaining domination.
The Marxist is about an idea and ideas have far more generational permanence than does a domination based in the required idolization of an individual.
Hillary leads to Stalin because the ‘Trotskyite’ “true believers”, absolutely essential to ‘progressive’ Marxism’s success… are always absolutely astonished when the ‘Stalinists’ show up. And a Stalin must ‘show up’ because socialism/progressivism/Marxism, being in opposition to key aspects of the external reality within which we exist is inherently and therefore inescapably, unsustainable. Thus the need for a Stalin to keep the monstrous Ponzi scheme going.
Whereas Trump’s absolute lack of ideological allegiance precludes his assuming a Stalinesque seizure of the State. Ceasar made the Roman Senate irrelavant, so too must Trump or be seen as a failure.
Trump leads to the irrelevance of the constitution. Trump leads to a ‘Roman’ fate for America.
Hillary to a new Marxist ‘constitution’. A new ‘paradigm’ in perception and thinking. One that celebrates mankind’s “cultural malleability” in constructing a “new man”, one created by us to occupy the utopia that we shall build. No matter how much ‘collateral damage’ is required because what means are unjustified… when ‘paradise’ awaits?
Trump is about personnal power and the corruption of the individual. Hillary is about the destruction and transformation of the last bastion resisting the triumph of a new secular religion.
Geoffrey Britain:
I know the difference between Marxism and fascism.
But I don’t see Hillary Clinton as an ideological Marxist. I see her as a leftist, but basically (just like Trump) a crony capitalist strongman/woman, a statist.
Fascists were more of the left than the right, primarily.
blert:
I’ve read things written by quite a few people who tangled with Trump and fear him, particularly his lawsuits and insults, and have dropped their objections to him or what he’s done out of that fear. What’s more, the only reason they don’t fear him as much as some do Hillary is that he’s never before had the governmental power that she does. With the presidency, he’ll have that power, and more.
So I fail to get this “Stalin vs. Caesar” distinction.
It’s nationalism vs. socialism and it’s the future leaders they will lead to not what they are now. However, I disagree with Geoffrey slightly on Clinton. The real difference is between Sanders and Trump. Clinton doesn’t lead to Stalin at least not quickly. She is much less ideological than Sanders and actually to the right of Obama. She is a run of the mill corrupt incompetent semi-leftist politician. Trump with his white identity politics and trade wars is trying to co-opt the only possible victim group left for him. He plays on our nationalistic impulses. If Trump is elected, the Republican Party may very well realize that is the path to victory and give up their last semblance of loyalty to capitalism which will be reflected in future elections. At that point it is game over for freedom the US. That is why he is so much of a problem and must be defeated at all costs.
neo,
It never occurred to me that you were not fully aware of the difference between facsimile and Marxism.
It is in your perception of Hillary as primarily a leftist, driven by corrupt ambition where I believe your perception goes astray.
No acolyte of Alinsky is driven primarily by statist corruption. Hillary’s cronyism is primarily a means toward acquiring the resources needed to position herself as the foremost representative to advance the ideology she embraces. She’s learned to hide it fairly well having been tutored by an expert, our ‘first’ black President.
Secondarily, she views her financial ‘rewards’ as merely just recompense for her efforts and dedication. Hillary herself is a Leninist , one who combines Trotsky’s ideological fervor with Stalin’s ruthless pragmatism. The Lenins need the Trotskys and Stalins but it is the Lenins who lead the way.
Sanders is the Trotskyite. Hillary is not a Stalin, she is the one who prepares the way for his emergence.
Steve D,
They are much closer than it may appear, they voted together 96% of the time in the Senate. That’s a difference without a distinction. Sanders is more honest, both because he’s more naive and because he never had the constant benefit of Bill Clintin’s pragmatic input.
Geoffrey Britain:
We continue to disagree.
I’ll leave it at that, since we certainly won’t convince each other. Perhaps our disagreements are a matter of degree.
Big Maq it looks like you are bringing value to the commentary.
Cornflour, your comments resonate. I have posted that activism is almost antithetical to the conservative mind set–at least the activism that some advocate, and that mirrors the left.
I think the term Evangelical Christian has been corrupted, and used pejoratively by detractors; much like the Zionist label. At one time, it had a narrow meaning that did not suggest proselytizing or trying to impose beliefs or lifestyles, despite the claims by opposing voices. The majority of Christians still simply want to practice their faith as guaranteed by the Constitution. Not alone in that of course.
If we turn our backs on the Judeo-Christian heritage we have no underpinnings.
At the risk of being accused of being a Trumpian, I will share this analysis of Trump that comes from an old squadron mate of mine. The writer is a warrior who I admire and a man of good intentions and intellect. His analysis may be a bit starry eyed or over optimistic. Judge for yourselves:
“Ya know, who wouldn’t be just totally fascinated by this Trump thing !?!? There are parts that are truly exciting. Just to see what would happen with somebody like this elected. We’ve got separation of powers, stopgaps, that don’t exist now because the Republicans are afraid to oppose Obama. However, the DEMOCRATS are not going to be afraid to oppose Trump if he does things they don’t like. Something worth considering.
I’ve read both “The Art of the DEAL” and “The Art of the Comeback,” which are better at explaining his personality, although not as good about actually explaining business. If we get a Trump Presidency, I think it will be a lot like Andrew Jackson. To understand Trump, he’s Andrew Jackson with Theodore Roosevelt’s energy and P.T. Barnum’s public relations ability. You WILL NOT be able to predict every morning what he’s going to do. He is a study in motion……………………..
You really see this when you read his books; he intuitively moves towards trying to get something to work. He zigzags and he does stuff. He DOES NOT fit the corporate, well-planned, risk avoidance model. He’s also not ideological. He’s not guided by ideology, and a lot of people have trouble understanding him because of that.
Trump understands the larger world. He’s a business man. This is not some guy who’s an isolationist. He’s also a very loving father and grandfather, in a way that people don’t really understand yet. As folks get to know him and his kids, they’re going to have a much better sense of who he is in ways that he doesn’t personally talk about much because I think it makes him uncomfortable.
Here’s the way this old squid sees him:
This is Trumpism – think of it as a table with four legs. The first leg is that he is ANTI-LEFTISM.
He’s just instinctively against leftism, because as a businessman, he has seen it FAIL, he knows it doesn’t work, and he watched Giuliani and Bloomberg really change New York in dramatic ways by taking on the LIBS.
Second, he’s anti-political correctness, because he knows it’s truly STUPID………………
Third, he’s against being DUMB. When you look at some of the stories in his books, it will just jump off the pages at you. It WILL SINK
IN. His approach to the Veterans Administration will be a PLEASURE to watch, because he’ll just RIP APART that entire bureaucracy, which of course is why the public employee UNION LIBS will fight him to the end. He’ll make ALL of ’em BLEED !!!! The sooner the better…………………..
Finally…he’s an American nationalist. He’s VERY DEEPLY AMERICAN.
The reason I describe it as the 4 legs of a table is he’s going to move back and forth across that table ALL DAY EVERYDAY with enormous energy. You’re not going to be able to predict
where he’ll be next Monday, because he’ll be intuitively following the flow of what’s going on, and he’s going to try to MAKE THINGS WORK EVERYDAY.
Yes, he does have an immense amount to learn. This dude has both the biggest potential upside and the biggest potential downside of
any candidate that I’ve ever seen. He could become an extraordinary change agent who mobilizes the American people, BREAKS the OLD ORDER, and really moves us into a dramatically more dynamic future, or he could turn out to be a disaster. I don’t think any of us honestly know yet.
However, we do know that Washington D.C. is VERY SICK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And that Hillary is going to make it a LOT SICKER. Trump’s a gamble, but Hillary a sure ticket to Davy Jones’ Locker.”
J.J.:
No one disputes that Trump might make the trains run on time, if you know what I mean.
The problem is all the rest that goes with it, things that that note conveniently leaves out.
As well as the fact that Trump did not write his books. They were ghostwritten—actually not technically ghostwritten, as the writers’ names (Tony Schwartz for the first, Kate Bohner for the second one) are on them, so the credit is shared.
neo, I get what you mean when you say get the trains to run on time. (Authoritarianism)
As to Trump’s books being ghostwritten. I read his book, “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again,” which was co-written with Jeremy Lowell. Either Lowell is great at emulating his co-author’s speech patterns, or Trump had a lot of input, because reading the book was like listening to Trump when he gives a pre-written speech. Same vocabulary, same cadence.
I am not quite as repelled by him as you are. I am, however, very unhappy that the country has come to the point that we have to choose between two such flawed candidates. Reminds me a bit of the election of 1968 – Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace. Not exactly paragons of American statesmanship. Although I supported Nixon because of his foreign policy, I have come to realize that his domestic policy was very destructive (Endangered Species Act, EPA, Federal Revenue Sharing, the War on Drugs, and school busing – to name the worst.) Yes, the Donald could do similarly stupid things..
However, HRC could:
Appoint as many as four liberal Justices to the SCOTUS.
Kill not only coal mining, but oil and gas drilling, including fracking.
Weaken the 2nd Amendment.
Nationalize the $15/hour minimum wage.
Further discourage small businesses.
Increase EPA controls on all construction, fishing, manufacturing, farming, etc.
Continue to fund alternative energy companies that don’t work/make financial sense.
Continue to push the theory of AGW to increase government control of the economy.
Continue to divide citizens by ethnicity, sex, and sexual preference.
Not control government spending.
Not clean up the IRS, Justice, VA, and other awful government agencies under the control of the administration.
There are many, many more awful things she will assuredly do or try to do.
In addition, it is my opinion that she and Bill will use the power of the Presidency to further enrich themselves through the Clinton Foundation, which they very cannily put together prior to leaving the Whitehouse. It has a cut out foundation in Canada that funnels donations from foreign nations/individuals to the Clinton Foundation. That allows them to conceal the real source of the funds. As President she, using Bill as her representative, will be in a position to elicit more “donations” for favors as she did as SOS.
You can read about Peter Schweizer’s book, “Clinton Cash,” here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html?_r=0
What Charity Navigator has to say about the foundation here:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
I loathe HRC as much or more than you loathe the Donald. So, we will probably never agree on whether Trump is a worse or better option than Hillary. A vote for Gary Johnson (a good man by the way) is a vote for Hillary.
I support the Heritage Foundation. They are off the rails about Trump’s apparent nomination. Here’s what I received from them today:
“There are eight million conservatives who can form the core of a new movement for free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Heritage’s Conservative Census will organize them and strengthen our cause.”
I see that as useless posturing at this point. Better to get people into the Trump administration, if there is one, and try to influence the policies from within. Your post about Ben Rhodes as national security expert suggested to me that infiltration might be the best way forward at this time.
Well, I didn’t mean to write a book. Sorry.
“A vote for Gary Johnson (a good man by the way) is a vote for Hillary.”
No it’s not. It’s vote for Gary Johnson. Let me crystallize this for you a bit more: vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary. And a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Gary Johnson or Neo (a good choice by the way) or my dad are all votes for Gary, Neo, and Wayne, respectively. Hillary does not possess that vote.
If I vote for person X I’m not voting for person Y. For example, if I vote for someone other than HRC or DJT, neither one of them get my vote., whereas if I was actually to vote for HRC she actually gets a vote. She goes up one vote on DJT.
If I was the only voter in the country both DJT and HRC would be tied at zero votes. So by definition my non-vote for DJT did not result in a vote for HRC. In this hypothetical Neo (or maybe my dad) would be sworn in on Jan 20, 2017.
My voting for someone else hurts Hillary as much as it hurts Trump. Unless we’re living in an alternate universe where, just because I voted R in every single previous election it means that the Rs somehow own me. They don’t. And since DJT is now the standard bearer of the R party the party won’t receive my vote for their preferred presidential candidate and I’m not a Republican anymore, even though I’ve been one since the first time I voted (for Reagan in 84).
Whoever I vote for will get my vote. And it won’t be Hillary or Trump. Logic.
OK, let the flamethrowers ignite, but if you think/believe there is 0000000.1 microns of dirrffence between hrc and djt, you are a moron. You may think you are _______., but you remain a fool..
I support limited gov’t Reps.
The choice between Trump plus Reps or Clinton plus Dems.
” the destruction of the party that best represents our ideals.” Usually about 50% of the eligible voters don’t vote. If they did, they’d most likely be low information voters wanting more gov’t benefits.
Those who believe in small gov’t ideals are not a big enough party to win. That’s the reality anti-Trump folk need to be honest about — I don’t like it, I’m not happy, but the Earth sucks (there is no gravity).
Of those 50% who vote, maybe 30% are Dems, 30% Reps, and 40% independents, who most often decide the elections. Trump will likely get more independents voting for him than lose Reps who don’t support him; Romney the virtuous loser failed to get enough independents.
The goal now for any Rep unhappy with Trump, like me, should be to maximize the number of conservative/ Reps who get elected to Congress & the Senate. So I should be finding out more about the local San Bernadino local Reps, and which one is better.
The Anchoress has a new book out,
Little Sins Mean a Lot
with this comment:
>>The other day a friend said to me, “I just got your book in the mail; thanks a whole lot, pal! You’re a pain in the butt and I happen to like ignoring my little sins, because that leaves me free to fume about the big sins of the world, which feels a hell of a lot better than thinking about my own!”<<
So true of most Dem, Rep, and even Lib activists.
Conservatives need to become more active locally — and support vouchers for education.
Conservatives lost the culture when allowing Dems to semi-destroy independent thought in schools.
But like so many poli-junkies, it's easier to look for a silver bullet, like Cruz (?), rather than keep fighting the forever war against socialism and cronyism.
To get more Reps elected, supporting Trump plus Reps seems clearly superior to any other realistic strategy.
Of course, if Clinton and Stalinism wins, America might learn, like Vietnam after 40 years, about the superiority of capitalism. Yechh. Better to wisely learn from other's mistakes.
parker, not sure who you aimed you disdain at, but it was below my comment about why the Donald is a slightly better option than Hillary.
Not going to take that bait. Nerves are raw, emotions are running high, and sometimes people lose control and call people names. All understandable. Especially from a strong Cruz supporter. You are one of the better commenters and conservatives at neo’s place, and I respect your opinions. That’s all I have to say about that.
Steve and Big Mac,
Sorry I missed your comments.
Steve says,
Yeah, ok. I think the confusion results from my having used society wherein I was expected to have meant “polity”.
I didn’t.
The point of my story was not that – and this is my fault in not making it clear – some druggie product of a libertarian ideology made an extreme nuisance of himself; but, that an obnoxious, callow, and probably naive teenaged annoyance, was unconsciously juggling two incompatible notions: 1, that he could do [was morally justified in doing] whatever he wanted as long as he took responsibility for it; and 2, that somehow others were to be forbearing toward him as he practiced doing whatever he wanted to, in contexts that involved him crapping up their lives with his physical presence.
Libertarianism , as a generalized social system of tolerance and forbearance has an affinity problem. It cannot justify a positive tolerance and forbearance in any but negative terms.
In a community of already and unconsciously shared moral values and interpersonal concerns, libertarianism is an attractive system.
In a society of moral ferment, where people will actually mind their own business and agree to go off and die in a corner for the right to be asses, rather than pestering you with the problems they have subsequently produced in their own lives, it should work well enough too.
But the secular principle of self-ownership cannot serve to explain who should be granted tolerance, and what is, in some measure an affiliative indulgence, in the first place.
Libertarianism sidesteps natural law foundations in favor of self-ownership premises. But these self-ownership premises cannot carry the weight of the affiliative presumption from which they surreptitiously benefit.
In some ways, libertarianism suffers from the same kind of self-justification problem that utilitarianiam does; albeit in the case of libertarianism, in a much better cause.
Political libertarianism attempts to imply – not formally but by insinuation – that all lives have value and that therefore choice must be respected because of the principle of self-ownership. But self-ownership clearly does not function by itself or in tandem with other premises to make the self-owner (the incoherence of the concept aside) inherently worthy of tolerance by anyone else having power, or inclusion in the very libertarian society of which the self-owner purports to be included.
At best, you have, nowadays anyway, to work with an accidental conglomeration of moral strangers with quite probably antithetical life interests and aims. Libertarianism works well to stipulate on its own terms why you cannot presume upon another, but it does not justify the existence or tolerance of the other within the system.
I trust I have made myself perfectly obscure?
As you know, we once had not only a more libertarian polity here in the US, but a more libertarian attitude toward self-help, especially when it was directed against the obnoxious and intrusive. But as time went on, and society became more enlightened and feminized and violence shunning, they began to be perceived not simply as others sharing a public space under the terms of a truce; but as “fellow” humans, “victims” of their own frailties, feeling and pain suffering persons deserving of compassion and identification.
Progressive social gospel religion dug the ground out from a workable libertarianism before overt politics ever did.
The funny thing is, is that secular nihilism has gutted progressivism of any rationale other than will-to-power. That is why it is so amusing when progressives deploy moral language that is plainly, virtually empty of any content in the form of objective reference, or referents.
Anyway …