Victor Davis Hanson and the non-Trumpers
Like many Trump-boosters, Victor Davis Hanson misses the point in this description of the motivations of people on the right who won’t vote for Trump. It’s an error I’ve seen over and over again from Trump supporters, including even relatively reluctant Trump supporters such as Hanson, who is ordinarily an intelligent and perceptive writer [emphasis mine]:
…Trump’s uncouthness has turned off his rivals and their supporters, who still in large part insist that they will not support him despite the transparency of the primaries and the long-ago oath of fealty of the Republican candidates to the eventual nominee.
Hanson commits many errors there, all in that single sentence. One is that Trump’s “rivals and their supporters still in large part insist they will not support him.” That is, quite simply, factually untrue. Carson and Christie and Perry boarded the Trump train in an early and vocal manner, and Huckabee wasn’t far behind. Kasich and Jeb Bush never did, but Cruz and Rubio both did, although reluctantly and to great criticism. Jindal did as well, as did Scott Walker. So did (to my surprise, because I had missed it when it happened in September) Carly Fiorina.
You can find out all of this quite easily by Googling it. As for “their supporters,” there is no question that although Trump won the primaries with less than half of the GOP vote, the vast majority of GOP voters are planning to vote for him. So in fact Trump’s “rivals and their supporters” in very large part are supporting Trump, despite his manifold flaws (and “flaws” is a kind word compared to some I could use).
So, why does Hanson—a man whose writing I have respected and praised for a long, long time—write what he wrote there? My theory is that anger and/or frustration is getting in the way of facts this year more than ever, even in people who ordinarily would be more careful. Trump versus Hillary is an enormously emotional experience, among other things, and emotion can cloud reason even in the best of us.
But that’s not all Hanson gets wrong. He also commits the very common error of Trump supporters by mischaracterizing the motives of the Trump non-supporters as their perception that Trump is “uncouth.” I’ve written about the problems with this approach many times before, which is that it trivializes and minimizes the objections of most non-Trumpers, objections which are ordinarily far more profound than that, and which have been fully aired many many times.
So there’s no excuse for this sort of error. Why does Hanson make it, and why do some many other Trump-supporting pundits make it, as well? With some it’s not an error, of course; it’s a purposeful distortion, although I do not think that’s true of Hanson at all. My best guess with someone like Hanson, an honorable person, is that the compromises one must make in order to support Trump mean that the supporter needs to quiet those voices of more profound objection in him/herself, to damp down his/her own awareness of the more seriously troubling aspects not just of Trump’s personality, but—much more importantly—of his character, his understanding of the issues (particularly international ones), his questionable alt-right allies, his lies, and even some of his policy statements (not to mention their shifting nature). It’s easier to tell oneself that those who object to Trump are merely snobs who can’t take a little populist mouthing-off. But although I suppose there are a few people who fit that description and whose main objection to Trump is his rough style, it very obviously isn’t what’s operating with the vast majority of thoughtful people who cannot bring themselves to vote for Trump even though they detest and fear Hillary.
But that’s not all I have to say about that sentence of Hanson’s that I quoted. The “transparency of the primaries and the long-ago oath of fealty of the Republican candidates to the eventual nominee” have little relevance under the circumstances People like Jeb Bush didn’t sign a pact in blood, and conscience might actually cause a person to change his or her mind, particularly with a candidate (Trump, in this case) who has done reprehensible things that were unknown to the person at the time he/she made that promise. And furthermore, what possible difference would these promises of Trump’s rivals make to their previous supporters, the ordinary voters? Why would those voters care about these broken promises of the other candidates at this point, when they themselves never took the pledge and are free to make their own voting decisions? They are not vassals, bound by the oaths of their lords.
I wrote that last sentence before I decided to look up the word “fealty,” which Hanson had used and which struck me as archaic. When I looked it up just now, I found this definition:
1.History/Historical.
(a) fidelity to a lord.
(b) the obligation or the engagement to be faithful to a lord, usually sworn to by a vassal.2. fidelity; faithfulness.
Bingo! The word “vassal” turns out to have been remarkably faithful to what Hanson is saying, but completely inappropriate to the situation. Hanson is a classics professor and military historian, who also specializes in ancient agrarian history. As such, he knows what a word such as “fealty” means, and he knows that neither the other GOP candidates nor their supporters owe the nominee any sort of “fealty” whatsoever. Perhaps he wishes they did; then neither he nor Trump would have to try to convince them of anything.
In sum, why does it seem to be so difficult for so many Trump supporters to acknowledge the actual arguments and reasoning behind the decisions of non-Trump supporters, and try to counter those arguments instead of creating a much more simplistic strawman? Is it really necessary to insult them by trivializing what they think?
“My best guess with someone like Hanson, an honorable person”
No he’s not.
Jonah Goldberg is an honorable person. Hanson is, as you state, a person who continuously mis-characterizes the motivations and thought processes of people who can’t support Trump. He’s smart enough to know he’s doing that. He’s mendacious enough to keep doing it.
I have respect for the reluctant Trump supporter who knows what they are getting into but have done the calculus.
I have even more respect for the reluctant Trump supporter who’ll give people like me the small consideration that we’ve actually thought through this.
I have no respect for the GOP pundits who have jumped on the Trump train and are taking potshots from the caboose.
I never liked Hanson’s writing anyway. Too repetitive.
Bill:
Well, Hanson used to be an honorable person, and for that I give him the benefit of the doubt. I actually think he and some others have tunnel vision, because it’s too threatening to their own Trump support (which was probably laboriously arrived at) if they credit the actual motivations and reasoning of those who disagree with them.
Well, I’m being ungracious. My nerves are frayed.
One can speculate endlessly about others’ motivations. But, absent purloined internal communications, or diary entries, or some such, there’s no proof.
Perhaps Hanson is projecting his personal distaste.
It’s true for some people, me anyway, that there’s a long way to go–down–with Trump before I switch to Hillary.
Do we want as POTUS the architect of North Africa’s likely permanent catastrophe?
Could Trump do worse? Sure, but there’s no indication that’s his purpose.
Such examples could be listed for the next couple of days.
“Is it really necessary to insult them by trivializing what they think?”
I don’t disagree with you, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander (I know “too simple an explanation”).
Perhaps if the non-Trumpers didn’t disdain those that have decided not to follow their lead, they might get more respect.
Alas the enlightened ones tolerate us “clingers and bible thumpers. So win, lose or draw, the non-Thumpers can go pound sand. If the country survives it will be due to the “simple folk” not the “enlightened” folk (Democrat or Republican).
Hanson has always been willing to create an argument out of ten generalizations. The fact that a lot of writers do it with three or four doesn’t make his arguments any more solid. He’s been doing it a lot longer than this campaign season.
He’s one of those people I used to buy into 80-90%. Was it because I agreed with his conclusions? Or because he apparently knows history? I mentioned Ben Shapiro on this site recently – he’s a guy who I agree with a lot, but I recognize that he takes liberties in his columns too. There have been very few pros who impressed me over the past year, and a lot (across the continua) who either objectively or subjectively I have come to find unreadable.
MikeII – “Perhaps if the non-Trumpers didn’t disdain those that have decided not to follow their lead, they might get more respect.” If there’s one site that this accusation can’t be made, you’re on it.
MikeII:
Ah, but almost all the non-Trumpers do NOT “disdain those that have decided not to follow their lead.” For the most part, that accusation is another strawman.
I read a lot around the blogosphere, and I’ve seen very little of that. In general, the only disdain is for those Trump supporters who insult the motives and intelligence of the Trump opponents. There are exceptions, of course, but they are exceptions.
A lot of Trump supporters seem to be way oversensitve to the idea of their being on the receiving end of “disdain.” Often, mere criticism and/or disagreement is seen as “disdain.” The disdain I’ve seen commonly goes from Trump supporters to the non-supporters, although perhaps “disdain” isn’t the right word, since the non-supporters are usually accused of being “elitist.” They are often accused of condescension when they are not showing it.
My problem is less with Trump–ignoring, temporarily, his statist tendencies–than with the Dumb Trumpkins, his online followers. I’m sure not everyone who likes Trump is stupid and uneducated, but the Trumpkins certainly are.
“…Trump’s uncouthness has turned off his rivals and their supporters …”
This can be perfectly true proposition regarding a large class of Trump opponents without being the only true statement which could be applied to all Trump opponents.
The often mentioned cradle liberals who cite as their chief indictment of Trump his supposed fat shaming of a woman in the past, would be evidence of such a class of persons.
@Bill and Neo – For the most part over the years that I have been reading VDH, he’s been one to mostly parrot back the themes and thoughts of the “conservative” bubble.
He seems more like a “Coors-Lite” “conservative” pundit trying to appeal to a broad audience, competing against “specialty beer” pundits.
I previously said this…
“There are several “pundits” who try to straddle the line (e.g. Victor David Hansen) who seem to be trying to align themselves with the angry masses, acting as some “objective observer” giving “voice” to those concerns.
But, they never really comes to the table with whether it is right or wrong, or have something to contribute on what needs to happen to navigate out of the mess.”
http://neoneocon.com/2016/08/04/the-shotgun-election/#comment-1499064
@Nick – see you made a similar point.
“…Trump’s uncouthness has turned off his rivals and their supporters …”
Let’s state this simply and without mockery…
This might be one reason, out of many, shared by those who oppose trump.
Three browser crashes. The gods of the Internet are reminding me of something …..
Last thing. Re “fealty”.
It’s found in a polemic written by a classicist assuming the party as war band. Campaign and all of that. The term oath also appears. If there is evidence he is positing the need for a man on a white horse to suspend the Constitution, I have not seen it yet.
Then again, we have the example of William Weld, of non-binary choice fame.
Finally – and none too soon no doubt – I have repeatedly seen the term “fealty” used in numerous more alarming contexts by liberal Republicans who were not referring to the war band and campaign context, but as an existential obligation to some supra-constitutional society.
Now that’s, alarming.
Hanson is IMO an honorable man. He’s simply not ready to publicly entertain the proposition that our society is transitioning through an irreversible paradigmatic shift in governance.
This is what makes that so:
Either Hillary or Trump will be the next President.
If Hillary, the March to the Collective reaches it’s tipping point into legal irreversiblity, when the 25 million new “undocumented” democrats provide an insurmountable electoral dominance and the Left secures a liberal/leftist SCOTUS.
I see no reasonable prospect for concluding otherwise, should the democrats retain the W.H. Under Obama they came very close to achieving amnesty and a path to citizenship. Now that the GOPe sees that it can no longer rely upon the loyalty of its conservative base, if Hillary wins… it will vote to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” (reformatted gang of eight) as a necessary precursor for wooing the Hispanic vote and abandoning its prior lip service to conservative principles.
If Trump is elected and operates constitutionally, the bipartisan Congressional opposition he will face will prevent substantive reform. Thus, if Trump operates constitutionally, he simply delays our March to the Collective by slowing it down without actually dismantling it. That would IMO, result in the dems returning to power and the March will resume at an even faster pace.
IMO, the Left’s machinations have created conditions such that to stop our March to the Collective and direct the nation down a new course can only be accomplished through unconstitutional actions. Which effectively eviscerates the Constitution from that point forward.
Yes, I am arguing that the American republic, as heretofore constituted is, one way or the other… over.
I suspect that deep inside, Hanson knows this, he simply can’t admit it… yet.
About that: “In contrast, Trump’s uncouthness has turned off his rivals and their supporters, who still in large part insist that they will not support him despite the transparency of the primaries and the long-ago oath of fealty of the Republican candidates to the eventual nominee.”
I think perhaps VDH meant that last “who” clause to refer not to his rivals, only their supporters. If that’s the case, it seems to be true, at least according to this piece in September: “Nearly 95% of Donors to GOP Primary Rivals Haven’t Donated to Trump Campaign”
GB: Where do you get the 25MM number of illegal immigrants who are going to be naturalized?
This is an honest question. I ask because this has been a lynchpin to your argument that HRC represents the end of the Republican’s ability to win elections since she will naturalize 25MM new democratic voters.
Is that number sourced somewhere? Is it the number of illegal immigrants + the number of non-citizen but legal immigrants?
“Yes, I am arguing that the American republic, as heretofore constituted is, one way or the other… over.”
GB: Second question: it sounds like at this point you believe the Republic to be over no matter who is elected.
Why, then, does it matter who is elected?
If this is the case, seriously, I’d just as soon have HRC since I am desperate for some way to not have to deal with DJT for the remainder of my days.
VDH’s piece on October 17th — “The Case for Trump” — provides a fuller discussion of his reasons for voting for Trump. In it he also says this:
That seems to say that Jeb and Carly were the only primary contenders who failed to support him. Carly may have given Trump her support in September, but on October 8th, she called on him to “step aside” as the nominee and let Pence run in his place.
I read the VDH article, and had several problems with his ‘reasoning’. This election is not the end of the world as we know it. HRC & WJC are grifters. They rode into Little Rock and then DNC to leave behind a sordid trail of scandals, much like the current scandals dogging them now. They are in it for the money and power, ideology is a distant third.
Of course they are dangerous and deplorable. Trump is likewise dangerous. But its neck and neck in Iowa so I will vote the straight ticket. Simply because I would love to see the end of the ambtions of the Clintons. (Not that I think Trump has much of a shot at 270.)
Ann:
But VDH has it exactly and precisely backwards.
If they had all supported him, that would have “reinforced the unspoken admission that the Republican field – despite impressive résumés – operated on politics-as-usual principles.”
Unless VDH thinks the highest principle of all is to keep a promise, and/or to be loyal to the party. The same exact principle used by the Nazis in their defense at Nuremberg. I don’t happen to ascribe to that particular “principle.”
Sadly, the country has been divided to near the breaking point by eight years of Obama, following rather closely on the heels of Clinton I.
Unfortunately, Trump represents a continuation of the trend. Not sure if the chasm can be bridged without some cataclysmic event to bring people together.
I have shared my reservations about Trump. Finally, it came down to the SCOTUS appointments. So, I have cast my vote with some trepidation. Believe me, that has nothing to do with superficial attributes like crudeness.
I understand people who come down on either side of voting for Trump. Even though I do not believe that withholding a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, it should be obvious that, in contested states, Trump will need every one he can get if she is not to be President.
Neo, I agree with you. And it’s a very odd thing for VDH to say.
Ann:
If VDH meant “donors,” he shouldn’t have written “supporters.” There’s a big big big difference in the meaning of those 2 words, and the latter are far more numerous than the former.
What’s more, I thought Trump made it clear he didn’t need “donors,” he didn’t want to be beholden to the big money people, so why should they be expected to give him money?
And lastly, just because a moneyed person doesn’t donate to someone, it does not follow that the moneyed person won’t be voting for him.
Nope, sorry, that whole sentence of VDH’s is a train wreck.
Ann:
Yes, it’s an odd thing for him to have said. Very odd.
It’s right up there with “fealty.” Which is also very very odd.
VDH is an honorable man who’s had a rough couple of years. He had a serious bicycle accident that landed him in the hospital and from the sound of it left him somewhat disabled. Then he very unexpectedly lost a daughter. Both of these recent events entitle him to a little slack. Add in the ongoing demographic changes surrounding his family homestead, the dead pit bulls and garbage dumped in his driveway, the feel of living in a 3rd world cesspit, and its more than understandable he would support Trump, if for no other reason than a sense of desperation. I don’t hold it against him. You can only take so much.
@Other Chuck – all good points. VDH definitely has my sympathies, but not my agreement, nor fandom of his writing.
@Bill – I’ve heard estimates upwards of 35M illegals here (maybe more, if I cared to search notsobritebarf or infobores). I think the best guess is really 10M to 15M from articles I’ve come across (sorry, don’t have links).
Bill,
No one knows how many illegals are here, estimates seem to range between 15 – 35 million with thousands more pouring in every week. In addition, once amnesty is passed millions more will pour in, so 25 million is actually a conservative estimate.
And that does NOT count the legal immigrants that overwhelmingly come from poor socialistic societies, approx 70% of whom vote democrat as well. Nor does it count the very high immigrant birthrate.
If current trends continue, demographically we’re toast. Simple math, no clairvoyance needed to ‘read the writing on the wall’. It’s the culture…
It only matters whether Hillary or Trump gets elected if you accept history as a guide; comparing societal recovery from fascism versus rule by the collective.
With the way things are going, it may not work out well for the “NeverTrump” crowd. They have to assume some of the following scenarios:
1. If Trump loses the election on Tuesday, he does so by a very large margin.
2. If Trump wins, then he does a terrible job as President.
3. If Hillary wins, then she does a very good job as President.
4. That there is nothing damaging to Hillary in the current FBI investigation (which was revealed just last week).
5. That Trump will no longer have the same general support for himself and his policies, regardless of the outcome on Tuesday.
6. That events in the near future will not prove that Trump is generally right on the issues.
With possible likely outcomes in mind, then Trump is in a more favorable position. In such a case, it’s best to take a positive approach, and vote for Trump.
Bill Says:
“Where do you get the 25MM number of illegal immigrants who are going to be naturalized?”
Since the early 2000s the official narrative has been 11 million illegals. Given the non-stop articles of illegals flooding across the border in the interim, you’d have to be a bit naive to think it’s still only 11 million, non?
The Mexican government has been actively encouraging this tsunami, publishing maps of the best routes, listings of the most illegal-friendly cities, how to avoid detection and how to apply for benefits.
And of course Obama’s Executive Orders, the Dream Act, the non-enforcement of the border laws, in-state tuition and grants to universities and much more encourage them to invade from this side.
VDH is one of the few political writers who has to balance every week the differences between the Palo Alto crowd and the Central Valley farmer. He sees constantly how the latter suffer at the hands of the Dem-ruled state, not just on immigration issues, but also on things like high speed rail and irrigation. He was never an early supporter of Trump, but in the end, he decided that Hillary is much worse because she would be willing to sacrifice us all for a snail darter if the price was right. With Trump, there is a chance that he may be reined in. This is probably more true because Trump is unwilling and too lazy to delve into issues himself and will more likely defer to much better informed staff and cabinet. That is what I am hoping. Of course, it all depends where you live and whether your vote will count.
I share all of Neo’s opinions about Trump, but I can’t take anymore of Hillary’s pretence about caring for blacks, Hispanics, the poor, and women.
Well said, expat.
They feel aggrieved, and that breeds a sense of entitlement. Anyone who stands in the way of their catharsis must be evil.
Expat makes good points about VDH. There is the academic, intellectual man; then, there is the man who has to live in the real world of California–especially the Central Valley. The latter man can only be terribly frustrated, and hungering for change.
Drove up through the valley yesterday. Acres and acres of dead groves, due to withheld water. Two signs catch your eyes along the road. One “it is not a waste of water, to raise food”‘; second, a sign to exhorting people to vote–upraised fist with the word vote changed to “Vota”. Well, there is a third sign, “Another Farmer for Trump”.
It seems to me that in general both the nevertrumpers and the trumpsters have a skewed perception of the other. There’s a lot of stereotyping going on. I think that stems from opposite attitudes; on one hand Trump can do nothing right and on the other, Trump can do no wrong. Both are demonstrably false.
DNW Says:
November 4th, 2016 at 4:33 pm
“…Trump’s uncouthness has turned off his rivals and their supporters …”
This can be perfectly true proposition regarding a large class of Trump opponents without being the only true statement which could be applied to all Trump opponents.
* * *
Can we get a Venn diagram of that? 😉
Perhaps “rivals etc.” just means the set of “all previous primary contenders and their (then and now) supporters who haven’t yet endorsed/supported Trump” – which, IMO, does mean they broke the oath that they forced on Trump because they expected him to lose.
In re VDH himself, I have been reading his posts a long time, because he is one of the few who does apply history lessons (and yes he does repeat himself; different venues, different readers), but I agree that his current position is probably motivated by personal angst, after suffering, for years now, the constant degradation of his family homestead at the hands of illegal invaders (they are not immigrants unless here legally, which most of them will be, if Hillary wins).
PS: when we’re done dissecting one paragraph of probably-deliberate rhetorical hyperbole out of a fairly lengthy, serious, and detailed post, let’s get to the meat of the issue:
“For all the talk of buffoonery versus criminality, the divide, at least in November 2016, is over issues and ostensibly could not be clearer for both conservatives and liberals.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441688/never-trump-republicans-donald-trump-hillary-clinton
parker,
I agree that power, ideology and money are Hillary’s motivations. But I don’t agree that Hillary’s primary motivation is money. I think it’s power, self-justified as service to the ideology she has embraced her entire life. She sees wealth as her rightful compensation for her exemplary service to the cause and a signifier of her worthiness.
But even if you are correct, the means to power for Hillary and to holding on to that power is in forwarding the Left’s agenda and ideology. So whatever her primary motivation, she will do all she can to advance the Left’s agenda and secure her legacy.
VDH was another of my guides out of the left to a workable version of the right.
I agree with neo’s critique, though it doesn’t overly damage my opinion of VDH. From the 2008 election onward I noticed that VDH is a team player for the GOP. He invariably maintained a chipper optimism for McCain, then Romney and now Trump, though in this election I do hear a desperate flexibility to the truth I never heard before.
VDH is a classics professor. I believe he knows the darkness we have entered and the short odds of recovering our footing easily, but he will shade things on the off-chance we might — which is the pro-Trump bet as I understand it.
There is a definite irony to VDH’s turn for Turmp.
Trump supporters, being largely ignorant of history like Trump himself, probably don’t know VDH was one of the deep public thinkers articulating the neoconservative position for the Iraq War, which Trump and the bulk of his supporters have lied about and trashed.
It’s gone unremarked how much crow VDH must have eaten to support Trump. But that’s how desperate Prof. Hanson is in 2016.
Like most of us.
“Trump supporters, being largely ignorant of history like Trump himself, probably don’t know VDH was one of the deep public thinkers articulating the neoconservative position for the Iraq War, which Trump and the bulk of his supporters have lied about and trashed.”- Huxley
My, my aren’t we feeling perky.
If you believe Richard Clarke, you’d come to a different conclusion.
AesopFan:
It’s definitely possible to look at the truth about Trump and Hillary and still decide to vote for Trump. But that sentence by VDH that you quote ignores the truth about Trump and whitewashes it in his eagerness to convince the reader. He does the same thing in that sentence as he did in the sentence that is the subject matter of my post, by saying: “For all the talk of buffoonery versus criminality…” But that’s NOT the talk, that’s not the “versus,” that’s the false versus set up by Trump supporters trying to ignore what is wrong with Trump (all he has done there, really, is to substitute “buffoonery” for “uncouthness”). It’s sophistry. And then he follows by saying it’s about principles, as though we can believe Trump when he states his principles and his plans.
Actually, that’s one score on which Hillary is more trustworthy than he is: she has been consistent in her devotion to liberalism. Trump has no track record of devotion to the principles he has been stating are his, in position papers written by other people.
VDH ignores two of the biggest problems with Trump: character (untrustworthy, lying, con man) and mutability of principles (which is related to the “con man” part). Why talk about “principles” when you’re talking about a con man who lies?
Now, VDH could acknowledge those things as the arguments of the anti-Trump people, and still decide to vote for Trump—and think we all should follow suit—for any number of reasons. But to ignore them and act as though they are not the essence of the problem is either ignorant or disingenuous.
And what on earth does “ostensibly could not be clearer for both conservatives and liberals” mean? Ostensibly? I’ll tell you what it means: “apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.”
Excuse me but, WTF is that word “ostensibly” doing in there? Is it a wink, wink, to let us know they seem clear but actually aren’t clear?
I have no idea what’s going on with VDH (or his editors, for that matter). I didn’t have time to reread that whole article to analyze it (I had originally read it when it was first published), but I have to say the part you quoted is actually worse than the VDH sentence that forms the subject matter of my post.
With the way things are going, it may not work out well for the “NeverTrump” crowd. — Yankee
What a funny, scurrilous way to put things. Yes, those of us who won’t vote for Trump are going to be crushed if Trump almost wins, or wins and is a good president or Hillary wins and does a good job of being president.
Being right is all we care about.
Then Yankee winds it up with let’s win it for the Gipper: “it’s best to take a positive approach, and vote for Trump.”
Trump supporters seem clueless when it comes to understanding those of us less keen on Trump and how condescending and foolish they seem, when it comes to their heavyhanded efforts to persuade.
“We know the right way to look at this. Submit to our superior logic and vote for Trump.”
If you believe Richard Clarke, you’d come to a different conclusion.
Brian E: Pray enlighten me.
With real arguments. Not lnks thrown over the transom. And with reference to what I said.
“With the way things are going, it may not work out well for the “NeverTrump” crowd.” – Yankee
It already hasn’t worked out for me. I don’t like any of this.
If he win I will hope and pray he’s a better President and better man than he appears to be.
One nice thing will be (well, this might not happen) not hearing the veiled and not so veiled threats from some of Trump’s wonderful supporters.
It already hasn’t worked out for me. I don’t like any of this.
Bill. Absolutely. This is what the Trumpers don’t seem to get. We aren’t doing the Snoopy Dance because Trump will likely lose.
We are close to mourning. We don’t see a way out. We know our votes won’t push Trump over the top. We know Hillary will be a “near-death experience,” in Richard Fernandez’s words, for America.
Brian E,
I wouldn’t believe Clarke if he said the sky was blue. The man long ago abandoned his integrity in pursuit of personal glorification.
huxley,
Who here has engaged in “condescension” and “heavy handed efforts to persuade”?
“…which Trump and the bulk of his supporters have lied about and trashed…”
Clarke had a couple of main themes in his critique of the Bush administration. That they seem uninterested in Al Qaeda and wanted him to finger Iraq as responsible for the attacks. From that we get the charge that Bush lied to get us into the war.
Colin Powell said this in 2005 in an interview with Barbara Walters.
“Asked by Ms. Walters how painful this was for him, Mr. Powell replied: “It was painful. It’s painful now.” Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, “Terrible.” He added that it was “devastating” to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.”
So, we have Clarke and Rice and Clarke and Bush telling their stories differently. We, of course, believe our guy. After all, Clarke worked for Clinton and was one of them.
When Powell seemed to turn on the Administration, all of a sudden he wasn’t our guy.
I don’t have the testimony here, but I was recently reading Netanyahu’s testimony before Congress in 2003 before the invasion and it is striking how casual the testimony about who should be taken out first Iran or Iraq. Which state represented the most danger.
So when you say that Trump supporters lie and Trump is lying, it depends on who you believe. Drawing a different conclusion from the evidence isn’t lying.
Now Eric has laid out the case that the invasion was legal irrespective of the politics. I think that is true. In the end the war was waged without a new UN resolution, France saying they would veto it.
I was uneasy watching this unfold, and thought that Bush was risking his presidency on finding WMD’s in Iraq. While old stockpiles were found, there was little evidence that Iraq had a current weapons program at the time of the invasion.
Was the war worth the cost both in money and lives? Did the middle east mover toward democracy or did we enable Iran to break out and become a major force in the ME?
Of course Obama’s withdrawal was ill timed and ill advised.
“I wouldn’t believe Clarke if he said the sky was blue. The man long ago abandoned his integrity in pursuit of personal glorification.” -Geoffrey Britian
That may be, but believing Clarke doesn’t make the person who believes him a liar, just wrong.
The level of VDH bashing is quite revealing.
No one takes on his arguments, just his prose.
Brian E:
Are you joking?
Mine was not a critique of VDH’s literary style or semantics. It was a critique of the fact that the points he made were incorrect, the arguments incorrect, the facts incorrect, the characterization of Trump’s opponents’ objections to Trump woefully inadequate.
Also see this.
Yankee,
My grandfathers, father, and uncles taught me threats and warnings are foolish and dangerous.. If one wishes to do harm to others one does not make threats or issue warnings. One simply causes harm at a place and time of one’s own choosing. I may be old, but I can take care of myself. Study up on Hillybilly 101. You yankees are not as educated as you may believe. 😉
Other than questioning Clarke’s veracity, who called anyone a liar? And the criticism of VDH has been in general, specific to his stereotypical reasoning.
I enjoy VDH’s essays, I think he is an honorable person. I agree with him often, but do not think he is infallible or incapable of hubris. Who is? Not me.
parker,
Remind me never to get on your bad side. I would suggest you always remember that the reverse may be true as well. It’s not the city, suburbs or country that makes a man dangerous, it’s the mental attitude.
“There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men.” Robert Heinlein
BHO needs to write the Audacity of the Trumpian Horde. NYT best seller for sure.
GB,
Well, you identify as Britain (English). I was schooled Scot-Irish by way of Appalachia. Never give anything away, keep your anger held tightly and never show you seek revenge. I am a member of the first generation born outside of the Cumberland Gap, I come from people who followed closely on the heels of Boone. My generation, like generations before us were taught several lessons: never trust government, always think for yourself, and never make threats, on;y fools make threats. And last of all, if there is a time for revenge, give nothing away and be patient.
VDH understands what most of today people don’t: How feodal our world really is, if we only dare to open our minds to this reality. All these perks of modernity are only decorations, Potemkin villages, as we say in Russia, and underlying power structure is the same as it always was, only better disguised.
Power struggle is a ruthless game, to wich all these medieval notions like fealty directly apply. Clinton understands this and behaves accordingly, but her opponent understands it too and leads peasant’t revolt agansts the castle in the best traditions of trouble arousers.
The best analysis of the situation in a wider cultural context is
pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/10/26/the-conservatives-at-the-castle-walls
Brian E:
“So when you say that Trump supporters lie and Trump is lying, it depends on who you believe. Drawing a different conclusion from the evidence isn’t lying.”
Being bamboozled by enemy propaganda isn’t lying. However, you cross over from dupe to liar once the enemy’s propaganda is exposed yet you continue to stand by it.
For example, regarding Bush’s decision for OIF, Trump’s position is based on blatant legal and factual error that’s consistent with Russian/alt-Right/Left/Democrat disinformation.
You’re correct that whether you correctly understand the Iraq intervention much depends on whether your “evidence” is based on conjecture, distorted context, and disinformation.
Or whether your evidence is grounded in the situation, controlling law, policy, and precedents that defined the operative enforcement procedure for the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) and, in the operative context, the determinative facts that confirmed Saddam’s “material breach” (UNSCR 1441) of the Gulf War ceasefire which triggered enforcement in Iraq’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).
Brian E:
“Clarke had a couple of main themes in his critique of the Bush administration. That they seem uninterested in Al Qaeda and wanted him to finger Iraq as responsible for the attacks. From that we get the charge that Bush lied to get us into the war.”
You cite an example of conjecture and distorted context that’s applied as disinformation to obfuscate OIF’s justification. See clarification of the link between 9/11 and OIF.
Brian E:
_“Asked by Ms. Walters how painful this was for him, Mr. Powell replied: “It was painful. It’s painful now.” Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, “Terrible.”_
Powell did make an error of presentation with the pre-war intelligence estimates which was seized upon by enemy propagandists to obfuscate OIF’s justification.
However, it wasn’t substantive. Knowing what we know now, nearly all elements of Powell’s 05FEB03 case presentation versus Saddam are in fact substantiated.
Brian E:
“So, we have Clarke and Rice and Clarke and Bush telling their stories differently. We, of course, believe our guy. After all, Clarke worked for Clinton and was one of them.
When Powell seemed to turn on the Administration, all of a sudden he wasn’t our guy.”
The law, policy, and precedent that controlled the OIF decision matured with Clinton’s Gulf War ceasefire enforcement. President Bush carried forward from President Clinton the case versus Saddam and the operative enforcement procedure for the UNSCR 660 series.
In other words, any controversy based on who was who’s guy between Clinton and Bush is easily resolved since the US case versus Saddam and operative enforcement procedure for the OIF decision were carried forward from ‘our’ guy to ‘their’ guy to ‘our’ guy in the decade+ progression of the UNSCR 660-series enforcement.
The widespread obfuscation achieved by enemy propagandists with conjecture and disinformation is impressive given the law, policy, precedent, fact record for the decade+ Iraq intervention culminating in OIF is exceptionally well developed, readily accessible, and plainly understandable.
Brian E:
“I was uneasy watching this unfold, and thought that Bush was risking his presidency on finding WMD’s in Iraq.”
Except he didn’t.
President Bush and the 2002 AUMF reiterated from Presidents HW Bush and Clinton and the standing law and policy on Iraq that enforcement for Iraq’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441) pivoted on whether Iraq disarmed and complied as mandated.
Excerpt from “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq“:
The notion that “Bush was risking his presidency on finding WMD’s in Iraq” is sourced from disinformation that contradicts the basic design of the UNSCR 687 disarmament process.
Discussion of what ISG found is relevant but must be approached with the basic caveat that the UNSCR 687 disarmament process was designed upon Iraq’s burden to totally account for and eliminate permanently all UNSCR 687 proscribed armament under international supervision.
That meant in effect, if Iraq’s basic burden of proof is overlooked as far as UNMOVIC or later ISG finding WMD, then Saddam had a free hand to “sanitize” (ISG) evidence since the UNSCR 687 enforcers were not purpose to demonstrate Iraq’s armament, but rather to verify whether Iraq disarmed as mandated.
In the operative context, UNSCOM established, UNSC decided, UNMOVIC confirmed, and ISG corroborated that Iraq did not disarm as mandated. Saddam didn’t come close to switching off enforcement from his 1st opportunity to comply in 1990-1991 to his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441) in 2002-2003.
Brian E:
“While old stockpiles were found, there was little evidence that Iraq had a current weapons program at the time of the invasion.”
In fact, the UNMOVIC and ISG reports are rife with UNSCR 687 disarmament violations.
The notion that “little evidence that Iraq had a current weapons program” is based on an inapposite standard asserted by enemy propagandists that displaced the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 687) that defined for Iraq and the UNSCR 687&1441 enforcers what constituted proscribed armament for Iraq.
You should be at ease knowing that on top of UNMOVIC’s confirmation Saddam did not disarm as mandated, which triggered OIF, ISG despite significant evidentiary gaps was able to corroborate UNMOVIC and also find “the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC’s resolutions”, “In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD”, Iraq “rebuilding his [Saddam’s] military-industrial complex”, “increasing its access to dual-use items and materials”, “creating numerous military research and development projects”, “procurement programs supporting Iraq’s WMD programs”, “a set of undeclared covert laboratories”, and “concealment and deception activities” (ISG).
Any violation triggered enforcement, and Saddam was far beyond the red line set by UNSCRs 687 and 1441 and not looking back.
Setting aside Saddam declining to disarm as mandated which established casus belli, and besides Operation Avarice which further corroborated Iraq’s UNSCR 687 breach, ISG at minimum (mindful of the significant evidentiary gaps) confirmed the Saddam regime had WMD-related intent, research & development, procurement, ready production capability, and concealment and deception.
Of course, in conjunction with Iraq’s WMD-related breach of UNSCR 687, Saddam’s world-leading “regional and global terrorism” (IPP), which included “considerable operational overlap” (IPP) with the al Qaeda network, in breach of UNSCR 687 – a principal element of the 2002 AUMF and Bush’s determination to use force – was found to have been significantly underestimated by intel analysts like Richard Clarke.
Secretary Powell should feel “terrible” about Clarke’s underestimation of Saddam’s terrorism because Clarke’s shortcoming caused a gap in the peace operations planning that helps explain why the US was caught off guard by the rapid rise of the insurgency, which was converted from Saddam’s underestimated robust terrorist alliance.
Upshot: Regarding the OIF decision, Trump’s position, based blatantly on enemy propaganda, is disqualifying for a prospective Commander in Chief.
At heart, the neverTrumpers ignore the demographic trend line.
Living in California, I can report from one state where the “White vote” is irrelevant from a game theory point of view.
The GOP has so little clout that it’s but a rump party. It is crushed by a super-majority of Democrat votes in Sacramento.
GB has made all the arguments that I would espouse.
He is countered with the hope that there will be a next time when the right kind of GOP nominee will be nationally viable.
The demographics says that such is not so.
The Dynasty of 1776 is wrapping up.
With Hillary, America will still be here, but it will be a new dynasty.
The nexus is now. The end of the road lands on Tuesday.
The only way that America can possibly return to normalcy is if a mass expulsion occurs — starting with Salafist Muslims.
Hillary is in bed with Salafist monies, Red Chinese monies, and is not going to stop being Hillary + + when she ascends her throne. ( She’s a Collectivist Monarch at heart. )
&&&&
I’m reading that Weiner’s laptop — and other devices — have a sea of scandals upon them.
It would appear that Epstein was running a blackmailing op aimed at paedophiles — and that Bill Clinton has been filmed nailing under age girls while on the island.
Such honey traps were its reason for being. They were the true source of Epstein’s billions.
Leakers are floating tales of Hillary being sucked into Epstein’s game, too. She was as sex crazed as her husband. ( per Yoko Ono. )
It would also appear that the immunities given to the Clinton Crime Cabal have been shredded by their own lies.
Huma’s connections to fanatical Salafist Muslims are of family and philosophy. They go a long way towards explaining Hillary’s crazy talk about a no-fly zone over Syria — to protect ISIS, al Nusrah, and a host of Salafist hangers-on.
I’ve always thought that Trump was a poor candidate.
But I also believe he’ll be a surprisingly good president.
He’s an extreme pragmatist. She’s a corrupt ideologue.
I can live with pragmatism.
Most of the argument against Trump turns on ad hominem and the MSM character assassination campaign.
This was expected by me — from the outset.
The MSM-Clinton cabal are responsible for Trump being the nominee. This is widely perceived, too.
The forces that foisted Trump upon us will still be with us in four years time… with even more power. He is as conservative as we’re going to see from now on.
The reason is pure demographics.
An appeal to righteous indignation and anger in unavailing in our predicament.
It’s based upon emotion, primarily.
My pro-Trump position is based upon game theory.
It’s better to eat the stink than to eat the poison.
&&&
BTW, Saddam DID have an active WMD program. None of the players was willing to cough up the truth until he was executed — and until they had re-settlement rights in the West.
Then they admitted that their own personal libraries contained the critical blue prints, research, plans, etc. The most embarrassing equipment was crudely buried in a rush in the western desert of Iraq. This included fighter-bombers reconfigured to spray nerve agent.
Binary nerve rounds were state of the art — and are still considered so. Even ONE ROUND properly detonated would’ve killed 5,000 in any Western subway at rush hour.
Hundreds of these rounds were eventually pulled out of IEDs all over Iraq.
This reality was kept secret all the way through 2011, and our departure.
The MSM narrative is pure myth.
Brian E:
“In the end the war was waged without a new UN resolution, France saying they would veto it.”
Clarification. No new UN authorization was necessary because UNSCR 678 (1990) provided the carrying authorization to use “all necessary means” to enforce Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCR 660 series.
Like the 2002 AUMF per US law and policy, UNSCR 1441 wasn’t legally necessary since it reiterated and updated standing UN mandates. But like the 2002 AUMF, UNSCR 1441 served a practical function and clarified the working parameters of the 2002-2003 enforcement.
The final UNSC debate upon the UNMOVIC clusters document wasn’t over authorization, but rather over a deadline date for Iraq to prove the mandated compliance. Sort of a 3rd, for reals, final chance for Saddam to comply.
Saddam’s advocates countered, instead, by pushing for an indefinite extension for Iraq with a fundamentally altered and lowered standard of compliance.
The final UNSC debate wasn’t over regime change as such, but rather over the “governing standard of Iraq compliance” once Saddam confirmed he would not comply as mandated.
US and UK were for strict enforcement of UNSCR 687. RU and FR were for compromise with noncompliant Saddam. A reference point is Obama’s anti-UNSCR 687 Iran deal.
But a new resolution with a deadline date wasn’t necessary, either.
The UNSCR 1441 reporting date for UNMOVIC and IAEA was effectively the deadline for Saddam because the determination for enforcement was keyed in on evaluation of Iraq’s “continued violations of its obligations” (UNSCR 1441) based on the assessments provided by the UNSCR 1441 inspections.
In fact, by the time of the final UNSC debate, Saddam already had been effectively granted a month+ extension for his “final opportunity to comply” since the UNSCR 1441 reporting date was 26JAN03.
It should also be clarified, generally speaking, it’s not a legal standard for the US to seek out UN authorization for a sovereign exercise of military force. In the particular case of Iraq, the relevant US law and policy since 1990-1991 was to enforce Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCR 660 series.
As far as Victor Davis Hanson, he’s given me pause because his ‘defense’ of President Bush over the Iraq intervention has accepted the demonstrably false basic premise that OIF’s justification hinged on matching post-war findings with pre-war intelligence estimates, as opposed to the actual issue of Iraq proving disarmament and compliance as mandated, despite that Hanson’s basic premise plainly contradicts the operative enforcement procedure, plus defies common sense given the practical conditions of the UNSCR 687 disarmament process and ISG investigation.
A cursory review of the well developed law, policy, and precedent of the OIF decision should have clarified the issue for Hanson, yet he continued with the demonstrably false premise. Which implies an agenda other than setting the record straight on the Iraq issue for his audience.
Blert – again, I live in Texas. I don’t know what’s wrong with California but Texas is a great place to live, and we have a huge border with Mexico and a whole lot of Hispanics. I live in the most diverse city in America (Houston). We are a red state with good governance. The only reason we’ve been pink this election is because Hispanics don’t want to vote for the guy who called them rapists and murderers.
With all that, the state will very likely go to Trump.
Quit blaming Brown people for your state’s problems
Seriously, GOP – you are not going to survive being a whites-only party. Stop it.
I’ve been remiss. I’ve commented a couple of times here about the allegations of child rape against Trump. I should have been more careful handling that story. I saw the affidavits and ran with them, but turns out the case has now been dropped
I’ve made my stance against Trump plenty well known here, but fair is fair. I take back what I said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/304456-woman-who-accused-trump-of-rape-drops-lawsuit#
By the way, Eric, excellent work above. Trump’s slandering of someone I consider a very good man (GWB) by adopting the very left wing code pink talking points conservatives used to rail against was one of the first signs to me that we were in for a very bumpy ride.
There are plenty of things regrettable with GWB’s tenure as POTUS, but he’s NEVER struck me as one who went over the line and lied about his reasons for the war.
Not the least unexpected is that the political predilections of Trump’s supporters harmonize with Trump’s own political predilections. If Code Pink, then, is good enough for Trump, it’s unsurprising that it can be good enough for his crowd. Only reflect for two seconds what that can mean when Trump is empowered to set United States foreign policy, and we have the worst of a possible future served up on a platter.
“As far as Victor Davis Hanson, he’s given me pause because his ‘defense’ of President Bush over the Iraq intervention has accepted the demonstrably false basic premise that OIF’s justification hinged on matching post-war findings …” -Eric
There is so much to respond to, but this stuck out because Bush made the reason for taking out Saddam the current threat he posed, not his violations throughout the 90’s.
And I didn’t buy into any left wing propaganda. Listening to the justification laid out by the Bush administration I was uneasy about the case as it was made, not that Saddam was a vicious dictator, but that 9-11 was being used as the means to create popular support for regime change.
This is what Scott Ritter said in 2000:
“As the situation stands today, Iraq and the Security Council are deadlocked. There is no hope for the return of inspectors to Iraq anytime soon. With each passing day, concern increases over the status of Iraq’s WMD programs because there are no inspectors in place to monitor them. Unless the Security Council can come up with a compromise, the situation will only continue to deteriorate.”
Now that certainly supports the concern of the Bush administration, but that same report also said this:
“What is often overlooked in the debate over how to proceed with Iraq’s disarmament is the fact that from 1994 to 1998 Iraq was subjected to a strenuous program of ongoing monitoring of industrial and research facilities that could be used to reconstitute proscribed activities. This monitoring provided weapons inspectors with detailed insight into the capabilities, both present and future, of Iraq’s industrial infrastructure. It allowed UNSCOM to ascertain, with a high level of confidence, that Iraq was not rebuilding its prohibited weapons programs and that it lacked the means to do so without an infusion of advanced technology and a significant investment of time and money.”
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_06/iraqjun
I’m not arguing that the war was illegal, though that is exactly what Anan called it. According to Ritter, Resolution 687 was considered no longer viable at the UN because of Operation Desert Fox.
Now you can argue that it wasn’t, but Bush felt it necessary politically to go to the UN, both for national and international support.
I’m willing to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt, and hindsight usually reveals flaws that weren’t apparent at the time, but here it is:
Netanyahu’s testimony before Congress (I can’t provide the link until Monday) belies the premise of an active WMD program, and the belief that regime change was necessary for other reasons.
I’ve read it was the defense dept. that bought into the Ahmed Chalabi’s deception encouraging the invasion. Later he:
“He went on to chair Iraq’s de-Baathification Committee, which worked to purge the government of Saddam loyalists but was seen by the country’s Sunni minority as a means of sectarian score-settling by the newly empowered Shiite majority.
Chalabi’s relationship with the U.S. soured in the months after the invasion, and in 2004 U.S. forces raided his home based on suspicions that he was funneling intelligence to Iran.
In 2010, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill said Chalabi was “under the influence of Iran,” and “a gentleman who has been challenged over the years to be seen as a straightforward individual.””
We used Iraq for years to contain Iran, and when that was lost, it enabled Iran. How did the Bush administration not see that?
@Eric – good writeup – in other places I brought together pieces that made a similar case, but perhaps less ambitiously than you have.
“Which implies an agenda other than setting the record straight on the Iraq issue for his audience”
Only quibble is that maybe VDH is ignorant rather than having an agenda. I do believe VDH is guilty of bending his rhetoric to chase an audience rather than adhering to an agenda.
“Upshot: Regarding the OIF decision, Trump’s position, based blatantly on enemy propaganda, is disqualifying for a prospective Commander in Chief.” – Eric
“Trump’s slandering of someone I consider a very good man (GWB) by adopting the very left wing code pink talking points conservatives used to rail against was one of the first signs to me that we were in for a very bumpy ride.”- Bill
“If Code Pink, then, is good enough for Trump, it’s unsurprising that it can be good enough for his crowd.”- Bill
____
Bill, is that last comment directed at me?
Look, I’ll proved the link for Netanyahu’s testimony before Congress Monday. Please read it.
Asking Bill to judge the intent of a comment he didn’t write is practically certain to wander into difficulty. Yeah, it’s directed at any and all Trump supporters is where it’s directed.
“Bill, is that last comment directed at me?”
If you’re referring to the “If Code Pink, then, is good enough…” comment, I didn’t write that one.
My comment above that was directed at Eric. For what it’s worth, I think you two are having a good conversation and trying to get to truth. I’m always happy to see that. I was impressed with the facts Eric marshaled in his first response, that’s all.
“I’ve been remiss. I’ve commented a couple of times here about the allegations of child rape against Trump. I should have been more careful handling that story. I saw the affidavits and ran with them, but turns out the case has now been dropped
I’ve made my stance against Trump plenty well known here, but fair is fair. I take back what I said.” – Bill
Thanks for the retraction.
Also, I attributed a comment to you that apparently was made by sdferr.
Blert, Neo,
First, Neo, you are giving short shrift to Hansen’s historical knowledge. Blert describes how Hansen has seen the sweep of history, where migration and demographic change can and have rendered nations incapable of addressing serious issues. One has only to look at certain cities or even states (hi, Blert) in the U.S. today to see places where the schools, crime, business climate, housing, etc. all deteriorate year after year and there seems to be no ability by the government and no will on the part of most people to intervene in a manner that can remedy the situation.
Hansen has also seen how civilizations lose the ability to renew themselves and face both internal and external challenges. When that same sort of thing shows up on his doorstep it makes a lot of sense that he does not want more of the same.
Speaking for myself, I have worked all over the world for the past 35 years and nothing quite spooked me like the aid and comfort BHO and HRC went out of their ways to give almost immediately to the enemies of freedom – extra-constitutional presidency in Honduras, man hug with Chavez, support for MB, supine behavior toward Russia (not corrected by Barry’s current Mean Girls hissy fit, IMHO), now the Castro crime syndicate and the Iranian atom heads. I have spent time in military dictatorships, republics that were transitioning to dictatorships as their institutions and people failed, falling monarchies, struggling democracies, and full blown autocracies. In terms of Barry and then Hillary, I have seen this movie before, I know how it ends, and I don’t want to wait for the closing credits.
As for the WMD in Iraq, too bad we did not ask Yevgeny Primakov, former Russian Foreign Minister and head of intelligence, before he died last year. For a few million to his heirs he might have told us. I will simply point out that our military in Iraq would continually test water to see if it was drinkable, since hauling water into the desert for hundreds of thousands is no picnic logistically. They uniformly found evidence of chemical agents or their breakdown products in the samples (yes, I know, many organophosphate insecticides are similar in composition to various chemical agents and will yield similar degradation products). The similarity of nerve agents to some insecticides does not account for the positive sample tests in areas with no agriculture.
Neo, this is in response to your comment at 1:07am
“Trump’s uncouthness has turned off his rivals and their supporters, who still in large part insist that they will not support him despite the transparency of the primaries and the long-ago oath of fealty of the Republican candidates to the eventual nominee.”
So this is the sentence that your post is based on.
And if I read your post correctly you object, on a factual basis,
1. that the other candidates and their supporters still don’t support him
2. fealty is the wrong word and demonstrates a sloppiness to his argument
3. his characterization of people objecting to Trump is far greater than “uncouthness” and is substantial.
1. We’re arguing degree here. Hanson thinks there is still a large portion of the other candidates supporters that will not support the Republican candidate, and you say it’s less than that. So if he had written “there is still some portion”, that would have been more accurate.
2. fealty- faithfulness. Yeah it’s a stretch. Poor choice of words. But stretching that to vassal is also a stretch, since it makes no sense in context.
3.You’ve made it very clear in numerous posts that your objection is far greater than Trump’s “uncouthness” and is offensive to those holding principled objections. While you’ve made that case– con man, etc. much of the other written objections had for some time centered around the Bush interview. You can object that this doesn’t fit you, but not every critic of Trump has made the extensive arguments you did.
Objections 1 and 2 IMO are not significant. I agree that 3 is principled and sincere.
But my comment references that few people here have taken up the case that Trump’s policies are bad. The most common argument has been that one has no need to discuss his policies because there is no trust that he’ll do anything he says.
Big Maq and others suggest the situation isn’t as dire as some have tried to explain– that it isn’t Flight 93.
There are about 31 sentences in his column. You’ve chosen to focus on 1. And while you consider it important, it is not the central thesis of his argument. I would say it’s this:
“…the divide, at least in November 2016, is over issues and ostensibly could not be clearer for both conservatives and liberals. On the Supreme Court, Obamacare, the debt, rebuilding the military, the Second Amendment, school choice, abortion, reforming the tax code, reexamining regulation, energy exploration and production, illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, and a host of other issues, the Republican ticket is the antithesis of Clinton/Kaine – and is recognized as such by nearly all progressives. Unlike the Democratic prospect, the conservative message oddly still has the chance of being empowered by both Houses of Congress and eventually a Supreme Court.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441688/never-trump-republicans-donald-trump-hillary-clinton
Now some here believe that all those things can be undone when/if the Republicans win in 2020, or that a Republican congress can hold off the worst of this, though you have commented elsewhere that it’s likely the Republicans will lose control of the senate.
So, can these things be undone? Much of the lawlessness of the current administration, if carried over to a Hillary administration are outside the control of congress– short of impeachment or other confrontations that congress has been reluctant to pursue given the badgering by the media.
Do you think, as Hanson has said in other columns, that this is a pivotal election, or just one of many nasty elections?
Demographics = destiny.
Game. Set. Match.
From Mark Steyn :
“According to the Census, in 1970 the “Non-Hispanic White” population of California was 78 percent. By the 2010 census, it was 40 percent. Over the same period, the 10 percent Hispanic population quadrupled and caught up with whites.
That doesn’t sound terribly “natural” does it? If one were informed that, say, the population of Nigeria had gone from 80 percent black in 1970 to 40 percent black today, one would suspect something rather odd and unnatural had been going on. Twenty years ago, Rwanda was about 14 percent Tutsi. Now it’s just under 10 percent. So it takes a bunch of Hutu butchers getting out their machetes and engaging in seven-figure genocide to lower the Tutsi population by a third. But, when the white population of California falls by half, that’s “natural,” just the way it is, one of those things, could happen to anyone.
The “sweeping and unprecedented demographic transformation” is not natural, but rather the conscious result of government policy enthusiastically supported by one-and-a-half parties in America’s two-party state, and accepted with weary fatalism by most of the rest.”
After reading Neo’s critique of VDH and reading most of the 78 comments that were not tediously overlong, I am left with the impression that Neo’s readership is changing (if readership is proportional to comments), and not necessarily for the better.
Let us recall one definition of the neoconservative: “The term “neoconservative” refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism” (Vaisse, 2010, in Wiki).
One does not leave all of one’s roots behind in that shift. Neocons are not all Whittaker Chamberses, not by any means. It shows. The vestiges of liberalism are clinging.
The condemnation of VDH’s remarks are not well countered the picking of nits and by knowledge of existence of the flawed thoughts and arguments of the neocons.
Frog:
Ah, so it’s the nefarious neocons!
Indeed, how is it that, till now, I’ve managed to hide my leftist past? You’ve found me out! The “vestiges of liberalism” still cling, and cause me to reject the One True Trump, and to nitpick on poor old VDH!
As I’ve written many times before, I was never a leftist of any sort. Not that that has anything to do with anything, really. One of the biggest pro-Trumpers this year has been David Horowitz, who really does have a leftist past.
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s actually the former leftists, clinging to the vestiges of their leftism and its “ends justifies the means” philosophy, that allows them to now support a man as abominable as Trump, and to lie about the objections of those who don’t get on board
1. I made a post around 8 PM yesterday, and then I spent this morning reading some of Mark Steyn’s commentaries on the election cycle, but only those from June of 2015 to February of this year. That was very interesting, and it was good to have that reflection on earlier events, with the election itself now just a few days away.
2. Consider this scenario. Person A says, “Looking at the most likely outcomes from the election and what could happen in the next couple of years, it may not work out well for the critics of one of the candidates.” Person B responds by saying, “You’re threatening me.”
3. A reaction like that from Person B is very revealing.
4. Related to Neo’s original comments on Mr. Hanson’s column from 11/2/16 is Jonah Goldberg’s latest column in National Review, from 11/5/16. I suggest reading both for a useful comparison. There, Mr. Goldberg discusses some of his predictions, and why he thinks that his criticism of Mr. Trump will be validated.
5. The result of this coming election will mean that either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton will become the next President of the United States. But while that is the end of one matter, it’s also the start of another. This is an ongoing process. Supporters and proponents of both sides, and those along the spectrum of positions, will still be around, and will still have the need (and opportunity) to constructively engage with one another.
Yankee
“A reaction like that from Person B is very revealing.”
What does it reveal?
To all of you demographic doomsayers, Scott Lincicome tweeted this out a few minutes ago
“The GOP can stand in the ocean & promise to make waves of globalization & demography stop. Or it can build a boat. Those are the options.”
Yep.
“I am left with the impression that Neo’s readership is changing (if readership is proportional to comments), and not necessarily for the better.” – Frog
Depends on what you are looking for.
If it is agreement with your own views, then you are right it might be changing.
I’m relatively new here. I’ve abandoned other blogs and media simply because they’ve become obvious shills and their comment sections became infested by people who have no interest in trying to have any reasonable discourse. It has become very much a contest of who can shout and insult the loudest.
Fact is, it has become an unhealthy habit for too many to consume from sources that only feed you one point of view.
Being of minority opinion in these comments section has not been easy, but the discussion here has made thinking about this much sharper than anything else.
It has also been a real eye opener about the different kinds of trump supporters. Somewhat different than what we might get from “pundits” in “conservative” media.
“The GOP can stand in the ocean & promise to make waves of globalization & demography stop. Or it can build a boat. Those are the options.”
If you believe the influx is simply an unstoppable ‘natural phenomena’ then by all means build a boat. If you believe it is the conscious result of government policy then i suggest the first option is to change the policy.
Boat building is the last resort. Perhaps the time is close.
Choose wisely.
Bill, Big Maq, Yankee,
Read the Jonah Goldberg piece, thanks. Jonah notes that some of Obama’s biggest initiatives, especially Obamacare, are already failing because they are flawed. So far so good. Where he loses the plot is in calling on the deus ex machina of the invisible hand to slay the beast of dud programs. Not gonna happen. Governments do lots of stupid, ill-conceived things. When they fail government often double down, as has Obama.
Just because Obamacare, or some other policy is a failure, does not mean it will simply die and return us to the status quo ante. Where Goldberg fails, Ryan fails, and the rest of this crew fail is their inability to formulate, promote, and implement good alternatives. For all of Paul Ryan’s precious “ideas” he has continued to support, through funding, some of the worst of Obama’s anti-constitutional excesses. Where, for example, is a budget from this so-called government budget expert?
The result of the left’s failed programs and the GOPe’s supine acquiescence in continuing to support and fund zombie programs is that none of these turkeys gets taken behind the barn and turned into something useful (if you think of turkey burgers as useful). This is not Jonah Goldberg’s fault, but he does not see that failure by the left does not lead automatically to reform. Ryan lacks the courage to stand up and promote his own ideas.
For a number of the GOP conservatives and the GOP establishment office holders their precious ideas are too valuable to see the light of day, much less duke it out with other approaches.
The man with the agenda generally wins the day, even if the agenda is stupid or evil.
” the GOPe’s supine acquiescence in continuing to support and fund zombie programs” – donkatsu
Had me until this.
You might want to read this from Neo…
http://neoneocon.com/2016/04/26/reality-and-the-record-of-the-gop/
Maq,
Yup, the GOP house, especially under Boehner, passed a lot of measures that should have received a hearing in the Senate. The Senate under McConnell appears no more in touch with reality than previously and Harry Reid obviously practices some form of voodoo that leaves the GOP in a trance and unable to think or act.
Under Ryan the fighting back pretty much stopped. Ryan, who can speak in public, is even less in favor or supporting his own ideas than was Boehner, a man obviously very uncomfortable in that role. If I am not for myself then who will be for me.
Compare the hearing held by the Republicans on IRS, Benghazi, etc. with any hearing chaired by Henry Waxman in the House and various superannuated showboating Dems in the Senate during the 1990s or 2000s, even when the Dems were in the minority. The Republicans just don’t do this sort of thing very well, like a lot of the blocking and tackling of politics.
My pet idea has always been that the Republicans should call the Dems bluff and let them actually filibuster, not just threaten to do so. Combine that threat with a real public output device, with someone who speaks understandable English, not Mitch McConnell with his stream of inside baseball acronyms (a good interviewer like Brit Hume always demands that his guests spell out the acronyms). Let America see all these stooped over Dems with bad hair dye doddering around at 0200 on C-Span or Fox. After the first couple the people will demand term limits, outlawing hair dye among elected officials, and probably age limits as well. Withstanding the first couple of instances, preferably done early in the year, would take representatives with more fortitude than has been shown by the current GOP leadership.
Jls: “If you believe the influx is simply an unstoppable ‘natural phenomena’ then by all means build a boat. If you believe it is the conscious result of government policy then i suggest the first option is to change the policy.
Boat building is the last resort.”
By all means we need to fix our broken immigration system and enforcement system.
But even if not one more illegal immigrant came into the country a majority white party like the GOP is doomed to fail due to demographics. Brown people have babies too, and at a higher rate than white people.
Why is boat-building the last resort? Why is our last resort facing the reality of demographic change? Why do we refuse to engage, for example, the hispanic community and actually punish politicians who do? And, no, eating a Trump Tower Taco Bowl is not engaging the hispanic community. Telling the African American community “Vote for me! What the hell do you have to lose?” is not engaging that community either.
Why on earth does the GOP have to be so incredibly stupid about this issue? And why do you not think that people from Mexico and other places are impervious to winsome argument and persuasion toward a conservative point of view?
The answer is generally “They all come from screwed up socialist countries”. All the more reason to engage with them! They know how bad it can be. I remember talking to people from the Eastern bloc who came over in the 90s. They hated communism and were big supporters of our democratic system, the free market, etc. Because they’d lived the nightmare already.
The GOP can continue to pretend that it can win with only older white people (and mainly men). Not women, not hispanics, not african americans, not muslims, not the young.
Good luck.
Dang it: “why do you
notthink that people from Mexico and other places are impervious”Bill: I take no issue with your idea of expanding the conservative appeal to the wider community. BUT as long as the wider communities’ political agenda is to keep open-borders and maintain high social benefits, then acceding to that political agenda is self defeating.
Conservatives can never out bid the liberals in offering open borders and expanded benefits, so as long as that is the agenda, conservatives lose.
The only hope is to slow the in-migration so that those who are here become assimilated and invested in maintaining a way of life, so that they join in seeking a restricted border. We are stuck in a positive feedback loop and the only exit is to break the connection.
I agree with your proposition that the GOP must expand beyond the ‘white / mainly men’ constituency but i believe the only way to is to slow the inflow so that those who are here can take root.
I believe we have one last chance to change course and if we miss that opportunity, we will just have to wait for the natural equilibrium to find a settling point. That probably comes when the USA loses a lot of its appeal.
Thanks for the ‘Good Luck’. I hope i am wrong about this but it’s hard to see how.
It’s remarkable that those who out of one side of their mouths marvel at supposedly prejudicial assumptions directed at “brown people” of another culture who seem determined to undermine the rule of law, then go right on to predict that the rule of law party of “white people” is doomed because of the relative increase of these very “brown people”.
One would think that this self-refuting incoherence would be obvious to virtually anyone. But apparently not.
This is because, they assert, and despite all the historical evidence against it, all it requires to turn those who are currently gaming the system into classical self-sufficient law abiding libertarians in time for the next election, is some “winsome” (don’t blame me for that word) argument from Republicans.
But so far the evidence for that is not too good.
To wit: Someone who seemingly stipulates she is not a citizen, asks Obama if upon voting she – or those like her, and who she denominates as citizens because they “contribute to society” – need worry about the consequences of casting illegal votes.
But maybe you can convincer her that you’re not social property … 20 years from now. Or reflecting on the Wise Latina on the S.C. …. maybe not.
So what is it that compassionate conservatives are trying to conserve? The rule of law? They have already told us in effect “No, the price is too high” Certainly not the lives and futures of those Americans whose options were narrowed and futures crushed under the burdens of an arguably illegal alien triggered abomination: Obama Care.
You see nothing for example from these people concerning the middle aged secretary hurled by law into paying 7k in after tax income for government mandated medical insurance with a 6 k deductible … because …. compassion or something.
Guess she should have gone to work for the government when she had the chance.
One would think that this self-refuting incoherence would be obvious to virtually anyone. But apparently not.
All I’m saying DNW (with your continued and cute habit of talking about what I wrote obliquely) is that if the GOP wants to survive they have to quit pretending like they can be a whites-only party.
I regret every time I read a post of yours that I ever, ever responded to your request for an answer to the hypothetical.
You didn’t ask me if I believe in the rule of law.
You asked me if I would agree to a brutal deportation of people here illegally (many of whom have children who are American citizens) – a deportation that would not lower but would actually raise the level of suffering both in our country and in another, and would cause death and disruption and economic upheaval. Somehow your magical deportation would “restore my freedoms”.
I said no, I wouldn’t want to do that. Because it would be both dumb and immoral.
Now I’m your poster child for … well, for whatever you post every time you’re on here. I shouldn’t have taken your bait but I did because I was thought we were in a good faith debate. We weren’t – and you have misrepresented what I said and labeled me as a hypocrite, a Christian in name only, etc. etc. etc.
I could play the same game back at you, but I won’t.
Instead, tell me, please sir, how the GOP survives as a whites only party even if your stupid and immoral plan is put into place.
Wait, don’t tell me – because I’ll tell you. They don’t. Demographically, a RACIST GOP will not survive.
And that’s what the GOP is becoming, led by your man, Trump. A party who’s winning strategy is to actively try to stop CITIZENS from voting because they are of the wrong color is a party I won’t be part of. And it’s a party that doesn’t care about the rule of law either.
As an addendum – I think Obamacare should be repealed. Jerk.
Bill
Obamacare was repealed, and Obama vetoed the repeal. See this.
The only way it would be repealed again is if the GOP retains the Senate, which has a good chance of not happening. And even if the GOP retains the Senate and Trump loses, Hillary would almost certainly veto any repeal just as Obama did.
I understand, neo. I was just making the point to DNW, who has taken one comment I made to him months ago and turned it into a running indictment that includes all sorts of things, such as support for Obamacare.
I have avoided naming names because I am not particularly interested the the personal views of the commenter I mentioned insofar as they are his personal views per se.
He, as a particular person having this or that view, means nothing this way or that in terms of the logic of his arguments and substance or grounds of his evaluations.
These things stand or fall, on their own.
Some may recall the original context. That another commenter, generally aligned in views with the one now complaining, had repeatedly asked – playing off I believe the conservative charge that the left recognized no limits – what limits it was that libertarians or conservatives would themselves recognize when it came to defeating Hillary, and reversing the collectivizing course we are now embarked on.
In response I constructed and answered with a moral hypothetical of my own. And afterwards posed a “return to rule of law” (stipulated as a conditional with defined limits and outcomes) problem.
This commenter did us all a favor, when he clearly stated that he would in fact balk at enforcing the laws even if it brought about a return to the rule of law, because of the (modestly defined in the problem) hardships involved.
I cannot imagine why he now regrets having stated his views unequivocally; especially as he essentially restates them if in exaggerated terms, now.
The commenter I have in mind has, in my opinion shown a marked sensitivity to what others think of him; and has repeatedly adverted to feelings of disappointment in, hopelessness with, and betrayal by, those Republicans willing to roll the dice on Trump, rather than to grin and bear another 4 to 8 years of administrative persecution, constitutional subversion, pay for play, and uninhibited criminality, with Hillary.
But in fact it’s nothing to get het up about, when this contrast is pointed out, and the implications for the future of the polity are projected.
He has stated his judgments as regards what he considers to be of paramount importance in this election season: which seems to have something to do with inclusion and his religious faith as he views it.
Others, more more immediately insistent on the unconditional return to the rule of law, its impartial application, and distributive personal liberty, have stated theirs.
These are very different views as to what constitutes a polity (or society for that matter) worth living in, sharing, or even preserving.
But he is to be commended for having been forthright enough to help highlight just what it is that is involved in the formation of that contrast.
DNW,
Others, more more immediately insistent on the unconditional return to the rule of law, its impartial application, and distributive personal liberty, have stated theirs.
OK, let’s open that discussion up a bit, DNW. Which candidate currently running is seriously going to deport all in-country illegal aliens?
Or are they all still somewhere on the same spectrum as that mysterious commenter you keep mentioning – it has morphed, hasn’t it, into just deporting “the bad ones” now, even on Trump’s side?
No one cares about the rule of law, evidently.
You seem obsessed with the comment the mysterious unnamed commenter made months ago. It was an epiphany, evidently. I don’t understand why.
Who are you voting for who’s going to actual be the rule of law purist you desire? Trump?
Do you have a practical, workable plan to enforce the unenforced rule of law on illegals and their families? How would you, were you in charge, marshal the logistical, moral, and political support to get this done?
Real questions.
Bill,
I remember in 1988-89 INS showing up at agricultural businesses in the area loading the illegals on buses and shipping them back home.
It can be done. Will it? Probably not, as the left will equate this with sending them to the ovens.
My oldest daughter and son-in-law taught in a district that was probably 85% Hispanic/Latino/Chicano/Mexican. (Is it OK to say Mexican?
Our private joke over the racial makeup was asking my grandson if there were any blonde haired kids in his class.
One of the many problems they faced was actually teaching the kids. The parents would pull them out of school to return to Mexico to visit relatives, then return later in the school year. The kids learned nothing, but were advanced to the next grade where the disruption would occur again.
So, many of the illegals here have families back home. While it will certainly be a disruption, it’s not exactly like they’ll be dumped in the middle of some Mexican desert to fend for themselves.
For the most part they’re parents are hard working laborers, and in the orchard industry they’re still essential as there is no viable commercial robot picker yet.
But there is a gang element, and drugs do flow from Mexico through this area so there are definitely undesirables there.
By the way, according to Pew research, the number of Latino eligible voters has grown from 11.2 million in 2000 to 27.3 million in 2016.
In past elections, the Latino voter turnout rate has lagged that of other groups. For example, in 2012 Latinos had a turnout rate of 48%, compared with 67% for blacks and 64% for whites.
You and I are not having a discussion, Bill. And I am not interested in cracker barrel gatherings in general, nor in one with you in particular.
My purpose in posing a hypothetical to you following along in the context of Maq’s challenge to anti-Hillary voters to state their limits, was to find out just how much more weight you gave to the preservation of constitutional government, the rule of law, and a system promoting personal self-direction, as opposed to a country nicely upholstered with your lady bountiful impulses and feelings.
Your answer of course was: not much. Rule of law loses.
Though with the mice pissing on the social fabric the way they are, it kind of spoils the comfy effect you seemed to be hoping for.
Anyway, once we, or I in particular, know that your conservatism, whatever that supposedly means, even stops short at actually enforcing the law with the legal mechanisms which are in principle currently available, there is nothing to discuss.
I am not interested in trying to figure out how to persuade enabled law breakers into un-enabled law abiders faster than they and more can drain the country of its last virtues and reason for being.
Its reason for being and moral justification, I just said.
But of course you and I certainly disagree on the matter of an allegiance worthy raison d’etre, and what could possibly constitute a valid reason for supporting a social system in which administrative discretion, and outright managerial subversion, have replaced systematic and impartial enforcement, legal due process, and general liberty.
Whatever you particularly are trying to preserve, Bill, it is not a United States which means jack to people who care about the freedoms which they have lost while fellow citizen gatekeepers with your attitude assisted with the watch.
You and I really have nothing to discuss. We are on opposite sides in a very fundamental sense.
I do give you credit though for being forthright about what it is you really value more than freedom in a country where the laws rather than the administrators rule.
No doubt it is a religious thing, as you have intimated more than once before.
Bill,
I only responded to you directly because you seemed so insistent that I do.
My view is that it is better that I do not, since if I am to continue to make occasional comments here on ideological stances which I consider important, I should avoid expressions of contempt for views which are too closely associated with easily identified personalities … where some spill-over effect might be construed.
Better to keep it as abstract as possible; while making use of the substance of the arguments or views which have been presented here.
If I understand her correctly, I agree with Neo’s observation to the effect that personal exchanges of that kind add nothing substantive, and detract from the purpose of her blog ….
Regards,
DNW:
Why bother posting at all since contempt is your main point?
Cracker barrel indeed.
In order to achieve clarity of perspective, insight, and understanding. Not sympathy, but understanding and insight.
That is then, in order to identity the real versus the apparent ethical and legal arguments; and so to know whether the ostensible premisses are really categorical and sincere, or just a kind of mealy-mouthed homage to some prevailing sentiment in some locale or grouping.
For example, and to paraphrase myself:
I don’t presently believe that a run-of-the-mill Mr. X or a Mrs. Y, can usually be argued out of their tastes and life strategies. The best that can be hoped for in a muddled social situation, is to accurately identify what those aims and tastes actually are: to try and penetrate the community minded and defensive emotive fog so many emit. This, so as to better judge what the real case is, and what one’s real options are.
What’s the point of aligning with a false flag?
You have been hunting I am sure. And I am sure you quickly came to recognize that there is a big difference between what men say about what they value and wish to do, and what they actually are willing to do about it – even within a strictly legal, ethical, and fair chase context.
Some people seem to have a strong impulse to belong, or participate, and adjust their statements in order to fit in or to gain admittance. The first freezing rain or bitter wind sorts that out.
Of course if you never learn to tell the difference, you will be dragging them along all your life and wondering why everything always seems to go to hell somehow.
DNW
If you never learn to stop talking down to people …. you will never learn.
“Anyway, once we, or I in particular, know that your conservatism, whatever that supposedly means, even stops short at actually enforcing the law with the legal mechanisms which are in principle currently available, there is nothing to discuss.” – DNW
The problem with all this is that you won’t describe how you think it all gets done. The devil is in the details.
So, I have to conclude that all we will get is the same old smoke blowing of some “real versus the apparent ethical and legal arguments”, but you just won’t get down to brass tacks on how the h*ll you think it is going to be done.
.
“Better to keep it as abstract as possible; while making use of the substance of the arguments or views which have been presented here.”
You pretend “enforce the law” is all that is needed to answer, but it only makes clear you have no answer and prefer to hide that fact by dwelling at the 30000 foot theoretical.
You know full well Bill is not saying “let’s stop short of enforcing the law”, but he has assumed something about what you might mean by that in the practical terms. Terms you really won’t specify, nor commit to. Then, all this time, you take him to task for his reaction to an assumption.
If anything “adds nothing substantive, and detracts from the purpose of Neo’s blog”, it is this behavior, and the not so well veiled insults.
No, the devil is in your demand that the law be enforced according to your sensibilities rather than according to established legal process.
Illegal aliens have been expelled for generations from this country.
Your beef is with the supposedly unbearable consequences which you assert will come with trying to reestablish the rule of law; after of course, those like-minded to you successfully subverted it for decades at an ever increasing pace till now.
As far as “plans” go: It’s really rich to see you complaining about not getting a “plan” when we already have laws and enforcement mechanisms in place; and to see you additionally demanding a cracker barrel (as I characterized it earlier) discussion resulting in what is to you an acceptable plan B after a Clinton Victory; when – drum roll – you repeatedly admit you don’t have the slightest idea of how to effectively reestablish the rule of law after another 4 to 8 years of Democratic administrative malfeasance, criminality, and politically directed persecution.
What you really want is the assurance that if the law is to be enforced and freedom under law restored, it will be enforced and restored in a way which will take your sensibilities into account.
As a conservative you conserve nothing, as a “planner” you propose and restore nothing, and you stand paralyzed and politically impotent to strike at the root of the problem that has arguably thrust us into the middle class and freedom destroying program of Obama Care in the first place, by an emotionally overwrought “moral” dilemma of your own creation.
Well, that is the best case assumption.
The one wherein I accept that you are not really a Democrat.
@DNW – just a fancy way of saying, you don’t have any real answer for how it all gets done.
The questions were posed, but you won’t bother with them, defaulting back to the “enforce the laws” meme.
There are some serious questions on how to achieve what I have to assume is 100% deportation is your goal.
Just one simple one, what is a reasonable monetary cost? If it adds $2T to our deficit, just to make a point, is that worthwhile? If so, what is your cutoff point?
On the surface level, I am very much for “enforcing the law”, but as we peel that onion, we might find reality imposes its own limits on what we can do.
You’d rather spend time making assumptions about our character, values, and emotional state. All avoiding exposing what may be rather uncomfortable realities with following through to meet your ideal “goal”?
Reestablishing the rule of law and constitutional government, restoring legislative self-government as opposed to unlimited executive and administrative discretion and malfeasance; liberating middle class Americans from an unsupportable oppression in the form of a tax in the guise of an insurance premium which buys them nothing …
And that according to your supercilious pose, is just making a point.
I am not as I have stated before, a self-identified conservative in a political sense. But I have never quite fully appreciated the utter uselessness of so-called conservatism in actually promoting and restoring law and freedom until now.
Yes, DNW, yes… you are not a conservative, but neither do you want to get substantive. THAT’s the bottom line.
As I mentioned before, it’s pointless to get into the details, as none of the factions fighting here, are going to implement the “Plan”, so they can’t be held accountable for whatever plans they come up with, right or wrong.
@Ymarsakar – so it seems, after this election.
Seemed important with the original ask, some while back.