Political change: straws breaking camels’ backs
In my recent post about Dershowitz saying that he really might stop voting for Democrats because of the Biden administration’s stance on Israel in the Gaza war (in particular the US’s abstention in the UN), a number of people in the comments wrote that they saw him as caring more about Israel than about all the other things Democrats are doing to destroy our country.
I think they might have had a point if the interests of Israel and of the US were at odds here. They are not, however. Dershowitz also made that plain when he wrote that it’s a “terrible decision both for us and for Israel.” He might even have added, “and for the Western world.” Because that is also true. And also, “for humanity.”
That’s what has caused such a powerful reaction for Dershowitz and so many others, including many non-Jews who previously had been moderate Democrats.
What’s more, Dershowitz has written extensively and strongly in recent years against what Democrats and Biden have been doing on a host of other topics. He also defended Trump in his impeachment trial in Congress, at great personal cost.
The “dual loyalty” or “higher loyalty” charge is an old one against Jews. In this case it is especially inappropriate.
Dershowitz has opined on a myriad of questions and issues over the years that support conservative positions. I’ve written about many but certainly not all of them; you can see the list here. No, he’s not a conservative or even a Republican and doesn’t support the position of the right down the line. But he’s been more courageous in defending positions that are essentially conservative than a lot of Republicans have, and the majority of those positions have had nothing to do with Israel. He is strongest on anything that has to do with liberty and law.
One glaring exception, however, is when Dershowitz defended a cause that was anti-liberty: his statement that vaccine mandates are okay in certain circumstances. Dershowtiz said that there is no inherent legal right to refuse a vaccine if the government required it in order to protect others in situations of grave danger, but he later said he was not in favor of such mandates for the COVID vaccine, especially once it was proven that it didn’t protect against transmission.
Dershowitz has been one of the most prolific and thoughtful writers in the US for many decades on a host of issues. But until now he’s also been a Democrat, something that puzzles a great many people on the right and seems contradictory. However, I’ve noticed for many years that he’s been edging closer and closer to repudiating his Democrat affiliation and making a clean break. He hasn’t done it quite yet, though – not even over the UN abstention concerning a ceasefire – although he’s been tantalizingly close. What holds him back from making the full break? I believe it is mostly what I discussed in this post, and is summarized by my oft-stated observation that “A mind is a difficult thing to change” – particular in terms of long-term political affiliation.
I assume you’re familiar with the saying “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” When I was very young, I misunderstood it and thought it refered to the sort of “straw” with which I was most familiar: a drinking straw made of paper. I pictured such a straw on a camel, and why it would break the beast’s back was completely puzzling to me. A few years later I learned it was about a straw of the haylike variety, which made even less sense rather than more.
And then I finally learned what the saying really meant, which was that a huge pile of straws can be placed on that camel’s back and then at a certain point a single straw more will be too much. It will be the last straw, the final straw. For Dershowitz, there obviously has been a long line of disillusionments, disappointments, and disagreements with Democrats, and at some point he might actually say “enough!” and his Democrat affiliation will be broken
Dershowitz lives in a state where his defection from the Democrats wouldn’t really matter in terms of the vote: Massachusetts is thoroughly blue. That’s not the issue, of course. It’s more a question of conscience. I recall hearing him say some years ago (can’t find it now) that he stays in the Democratic Party in order to try to reform it from within. I think that may have been true for a while, but I believe part of what he’s wrestling with now is that he’s given up on having much effect on a party that’s been spinning ever leftward and more and more distant from the principles Dershowitz holds dear.
Here is what Dershowitz said a while back about voting for Obama’s second term. Note that back then the alternative to Obama was Romney and not Trump. Romney was an easier alternative for Dershowitz to contemplate:
Why am I focusing on Dershowitz so much? I do so because I think he’s emblematic of the struggle many people go through in wrestling with political change. His struggle is just more public. I don’t think most people are politically all one thing or another. There are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of elements that combine to make up a political position, and how we vote ends up being a result of which side weighs heavier in the balance scale. But early and habitual political affiliation, as well as the environments in which we live, also play a role.
Love Dersh.
He lives on Martha’s Vineyard and his neighbors and former friends have “excluded him out.”
Bravo.
Bravo.
Tribal affiliation is deep. Very deep. I believe you must be personally betrayed by your tribe in order to repudiate them, and even then there can be huge remorse.
I do remember when whitaker chamber came i. From the cold he wondered if he had joined the losing side
Was it Churchill?
“I no longer listen to what people say.
I watch what they do. Behaviour never lies.”
Until he does something differently, all the heated ink he spills is just that; spilled ink. Yelling into the maelstrom of leftist hate-the-West identity politics is just more yelling. When he actually votes R…or puts his money on an R candidate…then we’ll know for sure.
John Guilfoyle:
Oh, really? His defense of Trump in the impeachment trial isn’t DOING something? He DID a lot there, at great cost – and much more important than his voting for a Republican in Massachusetts where his vote has no chance of affecting anything.
He also offered to defend – pro bono – any of the lawyers targeted by the 65 Project. I don’t know whether anyone has yet taken him up on it, but he certainly would do it if asked.
He’s done a lot more than talk.
We’re never going to find the ideological purity we think we want. I may be allies on one issue and opponents on another. I appreciate when he defends conservative values, which align with his view of the constitution.
I would say Dershowitz is showing integrity. He defends principles he believes in. If it were Romney he would no doubt push the R button, given what he knows now. Where I think he goes wrong is his blind/blinkered allegiance to principles. It’s the inability to recognize the left is trying to kill the constitution and every win on their march to a cultural Marxist “utopia” is one step closer to their objective. This is war.
Trump, with all his baggage and peculiarities strikes at the sensibilities of the “why can’t we just get along” crowd. I remind people stuck on their perception of Trump to decide if the country would be better off with four more years of the lawlessness of the Biden administration.
One of the objections they counter with is how few of Trump’s achievements have been permanent. Can enough Congresspersons aligned with an America First agenda be elected to pass legislation rather than executive orders?
” . . . ‘A mind is a difficult thing to change’ . . . .” [Neo]
The following is, IMO, an interesting corollary to this thought (quoted from Ann Althouse 3/24/24 7:47 AM):
Again, IMO, one of the reasons for anyone’s confusion can be that we try to analyze this rationally, yet, as Haidt notes it is truly and fundamentally an emotional issue (“But until now he’s also been a Democrat, something that puzzles a great many people on the right and seems contradictory.” [Neo]).
We tend to give family members a broader sense of forgiveness and a greater benefit of the doubt than we do outsiders; what is ignored for Biden is execrable for Trump. What is the Democratic party to Dershowitz if not “family”? What final straw might make him disinherit this family?
Neo… I’m going to leave it here…but he defended POTUS Trump like he defended every one of his other high profile clients according to whatever principle he has.
But he then voted for Biden.
When that changes…
Again, IMO, one of the reasons for anyone’s confusion can be that we try to analyze this rationally, yet, as Haidt notes it is truly and fundamentally an emotional issue…
–T
The insistence that humans ought to be rational is … irrational.
“The insistence that humans ought to be rational is … irrational.”
Or as Spock would say … illogical.
John Guilfoyle:
You write: “he defended POTUS Trump like he defended every one of his other high profile clients.” Your point is lost on me. He was supposed to defend him in some different manner? He defended him with all the skills he had. He opened himself knowingly to incredible calumny for that.
And you add “according to whatever principle he has.” Are you really unaware of what principles he has on which his defense of Trump was based? He’s written and spoken extensively on the matter. His principles are not obscure and they are very principled.
Not only that, but in 2021 he said he was willing to do it again. In fact, he said he’d be honored:
And yet you care more whether he voted for Biden or not, in a state in which Dershowitz’s vote literally doesn’t matter.
Wouldn’t the same energy being directed at Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat, be better served convincing reluctant/never Trumpers like Bauxite or Karmi?
We might be better served spending our time comparing the policies of a Trump administration or a Biden one.
It appears Bauxite still is stuck on why Trump shouldn’t have been the nominee, and Karmi to a lesser extent– but that ship has sailed.
Neo: “Dershowtiz said that there is no inherent legal right to refuse a vaccine if the government required it in order to protect others in situations of grave danger, but he later said he was not in favor of such mandates for the COVID vaccine, especially once it was proven that it didn’t protect against transmission.”
This raises the issue that was never truly discussed or debated during the Covid pandemic: under what situations or conditions is it going to be legal and constitutional for the government to enforce vaccinations to “protect the wider populace”? We dodged a bullet with Covid not being as virulent as the Black Death or even the Spanish Flu. Perhaps if a new disease that is killing off 10% of the population? Or more??
We also have better modes of communication/education and of disease understanding such that perhaps “wiser” versions of quarantines and “lock downs” can effectively reduce the spread, while the use of expanded unemployment insurance to help keep the “essential” economy going might mitigate some of the other bad results from the Covid example.
And those same modes of communication can be used to spread false information and increase resistance to being vaccinated. But people also accepted the merit of getting the polio vaccine and similar vaccines for other childhood diseases, without any strong governmental mandates [except kids needed to be vaccinated to attend school?]. But what do we do until a viable vaccine is actually available – even a high risk one?
Tulsi Gabbard on the Tucker Carlson program here: https://youtu.be/QRJjlDE_Nx8 She has left the Democratic Party and written a book called “For love of country, leave the Democratic Party behind”. She said on Tucker’s program “how insane the Democratic Party has become” and the party of elite dems is a “woke warmongering party of the elite”.
Huxley: “The insistence that humans ought to be rational is … irrational.”
I wonder from an evolutionary survival perspective if humanity having an irrational or illogical aspect to our being is essential for our continued genetic existence?
It seems to help achieve wider group cooperation when that group holds a common (set of) belief(s), whether those beliefs are rational/ logical, or not.
Much of the high trust environment necessary for modern commerce seems to be pretty logical as long as a given set of beliefs, practices, and behaviors are followed. Whereas politics is much less logical, even with the logic and wisdom of a constitutional republic, separation of powers, checks and balances, etc.
Or the Left has done a marvelous job of hiding that logic and merit from a large portion of the population.
Back in the late 60s or early 70s there was a game where you put plastic “straws” on or into a plastic camel’s back. At some point the camel collapses. Yes, childhood was often weird.
With Mr. Dershowitz, I believe this is a case where the Democratic Party left him long ago, but he still has hope it will become what it once was. We lie to ourselves most of all.
That is rather unfortunate image of Mr. Obama. That is the face of an Evil man.
I was reading through some of Francis Porretto’s posts and found a link to this article about Dershowitz, which shows some of his thoughts about the trajectory of the Democrats.
His principles have not changed, and IMO he is well aware that the current D-Party has jettisoned them, but maybe he will have some influence from the inside as he claims to be attempting.
I’m not holding my breath.
https://www.newsweek.com/how-first-amendment-saved-jamie-raskins-father-opinion-1568724
I missed your words on ” change” that is to be regretted. As for Mr. D. and those like him it’s a very personal thing, it’s who you are your being. To change is almost like death itself.
Dershowitz is a second guesser who is always critical of others after the fact but does not get involved up front where his legal expertise could make a difference. He is also a dedicated Dem (i.e. Leftist) who will never stop voting Dem. His statement above is virtue signalling IMHO.
Bucky:
I guess according to you, Dershowitz’s defending Trump as a lawyer in an impeachment trial in Congress doesn’t count as “getting involved upfront where his legal expertise could make a difference.”
In fact, it’s hard to imagine a way in which Dershowitz or any other lawyer could better use his “legal expertise” to “make a difference.”
Dershowitz also offered to defend, pro bono, any lawyer on the right targeted by The 65 Project.
Dershowitz’s specialty is as a defense lawyer, by the way. So both of those things are probably the very best ways he could use his legal expertise to make a difference.
There seems to be a sentiment, from the right, that a Democrat can never change; and yet, here we are on the blog of a former Democrat who did so. I tend to take people at their words, unless they are obvious hypocrites, which does not apply to Dershowitz. May he, and other Democrats, open their eyes fully to see what their party has become.
The Nicole Shanahan acceptance speech https://www.kennedy24.com/kennedy-shanahan? is the most likely event I have seen so far to start a move away from the Democrats.
Brian E:
I voted for Trump twice, so that makes me a “reluctant/never Trumpers”? Well, maybe I was reluctant the first time – since there were two other GOP candidates I had liked better. The MAGA mob weren’t as refined at bashing that first time, but they were being obnoxious everywhere. Trump proved to be a disaster that time—worse than Jimmy Carter as a leader.
As a NPA voter, I have only been voting again the Democratic party, but this year I am going to focus on what the weaknesses of the Republican Party are—from my perspective:
• REP insist on making VICE a crime.
• REP go against Mother Nature with the Statutory Rape laws. Age of Consent should be lowered, i.e., to when puberty is reached.
• REP are incredibly weak at Politics—DEM have crushed them for decades.
• REP MAGA mob destroyed several excellent GOP candidates this time—all of whom had far more Leadership Ability than the used car salesman Trump. Trump is no leader…
• REP are weak on military. Why hasn’t Iran’s nuclear & military capability been wiped out? No boots on the ground, but the military barracks, nuclear production sites, missile production sites, their entire navy, etc. need to be crippled or wiped out. Russia is more proof of REP military weakness. Why is Putin allowed to threaten nukes w/o America warning him or even nuking him—waiting on a tyrant to strike you first is not good policy. America helped Russia get Ukraine’s nukes, and now REP turn their backs on Ukraine. America should’ve been providing full Air Support for Ukraine, and giving them weapons that can reach deep into European Russia. If Russia wants war with us—GIVE IT TO THEM!!!
Never mind, the list is too long and I don’t like getting p*ssed. The only “convincing” I’m getting here, is that it might be time to go ahead and crush the Republican Party – mercifully put it out of its misery, as one would do for a horse with 4 broken legs…
Having some familiarity with the Bible, I had to go to the Internet to make sense of the Kosher slaughter rule.
Obviousy there are Biblical injunctions against consumption practices which seem inconceivably unhuman and animalistic to us, but a prohibition againt stunning the animal first?
Well, it’s not in the Bible.
It also seems that the Ultra Orthodox draft and military induction issue has come up again in Israel. In one news report an Orthodox man was asserting that they would rather emigrate or die than take up arms.
What is the point I again wonder, for the 5th or 100th time, of defending those who refuse to defend themselves? Indeed, what is the point of sharing a political space with them, of providing nonreciprocal benefits, and bearing unequally shared burdens?
There might be a reason one could cook up, and perhaps even a persuasive one; but not one consistent with the modern ideology of social-democratic fungibility where every human penny, or social unit, is indistinguishably the same and exchangeable through and through.
Except when it is diverse, or something.
That said, different populations are free to make their own arrangements. I for example have no viceral objection to Amish pacifism, and include one or two among my friendly acquaintences. I even admire apparent aspects of their simpler lifeways … from a comfortable distance.
Surprised Reversal of Fortune hasn’t come up – or maybe it has, if so, sorry.
Good movie, and Ron Silver is spectacular as Dershowitz. I think most here would enjoy it, and particularly this scene.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+silver+reversal+of+fortune&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:1cc94ded,vid:N5PNlMUcaPE,st:0
Except this regime has all the earmarks of the soviet one. They hate farmers believers soldiers they want to destroy our electrical grid disable our transport system et al
I referenced the von bulow case which i believe the film was based on dominick dunnes work
And holy cow, I hadn’t watched that scene in decades, and just now realized that’s Felicity Huffman!
Credit where credit is due at the mention of Ron Silver.
He was one of those featured player actors whose work I had appreciated without being aware of his leftism, until the Clinton inauguration and his “those are our planes, now’ moment.
He had a wakeup call apparently.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2004/oct/31/did-turning-gop-land-silver-on-hollywoods/
Dems have made rewarding the iranian regime a prerequisite of policy they have made vice a requirement of public library they carved out our military for generation now they want to replace those willing to serve with invaders
Karmi is Korncerned too (KK2).
But one might ask is The Great Orange Whale running against Jimmy Carter of FJ Brandon, KK2?
Seven Deadly Sins…
Karmi, age of consent at puberty? Eleven-year-old girls (not uncommon) are now fair game? Seriously?
Kate:
OK – let’s raise it from 18 to 38 to be safe. Can convict lots of male teens & men for Statutory Rape that way.
Why are you so adamant about this
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fettermans-top-comms-staffers-resign-ongoing-backlash-senator-pro-israel-stance
Dershowitz serves a useful purpose when talking to moderate Republicans/Independents. As an anti-Trumper, he provides convincing evidence that on lawfare against Trump isn’t because of something he’s done, but who he is.
Karmi, a couple of years is a lifetime of maturity in those early/middle teen years.
There is demonstrable benefit to girls when they delay having sex from 14 to 16 or 18. The benefit continues, but given the hyper-sexualized society we’ve created any delay is important.
Statutory rape is intended to prevent older males from preying on younger girls.
Yes, Brian E, and also to prevent older males from preying on young boys, although societal degeneration has spawned a number of older women preying on both boys and girls.
Even medieval Europeans and American European settlers generally delayed marriage for girls to age sixteen or so. “At puberty” is only slightly better than Muhammad, who consummated his marriage to Aisha at age nine.
Karmi’s answer wasn’t serious.
Brian E:
Good points; however, a lot of male teenagers end up in prison because of the Statutory Rape laws. Not sure how many males below age 17 end up in juvenile courts for it, but have seen plenty of 17 year olds end up in prison for it.
‘Stage 4 – around 13 – First period‘ – so the GOP view is that Mother Nature was wrong by giving young women their periods so early?
Kate: “Karmi’s answer wasn’t serious.” Yes, 38 is high by Mother Nature’s standard. 🙂
Since humans are smarter than Mother Nature, maybe the GOP is correct… (/sarc)
When
“Life is nasty, brutish, and short”
Mother Nature rules. Hope we get past that someday.
How many is “a lot”? As a society we should be protecting vulnerable populations. Would the instance of older boys/men preying on younger girls increase if the age of consent was lowered?
Just because a girl enters puberty doesn’t mean she is socially/psychologically mature enough to engage in sex. The idea that we’ve reduced sex to a physical act divorced from intimacy is only one of the pathologies of our society.
Kate, good points.
take taylor lorenz, who is pretending to be a college student, but is closer to my age, but emotionally stunted,
Kate, good points.
Begone Mother Nature — Transgender Rules here!
With God’s help, maybe we can protect the vulnerable population being subjected to physical/chemical mutilation as well.
Good points; however, a lot of male teenagers end up in prison because of the Statutory Rape laws.
==
Not outside your imagination.
Protecting Youth From Themselves: The Overcriminalization of Consensual
Sexual Behavior Between Adolescents
Once met a teenager in lockup who had just got back from a manslaughter charge – 15 years for the manslaughter charge were added to ever how many years he had for the original Statutory Rape charge. Some black prisoners had been trying to rape him. Some white prisoner gave him a shank. Next time they tried to rape him he killed one of them.
Begone Mother Nature — the GOP & Transgenders Rule here!!!
Karmi:
Except that many states have what’s called “Romeo and Juliet laws.”
Here’s a list of the states and laws about this as of 2022.
Something about emotional/ intellectual maturity vs biological capabilities seems to have escaped Karmi?
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
Is Karmi one of those libertarians who worship license and rail at nearly any restraint?
Neo:
OK – good law. That law must not have been around when I was in prison—not in Florida anyway. Looks like Florida has it now tho…
NPA – that’s No Party Affiliation, in case you didn’t know, om.
Karmi:
NPA not the same as NPC. NPA isn’t secret code; we aren’t your average bears.
And since you are NPA your thoughts on the GOP are worth what exactly?
Thanks to Neo for the research. I had heard that many states had such laws; mine does. Instead of railing against the GOP, Karmi should focus on getting the Romeo and Juliet laws passed in states which lack them.
And if I understand that list of states correctly, FL [now] has the longest or most “accommodating” period of 7 years [age 17 to 23].
But then I don’t really understand what their “age of consent” of 18 means?
This strikes me as a mixed message (in FL) of restricting “young lovers” at the low end but relaxing those restrictions at the older end.
I think the 4 year period in most of the other states with such Romeo and Juliet laws is more reasonable myself. In that age range I would think most young people would not be taking a person 4 years younger very seriously as a potential romantic interest [although still willing to work the lust angle].
Wasn’t there a post not so long ago on Neo’s blog [but perhaps instead on some other site?], discussing that Shakespeare was really portraying Romeo as a cad, seeking to seduce a naive young girl of 13 or so, while he was probably a rather more mature 18 or so? [I did not find what I thought I saw after a quick search using Neo’s search feature, nor via a general DD Go search, except a confirmation about her age being less than 14.]
Similar complaints have been raised against Bill Ackman: He was totally fine with the DEI/woke regime at Harvard and its anti-white sentiment, and only became outraged when such sentiment was unleashed against Jews.
R2L:
Romeo’s age is never specified, but he’s usually thought to be around 16 or so. He certainly was no cad – he was desperately in love with Juliet and willing to die with her. However, he originally went to the ball for a lark, although he had a premonition something life-changing would be happening to him there:
Marisa:
I’ve never seen anything that indicates he was “totally fine” with it. What I’ve seen indicates he wasn’t paying attention. It was the Congressional hearing with the 3 presidents that got his attention and made him aware of what had been going on previously as well.
@ Neo in re Ackman: “What I’ve seen indicates he wasn’t paying attention.”
That may be the case, but considering how much of his money was going to the college, maybe he should have been a bit more inquisitive about their conduct.
Still, I suspect that, when he started donating, the situation was not as clearly depraved as was shown recently, and then he just continued on “autopilot,” in the same way most of us tend to do.