The right: “live not by lies”
Solzhenitsyn famously said: “live not by lies.” How many politicians follow that maxim? Vanishingly few. And I wouldn’t expect them to; politics is a dirty, compromised business.
And yet, not all lies are created equal. Some lies are minor: “I had the biggest crowd ever at my rally.” Some lies are much worse: “The MAGA insurrectionists on January 6th killed five people.” Some lies are even more destructive: “The Jews are an evil cabal that runs the world, and all of them must be murdered, even the children.” Or: “Communism will lead to utopia; we just have to kill a few hundred million people who stubbornly refuse to get with the program.”
Politicians need to draw lines about the positions of allies, and to make it clear when a position an ally holds is beyond the pale and highly destructive, especially when that position is based on something that is unequivocally a lie.
Which brings us to discussions such as this one, from a comment by “Nate Winchester.” I had previously written this:
Yes , I think it will “end there” because the offenses of Owens, Carlson, Fuentes et al are especially egregious and vile. If [Vance] can’t be critical of them he is morally bankrupt., These are not small nitpicky issues, to be safely ignored, as other such calls to denounce someone else might be. Perhaps you haven’t listened to them; i have. They are poison, and it’s not “just” about Jews and Israel, either.
It is possible – and necessary – to pick and choose whom to denounce.
I wrote quite a bit more, but that was the part “Nate Winchester” quoted, and he replied:
I believe you have misunderstood me, @neo. I’m not saying they are small things or nitpicky or anything of the sort. You say it will “end there” – how?
Not even rhetorical or leading, I really do mean, “how will it end there?” Because I remember the 2016 election. You could make a drinking game of how often Trump would get asked in interviews about white nationalists and like. Each and every time he expressed strong condemnation and denouncement. And then they would ask it again. Even in Trump’s Charlottesville speech he outright said “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally” and yet what was the meme created by the media? I remember that time because on other blogs I pointed out to Leftists that line, a line of condemnation in a speech by Trump before that day, and a line of condemnation in a speech that followed that one (establishing that in 3 speeches in a row he condemned white nationalists) and it still wasn’t enough for the other side (some of whom even outright denied it).
So yes, part of me just does not believe that it will “end there” because experience has shown me that it won’t. It may “end there” for you and a few other people, but unfortunately those are not the only votes that count in a nation-wide run or voice in public spaces. … My impression looking back is that when the Right said, “Ok, we’re also not ok with racism and will kick out people who have those views” the Left very quickly figured out they could use “racism” to snipe out of the way any Right-leaning figure that was a bit too troublesome for them.
I’m not even saying you’re wrong or Carlson et al aren’t dangerous or anything like that. I’m trying to think what are the long term plays. JD kicks them out of the party and establishes for the Press that a specific charge can cut someone out of the coalition. Then they start badgering JD about the next person/group they want to get cut off. Then the next after that. And another after that.
Because in the post and thread that followed we were talking solely about demands from the right that Vance criticize and even denounce Tucker, Owens, and Fuentes, I assumed with my answer that we were not talking about demands from the left. But apparently that wasn’t clear enough, so let me say that of course, the left will never stop making such demands. Also, it will distort any response that is made in order to make the Republican look as bad as possible. Those things are crystal clear and have been for a long long time.
I’m talking about demands from people on the right. And to clarify further: I’m not even saying that demands from the right will ever end, although I think they are not as incessant or widespread as those from the left. What I meant when I wrote that “it will end there,” was not that the demands themselves will end, just that only some things require a public stance against them. I think that generally, when we’re talking about demands from the right, it’s only the most egregious and destructive lies on the right from which a politician on the right would need to distance him or herself.
And furthermore – for me, the emphasis shouldn’t be on demands and reactions to them, yea or nay.
If a person says “I’m not going to do a certain thing because I don’t respond to demands,” that is paradoxical because the demand is still shaping the speaker’s behavior, albeit in a negative way. It’s a bit analogous to the position of a rebellious teen who won’t do something merely because mom and dad tell him not to do it. The demand nevertheless is still shaping the behavior and the teen is not independent, merely stubbornly negating the demand.
“I don’t do something merely because people tell me to do it” is a perfectly reasonable position for anyone to take. But it should be combined with, “I also don’t not do something just because people tell me to do it. That is, I make my own decisions independently.” And then the person can either condemn something, refuse to condemn it, agree with it, disagree with it, or declare neutrality, based on the thing itself: is it true or false, is it wrong and destructive, and how important is it?
That should be the basis of the decision. Each politician can make that decision and must make it, setting up a hierarchy of issues he or she deems important enough and offenses great enough on which to draw the line.
“I will condemn no one and no thought or utterance on the right, no matter how awful” is, in my opinion, a position of moral bankruptcy, although it might be arrived at for the very practical reason that the politician has decided that’s the way to election victory. I don’t think that’s the case here with Vance’s stand; I not only think it’s morally bankrupt but I also don’t think it will lead to victory. I think that more people would vote for moral clarity than moral bankruptcy, and that “my buddy, right or wrong, and there is literally nothing that person could say with which I would publicly disagree” is not moral clarity and not worthy of respect.
NOTE: Let me add that it’s a strawman to pretend that the issue at hand is the demand that Vance or any other politician condemn people for disagreeing with Israeli policy or the current Israeli government. I see that strawman argument made constantly; it started on the left and then morphed to the right. I’ve written about some of the actual issues involved, in several posts on Owens and Carlson; for example this and this for Owens, and this and this for Carlson.
And by the way, I don’t think Trump needs to denounce the trio. He’s already called Carlson “kooky” (way too mild, but at least it’s both true and negative). But actions speak even louder than words, and Trump has made it clear by both words and action that he doesn’t share the pernicious beliefs of Carlson, Owens, and Fuentes and is opposed to them. Perhaps as time goes on, this will become more clear of Vance as well. I certainly hope so.
The ” Left” loves this. I care not one whit what Carlson, Owens, Fuentes, or for that matter what Winchester says. It’s the person.
The Left won’t even criticize Antifa or any of the other atrocities they support and encourage (including Antifa) from corrupting “education” to corrupting children’s sexuality to corrupting science to killing trust to ripping off the country and the tax-paying body politic.
To destroying America (as Starmer is doing to his country; ditto for Carney, Albanesi and all too many European leaders.)
But a party can do that—and more—as long as it is willing and able to portray its political opponents—and non-compliant citizenry—as Nazis.
As long as it is willing and able to portray their destructive goals, crimes and perversities as VIRTUE PERSONIFIED.
(And it certainly helps if you have the local, national and global media carrying your water and hewing your wood, while the social media platforms are busy censoring and otherwise twisting opinions.)
Well, it is troubling that Vance let himself get caught up in this. I am not certain just what message he hoped to convey, but it was certainly muddled.
Although very smart, allegedly, Vance is relatively new to the national political stage. He needs to think carefully before opening his mouth.
Maybe I am over simplifying, but how about, ‘Tucker is a long time friend and I won’t disavow our friendship; but his recent statements must be rejected. They do not reflect my positions, those of the Trump administration, or of mainstream Conservatives and Republicans.’?
If Vance makes too many more egregious blunders he could disqualify himself, leaving Rubio and De Santis to dominate the stage in ’28.
J D wrote a book, got elected to the Senate in Ohio, and got elected as Vice President. That’s it for political experience. He has to up his game quickly, and choose wisely.
Neo, top paragraph:
Likely meant “Vanishingly few.”
Oldflyer: that sounds good to me!
Sure hoping Vance is getting that type of advice.
Prove him WRONG!!
‘…Muslim Imam in Michigan: “Muslims are superiors to the infidels because they willing to blow themselves up!”’—
https://blazingcatfur.ca/2025/12/29/wtf-290/
Similarly, there is a correlation here with the Democrats: they are “superior” to the GOP because they are willing to blow up the country.
See what Starmer has been doing to the UK and what the EU has been doing to Europe, generally. (And one can analyze EU member states down the line.)
So here’s a possibility for Vance; “Who? Oh, those guys. Nobody pays any attention to them. Anything else?”
Lots of people pay attention to “those guys”. Many from the right. Are we sure they’re selling anywhere else?
That many on the right think “those guys” are evil is one thing. That they will have any influence on our politics or society is another. Will they convince the folks in the middle? Those who already believe will eat their stuff up with a spoon. But anybody else? I can see leftists feverishly quoting them as if a Catholic is quoting the last Papal decision. Or the gospel And reinrorcing each other.. But the left is already convinced.
Anybody else?
Marlene:
Thanks, fixed.
It’s Christmastime and I’m feeling a bit more Christian than usual. I’m reminded of this gem from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas:
__________________________
Do not lie, and do not do what you hate.
–Gospel of Thomas, Saying 6
__________________________
Apocryphal, but I can imagine Jesus saying this.
It may sound like a low bar, but just try it sometime.
Credibility, politicians,news people, and some others live and die with it. The “Left” must lie to have a chance, to the right it’s kryptonite , to be picked up or not. One must , the other has a choice, which will prevail in the end?
huxley (4:27 pm), the latter portion of that Gospel of Thomas quotation is the negative version of The Golden Rule, attributed to Hillel The Elder (c. 110BCE – 10CE):
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation. Go and study it.”
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder
(The positive version was spoken by Jesus of Nazareth himself in KJV Matthew 7:12.
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”)
“Why I’m Leaving Harvard”
(James Hankins)—
https://www.compactmag.com/article/why-im-leaving-harvard/
H/T Powerline blog.
Opening graf:
Key graf (RTWT):
[Emphasis mine; Barry M.]
neo opined, “I don’t think that’s the case here with Vance’s stand; I not only think it’s morally bankrupt but I also don’t think it will lead to victory.”
If Vance remains firm that he won’t condemn Fuentes, Owen’s and Carlson’s evil ideas, thoughts and words… the MSM and democrats will offer it as more ‘evidence’ of the Republican party’s !RACISM!.
That may well give lots of low-info independents serious concerns. Perhaps enough to swing the 2028 election to the cultural Marxists.
This ‘boil’ upon the back of the Conservative/MAGA movement needs to be lanced! Trump and Vance are the only ones who can do it.
I am not saying that Tucker Carlson is under the influence of Muslim money from any one of the dozens of Islamic Nations. I’m just asking the question.
The conspiracy theorist like to claim that Kirk was about to turn against Israel so Israel had him killed.
Never mind that in the latter part of Kirk’s life he was warning about the danger from the Muslims.
And now who is Tucker working for?
Is failing to attract the attention of powerful enemies a defeat? So if Vance and others say nothing about them but to dismiss them if the subject is raised, is that more effective than “denouncing” ?
neo,
I don’t share your present concern over Vance. I also don’t have a strong opinion of him yet. Some things seem very positive to me; his rags to riches story, the wife he chose, his protectiveness of his children, his embrace of his mother now that she has straightened herself out, his embrace of Catholicism, his military service, I thought he did very well in the Vice Presidential debate, his successful academic pursuits. Although I’m glad he made a lot of money, his time in silicon valley and some of the friendships he forged there give me some questions. I found his attack of Zelensky in the oval office bizarre and disconcerting. His son working for Carlson is curious.
But he is currently the V.P. Donald Trump’s V.P. Look at where Pence ended up after 4 years as Trump’s V.P. How many of Trump’s picks in his first administration ended up suffering greatly? Trump himself turned on many. Trump is very mercurial and unpredictable. Just being Trump’s V.P. must be like walking a tightrope over an active volcano.
I think you are correct that Vance thinks of running for President one day. If so, there are a dizzying number of needles to thread. Regardless, simply surviving 4 years under Trump without becoming a pariah, and possibly imprisoned, bankrupt or debanked is no easy feat.
A good V.P. is there to do the President’s bidding and/or be available to serve if the President is incapacitated. He or she must be careful not to undermine the President or create difficulties for the President and shouldn’t make strong statements without the President’s consent. Unless the V.P. disagrees strongly enough with the President to step down from office.
I know it’s frustrating to see people like Owens and Carlson state so many absurd things and it would be great to see them get taken to task for their nonsense. But I think it’s wise of Vance to avoid that sideshow at this point.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Except he didn’t avoid the sideshow; he addressed it. And he addressed it poorly. He could have said something much better on the subject while still not dwelling on it or making a big deal of it.
Jon baker: “I am not saying that Tucker Carlson is under the influence of Muslim money from any one of the dozens of Islamic Nations. I’m just asking the question.”
🙂
neo,
“… he addressed it poorly.” Depends on what his goal was. Maybe he does agree with Tucker? Maybe Trump has given him some specific instructions? Maybe he disagrees with Tucker but wants “groypers” to vote Republican in the mid-terms, or, maybe he’s a coward or a poor speechwriter?
I’m just not paying a lot of attention right now. No V.P. since Quail was made as irrelevant as Pence was after 4 years with Trump. I’m waiting to see if Vance can survive Trump’s mercurial personality before I spend too much time getting to know him. Whatever happens between now and the next Republican Presidential debate, I doubt what Vance said in that speech will be of concern to anyone by then.
Rufus T. Firefly:
If he agrees with Tucker, he addressed it poorly, If he disagrees, he addressed it poorly. If Trump told him to say it, he addressed it poorly. If he thinks it’s a winning message in terms of the election, I believe (as I indicated in my post) he is mistaken and therefore addressed it poorly.
Pence and Trump were an especially poor fit right from the start. Vance and Trump started out on the right foot. We’ll see if it lasts.
neo,
Based on Trump’s first term, I would think the odds are on the side of the relationship not lasting. Vance* is in a very challenging spot. And you may be right. He may not be up to the task and this is a sign that he will fail.
*I mistakenly wrote “Pence” instead of Vance there and when correcting my typo I noticed for the first time that the surnames Vance and Pence are each 5 letters and share the same 3 last letters. And start with a consonant followed by a vowel. Odd that I never noticed that!
I think Ami Kozak may have a reasonable explanation of why the Vice President hasn’t addressed Tucker Carlson. He did call out Fuentes after he attacked Vance’s family over his interracial marriage.
Vance explicitly said he “disavows” Fuentes and called him “a total loser.”
He added: “Look, a lot of losers are going to attack me and attack my family. I think the proper response to them is to ignore them. Don’t feed the trolls, and they largely go away.”
Here’s Kozak’s talking about his reactions to AMFEST:
To keep things light, here’s Kozak doing some impressions:
Comedian Ami Kozak Gives Spontaneous Impressions Of Donald Trump And Tucker Carlson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFSESRdnhKM
I really don’t know much about Fuentes. In my internet travels he get A LOT of positive posts. May they are fake. I have to research him more.
I expect most people have already heard about Vance’s response last week during an interview with Unherd to Fuente’s disgusting characterization of Vance’s wife, Usha, in November.
“Let me be clear: anyone who attacks my wife, whether their name is Jen Psaki or Nick Fuentes, can eat shit. That’s my official policy as vice president of the United States.”
Vance may be incredibly smart, but there seems to still be a hillbilly deep inside.
Fuentes response was cunning and demonstrates he should not be taken lightly.
Brian E.,
Wow …! Fuentes is a real turd!
I think you are wrong in claiming the dynamic Nate Winchester identified works differently when the calls are coming from inside the party or political movement. In regards to his specific example, I don’t remember any of Trump’s Republican opponents offering any defense of him from attacks based on the Charlottesville Hoax. Every Never Trumper jumped on the bandwagon of Trump being ‘racist’ and ‘inciting violence’ regardless of what of he said. And the salami-slicing works exactly the same way as denunciations of specific people, rather than ideas, are extended by claiming that since the denounced person also supported X then any person who supports X must be denounced as well. You also see the “this statement is just as bad as what the denounced person said therefore you must denounce that speaker as well”. There is no logical stopping point once you start, and I will emphasis this, *denouncing people by name* rather than providing evidence and countering the ideas they are spreading.
I think the Trump administration in both their rhetoric and actions are clearly supportive of Israel and are not influenced in any way by whatever Tucker, Candace, et al are spewing. I also think JD was quite correct in saying he didn’t bring a list of people to denounce, and I think Shapiro is wrong in making his opposition to anti-Semitism into a crusade against specific people. Making the argument about what specific people say or do also enables the Left to hid their similar beliefs under the claim that they are not anti-Semitic but are anti-Zionist.
“Let me add that it’s a strawman to pretend that the issue at hand is the demand that Vance or any other politician condemn people….”
I’m not sure if this is exactly what you mean, but I took Vance’s as saying that he’s not going to go down the slippery slope of acceding to every demand that he condemn every nut who supposedly represents “the right.” Democrats never seem to face the same demands. Is Gavin Newsome challenged to condemn Mamdani or Ilhan Omar, or any of the crazies on the left? It’s a trap, and a game the media and Democrats play in an effort to tar Republicans with whackos like Fuentes and Carlson. It’s akin to the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” sort of question.
Dan Quayle never recovered from the spelling issue.
Alinsky, it appears, suggests that ridiculing an enemy is self-accelerating. IOW, you start it, it doesn’t take further investment.
This didn’t work with Trump because Trump is in a position to actually do things in the three-dimension world.
Carlso, et al. are not.
Taking them on as if they’re a relevant enemy who has to be addressed/opposed with every move they make is doing them a favor.
Jimmy:
The strawman in that sentence I wrote about was this: “Let me add that it’s a strawman to pretend that the issue at hand is the demand that Vance or any other politician condemn people for disagreeing with Israeli policy or the current Israeli government.” In other words, the strawman is that that is what people are asking Vance to do. But it’s not what people are asking him to do.
Plus, on the issue you wrote about – as I said in the post, of course the left will make demand after demand for condemnation and never be satisfied. But here we’re actually talking about demands from the right, and so far they’re not endless. Nor is Tucker Carlson some fringe person hardly anyone has heard of, nor are the things he’s been saying lately consistent with the Trump administration. Carlson’s been a huge figure on the right in the past, and has spoken at conventions and the like (for example, here is his speech on the last night of the Republican Convention in 2024, and it’s a very different Tucker speaking than the Tucker we see now).
Every Never Trumper jumped on the bandwagon
==
Don’t know about ‘every’. There isn’t much of a NeverTrump residue anymore. Mona Charen will subscribe to every kind of nonsense, including E. Jean Carroll.
Christopher B:
I don’t see your point. Of course NeverTrumpers jumped on it; they hate Trump as much or more than most Democrats do. Why would they defend him? They’re not a large or influential bunch in the GOP, however, although they were a tad more numerous in 2017 when Charlottesville happened. There were some GOP members who defended him; see this, for example.
There is absolutely a stopping point, as well, in deciding whom to condemn. I have zero problem finding a stopping point, and it should be clear to every politician as well what his or her stopping point would be. It wouldn’t be the same stopping point for everyone, of course. But saying it’s all or nothing – if you condemn one there’s no stopping point and you somehow must condemn all – makes zero sense to me.
Did you listen to Shapiro’s actual speech? If not, I suggest you do. It was not about being against anti-Semitism; that was a mere subset of what needs condemning about Owens et al. His speech pointed out some much more general problems than that, having nothing to do with Israel or Jews.