Initial ethics observations following an amazing night in American history:
1. Give Trump a chance, and take note of those who will not.
He is now in the most difficult job in the nation at the age of 70, with less relevant experience and preparation than any previous occupant of the office. For once, it’s a good thing that he’s an egomaniac and a narcissist, because otherwise he might be perseverating in terror right now. One cannot say that he begins with the most daunting set of problems any POTUS has ever faced, but it’s close. Give him a chance. Nobody becomes President wanting to fail, and not wanting to do a good job for his country and his fellow citizens. Begin with that, and let’s see what happens.
2. Those who are capable of being fair and objective should salute the shades of Mr. Madison, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Adams, Mr. Hamilton and their colleagues. The Founders wanted a system that was capable of peaceful political upheaval when the public was dissatisfied and demanded change, and their unique creation was strutting its stuff last night. So much has taken place over the last year—the last eight years, really—that has undermined our democracy that it is refreshing to see its resilience and vitality. As before, I still believe that Trump is a cautionary tale about the danger when people who don’t understand leadership, ethics and government become the majority. On the other hand, it’s their country too, and the “elites” (how I detest that word) forgot that, repeatedly, shamelessly, and in many ways.
Jefferson would have reviled Donald Trump, but he would approve of the uprising.
3. Trump’s victory speech last night was widely reviewed as statesmanlike and gracious, which it was. It was also unusually coherent for him. Still, who can’t give a gracious victory speech? The effusive praise being lavished on this shows how low expectations are.
4. Hillary Clinton’s decision to not to appear in person at her headquarters and concede, also graciously, was a failure of character. On CNN, ex-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and ex-Obama flack Van Jones got in an argument over this, but for once in his life, Lewandowski was right. Given the backdrop of Clinton and the media questioning whether Trump would “accept defeat,” the decision by Clinton was just plain wrong: unfair to Trump, unfair to her supporters, hypocritical.
As Jake Tapper, one of the few network reporters who appeared objective last night said, if Trump had done what Clinton did, he would have been roundly condemned. To the bitter end, Hillary could do no wrong in some eyes.
5. Clinton campaign manager John Podesta appeared at the Clinton “victory” party to tell the loyal Hillary throng to go home, and twice evoked the rallying cry from the disputed 2000 Florida recount: “Let every vote count.” Why did he feel he had to say that? It compounded questions about Clinton’s absence, and suggested that Democrats were already gearing up for an onslaught of lawyers and a challenged result. That he, like Huma, Cheryl Mills, Lanny Davis, James Carville and other Clinton minions who have corrupted the political landscape for so long will, one hopes, recede into obscurity in the wake of Hillary’s defeat is one of the undeniable blessings of Trump’s upset win.
6. Last night, Nate Silver on 538 was saying that their models predicted that Hillary would win the popular vote even as Trump was headed for a clear Electoral College victory. This morning, it appears that he was wrong. That’s moral luck for the Founders and us: one thing this divided country doesn’t need is another four years of Democrats claiming that their defeated candidate “really won.”
UPDATE: It looks like Clinton will indeed win the popular vote.
7. As they prepare for what may be a nasty backlash, Ethics Alarms salutes the resolute conservative Never Trumpers, like Erick Erickson, Glenn Beck, George Will, the Bushes, William Kristol, and others. They were right that party and ideology shouldn’t take priority over principles. That there were almost no prominent “Never Clinton” counterparts on the Democratic side despite Hillary Clinton’s obvious corruption does not speak well for that party, though it does show how thoroughly the Clintons have corrupted it.
8. An ethical, if insulting, statement arose from an unlikely source: Markos Moulitsas, Daily Kos founder. In the midst of a predictable angry screed about the election results, he wrote:
“I ask one thing for now: please stop the talk about leaving the country. Conservatives suffered through eight years of Obama and never gave up. So why would you prove yourself weaker than those assholes? “
This is a democracy and it is every citizen’s duty to defend it and correct it when it goes astray. Anyone who seriously believes leaving the nation is a reasonable response to an election they don’t like isn’t sufficiently committed to the concept of the United States of America, which, increasingly, is a malady within progressive ranks. If Cher and Alec Baldwin really are so fearful and contemptuous of their fellow Americans that they want to bolt, fine.
I presume Justice Ginsburg was kidding about New Zealand, but if she does, it will just be one more Supreme Court slot for President Trump to fill.
9. Unethical Quote Of The Night: Van Jones.
The CNN race-baiter was doing what he does best, saying,
“You tell your kids don’t be a bully, you tell your kids don’t be a bigot…. and then you have this outcome. You have people putting children to bed tonight and they are afraid of breakfast. They’re afraid of ‘How do I explain this to my children?’…This was a whitelash against a changing country,” Jones said. “It was whitelash against a black President in part. And that’s the part where the pain comes.”
A similar dilemma would face those parents if Clinton won, though Van wouldn’t admit that—unless, that is, these concerned parents don’t tell their children not to lie, cheat, or break the law, and to value integrity. Do they teach their kids that? If they do, why were they enthusiastically supporting Hillary Clinton and a party led by Donna Brazile? There are lots of ways to explain this to children. One is to explain how a democracy works. Another is to explain that when people of any color feel bullied and discriminated against, they look for new leadership and reject the leadership of candidates who say that they are “deplorable.”
Then we had the obligatory race-baiting. I will duly report on the first pundit I find who says that Hillary lost because she was a women, and not because she was a remarkably untrustworthy politician, but the theme for the entire eight years of Obama’s presidency held: whenever he fails—and Clinton’s defeat was also a rejection of Obama’s disastrous leadership—it’s racism that’s at fault.
How sad, how pathetic, and how reckless of Jones. It wasn’t “whitelash against a black President.” It was, in significant part, well-earned backlash against eight years of an arrogant and incompetent President who was constantly being held up by the news media as something he wasn’t.
10. The most embarrassing spin of the night came from partisan Presidential historian and CNN contributor Michael Beschloss. Beschloss has disgraced his profession by slowly morphing into a Obama-celebratiing hack while leaving history in the dust, but last night was a new low even for him. As the tide was turning decisively against the Democrats, he came on the screen with a theory that would erase any larger significance of Trump’s shocking victory. He quotes a conversation he had with the President in which, allegedly, Obama expressed doubts about whether he would be succeeded by a Democrat, saying that sometimes voters want that “new car smell.” ( 1. Ew. 2. Typical and telling expression of condescension from Obama.) Beschloss then lectures the CNN viewers, saying that it is “very hard” for any party to win the White House three terms in a row. You see? This is just the normal political cycle! Nothing to see here! It isn’t Hillary’s fault, and certainly not Obama’s! The esteemed historian then noted that it has happened occasionally, as when Reagan was succeeded by the first Bush, and “in 1838, when Andrew Jackson was able to have himself succeeded by Martin Van Buren.”
Wow! Only twice, then?
Funny, I seem to recall that the Republican Party had (let’s see..) 1,2,3,4,5, 6 consecutive terms from 1860 to 1884. Wait…wasn’t there also the McKinley-Teddy-Taft string of four terms with Republican Presidents? Then another three straight from 1920 (Harding), through Coolidge, to Hoover, until FDR won the Presidency in 1932? Of course, then FDR combined with Truman to hold the White House in Democratic hands for five consecutive terms.
Or to put it another way, renowned Presidential historian Michael Beschloss abused his authority and misinformed millions with bogus history, all concocted to alibi for Hillary.
Well, it was late, and he was in mourning.
11. Speaking of history, and also of hope, I will leave the first installment of the Ethics Alarms post-election ethics audit with this ray for those, like me, who believe that Trump has never exhibited the character to be trusted as a leader.
The least promising Chief Executive the nation ever had, narrowly edging out Harry Truman (who surprised us), was Chester A. Arthur, a New York political bag man who had no executive experience and a record of toadyism and graft. When he succeeded to the Presidency as the assassinated James Garfield’s Vice-President, everyone, including Arthur, feared the worst. He rose to the challenge. Here, from March 2015, is the amazing story of how.
12. Be kind to the unhappy progressives and Democrats in your life. The Golden Rule applies. And forgive them when they lash out, as many are and will.
More to come.
I need some sleep.
89 thoughts on “Post-Election Morning Ethics, Early Edition [UPDATED]”
Be kind to the same people who’ve been calling me racist, hater, xenophobe, and 10 kinds of other profane names for 16 months, just because I am a Republican? The same people who’ve been sharing idiotic memes, shouting at me, attacking me, blocking me online? Believe you me, if I wasn’t so shocked that it’s a little late in the game, and already not-so-high-energy because it’s Trump, I’d be FLOODING social media and grinding a few people’s faces into the dirt.
I understand your feelings. I have felt the sting of being labeled with the same epithets.
However, we must think long term. We must convince the many who were susceptible to believing the hyperbole that portrayed us a a cross between the devil Torquamada (sp?). We have a duty and obligation to ensure the rights of all and be as magnanomous as possible. We need to show that leadership means that people will follow voluntarily and not by coercion.
We have unique opportunity to prove those who call us haters wrong We must model the behavior that shows we are not irredeemable deploarables they claim us to be. It is through our behavior will we ensure our leaders act ethically and morally.
The folks who are reacting with shock and dismay at having lost, no problem. I know the feeling well, and it’s not pleasant.
The folks who are reacting with shock and horror at just now understanding how hateful and sexist and bigoted the country actually is against them, compared to what they actually thought? Disgusting. They’re doubling down on the very things that made the Democratic party fail.
The ones who do all that, at then pat themselves on the back for rejecting the evil and embracing love and acceptance, and vowing to never give in to the obvious wave of hatred and division that threatens to overwhelm them… they need to be hit in the face with a brick, and then a psychologist.
This is way too complicated for me. Whiplash.
Jack, so much moaning and groaning on Medium, I had to place your post there with links here. May common sense prevail.
View at Medium.com
I might add that there’s some moaning and groaning on this site. Hell, I’m with Jack.
Thanks, and by the way, this puts an exclamation point on our disagreement over Occupy. Its timing was right and it was on to something. But it needed a figure to coalesce behind, and to organize.
All points well taken. But to be honest, I am not so secretly pleased with the total repudiation of the hypocrisy and corruption of Hillary and Bill Clinton, and, not incidentally, the two Obama administrations. Do I wish a different candidate spearheaded this repudiation? Yes. Am I still glad it occurred? Yes to that, too. More later for me as well.
Exactly, E2. But Jack’s right, no need to be nasty. A little measured quietness is always a good thing. Sometimes the things we don’t say are best left unsaid.
I agree 95%, magnanimity and conciliation is the best attitude to have towards our friends on the left. The media and their establishment irresponsibly hyped up so many emotions this go around (but then again, given the platform, it seems inevitable). With everyone’s emotions so fully enthralled to the outcome of this election, anger is fully expected.
The remaining 5% of me I reserve for those Lefties I am acquainted with who, as grown ups, should have known better, should have behaved better and should have never thrown their souls so heavily into Hillary. That 5% of me is quite content watching those extra smug Lefties stew and writhe.
Of course I’m still stewing and writhing that Trump won just as much I’d be stewing and writhing if Hillary won…
Oh to clarify, it’s for those who were extra smug and extra condescending and extra arrogant and extra vitriolic and divisive that I reserve a modest amount a schadenfreude for. Those are the ones who, as grown ups, should have known better.
I wouldn’t call it total. So far it’s shaping up to be one of the narrowest, if not the narrowest margins in history.
“Total repudiation’ insofar as what the Democrats assumed about the electorate. Better?
Still a repudiation, though. It’s still a federal system. If Democrats had their way, the world would be ruled by New York and California. It’s ridiculous, and ultimately unhealthy, how regionally isolated progressives are. This is why Republican are ascendant in state and national politics. And that isolation leads to the infamous Pauline Kael effect, with Democrats completely estranged from the national mood. I couldn’t FIND a Trump supporter in Northern Virginia
A certain cartoonist you gave an EH to once wrote a whooooole essay on how liberal coast people are superior to those rubes in flyover country:
“We eat better, travel more, dress better, watch cooler movies, earn better salaries, meet more interesting people, listen to better music and know more about what’s going on in the world. If you voted for Bush, we accept that we have to share the country with you. We’re adjusting to the possibility that there may be more of you than there are of us. But don’t demand our respect. You lost it on November 2.”
I may be a semi-coastie myself (I spend a chuck of my time in PA) but excuse me if I enjoy this election and the GOP ascendance as a great big middle finger to that arrogance.
It is indeed difficult not to feel that way. I’m trying.
“I couldn’t FIND a Trump supporter in Northern Virginia”
Then you weren’t looking in the right places or people were lying to you.
I bet it was the second.
I have several friend who voted for Trump and made it known beforehand that were going to do so. I argued with them that I thought they were wrong to do so but to no avail. All of them were motivated to vote for Trump out of sheer hatred for Hilary. All of them said they would have voted for Sanders or Webb over Trump but they would not vote for Hilary under any circumstances.
That’s what happens when a party crowns their Queen and then commences to get the subjects in line to support the official coronation. Sometimes the subjects stand up and fight back to show they are not subjects but free to vote the way they want.
“I couldn’t FIND a Trump supporter in Northern Virginia”
That’s the sad lament of the shell-shocked, whimpering Madison, WI Lefties that inhabit the 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality.
”How could Donald Trump and Senator Ron Johnson possibly have won, I don’t know anyone that voted for them…?”
After Trump won the Republican primary, I looked askance at polls predicting a Clinton win: I figured Trump was tearing down so many received tenets about the way things had been, that pollsters and pundits alike didn’t have a way to predict the future anymore.
Then I forgot that skepticism and started believing the consensus of the MSM predictions.
Ha. I will hopefully remember again to be skeptical in the future.
But my conclusion from that twice-learned lesson is this: we have no idea what the Trump presidency will be like. And I think this especially given the contrast between campaign-Trump “crooked Hillary lock her up” and victory-Trump “dedicated public servant we owe her a debt of gratitude.” Victory-Trump’s “I mean that sincerely” convinces me not one whit, and I’m now equally unconvinced by any of his rhetoric, whether from campaign-Trump or victory-Trump.
If Clinton won, I was predicting that she would be impeached in a New York minute. Now that Trump has won, I’m predicting a feeding frenzy among Republicans jockeying for power and influence. True, Democrats under a victorious Clinton would also have been jockeying for power, but I think it’s going to be more pronounced with Trump because he represents such s vacuum of previous positions or political alliances.
Ah drat, this came through with my wordpress blog name holygrounding, which is a blog I was going to start for another purpose. I didn’t mean to comment here with a name that could sound so sanctimonious here in the Ethicsalarms context. My apologies.
Don’t worry about it.
Astute and well-said. Especially the part about not knowing what kind of President he’ll be. I’m afraid I know HOW he will be, though.
The political left now has a choice to obstruct or collaborate with the political right. If they adhere to the principals that they themselves were preaching throughout the Obama administration then they must collaborate with the political right. It’s time for the political left to actively take an ethical stand and dump their double standards or be seen as unethical political hypocrites.
The political right now has an obligation to begin to collaborate with the political left. If they adhere to the principals that they themselves have been preaching throughout the Obama administration then they must collaborate with the political left. It’s time for the political right to actively take an ethical stand and dump their double standards or be seen as unethical political hypocrites.
Elections have consequences; this it the change I want to see in the next calendar year and I want it to be very obvious that it’s happening.
For what it is worth …
I disagree with this, in principle. The political left, what it is and on what it is constructed intellectually and ideologically, must continue to be resisted with full force. The political left will not now and not ever adjust itself to the Right. The political Left, it seems, will continue in more brazen left-progressive activism and, I assume, this will play out in civil clashes just as it has this year. The question is when and how. The left that is lost will begin to organize itself and make itself all the more visible.
The political right, to the degree that it is a Cuckervative Right, must also be ruthlessly assailed. Here though the problem is more complex. To the degree that a political conservatism is in reality conservative will depend on the degree that it actually embraces *real conservatism*. This is what the Buckley conservatives jettisoned from their ranks, and what made them Cucks. Insofar as they became Cucks, they served centrist/leftist/progressive ideology and practice. To become really conservative, means to re-embrace and re-empower a whole group of ideas which have been pushed out of the picture as unthinkable.
If the ‘right’ in the form of Trump simply reinvigorates a mild Republican Right, they will likely only be the slightly right side of the typical centrist politics. That is the most likely projection. Because the power-structure is established according to this model. The only way for those on the *real right* to influence the present is to actually strengthen their own ideological commitment and not go to sleep.
The underlying issue which has become visible is civil and ethnic, and this cannot be lost sight of.
In my view the future is one with more and different levels of conflict. If it does not involve that, this will mean that the impetous has been coopted. The first order of the day, when the media recover themselves, will be just this.
Alizia Tyler said, “I disagree with this, in principle.”
So working together to accomplish goals for the citizens of the United States is disagreeable to you?
Your Cranial Power Generation Potential value just increased.
You guys are in a sort of hang-over mode. I can see why sentimentalism is attractive. I am just trying to do what I always have done. To try to see clearly and to have the courage to state what I see. I did not gain friends in the past and doubt I will now or in the future by this.
If you think that the political Left is going to ‘work together to accomplish goals’ that have been defined through Trump of the political platform he is an allusionof, whatever CPGP means might be a sticker you will have to wear!
I mean no offense to you or to anyone. I only want to live in a world where my ideas and understanding is in a separate realm from my sentiments and emotions.
Zoltar, I think you are too harsh here. Alizia has a valid point (NEVER did I think I would say that, but truth is true)
As a conservative, I see what she is talking about. The establishment has become the elite, the rulers, who are above the laws to which they hold we ‘lesser’ beings, whose opinion constitutes fact, in their world view.
We gave the Republicans House and Senate in 2014 and watched them do NOTHING with it, but get rich and more powerful at the expense of the rest of the country. They want to play the game, which incidentally makes them wealthy, to control our lives. The difference between the parties lies in degree of tyranny, nothing more.
Change will only come when the aroused public continues to push for reform, to break the shackles, the loss of liberty and dignity the establishment (both parties, for the most part) have inflicted over the past 30 years.
The Left will NOT work with the rest of us, and have demonstrated their vile tactics time and again. “It takes two to tango,” as the saying goes, and compromise to a lefty is a conservative caving in to everything in dispute. (BTW, I have some observations on what I expect from former conservatives -alt right- going forward. Hint: it ain’t good)
Yes, we should give them their chance. I just hold out little hope for an olive branch from our ‘friends’ on the left, and I more expect a razor blade instead.
Just an observation of politics from the Clinton era on.
SlickWilly writes: “Change will only come when the aroused public continues to push for reform, to break the shackles, the loss of liberty and dignity the establishment (both parties, for the most part) have inflicted over the past 30 years.
The Left will NOT work with the rest of us, and have demonstrated their vile tactics time and again. “It takes two to tango,” as the saying goes, and compromise to a lefty is a conservative caving in to everything in dispute. (BTW, I have some observations on what I expect from former conservatives -alt right- going forward. Hint: it ain’t good)”.
The aroused public is only in a seminal state of arousal. It is aroused emotionally, not so much in terms of ideas. When they are able to define what *shackles* are, and what reform is and should be, and especially what is *liberty* in the nearly mad enviromnent of licence-gone-mad, then they will become a vital force. If Conservatives are going to have any part in that they must become real conservatives. Not Cucks. Not coopted right-of-center progressives with hair cut to 1/4″.
The Left will certainly not work with what I just outlined because, in essence, they are a neo-Marxian force, and they are extremely dangerous. They will stop at nothing to get their way and they have shown this. One visible aspect is the *media* which revealed that it is brazenly in service to established power. The NYTs made itself into the Propaganda Organ of the Washington System. This cannot be overlooked.
The plot only thickens from this moment on.
Disclaimer — I didn’t vote for Donald Trump.
Fine analysis, Jack. I think it is very wise advice, though it may seem obvious, that we should give Trump a chance. His acceptance speech was a bit of a surprise to me, but as you say, it’s easy to be magnanimous in victory. Still, I see no choice but to acknowledge it as a hopeful sign, even considering the context.
Indeed. Troublingly, all I see at the moment are complaints about the Electoral College system as unfair, and demands that California withdraw from the union.
Then again, this from Daniel Drezner writing in the WaPo is hopeful:
I must confess, I have similar worries, and therefore, similar hopes.
Indeed I will, and we all should try to. However, even though it’s unhealthy, I’m engaging in quite a bit of schadenfreude in the quiet of my own thoughts and self-talk right now. I have had to put up with eight years of smug liberals ramming president Obama’s policies up my nether regions, and I’m afraid I’m too shallow not to entertain a few unethical thoughts in retaliation. To be fair, most are directed at the left being comprehensively out of power and not at Trump’s victory, which I’m probably almost as worried about as they are. Here in Kentucky, where I live, the Democrats were reduced to rump status in the house after 100 years of Democrat dominance.
California can’t withdraw from the Union! We’re insolvent!
…complaints about the Electoral College system as unfair … complaints about the Constitution being unfair, and all the microaggressions they have to put up with, and the nasty culturally appropriated Halloween costumes, and pizza bitten into gun shapes and Words, and Disagreement of Any Kind That Suggests They Could Possibly Be INcorrect in All Their Pissant Correctitude . . . .
What a waste of Americans.
HRC is leading the popular vote, Jack, and Tim Kaine has just emphasized it. He also stated that no one would ever have to ask Hillary whether she would accept the outcome. Someone should tell Podesta. Doesn’t seem like he got the message.
Updated on the popular vote just as your comment came in, Michael.
Oh, please let this not start another teeth-pulling debate about the relevance of the Electoral College…
Don’t worry, if it is, I’m ready to squash all comers…
I’m tempted to play devil’s advocate just to watch your squashing abilities.
Q–”Still, who can’t give a gracious victory speech?”
A–Harbaugh, James: Head Football Coach/University of Michigan
“1. Give Trump a chance,”
This would be a perfect time for the Senate to start a new precedent. This would be fully constitutional as well. It needs to draft a list of a dozen qualified judges that it “pre-consents” for the SCOTUS and a list of maybe 200-300 judges qualified for the lesser seats. Then it should submit that list to Trump under the “advise” component of “advise and consent”.
I think that’d be a great new tradition.
Thus avoid letting him get his meat paws on the process.
I agree, and I don’t know why it hasn’t been done already, for years.
I really like the core idea; however, I wouldn’t go as far as calling them “pre-consents” which implies to me that they are the equivalent to being pre-confirmed regardless of what happens between the time they are determined to be “pre-consents” and the time when their name is pulled off the list to be presented for confirmation. I’d rather call it something like a SCOTUS Short List Candidates, and similar name for lower courts; this could reduce the time involved in confirmation hearings.
The problem I see doing this is that means that Congress is actively working on something that doesn’t need immediate attention and may not for a while (except for the one SCOTUS Justice needed right now) and may actually detract from important things that need more immediate attention.
Interesting that I heard SCOTUS mentioned not at all last night, yet that may be the mist weighty result of Trump’s election. It means the rotten tactic of refusing to consider Obama’s nomination to replace Scalia paid off. So much for Bernie’s grand scheme to make political speech illegal by overturning Citizens United. And if money buys elections, why did Hillary lose?? Why wasn’t Jeb the GOP nominee?
Jack said, “Interesting that I heard SCOTUS mentioned not at all last night, yet that may be the mist weighty result of Trump’s election. It means the rotten tactic of refusing to consider Obama’s nomination to replace Scalia paid off.”
An aside: I know of a few people that voted for Trump for one reason, so Trump could nominate SOCTUS Justices instead of Clinton. They were one issue voters, but to them that was a huge issue.
Jack said, “So much for Bernie’s grand scheme to make political speech illegal by overturning Citizens United.”
The Constitution is a hindrance to Bernie’s Democratic Socialism goals, anything that undermines the Constitution is acceptable to him.
Jack said, “And if money buys elections, why did Hillary lose?? Why wasn’t Jeb the GOP nominee?”
“Money buys elections” is a false propaganda smear ginned up by unethical politicians and a rhetorical used by political propagandists.
I wish that politicians would start ginning up national outrage against the massive amounts of propaganda that’s distorted the truth.
I posted this to Facebook, apparently to the great consternation of some:
Wylie Copeland (ed. note: a facebook friend) told me to let this go. However, I can’t, especially after reading countless postings about the end to the US as we know it. This post is most particularly directed at the person accusing me of white-male-entitled-complacency, who has never had to worry about storm troopers kicking in my front door.
Trump won. Clinton lost. This has been a long, painful, contentious election cycle, extraordinarily dividing the nation into bitter, blinded hemispheres with unbelievable and unnecessary bloodletting.
Yet, take heart. The US republic will survive. Will Trump be a good president? Who knows? No body. Got that? No body. Time will tell.
Give some credit to the citizenry. The US, for all of its past and present errors, has tried to live up to its mission to form a ‘more perfect’ union. It has constantly tried to right the ship and steer it away from the rocks. Hopefully, the thousand cuts inflicted by this election will heal and the nation will find itself stronger. I have read that a broken bone is stronger when it heals. Hope springs eternal.
To those lamenting and wailing that your candidate lost: Stop it. Please. For the sake of the nation. Just stop it. Trump’s presidency does not, and will not, lead to mass incarceration, deportation, or the building of ovens. The US is nowhere near where the Weimar Republic was in the 1920s. Nor is it anywhere close to pre-Mussolini Italy, pre-Franco Spain, pre-Chavez Venezuela, or pre-Morales Bolivia. And no, Trump’s presidency will not, under any circumstances, be a catalyst for religious reactionaries calling for pregnant women to be chained to the stove.
More particularly, stop hurling Nazi memes around. Nazi Germany led to unspeakable evil, targeting Jews for extermination. Do not, under any circumstances, diminish what Jews suffered under Nazi genocide by claiming that Trump and his supporters are one clothing store away from brown shirts. Do not tell me that my ‘white-privilege complacency’ blinds me to the realities of Kristallnach. It is insulting and cruel. I am from the Cleveland, Ohio, area, which had a large survivor community. I saw the fear. I heard the stories survivors endured. Worst of all, I saw the despair in the eyes of ordinary people targeted because of their religion. I don’t need to experience first-hand what happened at Treblinka or Auschwitz to know that that is pure, unbridled evil. Furthermore, I saw that Kristallnacht has been trending on Facebook, and, ironically, began on November 9, 1938. Believe, me, I do not support Donald Trump – I think he will be a terrible president (I hope I am wrong). However, I am disheartened and saddened that fellow citizens cannot put aside partisan differences. Reading Facebook postings comparing Trump to Hitler, and his supporters to the Schutzstaffel, is morally offensive, especially having known people who suffered through Nazi genocide, people forever scarred by the horror they lived and having to relive it every single moment they look at numbers brutally carved into their skin
Trump’s victory absolutely does not mean that minorities will be hauled back to plantations in chains, or marriages recently upheld will be obliterated.
As for Trump and his supporters: Drop the “Clinton-is-a-criminal” stuff. Your candidate won. Stop gloating. It is immature and unbecoming of the republic. Your candidate will take the highest executive office in the land. Demand that your candidate govern with the dignity, respect, and vision that office requires. Demand that he stop saying stupid things. Demand that he develop a filter and impulse control expected of the office.
Disagree over policy. Disagree over ideas. Disagree all you want about Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama, but they behaved in the manner called for by the Office of the President of the United States of America.
The US is a great place to live because of the liberties enshrined and guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. If we, as citizens, hold to true to those values, the nation will be a better place.
Thanks, John..Comment of the Day. It also saved me the trouble of writing almost exactly the same thing. Much needed, completely true.
Thanks. Again, I am humbled.
Those who compare Trump to Hitler better pray to whatever they consider holy they are wrong.
A post of pure sentimentalism. It seems to embody almost completely a state of denial about what is actually going on and what just happened.
Let’s put it another way: If Hillary and the Democrats would have been elected, it seems possible that the immigration crisis would have been made worsesince in this way the Democratic base can be increased by bringing foreigners in. That is, engineer a new or dominant population who will support your policies.
So, what stands as the first order of business is to begin to project just how the immigration issue will be handled. When and how. Send then back to the border with a bag lunch and 2 Snickers bars where the Mexican government will receive them, house them, educate them, all the the redound of the Mexican Republic. That is a bit of a joke of course…
The Democrats desire to modify the Republic demographically (duh!) and in their *best of worlds* a powerful white faction of voters and activists for these nationalistic goals would not ever be able to coalesce. But that powerful sector of the population just voted in a man who said he would in absolute terms change this around.
This is a far more serious game than you seem to realize. This is not about *agreements* and *disagreements* but about foundational civic reality. That intensity needs to be focussed on, amplified.
If Clinton was a criminal then, she still remains a criminal. Unless this was all BS. That level of criminality has to be rooted out of politics, I thought.
One has to set one’s eyes on not the next month or year or 4 years but the next 10-20 and even 50 years.
‘Citizenry’ and ‘more perfect union’ is a problematic statement. Which citizenry? And what does ‘perfect union’ mean now?
How does any of this relate to John’s post?
I think that comment from you is another one of your examples of Projectile Blogging.
Jack, you ask me what the relationship is, but what you seem to mean is that you don’t see any. But it was written in response to John Burger’s post.
1) My impression is that his post denies that a very significant and unprecedented event has just occurred. I believe it is more serious, and more potentially conflictuous (excuse the neologisms but I need them) than can be summed up in typical post-election periods. When one sets down the arms and vows for cooperation.
2) I see Hillary and the Deomcratic machine as working to disrupt, modify and in certain senses remake the Republic. That is, to manipulate it demographically. I see this as an evil. (Evil in this usage means only *very bad*). Because I see this, and understand it that way, I can have no sympathy for them. Therefor, the tone of conciliation, though I respect it, does seem to me sentimental. A harder attitude in my view is needed.
3) A conflict with Mexico must be put into motion. They must resolve to take care of, house, welfarize and otherwise help their citizens who parasitize in America to build their lives in their own country. To force Mexico to do this will not be easy. The immigration issue is complex because Mexico will assume no responsibility and its *problems* escape to life in America, This seems a serious issue. Burger did not touch on immigration directly but I bring it out.
4) To ‘give credit to the citizenry’ is to give credit to ideas, feelings, stances, and desires which the Democrats regard as evil on the face. I do not think these things are really understood by anyone. I also don’t think they are understood on this blog, generally speaking. I have gotten the impression that even you do not seem to understand this. You have said as much. I don’t think that you trust ‘the people’ in this sense. And I think that you are in a certain sense an ‘elitist’. I see your background and knowledge as making you into an elitist, and I am not opposed to elitism at all myself. But the popular sentiment aspect — what these white folks who made this election win think and want — is not taken into consideration much (in my impression, and I try to read as much as I can of what you write). I do not think the Republican establishment has really given ‘credit’ to the citizenry and I also think they will have a very hard time doing so. I spoke some of that and perhaps this was only relational to John’s post. But I am an opportunist …
5) The game is more serious, I think, than people here in the post-election hangover seem to speak of. I think this topic is important and can be enlarged on. I did that to a small degree. It is what I was inspired to write in reading John’s post. When I said it was ‘sentimental’ I did not mean it, and I do not mean it, insultingly. Just factually. I only made some references and allusions to this.
6) If HRC is a criminal, and if she engaged in illegal activity that was whitewashed, and if the Foundation is criminal, I think that will have to be pursued. It was spoken of with this seriousness before. Does all that just evaporate now?
7) I am confused about what ‘cooperation’ means. As you know I take stances that are not generally accepted and certainly not popular. I am making some efforts only to allude, generally, to what motivates me and people who think like me. But we are activist in the sense that we do see a greater plan.
All that I wrote is relational to John Berger’s post. Some of it directly and some of less so. I mean him and no one else any harm or insult. I just try to force myself to say what I think.
Zoltar seems to think this is ‘projectile thinking’ or not having filters or something. I got zoltarized for it (and he misspelled my name!).
Please, feel free to be with me as harsh as you see fit. If you see fit.
You seem to have the impression that I think we, as a nation, should sing love songs and just get along. That is incorrect and clearly not implied by my post. Immigration, for instance, is a fundamental problem as it has an impact at the core of the nation, affecting and effecting national values. The US needs to resolve that on its own, and not by idiots demanding rights and privileges they have not earned.
As for the Democrats, there are members of the party that a true patriots and have a different vision. There are those, though, that (nice alliteration, no?) want to make fundamental changes to the US political, social, and legal systems. They need to be fought back and hard. However, racism or other ‘isms’ are not appropriate, moral or ethical.
The point of my post/comment was in response to accusations of Nazism hurled at Trump and his supporters. Nazism may not be an insult for some, but for me it strikes at the fundamental core of what the US is about. I don’t accept it. In fact, I reject it completely and entirely and I will fight against it. You may postulate Alt-Right diatribes all you want but they fall on deaf ears . . . erm . . . computer screens.
Trump’s presidency does not, and will not, lead to mass incarceration, deportation, or the building of ovens…
Trump’s victory absolutely does not mean that minorities will be hauled back to plantations in chains, or marriages recently upheld will be obliterated….
I don’t know about the ovens bit, but Alizia disagrees witn you on many of those assertions. I also don’t think you realise just how popular or widespread such views as hers are. The use of the word “cucks” is confined to the genuine alt right, who see any compromise other than a jackboot crushing opposition as utterly unacceptable. The Left is full of such, but at least they pay lip service to equality rather than promoting the master race. Othrr than that, identical, only the badge different. Star or celtic cross, hammer and sickle or swastika, just badges.
Any legislator who doesn’t want to be primaried had better do what they say, or else.
As you have noticed, when I write I tend to write *in the general direction* of a person or of the ideas I see operating in them. Like everyone I have been processing recent events and so what follows is far less a statement to you personally, and more of a general one. A diatribe even. A minor Jeremiad!
The Democratic Party, according to my understanding, desires to enfranchise a large mass of foreign illegals from Mesoamerica so to increase its political base. The result will be a further dilution of white America and a weakening of the position of white America within the polity. If I am right in my understanding there was instituted a plan to alter the demographic structure of America and turn America into a ‘multi-ethnic’ and ‘multi-cultural’ society. Who did this and why?
Well, that can all be looked into. It turns into a research project. But for 50 years this has been occurring. And through a whole package of political and economic doings, social doings, ideological doings, America has been radically altered. Seen from a certain perspective, though of course it depends on who is viewing, it is possible to understand this as a very real violence against white America. If you take the time to examine the question, and I have, you will conclude that something very bad has happened. (And this ties in to the ‘white genocide’ perspective and discussion which I tend to see as a *real thing*).
Yet *you* (the left-liberal-progressive front) see it and describe it as positive. And you work openly against those who attempt to define things differently, and you also label *us* as Evil for our local concerns. When one examines the whole picture, one discerns a large, interconnected, and concerted effort to propagandize an entire nation to see things according to a certain system of valuation. This is vast in scope. To speak of this requires pages and pages of essay, as do all the required definitions to RESIST what is going on in our present. To define a system of valuation requires taking a stand against another one. It is not easy and it is very demanding.
I desire to overturn, in absolute terms, the entire System of Valuation which has been foisted on me. Not because I do not have values but becaus, in substantial ways, and as I say it comes about with veritable violence and deceit, I discern that I have been lied to and am being lied to, and the things I value, and the people and culture I value, will be destroyed by *you* if I do not act in some way. Do I make myself clear? You might not accept this declaration from me, but the Alt-Right and the European New Right see things in these terms. I think one does have to say that there are echoes here. Our Present is not unlike the interwar period in Europe. Thus: the same questions come up, the same conflicts. (Yet I do believe things are different now, and the New Right is different).
The ‘Conservative’ sell-out — now known as Cucks — have allied with the Left-Progressive front to perpetrate these large structures of lies. And they have earned hatred and contempt from those who struggle to hold to substantial values, to work to define them, to protect themselves against assault, to defend themselves at a bio-cultural level. Real conservatism, I have been discovering, is terrifying to *you* who have surrendered your moorings. You will define *us* as Evil and, given the power, you would annihilate us. THAT is the lesson of history that we gain from the Communists. And the postwar. The totalitarian Nazis and Teutonic Imperialism was minor in comparison to the Communistic regimes. And this is quite clearly, though in substantially modified form, the regime that *your faction* has begun to impliment within our culture at present. Mind-control, intense propaganda, turning the universities into ‘safe spaces’ and pandering to the the Marxian Youth Front; media complicity in direct and open lying, the endless and unrelenting attack on traditional values, and not to mention all the economic shenanigans. It is a whole streams of manipulations which arise from deceitful motives. All of this require pages and pages of definition.
I don’t really want to be given a moral lecture by *you* (this *you* is not you but a generality) and I do not want to be compared to a Nazi. Social conservatism, even in extreme or radical forms, very definitely has a harsh aspect, this I admit. I have come to understand that the project, if you will, of restoring and strengthening what a number of generations have allowed to be destroyed, will not occur without decisive action. Look at what our opposition is. To define that opposition is a task in itself. They rampage, they scream hatred in the name of ‘love’, they burn, obstruct, burn effigies yet what if that effigy been a Black man? You see: *you* are allowed to commit any level of evil because *you* are on the right side of history and divinity itself smiles down on your project.
My work is to totally, completely, resolutely, definitively and yet with elan and panache EXPOSE and DEFEAT this immense system of lies in which you seem to live. As I have said all along it is a metaphysical work. It has to do with the very structures through which we see the world.
I know that the Cucks are terrified by the presence of people who have begun to think in these and similar terms. (The Left is simply off the chart of course). But the Cucks are the ones who now have to face the task of definition and redefinition of FUNDAMENTAL VALUES.
The most important thing, from my perspective, is to strengthen white identity. That is a huge undertaking. I could write pages on it. To be white and identitarian with no guilt, no pangs, and no fear. To be able to say ‘This is the country and the world of value that I created’ and to know and understand that this is so. To be decisive in preserving one’s own race and culture (and to know that *you* do not allow even that definition! and work like the devil to defeat it!) This is really the beginning (if I am not mistaken and if I am not over-confident) of a period in history of radical definitions and redefinition. This is happening at a world-level in the white world generally. The silly flaccid convoluted chirpy diffusive NOISE that has been the background soundtrack for many many years will, at least I hope so, get a radical run for its money. Life is said to be a game, but it is a serious game too.
Alizia, you had me for one post. This had nothing to do with John’s post, except for your first remark. Not saying your ideas are not true, just irrelevant to the discussion.
You fellows always say stuff like that when you don’t like the content. It usually always throws me off balance. But then I recover myself and am a little battered but better for it. I always appreciate criticism though, and it is respected
I admit that in some ways, and sometimes, I tend to improvise on themes. Maybe I should have stick with the saxophone?
Your later post showed where you were coming from, and (more importantly) where you are going. You do not always use your turn signal, so to speak, and leave many bewildered. You also tend to post long entries, which make it easy to get lost.
I respect (and how the heck do you guys get italics?) your thoughts, though, as they make me think. Even if we are to disagree, critical thinking is engaging.
St. Zoltar holds the format keys.
Here is the syntax for text formatting.
BOLD FACED TEXT
<b>BOLD FACED TEXT</b>
Use the knowledge wisely. 😉
If you’re interested…
<a href= "https://www.google.com"><u>GOOGLE</u></a>
I hope this displays correctly.
The last three characters in that line are /a>
“Give Trump a chance”
Well yes, of course. I thought that was a given, only those like Alizia will only accept crushing all opposition.
Perhaps the horse will sing.
…And thank you, zoebrain, for the perfect lead in to my next thoughts.
I have observed, especially over the past 4 years, many conservative fellow travelers who have decided that our principles and ethics are getting in the way of success in the political arena. They have watched the Left lie, cheat, and steal their way into power, using vile tactics, and employ horrible means to their ends (climate deniers should go to jail! Trump hates Mexicans! Scooter Libby in jail! Support the wrong side in an issue, lose your job years later! and so on…)
Many of these have become alt-right, in that they are abandoning their conservative roots in favor of getting even, tit for tat, and any number of tactics that formerly would have disgusted them. This is troubling, for several reasons:
1. Lowering oneself to the opposition’s level is foolish -lie with dogs, rise up with fleas;
2. The reason such tactics work for the Left is that they own the media and academia;
3. They are GOOD at it
The first two are self evident. The third could use some unpacking.
Conservatives (at least in my lifetime: call it Clinton era forward that I have been old enough to pay attention to politics) have be oppressed, harassed, and unjustly persecuted for decades, just for being conservative. We have had to think our way through issues, and then be careful how, when and where we espoused them, lest we are ridiculed (at best) or labeled (pick your flavor: racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, bigot, sexist, and so on.)
We either gave up the fight (began thinking with our emotions like a liberal) or we developed critical thinking skills. Decades of thinking on purpose improves that skill just like any other. We are not smarter, necessarily, but make more use of our native ability than your average liberal citizen.
When someone who is used to thinking on purpose turns that facility to the wrong use, they will likely be very good at creating havoc. If there is a saving grace to liberalism, the very lazy way most apply it makes them incompetent at the evil they attempt. Hillary, Obama, and any host of scandals show this to be true. Liberals want to be judged by their intentions, while conservatives are used to being judged by their results.
That makes them wonderfully efficient fascists, should they turn that way.
I think the Left will soil their pants if Trump was to say something to the effect of “I promise to run the country using the same methods my predecessor has.” They know in their hearts how they have acted while in power, and should fear those tactics being used against them.
If these ‘fallen conservatives’ act as they have spoken, the Left in general are in for some very trying times. My two cents.
Seems like the go-to catchphrase of the “How Could This Happen” hysteria is “non-college educated white men”.
Perhaps a little introspection would enlighten the self-styled enlightened ones: Perhaps incessant condescension JUST LIKE THAT is why you lost and will keep losing.
You may have seen this:
Trump aides are organizing what one Republican close to the campaign calls the First Day Project. “Trump spends several hours signing papers—and erases the Obama Presidency,” he said. Stephen Moore, an official campaign adviser who is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explained, “We want to identify maybe twenty-five executive orders that Trump could sign literally the first day in office.”
I have even explained executive orders in defense of obama when right wingers got hysterical.
Do I need to explain them yet again?
If Obama’s 8 years could be “erased” in one day of signing legitimate executive orders, that would be a damning indictment of a pathetic administration…which it has certainly been, but this claim is beyond silly.
Here’s another head exploder courtesy of underground Libertarian operator sarge982:
I bailed out when Goldberg, whom I’ve flagged before and who is ridiculous, called Trump’s election the worst thing to happen to the country in modern times. Yeah, boy, democracy’s a bitch. Did you read Jamelle Bouie’s take that this proves the US is Mississippi circa 1951? At least progressives are taking defeat like adults….
I read another article by that preeminent fool, Paul Krugman, about the sorrow of voters realizing that they just don’t know their America. The entire smug condescending piece drips with the kind of disregard the leftists have held pretty much more than half the electorate in for decades.
Well, as they say, chickens have come home to roost. Too bad it had to manifest in that shmuck Trump.
I mean really… the tone used by him suggests the notion that 50% of voters are just inconvenient rubes that really ought not be voting at all, almost a “wait, how did these votes even show up?” attitude.
So how soon do the riots and violence by left wingers start? You know, the ones they insisted that Trump people were absolutely going to do.
Well pundits, columnists, MSNBC and CNN are trying their best to incite some.
Man that sure assuages my worries that they believe in the process, the system and the constitution before they believe in their ideology.
Format for sarcasm.
If the Left wing legal-media-educational-industrial-government complex keeps this up, I may very well have to begrudgingly be glad they didn’t win anything at all. Please, continue to convince me you really really are latent totalitarians.
You know, earlier you mentioned in passing about the possibility of a race war starting and a civil war starting…
If one really were to start, no one honest could lay the blame in Trump’s lap. No matter how loathsome he is.
My last days decision NOT to vote for Clinton/the Democrats/Brazile/Krugman/BLM/Mosby/the MSM/Bill/ et al. feels better by the minute. Close call.
Didn’t take long… http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37932231
Call me loopy, but I was warned of very bad things (like a country torn apart?) during a near death experience.
“There was a voice. It said I was being given a gift. I could leave now and
avoid all the insanely bad shit queued up in Earth’s timeline. I liked the
idea. Just go and be done with it. Like rolling off a log… that peaceful,
easy feeling.” https://medium.com/@FarkleUp/the-world-explodes-as-i-lay-dying-a-near-death-experience-from-2012-3dd8a4f8a3f1#.ybtqkn4lo
And finally… “Your world is entering a period of immense destabilization.” http://tomkenyon.com/destabilization
It just further proves the thesis I’ve held since Hillary uttered the incomprehensible stupid phrase “vast right wing conspiracy”. That if the Left accuses the Right of some sort of misconduct or evil, there’s a 99% chance the Left is actually engaging in it or is setting the stage to engage in it.
Autocorrect failures all over.
“incomprehensibly stupid phrase “vast right wing conspiracy””
”Autocorrect failures all over.”
Autocorrect?? Or Vast Ri….ah, fergit it!
About now. I hope the local police feel empowered enough to take the gloves off. At the same time, it’s just making the lefties look stupid, petulant, and crybabyish, which further damages their brand. This isn’t even like 2000, where there was an ongoing dispute. This was game, set and match on Tuesday, but, you know those progs, they only respect the system when their people win. Best parts for me: seeing these ugly, aging, perimenopausal female campaign workers break down in tears like their mom just died, and hearing about the stupid pink “It’s a Girl” balloons that will now never be released.
Thank you for a measured and thoughtful post on what is by any standard a sorry mess. I am reminded of Ambrose Bierce’s observation that the U.S. president is the only officeholder “about whom, and about whom only, it is known for certain that large numbers of his countrymen did not want him to be president.”
An interesting perspective: