Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Trump’s Tweet On Fidel’s Demise”

trump-tshirtThe Democratic/progressive/news media freakout over Trump’s election has become an ethics story itself, as the foes of a man whose lack of impulse control and respect during the campaign drew deserved rebukes now emulate him. This is, Ethics Alarms will soon explore, an effort at deligitimzing Trump’s presidency before it begins, just as the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v Gore was employed by Democrats to legitimize Bush, and the various Muslim and birther smears were aimed at Obama by conservatives to undermine Obama. The tactic is un-American and despicable, and never has it been so thoroughly embraced by so many, with such smug self-righteousness.

My thanks to Steve-O-in-NJ for his Comment of the Day on the post, Ethics Quiz: Trump’s Tweet On Fidel’s Demise, which is timely and helpful:

I thought I was done with ranting about the election. I also thought everyone else was mostly done and the fire of outrage and self-pity that had followed had burned itself out. It probably didn’t hurt that most students had gone home for Thanksgiving.

Now Jill Stein, an extreme leftist who wasn’t even on the ballot in several states and had zero chance of winning, decides to demand a recount in not just one, but three states. Hillary pretends not to want to join in, but then says, well, ok, if we’re doing it anyway.

Keep a few things in mind:

The deficits in all three states are higher than have ever been overcome by recount. This is a matter of tens of thousands, not a few hundred.

There is no evidence of a hack, even the advocates of the recount say that.

Obama himself doesn’t believe there was large scale rigging and says he believes in the results.

The fact that Jill Stein raised so much money, so fast, reeks of either a scam or of super-wealthy donors trying to play kingmaker.

Hillary herself said a month ago that Trump needed to accept the results of the election and to do otherwise would be frightening. Now she is doing the very thing she said would be frightening.

We did this once before in 2000, over a lot fewer votes, in one state, by a candidate who had not already conceded against a President-elect whose transition was nowhere near as far underway. It changed nothing beyond dragging this nation to the brink of a constitutional crisis and allowing Democrats to say “selected, not elected” for four years.

This smacks of desperation. A party that ran the second most despised candidate with the most baggage ever on a platform of name-calling and division saw their blue wall crack due to those very tactics. Now they want to try litigation and conspiracy theories instead.

This smacks of disrespect for the process. The electoral college is clearly spelled out in the Constitution and it’s well known the presidency is not a direct popular vote. The processes for changing that are also clearly spelled out in the Constitution. You don’t get to change the rules in the middle of the game, leave alone after the game is played, because you don’t like the result.

This, together with the ugly recent protests, smacks of proto-totalitarianism. Essentially one side is saying we will use the process as far as it takes us, then we will turn to litigation, rioting, low level terrorism, or whatever else it takes, but we will go all the way come hell, high water, or the people’s vote.

This smacks of what I will call taffy ethics. Either the process is in danger from a challenge or it isn’t. Either the process is worthy of respect or it isn’t. Either a concession means something or it doesn’t. These holdings aren’t made of taffy. They only stretch and bend and twist so far. Twist them farther and they break.

This smacks of an attempt to delegitimize the President-elect before he is even in office. Ironically, a lot of those pushing this effort are the same people who said that crossing, disrespecting, or opposing Obama was either racist or treason, and would have said the same about Hillary, except substitute “sexist” for “racist.” Either this kind of conduct is ok or it isn’t. It doesn’t become ok when the elected leader is of the party you oppose.

Those who get behind this effort need to check their ethical compasses. It’s all well and good to say you’re the party of equality, the party of removing barriers, the party of lending a helping hand to those who need it, the party of making those doing well lend more of a hand, and so on. Does all that justify also becoming the party of protests that turn into riots, selective enforcement, working around the law when you can’t work within it, and ethics that bend and twist like plasticine? Does it justify calling for respect for the process and then disregarding the process, talking of unity and trading on division, calling for protection and practicing bullying? If you think it does, then I submit the party of blue is headed towards becoming a very different shade of red than the GOP.

12 Comments

Filed under Character, Citizenship, Comment of the Day, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, U.S. Society

12 responses to “Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Trump’s Tweet On Fidel’s Demise”

  1. wyogranny

    Agree. Good job Steve-O

  2. joed68

    Awesome! This is going in my FB feed.

  3. Steve-O, you just maybe should be Commenter of the Year for that.

  4. Well done, Steve-O.

    I’d only make one modification; on point 9:

    This, together with the ugly recent protests, smacks of proto-totalitarianism. Essentially one side is saying we will use the process as far as it takes us, then we will turn to litigation, rioting, low level terrorism, or whatever else it takes, but we will go all the way come hell, high water, or any opportunity we can pretend to use the legitimate process to our favor.

    This is all Rules for Radicals territory.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      Also a legitimate point. They will pretend to use the legitimate process to their advantage, even if it means overriding a people’s vote they deem stupid or bigoted because it didn’t go the way they wanted. But they won’t hesitate to use naked force either.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        Far-left convicted felon Lynne Stewart – “I don’t have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel [Castro] locking up people they see as dangerous,because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people’s revolution.” It’s all about who is doing the locking up, not the process.

        • dragin_dragon

          You also gotta wonder who, exactly, the “people” are that are having the revolution. My guess, the arrogance that produces the belief that “I know what’s best for THE PEOPLE” would make him believe he spoke for all the people.

          • Steve-O-in-NJ

            I won’t say that Chiang Kai-Shek or the Romanovs or the French colonial rulers or the Batistas made the lands they ruled into garden spots, just reading the factual history tells you otherwise. The factual history of Mao (the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the biggest famine of all), Stalin (do you really need to ask?) Ho Chi Minh (a tyrant with good publicity) and Castro (last of the Cold War dictators, still fighting the West a quarter century after the Cold War ended) also tells you otherwise. None of these tyrants spoke for all the people. Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Castro were simply winners in civil wars between tyrants who tried to rewrite the history. Stalin was the heir to the winners in a civil war who eliminated anyone who could challenge him. The only reason for an American to admire any of these figures is hatred of one’s own country.

  5. There is something just totally wrong about this whole thing. Recounts are supposed to be used to verify the winner of an election. They aren’t intended for a 3rd party candidate who got less than 1% of the vote to pursue her own private agenda.

    One cannot help but wonder about the underlying motives behind this. I cannot help but think she is trying to string this process out beyond the federal Safe Harbor for certifying electors in the hope that these states electoral votes simply won’t be counted. That would very possibly land the election in the House and Senate and result in utter chaos.

    I may wish for chaos in the college football playoff rankings from time to time. I don’t want it in a presidential election. I was bracing myself to live with a Clinton presidency, which I thought would be bad. A Trump presidency may well be bad too, but that is what happened and everyone needs to accept it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s