Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quote Of The Month, Terrifying Thoughts Division: Daniel Greenfield”

Conservative journalist David Greenstein made a provocative speech before a Tea Party group in which he posited a “civil war,” defined by him as when a political party rejects a lawful Presidential election and refuses to accept the legitimacy of any government it does not dominate. I admit that offering up such inflammatory analysis for comment is the pedagogical equivalent of tossing a hand grenade in a room, but there is method to my madness, beginning with my conviction, documented here since  November 2016, that much of the Democratic Party is denying the legitimacy of the last Presidential election, and is actively working to find a way to remove President Trump without having to defeat him in the next one.  I believe that this is among the most damaging and dangerous political developments, and ethics outrages, in U.S. history, and one that has been intentionally covered up by an unethical news media with the same agenda.

Greenstein’s speech placed the matter front and center, and I guessed, correctly, that it would get a lot of attention, though the speech has been largely ignored by progressive commentators, even as numerous Democrats, announced that they would boycott the State of the Union message, a traditional yearly symbol of a unified people.  I also assumed that it would pose an interesting challenge for readers here, specifically the challenge of keeping bias out of their  analysis, since, as we all know, bias makes you stupid.

Chris Marschner did an especially good job of this, and here is his excellent Comment of the Day on the post, Ethics Quote Of The Month, Terrifying Thoughts Division: Daniel Greenfield:

 After listening to his speech I came away with a completely different take on the overall message. To me, he was chastising professional governance. I do not consider it irresponsible demagoguery but an merely the idea that we have gotten away from citizen governance and allowed our governing bodies to be overtaken by a ruling elite that uses its power to obtain more power. In doing so, they have created a civil war that rages within our society which helps them retain power.

Given that the speech was being delivered to a South Carolina Tea Party group his ideas would be readily accepted; and why not? Nationally, Tea Party groups were disparaged by the I.R.S, Anderson Cooper with his vulgar teabagger comments, the Congressional Black Caucus, and left leaning political commentators. Typically, they were characterized as racists, rednecks, rubes, and others that cling to their guns and religion. We know who made the clinger statement. Disparagement and ridicule is the modus operandi of power seekers and those with few abilities or achievements. It works because they know that if someone challenges them the challenger will become the target of ridicule; it becomes psychological extortion.

If asked whether I agree with the statement that the paramount objective of Mueller’s investigation is to remove the President I would have to answer that I don’t know. I do know that current evidence would lead someone to believe that a criminal charge is the objective. I made the point several days ago that seeking an obstruction charge without having the ability to prove an underlying charge of conspiracy is prima facie evidence of not seeking justice but merely to obtain a conviction. This is especially believable given the coordinated efforts to find multiple avenues for removal from office.

But, for others it depends on who you talk to. For some, if not many, on the left and right, the answer is yes. For the hard left, they cannot believe that the uncouth, philandering skunk that they believe Trump is is competent to make good decisions and that he is a man whose personality is a danger to their way of life – some even go so far as saying he will cause a nuclear war and should be removed in favor of some more sane person – preferably a woman. Thus, he must be exposed and charged with any crime for which impeachment can take place. For the those on the right, they would say the Democrats are using the investigation, based on scant evidence, to delegitimize Trump to prevent him from being a successful leader. The latter is plausible to an objective observer. The former, has some merit based on comments but it is a leap too far to believe he would initiate mutually assured destruction.

Greenfield’s theme was that because Trump was an outsider and won that was in itself unacceptable to the rulers who live and work in and around the “Imperial City” Washington DC. His win was a threat to their way of life in the Imperial City so he must be neutered. The civil war he speaks of is that of the rulers favorite tactic of using tribalism to foment outrage against the newcomer. What I find amusing is that in one breath we talk about to value of diversity of people while simultaneously disparaging the newcomer to DC. The thrust of Greenfield’s speech is that the existing power structure wants to maintain a wall around DC to keep out anyone that threatens the existing order. He calls that the means to maintain the dictatorship.

His attack on the Left is based on his belief that they use “Positive Rights” to enamor themselves with the huddled masses. Positive Rights are those they confer upon the people as compared to Negative Rights which are inalienable rights that protect us from governmental intrusion. There is substantial number of Americans that rely heavily on the administrative state to advance their own well-being. This is neither a right nor left characteristic. It is a characteristic of those whose livelihoods rely on the administrative state and those who choose not to avail themselves of opportunities that abound in a free society. To them a truly free society is a significant threat to their way of life.

I do agree that using two elections to cement, as proof positive, there is a conspiracy to undermine all Republican presidents by the left is near impossible for me to accept. However, I do accept the idea that both sides attempt to diminish the person in the Oval Office through innuendo, scandal, investigations and other means to prevent the president from gaining traction that would threaten their chances of winning in upcoming elections.

If for a moment we can be honest with ourselves, we must admit that we usually fail to seek an understanding of a differing point of view; we rely on our default positions no matter how incongruous they may be to common sense. We often blind ourselves with our own self-righteousness so badly that we allow the ruling dictatorship to manipulate us into keeping them in power. Our elected leaders rely on our own intellectual dishonesty and bias to maintain control and power.

 

6 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Comment of the Day, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, U.S. Society

6 responses to “Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quote Of The Month, Terrifying Thoughts Division: Daniel Greenfield”

  1. adimagejim

    Welcome to the human race. Choose between sins, failings, evils and levels of corrupt thinking and behavior.

    It’s fairly clear conservatives could have destroyed the prior President before being elected by truly exposing his past (or even present) writings, associations, extreme left political views and obvious obscuring of who he was (is). Those tolerant, weak or inconsistent efforts on the conservative side pale in comparison to the war of outright destruction being perpetrated by national and international organization leftist elites on this President (whose behavior I personally loathe).

    It seems one side is fighting a war. The other has been ceding ground at least since the beginning of the 21st century and still can’t quite grasp their demonization and marginalization is almost complete.

    This country is being Stalinized in evolutionary, and sometimes revolutionary, fashion before our very eyes. Will the response of the bitter clingers wait until the boarding orders onto the trains/planes/buses to the gulag? Remember, this President and his policy supporters are accused of being socially dangerous, if not mentally ill.

  2. Chris Marschner

    Jack,
    Thank you for the COTD.

    I read Adimagejim comment and I do not discount his conclusions. However, the real question is will we allow his thesis to reach its ultimate conclusion or do we step back and evaluate how we avoid such a conclusion without resorting to the “they did it first” rationalization.

    Personally, I do believe that Russia tried to influence our political landscape. Why shouldn’t they? They have interests too. Not ours, but from their perspective it serves to Make Russia Great Again. We too have a long history of trying to influence the political outcomes around the world to advance our interests. Why shouldn’t we, if we are in a global political economy?

    Simply because I believe that Russian operatives worked to influence our political landscape does not mean that I believe that any candidate willingly and actively colluded or conspired to collude with Russian operatives to gain an advantage over his/her opponent to steal the election. I have come to the conclusion that Russia cared little as to who won and the Putin’s objective was to create acrimony and recriminations internally leading to political chaos. What I do not understand is why our illustrious intelligence apparatus came to the ready conclusion that Trump was Putin’s man when other options based on the evidence exists. The only conclusion that I can deduce is that they wanted Trump to be their adversary because they are part of the ruling class in the Imperial City. As such they became pawns in Putin’s chess game.

    The strategy of letting your opponents destroy themselves so that you can walk in and triumph unimpeded is a common trope. Perhaps, Clapper and Brennan need to catch up on some James Bond films.

    “Siamese fighting fish — fascinating creatures. Brave, but on the whole, stupid. Yes, they’re stupid. Except for the occasional one, such as we have here, who lets the other two fight. While he waits. Waits until the survivor is so exhausted that he cannot defend himself, and then like SPECTRE… he strikes!”
    — Ernst Stavro Blofeld, From Russia with Love

    Why do I believe this was our adversary’s objective? There is one significant irreconcilable problem that perhaps others far smarter than me can answer. We hear that our intelligence sources state that Putin wanted Trump to win because Clapper, Brennan, et al believed that Putin believed he could not be as effective against the formidable Hillary Clinton. Trump was a neophyte in the geopolitical chess game and thus would be a pushover. If that is the case, why is there even a dossier on Trump developed by Russian operatives to discredit Trump. Shouldn’t the Russian sourced dossier work to discredit Clinton? How exactly does providing negative information about Trump to our intelligence apparatus help him get elected?

    Why do we accept as truth the statement that 17 Intelligence agencies confirmed that the Russians wanted to harm Hillary’s election bid when only several agencies actually evaluated the intelligence that came to that conclusion; all of whom reported to Clapper?

    That is particularly relevant given that James Clapper, a registered Democrat, who was the head of all the intelligence agencies had said that he saw no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians as of January 20, 2017 Today, he and John Brennan are currently working with Hollywood writer and producer Rob Reiner to investigate the Trump – Russia conspiracy. In an interview I saw recently with Laura Ingraham, Reiner said his role was to help get the story told and his media capabilities would help to educate the American public – he had the reach. Clapper has a history of convenient forgetfulness and I am being generous. He is a spook in the intelligence industry. It is part of the stock and trade. Why if he did not see any evidence by the time Trump was sworn in, is he working in Hollywood to investigate Trump now?

    Other than the fact that Trump made some fawning comments about Putin’s capabilities what else leads us to believe that Trump would be an easier roll geopolitically than his predecessor? Clapper himself said “You have to kind of salute the Chinese for what they did.” when Chinese hackers breached OPM servers. Does that make him a communist sympathizer or worse a double agent for China; of course not. More importantly, what evidence do we have that Clinton would have deviated from Obama’s methods and actions that would give Putin cause for concern? Obama was no hawk.

    If we continue to fight among ourselves, blindly following those with a vested interest in maintaining their power, we may miss the actual threats to our republic and way of life. Ultimately we will exhaust all our precious resources, destroy foundational institutions that serve to create stability and equality for all, and we will leave our flanks exposed for a third party to exploit our divided house. There is nothing wrong with legitimate investigations or questioning assumptions, but we must be willing to listen to the answers provided by real evidence before we come to any real conclusions. I think both sides can agree that America’s interest should come before party politics.

  3. adimagejim

    I wish I believed your conclusion to be true. The America they want is definitely not the one I want for myself or anyone else.

    We cannot even come close to agreeing among ourselves what “America’s interest” is. (Booing over chain migration content in SOTU.) Sadly, “real evidence” is not even in the realm of possible consideration for so many.

    My interest is not in doing anything because they did it first, but if one side is bent on the other’s utter destruction or submission of values, there isn’t much room for civil discourse or negotiation. Either the aggressors stop of their own volition or they are forced to stop.

    Your analysis is quite right about how this dangerously weakens us and makes us susceptible to all sorts of nefarious behavior by third parties.

    • Chris marschner

      Adim..

      I agree. When I speak of “They did it first” rationalization I am speaking of using underhanded tactics to undermine your opposition. For example: Durbin’s carrying tales out of a private meeting.

      It does our country no good to sink to the lowest levels of behavior simply to gain a political upper hand. Such behavior is what drives us apart.

      We must combat the insanity in DC by demanding all factual information relevant to the issue at hand and not work to undermine policy by creating the impression the the other guy is working to harm you.

      • Chris marschner

        We must also reject the continued use of dirty tricks when our side employs them as much as we do when the other side uses such divisive tactics.

        • … but the problem is that the dirty tactic is effective. I fear the alt right will never back away from this path, now that they have sold their very souls.

          Those without a past middle of nowhere crossroads rendezvous with the devil and a contract signed in rusty red must continue to call this as it is, of course.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.