Wait, WHAT? Democrats Think That They Aren’t Unethical ENOUGH?

There are so many things in today’s post-Kavanugh confirmation Politico piece that might explode an ethics-savvy readers’ head, the CDC should seek leave to ban it as a menace to public health.  The Thing is titled, Democrats Fear They’re the Wet Rag Party: Kavanaugh’s victory leaves many on the left saying it’s time to get mad—and even, and better proof of the reality of Trump Derangement and the ethics collapse of the Left  would  be hard to find.

A digression: Well, not TOO hard. A novelist and passionate progressive blogger named Chuck Wendig published this Twitter rant after the confirmation vote:

There will be renewed calls for civility. Ignore them. They ask for civility as a way for you to grant them complicity in what they do. Civility is for normalcy. When things are normal and working as intended, civility is part of maintaining balance. But when that balance is gone, civility does not help return it but rather, destabilize it further. Because your civility gives them cover for evil. Note: this isn’t the same as calling for violence. But it is suggesting that you should not be shamed for using vigorous, vulgar language. Or for standing up in disobedience. Or for demanding acknowledgement and action in whatever way you must.

Fuck Trump. But he’s just the ugly fake-gold mask they’ve put on this thing. Fuck all the GOP, fuck that blubbering, bristling frat boy judge, fuck McConnell, Ryan, Grassley, Collins, every last one of them. Fuck them for how they’ve shamed victims and helped dismantle democracy. They will tell you to smile, that we need to get back to business, that we gotta heal the rift and blah blah blah — but that’s the desire of a savvy bully, who wants you to stop crying after he hit you, who wants you not to fight back. But you can cry. And you can fight back. They can eat shit. All of them. They can eat a boot covered in shit. Winter is coming, you callous fucknecks, you prolapsed assholes, you grotesque monsters, you racists and rapists and wretched abusers, you vengeful petty horrors.

Sidenote: some will tell you to be civil because our rage and scorn will fuel the other side, but fuck that double standard in both its ears.

Well, if you hadn’t said those SASSY WORDS and demonstrated ANGER at our whittled-down democracy, I for a second might’ve been convinced not to eat this baby. But fie! Fie on you! Your incivility MADE me eat this baby!” Spoiler warning: they were always gonna eat that baby.

PS— It’s okay if you’re not okay.

I keep hearing the talking point that confirming Kavanaugh somehow undermined democracy. This is essentially a Big Lie, which the Democrats and “the resistance,” being totalitarians in training, are employing with increasing frequency, if not deftness. Democracy is allowing elected Presidents to appoint qualified judges to the Supreme Court, which is what Trump did, and the Democrats tried to prevent. Our democracy demands the presumption of innocence and due process, which Democrats tried to declare null and void. Our democracy demands equal justice under law, which means that accusers and the accused both have rights, and one gender isn’t accorded greater deference than the other.

How did poor Chuck’s brains and values get this scrambled?

End of digression: back to Politico. Reporter John Harris tells us that Democrats think they were too nice when they employed every cheap trick, unfair avenue of inquiry and a series of late, legally and factually dubious attacks on Kavanaugh’s character to defeat or at least delay his confirmation.

Does this post-confirmation quote make your head explode?

“They are more ruthless,” said Jennifer Palmieri, who over a quarter-century has served as a top aide to Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. “And I don’t want to be like them. … The answer can’t be for Democrats to be just as cynical.”

A veteran CLINTON aide says Republicans are more ruthless, after Democrats orchestrated a smear campaign in which a judge with an unblemished personal and professional career was repeatedly called a sexual predator and a serial rapist in the absence of any reliable evidence whatsoever?

How about this one:

This is more or less the Michelle Obama Doctrine, as articulated at the 2016 Democratic convention, just a few weeks before Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump: “When they go low, we go high.” Post-Kavanaugh Democrats interviewed this weekend aren’t exactly repudiating this idea—but they are qualifying it in important ways. As they articulate it, their answer is to be more realistic about what they see as Republicans’ strategy to disregard principle and process in their pursuit of power—as they argue the GOP did in ramming through Kavanaugh despite accusations of sexual assault—and more disciplined in a long-term way in fighting back.

What alternate universe is Michelle blathering about? High? Refusing to accept the results of the election is high? Boycotting the President’s Inauguration and pressuring performers not to help the nation celebrate democracy in its traditional day of bi-partisan welcome to a new POTUS is high?  Calling for impeachment before  a new President takes office is high? Proposing or attempting one effort to defy the election after another—See Impeachment Plans A,B,C, D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L, M, and N–is high?

The Republicans “rammed” nothing through, except in the sense that they employed the norm-busting no-filibuster tactic that DEMOCRATS (Thanks, Harry!) rammed through regarding federal judges nominated by President Obama. The “nuclear option” is high? Not blocking a confirmation because of a one late hit accusation that is “credible” but unconfirmable, and two others that not credible and stink like a week-old cod is not “ruthless” or “going low” but known as “fairness” and “the presumption of innocence”?

If this article had been written BEFORE the Kavanaugh ethics train wrck rolled out of the station, it would have made my head explode. Sanctuary cities—high? Using and financing children to carry an anti-Second Amendment message to the public—high?

Advocating mob-harassing and bullying Republican officials and members of the Trump administration in restaurants and on the street—high? HIGH?

ARGHHHHHHHH…

 

Now this one:

Republicans treasure their own grievances about what they view as the opposition’s willingness to win ugly (see Bork, Robert), often with the added claim that the “mainstream media” is serving as accomplice.

Claim???? Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! Did the author read the web, newspapers, or any broadcast source other than Brietbart, the New York Post and Fox News? Is Politico kidding, lying, or hopeless biased?

CNN veteran Frank Sesno, who was last on the air when there was still some semblance of journalism ethics, took on CNN’s fake-ethicist hack Brian Stelter yestoday when the mainsteam media apologist defended the overwhelmingly biased coverage of the Kavanaugh hearings.

Stelter had downplayed the liberal media’s enthusiasm for smearing Kavanaugh as simply “misreporting” on their part. “Do you think the press is coming out of this looking weaker because many people feel that the press chose a side through this,” he asked Sesno?

Ya think????

Said Sesno:

Yes. Certainly, that’s the way it’s going to look to Trump supporters and to people who have been questioning media’s bias and their ability to report straight for a long time. We know where the public trust numbers are for the press, and it’s generally somewhere down below the basement.

Look, the fact of the matter is, by any reasonable measure, this has been an extraordinary week for this president. Forget the Russia investigation. Forget the tax story. Forget all the rest. Trade deal with Mexico and Canada, unemployment numbers that haven’t been this low since 1969. And following through on what he said, which was to remake the Supreme Court and a triumph with Kavanaugh himself.

The coverage has been unrelentingly negative. In many cases deserved that the kind of coverage a president – any president gets. But what the public and what the White House come away from this with is some fair territory to wag their fingers and say, I told you so. Even Joe Scarborough goes on the air says the mainstream media was unfair toward the President. So, there’s going to be some very serious thinking now and as the county – as you pointed out—as divided, more divided than it’s ever been coming out of this Kavanaugh thing around this stuff, I think the challenge grows greater for the media to figure out where it’s going and how it’s going to try to find as balance in all of this.

There are many more examples of delusion in the Politico piece, along with misleading stats and false equivalencies, but my head is in tatters. Oh all right, maybe one more: here’s what Politico, and apparently many Democrats, think are equivalent episodes:

Al Franken is a long-time liberal warrior accused of predatory sexual behavior who is now licking his wounds in exile.

Brett Kavanaugh is a long-time conservative warrior accused of predatory sexual behavior who is now licking his wounds on the United States Supreme Court.

Franken’s primary accuser had photographic evidence to back her complaint. Other accusations were never investigated, and Franken never clearly denied them. He did not have to resign, and indeed could not have been forced out of office based on what was alleged. Nobody called him a rapist or sexual predator, nor was he ever referred to as a predator. The Franken  conduct that was supported by evidence all occurred while he was an adult, and shortly before his election. The behavior that was in the “he said/she said” category occurred while he was in office as a U.S. Senator. Franken resigned before any investigation took place because his own party deliberately sacrificed him, and he refused to fight for his job and his reputation.

There is no just comparison to Kavanaugh, who was supposed to be considered for the court based on his record as a judge, not as a “long-time conservative warrior.” The accusations against him all involved conduct allged to have occurred before he was an adult, or before he entered the workforce, and were decades old. Democrats, not Republicans, bullied Franken into resigning, so Democrats were not being “nice” by assaulting their own, and were definitely not “going high.” (They thought it would strengthen their claim that President Trump should resign because of accusations of pre-Presidency  of sexual assault.)

If this is the kind of logic Democrats are going to use to justify becoming even more unethical than they already are, Heaven help us all.

And if this episode has further polarized the American public into two warring sides, it is not conservatives versus liberals, or Republicans vs Democrats. The distant sides consist of those who are willing to discard basic ethical values, decency and fairness, as well as due process, presumption of innocence, respect for our institutions and consistent standards equally applied, all in the pursuit of  power,  and those who are not.

________________________

Pointers: Twitchy

Source: Newsbusters

69 Comments

Filed under Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Etiquette and manners, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Kaboom!, Law & Law Enforcement, U.S. Society

69 responses to “Wait, WHAT? Democrats Think That They Aren’t Unethical ENOUGH?

    • A.M. Golden

      In a nutshell: Democrats are leaning toward totalitarianism, but Susan Collins’ speech is signature significance to me that the Republicans only care about power which makes them much worse and so I’m quitting the party and will be an independent voter. In other words, gobbledy-gook

    • Glenn Logan

      I’ll give it a stab. Consider this graf:

      But I can’t deny that I’ve strayed from the party. I believe abortion should remain legal. I am against the death penalty in all its forms outside of killing in war. I don’t think what’s good for massive corporations is always good for America. In foreign affairs, I am an institutionalist, a supporter of working through international bodies and agreements. I think our defense budget is too big, too centered on expensive toys, and that we are still too entranced by nuclear weapons.

      I believe in the importance of diversity and toleration. I would like a shorter tax code. I would also like people to exhibit some public decorum and keep their shoes on in public.

      The man is a classic moderate Republican/Democrat. You pick. His views could be the views of Susan Collins, Joe Manchin, or Phil Bresden, generally speaking.

      So we begin with that. He’s a person who’s views place him on what today qualifies as the fringe of both parties. We don’t know enough about his abortion views to classify him too well, because as we all know, abortion is a litmus test issue. Keeping abortion legal is the very minimum support level to be a Democrat, and isn’t quite enough to get you declared an outcast among Republicans, although it’s close.

      His lack of support for the death penalty is further evidence of this, although these days, it has become much more common for Republicans to be skeptical of the death penalty except in extreme cases. His corporations and foreign affairs comment further place him as a moderate.

      Here is the crux of the biscuit:

      But whatever my concerns about liberals, the true authoritarian muscle is now being flexed by the GOP, in a kind of buzzy, steroidal McCarthyism that lacks even anti-communism as a central organizing principle. The Republican Party, which controls all three branches of government and yet is addicted to whining about its own victimhood, is now the party of situational ethics and moral relativism in the name of winning at all costs.

      What this boils down to is a man being pulled to the left by the media. He calls the Tea Party “tomfoolery,” which suggests he is addicted to the conventional politics of the 1980’s and 1990’s. He remembers the 1970’s and 1980’s with the fuzzy warmth of a Luddite, when “country club” Republicans were the dominant force of the party, senators used to vote 98-0 for judicial confirmations, and the very thought of accusing a judge of sexual impropriety without sufficient evidence would’ve caused a case of the vapors in senators of either party.

      In short, he’s a man stuck in the past who has no taste for the unfettered partisan warfare of the present. I actually feel his pain. Unlike him, however, I do not live in 1984, when neither party was radical, the Internet (or at least, its backbone TCP/IP) was barely conceived, let alone social media, and the mob (and I don’t mean organized crime) didn’t run one of the two major parties.

      In the end, it’s the sad story of a weak-minded man who wants everything to be a compromise. He doesn’t want the country to be overrun by yelling barbarians with clubs, but other than that, he’s a milquetoast who has no taste for the bloodsport that US politics has become, and has made the mistake of mostly believing what the media tells him. In other words, he’s one of those unaffiliated voters both parties work hard to woo.

      God bless him. As I said, I feel for him. I often feel the same way, but I’m too self-aware not to realize that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and the Democrat party and its enabling social media mob and compliant press has devolved from an opponent to an enemy, not just of our political process, but of our foundational principles. Unlike him, I’m not too disgusted to pick a side when the stakes are that high.

      • Sharp analysis, Glenn. What I still don’t get is how a moderate, or anyone honest, frankly, would see the Kavanaugh mess as the tipping point to leave the Republicans. I note that he doesn’t say he’s now a Democrat, but the criticism of Collins, and McConnell for not yielding to the Democrat’s ugly strategy, bewilders me.

        I have to conclude that the man just isn’t very bright or informed, and yes, I blame the news media for the latter.

        • Glenn Logan

          My supposition, based on the rest of the article, is that he objects to it as a partisan power play. As I say, he’s living in an idealized version of the 1980’s where even power plays had rules. Until Bork and Thomas came along, nobody could imagine a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed (or rejected) by a bare majority. He seems to think Kavanaugh should’ve been withdrawn and a less controversial nominee put forward – as if that were actually possible for either party.

          Note that his whole belief system seems centered around compromise as a necessity rather than as a desirable quality, especially when it comes to Supreme Court judges. He still can’t come to grips with the reality that the idea of a non-ideological Supreme Court has always been a fantasy, and it was never designed to be that way. The founders merely hoped the advise and consent rule would weed out the worst, and I think generally that it has.

          But this guy doesn’t care about that. He wants us all to hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya when it comes to judges. I wish I lived in his world, but unfortunately, I’m stuck with the real one.

        • I asked him where he plans to go.

          His thesis was essentially that the GOP is now *THE* party of moral relativism and situational ethics.

          I reminded him that the DNC has been that party for generations, possibly even back to FDR.

          Where does he plan to go?

          Then I asked him if his real problem was merely Trump.

          I got no answer.

        • Jack Marshall wrote, “What I still don’t get is how a moderate, or anyone honest, frankly, would see the Kavanaugh mess as the tipping point to leave the Republicans.”

          Jack he’s clearly a product of propaganda that’s been directly targeting emotions and he’s literally been dumbed down by his own emotions.

          The political left tactics have now completely shifted to believing and promoting that Emotion Trumps Critical Thinking; sadly it’s working to push both sides further and further apart.

    • Tom Nichols is a never Trumper who is suffering from extreme TDS.

  1. DaveL

    Having heard of one threat to “democracy” after another since Trump won the election, I am forced to conclude that they take the term to mean “rule by the Democratic Party”. It all makes much more sense when you read it that way.

    • Glenn Logan

      Heh. Indeed it does. Just like thinking about mainstream media reporters as Democratic operatives with bylines.

    • The real thing that has me worried is that the absolute frenzy the Left has whipped itself into as though they are facing an existential crisis is increased claims of all the things the GOP will now be able to “do to them” now that there is a “right wing” SCOTUS.

      When I hear that kind of hyperbolic angst, I am partially led to believe that in reality, what we’re hearing is all the things the Left wants to do the Right if it ever gets power back. I mean, that’s how extremism works. It cannot live with differing points of view.

      I know the Right will not do anything “to” Leftwingers. But I am sure nervous that that is the way the Left views politics. Pretty scary.

      • Perhaps they understand that they have eliminated most, if not all, of the principled in politics, and their opponents have no problem whatsoever with using their tactics against them.

        They should be scared.

        • Except they have no reason to be scared. Have any prominent right wing leadership actually made any hints of *actual* retribution against left wingers?

          NOPE!

          The Left has promised that Right wingers plan on putting homosexuals into camps. Returning African Americans back to plantations. Placing women into roles as sex slaves and baby farms.

          Not a single bit of which can be found in even the most painfully spun of remote utterances by Republican leadership.

          I can’t say that Leftwing leadership hasn’t actually encouraged its followers towards aggressive behavior towards conservatives.

          The Left has nothing to fear because unlike the Left, the Right will still end up following the rules.

          • …the Right will still end up following the rules

            Like not using the nuclear option? (The Turtle)

            How about not answering them and defending oneself on Twitter? (Trump, by definition a leader in the GOP)

            Limiting Abortion by State law? (Texas, among other states)

            Oh, the pendulum is swinging, no doubt.

            • No, like the fact that we aren’t going to murder them at baseball games.

              We aren’t going to find out where they like to eat and hound them out of living their lives.

              We aren’t going to release all their personal information so that they live in fear that some psychopath may go after their children.

              THEIR misconduct goes well beyond policy.

              • I pray you are correct… I fear otherwise. Been to any new right blog comments lately?

                • The “New Right” is NOT right wing in the American sense.

                  It’s cosplaying some sort of Apt Pupil European politics, where the European “Right” is NOT anything remotely similar to the American Right.

                  The European Right looks just like the American Left (and also like the European Left), with the only difference being the European Right wants a welfare state with heavy economic regulation but just for themselves and no foreigners.

                  These “New Right” dolts are pretending to be American Right Wing.

                  They are not.

                  Quit falling for Leftist talking points.

                  • We are not discussing the same group.

                    I googled to see what you are talking about, and you are correct: I had not realized there were folks using that designation, and they are exactly as you describe.

                    My intention was to refer to the Alt-right, who are eschewing that term as it has been vilified by the media and the left (sorry to repeat myself)

                    These have nothing to do with Nazis: they are Reagan conservatives who are now forgoing their principled stance in favor of playing the game by the rules of Alinsky. They are beginning to play by the twisted Golden Rule: ‘Do unto others as they have done unto you.’ They have a lifetime of having their American values being used to defeat them, and are sensing an existential fight which they must win, even if they become what they used to despise. One of the tropes is ‘…so let me be evil.’ “Smile, smile, and be a villain”

                    They are what the left should fear: critical thinkers who have consciously chosen to inflict maximum pain on those who have persecuted them for decades. They are staffers in the highest circles of Washington.

                    Their influence is reaching even the Establishment GOP, who begin to see the peril and are fighting back.

  2. Glenn Logan

    Jack, this is a fine Fisking of an ethically execrable travesty of an article. The first question I ask is, who wrote it?

    It turns out that it’s Politico’s Editor in Chief, John Harris (not just some reporter) who came from — you guessed it — the Washington Post. He wrote a book with accused serial sexual abuser and #MeToo victim Mark Halperin (note: Halperin’s fall from grace appears to be entirely justified, having been accused by multiple subordinate women).

    Claim???? Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! Did the author read the web, newspapers, or any broadcast source other than Brietbart, the New York Post and Fox News? Is Politico kidding, lying, or hopeless biased?

    Well, I think most of us are discerning enough to answer that one; for the record, I choose door #3.

    Further from the Politico piece:

    As they [the Democrats] articulate it, their answer is to be more realistic about what they see as Republicans’ strategy to disregard principle and process in their pursuit of power—as they argue the GOP did in ramming through Kavanaugh despite accusations of sexual assault—and more disciplined in a long-term way in fighting back.

    One key, some prominent voices say, is more willingness to behave rudely, even in the respectable parlors where Democrats historically have turned for validation. [My emphasis]

    More rudely? Oh, please let this happen. Please God, let them follow this advice. I don’t know how much more rude it gets than what happened in the Kavanaugh hearing, particularly the Democratic senators’ questioning thereof, but apparently there are levels yet unseen.

    Do they really think that the vast majority of normal Americans who don’t necessarily share their passion will find this rudeness appealing? Is that where we are now, that the loudest, most rude, vulgar, and objectionably uncouth voice carries the day? I did recently describe US politics as reminiscent of a banana republic, didn’t I? Seems more right now than ever.

    This made me laugh:

    I have heard no Democrats say even privately that they think the path to victory involves being more tolerant of sexual harassers or other miscreants in the ranks (though it is not hard to find people on background who say the party may have been too quick to make Franken walk the plank).

    They think hypocrisy is the path to victory — pointing out the mote in the Republican’s eye (the merest suspicion is enough) while ignoring the giant Redwood in their own. Great plan. I’m sure America would jump all over that.

    “They said, ‘Yeah we’re just not doing that,’” Tanden said, adding, “Democrats keep playing by a set of rules and then [Republicans] change the rules; but now that’s changing.”

    Yeah, like the judicial filibuster thing. The Republicans changed those r… oh, wait.

    Look, both parties engage in power politics. The article doesn’t mention the norm-busting of the Obamacare debacle, because it doesn’t suit the objective of making Democrats into the victim of Republican totalitarianism. Obamacare alone constitutes the greatest breach of faith by a political party in U.S. history, taken in its totality. Everything the Republicans have ever done doesn’t even get to 10% of that abortion, yet it finds no place in this article’s discussion.

    But that’s because it’s been swept into the memory hole.

    • Glenn Logan

      Oops, I misread the paragraph after “this made me laugh,” and gigged them for hypocrisy. That was in error, and I regret it. Please disregard that comment.

      Darn, I wish I had a 90 second editing period when my proofreading fails me. Alas.

    • Harry Reid? Who’s Harry Reid?

      • I don’t know…but he and one of the Board of Directors of Netflix, named Susan Rice, keep popping off like their opinion matters.

        Someone who goes by Hillary also keeps weighing in.

        I don’t get it.

  3. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Compared to Jim Wright’s crazy, violent rant on the blog Stonekettle Station after Charlottesville, this rant is frankly mild. Look, when you’re a parent or a boss you can scare your kid or your employee by losing your temper. Unfortunately the Democratic party is not everyone’s parent and it isn’t boss of this nation. Raise your voice all you want, drop all the f-bombs you want, but, in the end, we just saw you can be beaten if we stick to our guns.

    My brother once criticized me for being the only person who would talk about the Battle of Lepanto, but I think it fits here, as part of the larger point I am trying to make. For the longest time Europe feared the Ottoman Turks and Islam as an unstoppable force in warfare, and they’d frequently flee or withdraw rather than offer resistance. Then in 1509 the Portuguese Empire, with some able help from the Venetians, blew the Muslims out of the water at Diu, and took over the Indian Ocean. A generation or two later the Turks were thrown back in defeat from the shores of Malta by the Knights of St John and their fleet was not just defeated, but ANNIHILATED off the coast of Lepanto by the Holy League (the story of the battle chapter and verse is colorful, but I want to keep this short).

    After these defeats, the myth of Turkish invulnerability was broken, and Europe wasn’t afraid to fight back. They actually did quite well, as the Ottoman Empire began the long, slow slide down into the Third World, from whence it will never rise. At this point the myth of Democratic, or progressive invulnerability is broken, and the right shouldn’t be afraid to fight back.

      • Note that the Feast Day was just yesterday….

        “Pope Pius V, whose treasury bankrolled part of this military endeavor, ordered the churches of Rome opened for prayer day and night, encouraging the faithful to petition the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary through the recitation of the Rosary. When word reached the Pope Pius of the victory of the Holy League, he added a new feast day to the Roman Liturgical Calendar- October 7th would henceforth be the feast of Our Lady of Victory. Pope Pius’ successor, Gregory XIII would change the name of this day to the feast of the Holy Rosary.”

      • From Othello:

        News, lads! our wars are done.

        The desperate tempest hath so bang’d the Turks,

        That their designment halts: a noble ship of Venice

        Hath seen a grievous wreck and sufferance

        On most part of their fleet.

  4. Oh I’ll take a swing at it:

    Maybe it’s me. I’m not a Republican anymore, but am I still a conservative? Limited government: check. Strong national defense: check. Respect for tradition and deep distrust of sudden, dramatic change: check. Belief that people spend their money more wisely than government? That America is an exceptional nation with a global mission? That we are, in fact, a shining city on a hill and an example to others? Check, check, check.

    Were you ever — really — a Conservative? Because if you were I’d imagine that you’d have a bit more to say about it. You’d be able to clearly define a value-set that has a deeper foundation than just the *talking points* that you mention: a superficial stance for a superficial intellect.

    The problem with your ‘Conservatism’ is that the intellectual underpinning in it has drained out. You sort-of had a sort-of idea about what Conservatism is but, push come to shove, you exit the struggle for the only position your weak intellect allows: go-with-the-flow progressivism. In this way you show that you have an unsubstantial anchor. You do not define your ‘anchor’ and cannot pull it off. The surrounding culture — its liberal gravity — define you.

    But I can’t deny that I’ve strayed from the party. I believe abortion should remain legal. I am against the death penalty in all its forms outside of killing in war. I don’t think what’s good for massive corporations is always good for America. In foreign affairs, I am an institutionalist, a supporter of working through international bodies and agreements. I think our defense budget is too big, too centered on expensive toys, and that we are still too entranced by nuclear weapons.

    How weak and how un-virile. How fundamentally un-intellectual. How complacent and incapable of a stronger definitional stance. You likely do not have a *position* but rather a convenient place — a safe one — where you have located yourself. In this paragraph you give voice to safe platitudes. However, it could be suggested that to have a Conservative position must require a more deep-seated and better foundationed political philosophy. In the paragraph you allude to the safe positions you have likely taken and it amounts to no defense of any structured value.

    I admit that you would — I hope — be able to flesh-out your values in respect to these important questions. But I also doubt it. Complacency and groupthink function so strongly within America.

    I believe in the importance of diversity and toleration. I would like a shorter tax code. I would also like people to exhibit some public decorum and keep their shoes on in public.

    We move closer to the meat and why you cannot be, despite your declarations, a Conservative. ‘Diversity’ and ‘toleration’ are, here, loaded words and words that require translation and interpretation. You reveal yourself as a right-of-center Progressive. You would have to be able to define why ‘diversity’ is not necessarily a good thing, a desired thing, in order to have an intellectual position about it. But in a general atmosphere of political correctness, you could not take that risk.

    To be Conservative — to be structured intellectually and to have a platform in ideas that you define and defend — would require being able to describe why limiting diversity can be necessary; and why ‘toleration’ is, at times, weakness and indecisiveness.

    Does this make me a liberal? No. I do not believe that human nature is malleable clay to be reshaped by wise government policy. Many of my views, which flow from that basic conservative idea, are not welcome in a Democratic tribe in the grip of the madness of identity politics.

    In order to answer that question you would have to have greater historical awareness, more philosophical understanding, more grounding in the world of ideas. But when you use the term ‘liberal’ you use it in a vague way (which is understandable). To define Conservatism would mean to be able to argue against both Liberalism and the ‘liberalism’ in your usage. The former is historical and intellectual; the latter social and cultural (and sociological). I suggest that you — and a far larger plurality of persons — cannot examine yourself in a historical position. You are perhaps more a product of your TeeVee than of structured ideas and values.

    But whatever my concerns about liberals, the true authoritarian muscle is now being flexed by the GOP, in a kind of buzzy, steroidal McCarthyism that lacks even anti-communism as a central organizing principle. The Republican Party, which controls all three branches of government and yet is addicted to whining about its own victimhood, is now the party of situational ethics and moral relativism in the name of winning at all costs.

    Sure, but to define a position against one very powerful, and also entrenched, political faction within the United States would require definite a great deal more character and strength. How would you do it? And what and who would you have to take an intellectual stance against to pull it off? To see into the dynamics at work in our present requires a moral and ethical grounding that can see and describe (and denounce) political predation and the means by which Lies are used in politics. Sophisticated public relations, propaganda, collusion in manipulating the ‘masses’ (and they use such vulgar Marxian terms when they speak about people), the structures of power that define the United States at a rather late date in a decadent nation: you would have to be able to see and describe these things, and then to define a relevant Conservatism: something to oppose it, something to correct it.

    So, I’m out. The Trumpers and the hucksters and the consultants and the hangers-on, like a colony of bees who exist only to sting and die, have swarmed together in a dangerous but suicidal cloud, and when that mindless hive finally extinguishes itself in a blaze of venom, there will be nothing left.

    You’re not ‘out’, you are in but in another way, or from a different angle. There is no getting out. The only way to get out is through taking all things into consideration in a new way. By allowing a far larger, and far more difficult, conversation to take form at a national-intellectual level. The work, if I can use this term, is essentially a radically personal project of revision, reanalysis, reconsideration of EVERYTHING. Every difficult question, including the ones that are totally non-permitted in American discourse, needs to be broached.

    But go ahead: hole yourself up within Safe Structures where the light does not enter. You and tens of millions do just this! How proud you must be!

    I’m a divorced man who is remarried. But love, in some ways, is easier than politics. I spent nearly 40 years as a Republican, a relationship that began when I joined a revitalized GOP that saw itself not as a victim, but as the vehicle for lifting America out of the wreckage of the 1970s, defeating the Soviet Union, and extending human freedom at home and abroad. I stayed during the turbulence of the Tea Party tomfoolery. I moved out briefly during the abusive 2012 primaries. But now I’m filing for divorce, and I am taking nothing with me when I go.

    Well, there you have it. If that is where your ideological and philosophical self is anchored little more need be said! If your American Value is hinged to ‘defeating the Soviet Union’ you are totally the victim of absurdist propaganda. Is that all you have to say?!? What in the name of Heaven does ‘the wreckage of the 1970s’ mean?

    Ah, right, and the finale is in the perpetual reference to ‘freeing the world from itself’:

    In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
    With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
    As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
    While God is marching on.

    >

    I regret to inform you that this is a badly-founded political, social, spiritual, ethical and moral position to have. It is not that Christ was not born, nor that salvation is not real and a worthy life-project (that is worked out in fear & trembling), but that it cannot be confused with political objects and neo-imperialism, nor Big Business, nor a War Machine.

    To *see through* (if you’ll permit the turn of phrase) the machinations of power requires a better grounded metaphysical and spiritual mind. If you desire to make your Christianity real, then really make it real. First order of business: Stop the con-job! You see, this hubris requires a response and it is like a cold slap when last you expected such.

    Really, the phrase extending human freedom at home and abroad needs to be examined in a far more intellectual light, not just as a sick platitude. If you want to tall about the meaning of freedom then talk about everything that enslaves the individual in a spiritual sense. Then come back around to a critique of structures of power established precisely to keep people in modern forms of darkness.

    • But I can’t deny that I’ve strayed from the party. I believe abortion should remain legal. I am against the death penalty in all its forms outside of killing in war. I don’t think what’s good for massive corporations is always good for America. In foreign affairs, I am an institutionalist, a supporter of working through international bodies and agreements. I think our defense budget is too big, too centered on expensive toys, and that we are still too entranced by nuclear weapons.

      I must say, my reaction to this section is similar to yours—and this guy teaches at the Naval college?

      And I doubt that you’d find many, if any conservatives or Republicans who think that “what’s good for massive corporations is always good for America.”

      • Michael, what is the connection between Lepanto and Sumter?

        • Something that I suppose you’ll take 27 paragraphs not getting around to mentioning.

          • Try to say something definite. I can see no connection between the two. Or, the differences are too stark to create any comparison.

            • Oh, I thought you were trying to be clever and show us your “infinite” book smarts by leading to an exhaustive demonstration of some trivial link between Sumter and Lepanto. Since my Sumter link was clearly not at all linked to your Lepanto image in any way, it seemed to me the ball was in your court on this.

              But now that I see you were confused by the manner in which WordPress organizes posts, I’ll answer you:

              I don’t know of any link between Sumter and Lepanto, and as my comment wasn’t linked to yours, I wasn’t making a link between the two.

              My posting of a link to a picture (which wordpress traditionally renders as the picture and not as a link…hence my response “Dang” when it rendered the link and not the picture) was supposed to evoke the fact that the last time the Democrats took things too far, they attacked the United States of America in open and armed rebellion.

              • Got it. Boy, you are confused.

                There would be no such thing as a ‘trivial link’ between human events of magnitude.

                However, the defeat and destruction of the South would stand diametrically in opposition to the ‘win’ of Lepanto. The win of Lepanto led to a consolidation of culture and culture values.

                Democrats took things too far, they attacked the United States of America in open and armed rebellion.

                That is how unoriginal, patterned historical seeing works. It does not clarify, it obscures.

                Here is the correction.

                The North’s destruction of the South — the will in it, the evil intentions, the harm done — is a source of conflict and one that, in octaves, shows up in the present.

                Obviously, you locate yourself within a *false-discourse* and a false historical interpretation which is also manifest in our present.

                Until you get to the point of seeing correctly — much more fairly, more accurately and precisely — your view-structure will continue to function destructively and you will remain . . .

                . . . part of the problem and no part of a solution.

                Any finite questions? I’ll attempt to answer them infinitely. 🙂

              • …was supposed to evoke the fact that the last time the Democrats took things too far, they attacked the United States of America in open and armed rebellion.

                The more that I see what you are trying to say, the more I understand how diseased is your understanding of things! The reason this is important (not ‘trivial’ by any means) is that you are imposing a fixed, but erroneous view, on the events of the present.

                The implication is that the provocations of the Democrats is similar to the so-called ‘rebellion’ (this is fully a northern term and not one shared by the South) which will require a *righteous response* by the Republicans. The modelling here is so simplistic, so idiotic in fact, that it is shameful (if you will permit me that term).

                In fact, the zealousness of the North in the ACW struggle is comparable to the activism of the Democrats and those enmaddened throngs. They have more in common with Republican radicals and just about the same amount of hubristic self-understanding.

                If anything at all, the present cultural situation is a direct result of the North’s destruction of the South. I mean, many links exist.

                But you simply cannot see this. You have these industrial-grade filters which whirr into motion at the mere suggestion! You can defeat and knock down any ideas that operate against your Perceptual Edifice, and you do this because you yourself have been infected by radical progressivism!

                But you project onto the Democrats and, certainly, they project onto you. You are part of the same system. Poles of a binary structure.

                Get out of that projection trap, son! Sign up for my 10 Week Email Curse. Lose a little weight. Sing.

                I am here to help!

  5. Here is my pessimistic view of current events and I even added some over the edge pessimistic predictions. I really didn’t want to clutter up Ethics Alarms with this kind of pessimism so here’s a link:

    The United States Political Left Has Been Permanently Radicalized

  6. Aaron paschall

    I have stopped engaging most of my more liberal friends and coworkers, simply because of this midset. The calmer ones are upset because of what they see on the news. The rabid ones have driven their heads deep into the rabbit hole.

    Them – The smears on Cavanaugh were justified because of Garland. They were exactly the same reaction. I point out Thomas and Bork, they shrug and say that was the way the game has always been played, and those were justified by some other, previous, (imaginary) behaviour.

    Them – Trump is simultaneously a babbling idiot and a master of 4-d chess, intent on reworking the world for the benefit of the master race-the rich-all men- the state, whatever the monster of the week happens to be. Try to question his obvious racism, point out that he’s actually accomplishing things – through the proper channels, even! – and you’re added to the attack list.

    The republicans? They’re evil personified! At least the Nazis had the decency to reveal how evil they were to the whole world. The republicans keep it a thinly-veiled secret. They’re all monsters and racists, sexist to the core, and the way they move in uniform lockstep is terrifying! There’s no arguing or debate, they’re like the borg. Any attempt to mitigate this hate storm will result in you being blown away, and their identically-thinking friends will cheer them on for grinding you beneath their heel. If you actually do make a point, make them think, it will be dismissed because you’re just a man/white/conservative/religious.

    They honestly think that religion is ascendant in the western world today, the right desires totalitarianism, the handmaid’s tale, and the right to shoot children in schools. There is no media bias, and if the is, it’s conservatively biased because so many of their own favorite left-wing conspiracies are being hidden from the world. They genuinely believe the left opposes the right, but is also the only path to a free, happy, healthy, diverse, tolerant, work-free, stress-free, post-financial future where the only corporations are benevolent apples and facebooks, smiling down as they hand out the latest toys for free. Black is white, up is down, and good is evil. And I see no way of helping them free from the madness. And it’s spreading.

    • “They honestly think that religion is ascendant in the western world today”

      They don’t know how right they are. It isn’t an Abrahamic religion though that is ascendent. It is a terrifying and dark religion that ends in the sacrifice of hundreds of millions on its altar.

  7. Seriously folks; for the political left to change tactics now would be tantamount to an admission that what they’ve been doing is wrong and they simply cannot fathom that anything they do is wrong; therefore, their scorched earth and take no prisoners strategy of Political Antiology will continue and progressively get worse.

    The political left is no longer on a slippery slope, it’s a vertical drop!

  8. Scooter

    I used to read Wendig’s blog and books when I was an aspiring writer as he had an interesting writing style, albeit far more extreme than my own.

    Wendig had best start frantically deleting blog posts and entire books if he iis going to leap headfirst into the post-Kavanaugh fray. He makes constant rape jokes, often involving animals.

    Myself a conservative with libertarian leanings, I hold that he can write whatever he wants provided it doesn’t cross the very limited threshold into non-protected speech. However, he seems to have forgotten that the Left eats his own, and that any who have ever said anything the least bit unsavory will forever wear a scarlet “R.”

    • I never understood why anyone would think jokes like that were funny. Or why that would make anyone think you were clever or had any facility with words. There’s plenty of other writers to learn from…

      • Scooter

        He had a knack for juxtaposing things in innovative ways. I enjoyed some of his writing a great deal. I am of the mind that something always can be learned whether you agree with it in its totality or not.

  9. Imagine a foot race in which 2 runners are to run around a square from point A to B to C to D. The democrats are essentially saying that even though they ran as fast as they could and pulled out all the stops by running directly from A to D, the republicans still beat them running A,B,C,D… so all the Democrats need to do is make sure they run faster next time and be able to curse while doing it.

  10. Of course, all this analysis was predictable. Senior DNC leadership had already been calling for their followers to harass and behave aggressively towards conservatives, anyway.

  11. Here is what the Harris bitch had wrote.

    http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2018/10/kamala_harris_in_ohio_calls.html

    “Let’s speak the truth that it was a denial of justice for the women of this country and sexual assault survivors, men and women,” said Harris, a potential 2020 presidential contender whose profile was raised in recent weeks by her questioning of Kavanaugh in the Senate Judiciary Committee about accusations of sexual assault.

    “What we have been witnessing is a display and an exercise of raw power,” she continued. “Power that is being exercised not just to win, but to demean, and deflate, and defeat. And we are better than this.”

    • Glenn Logan

      “What we have been witnessing is a display and an exercise of raw power,” she continued. “Power that is being exercised not just to win, but to demean, and deflate, and defeat. And we are better than this.”

      What you mean “We,” Kimosabe-ette?

      • Here is another thing the Harris bitch had said.

        http://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.israel/k4OvsDOxGlM/gdo8uXL1BQAJ

        “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine
        who can carry a concealed weapon,” said Kamala Harris, who was then the
        California Attorney General.

        I have always wondered how #BlackLivesMatter would view this. After all,
        according to their narrative, cops are just Klansmen with badges who
        habitually gun down unarmed black men. How could we trust such people with
        discretion to determine who may carry a concealed weapon.

        And yet, just yesterday, she tweeted this:

        Today, we remember #MikeBrown and recommit to ensuring truth,
        transparency, and trust in our criminal justice system. #BlackLivesMatter

        So I wonder if any reporter from the network broadcast and print media would
        ask her any of the following questions:

        – If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
        discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they
        are just Klansmen with badges, why shouldn’t the Stormfront White
        Nationalist Community also get to decide who can carry a concealed weapon?

        – If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
        discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they
        habitually gun down unarmed black men, why shouldn’t the Crips also get to
        decide who can carry a concealed weapon?

        – Is more black men dead or in prison a worthy price to pay to make lawful
        gun ownership more difficult?

        – Is making lawful gun ownership more difficult a worthy price to pay to put
        more black men in prison?

        – Does some magical guardian fairy turn these Klansmen with badges into
        freedom riders whenever they exercise their “discretion to determine who can
        carry a concealed weapon”?

    • I nominate Harris for the first shift at Michael’s water producing hand pumps!

  12. Regarding Wendig, the people calling for civility are doing so because incivility almost always inhibits coherent, concrete, and sensible statements.

    Anyone who resists civility is doing so because they have nothing coherent, concrete, and sensible to say.

    It occurs to me that the people who want to curtail First Amendment rights are the ones who are incompetent at reasoning and communicating and therefore don’t know how to access the benefits of that right for themselves and their own ideas. (Or they’re not willing to admit that their ideas as stated can’t stand up to criticism.)

  13. Anyone else enjoying watching the Media heads trying to salvage some of their dignity by lambasting President Trump for misspeaking when he said Kavanaugh was “proven innocent”?

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.