There are so many posts here that I forget I wrote many of them, and definitely forget exactly what I wrote in them. I do check old posts when I stumble upon them to see how I assess Past Me as kind of an integrity check. It is remarkable, or maybe its an indictment, that I still agree with myself 99% of the time, no matter how much time has passed. As is often the case when an old post comes back into view, it was a new comment—nothing substantive– that unearthed this one, a post on the topic tagged as the 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck here.
Two years ago I was getting complaints that I was spending too much time and print writing about the progressive/Democratic Party/ news media/”resistance” efforts to ensure the failure and rejection of Donald Trump as President before his administration even got started. I had been writing about the dangerous divisiveness and government dysfunction that this conduct would inevitably lead to if it didn’t stop for just two months. I wrote this post in response to those complaints.
Incredibly, shockingly, depressingly, dangerously, nothing has improved. Indeed, it has gotten worse. A lot has happened: impeachment plans A though O have been floated, advocated and pursued. The news media has been transformed into a virtual vigilante arm of “the resistance.” It is also one of the many democratic institutions that has been weakened, losing public trust and deserving to do so. Meanwhile, Ethics Alarms, in great part because it has refused to capitulate to this culturally suicidal madness, has lost readership and support. The problem is that opposing the broad-based effort to destroy an elected President regardless of the deep wounds it inflicts on democracy and society is seen by the deranged as endorsing the persona, character, methods and all of the policies of Trump himself—seen as, or cynically and dishonestly characterized as such to avoid confronting my analysis. (Hello, Facebook!)
Reading this post after everything that has happened since, I can only wish I was as right every day as I was on the day I wrote this, and I also wish that I had been wrong.
I recommend that you read it too. I may break in here and there. I will not take back a single word.
It is titled, Apologia: I’m Sorry. I’m Sorry That The Left Is Behaving So Unethically, And I’m REALLY Sorry I Have to Keep Writing About It.
Ethics Alarms is intended to be a pan-ethics colloquy on our efforts to set ethical standards in our society, using, for the most part, current events and controversies to apply ethics analysis to dilemmas, conflicts and gray areas as they arise. Silly me: I really thought that once the election was over, I could shove political ethics back into the pack, and get back to more balanced and diverse commentary. I did not expect the Left—is there a better word for progressives, Democrats, Hollywood, academia, artists and the mainstream media?—to behave so abominably and irresponsibly for such an extended period.
Because I believe with all my heart that this mob-tantrum is doing far more damage to the nation and society than unethical IKEA ads, incompetent judges and even sexual predator 6th grade teachers, I have to chronicle this awful national ethics phenomenon at the expense of other topics. I am thoroughly sick of it. I feel like Keith Olbermann, who quit his first non-sports news commentary job because couldn’t stand reporting on the Monica Lewinsky scandal every night. And believe me, I don’t like feeling like Keith Olbermann.
This is the major ethics story of the month, the year, and maybe the decade. A coalition of ideologically inflexible groups are deliberately seeking to undermine a duly elected President of the United States, and to destabilize the United States government, because their candidate—and a terrible, corrupt, incompetent candidate she was—somehow managed to lose. They are doing this in full knowledge that their actions directly contradict their leaders’ statements before the election. You know, like this one…
They are doing it despite the fact that they are violating the established norms of politics and democracy that have kept the United States peaceful, prosperous and strong (except when we had a civil war, killing more Americans than in any foreign conflict and inflicting cultural scars that have still not healed completely), because…
Rationalization #31. The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now.”
Of course, if you care about ethics, and most of these reckless partisans don’t, you know that is wrong…
…Ethics is never “a luxury.” It is slyly effective to describe it as such, however, and those who do so usually believe it—which means you should sleep with one eye open when they are around, watch your wallet, and never turn your back. Saying ethics is a luxury simply means that the speaker believes that one should be good and fair when it is easy and benefits him or her, but when problems loom and crises have to be faced, ethics are optional. This attitude is another calling card of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ “Bad Man,” the law-abiding citizen who will cut your throat for his own benefit if he finds a legal loophole. In a true crisis, ethical values are often the only thing standing between us and catastrophic misconduct in the throes of desperation and panic; they aren’t luxuries, they are life-lines. When you hear yourself saying, “I’ll do anything to fix this! Anything!” it is a warning, and the ethics alarm needs to start ringing hard. Grab those ethical values, and hold on to them. They are the last thing you can afford to be without at such times.
I have no illusions. This is a small blog, and ethics is an unpopular topic. I know Ethics Alarms isn’t likely to have any real impact, or even pull my increasingly deranged Facebook friends back from the brink of madness if I link to the blog there, which I usually don’t. I could just fill the blog with posts on legal ethics, and the ethics of driverless cars, and whether art should prevail over rules in student painting contests, and the impact on the culture would be no different.
[12/16/18: Facebook is increasingly blocking my posts, because social media has joined the effort to push public opinion to align with the forces of “the resistance.” I have lost over 20 Facebook friends, some who I considered real friends, because I dared to oppose the mob vibrations.]
The problem is that I care about the nation, its government, democracy and especially the U.S. Presidency much more than I care about those issues. I’m also philosophically in agreement with William Saroyan, who said that if one human being sings your song, you have not lived in vain. If a single reader here is given assistance in confronting their misguided friends, kids, fellow workers and neighbors who are applauding the effort to divide the nation and undermine its elected government, and convincing them that they are choosing emotion and chaos over rationality and responsible citizenship, then I’m satisfied. You never know. If there is one thing the Ethics Alarms experience has taught me, it is that moral luck will sometimes transform this tiny trumpet into a clarion call, and that it can have impact.
What would be my wish? My wish would be that a single, influential, responsible leadership figure on the Left would call for this all to stop. Somebody. Carter. Either Clinton. Sanders. Warren. Obama, of course.
12/16/2018: To his disgrace and, if there is any justice, his permanent ignominy, Barack Obama has become the first former President in a century to actively try to foment resistance and hate against his successor, even though his successor, George W, Bush, Obama’s predecessor, graciously stayed on the sidelines even as Obama continued to blame him for nearly every one of Obama’s policy failures. Hillary Clinton has established herself as the most bitter, divisive and angry losing Presidential candidate since Aaron Burr. Not a single prominent Democrat—not one–has had the integrity and courage to stand up and oppose his or her party’s betrayal of traditional, crucial American democratic norms.
Instead we are getting this, from a former Democratic governor and a candidate for the  nomination:
Yesterday, a blind opera singer withdrew from performing at the Trump Inauguration because he received death threats. Death threats. Death threats for daring to participate in a ceremony and tradition that is as old as the nation, and that symbolizes our democracy. These vicious, totalitarian bullies are your responsibility, Democrats. If and when there is violence on January 20, it is your hypocrisy, hate, fear-mongering and irresponsible rhetoric that will have created it.
12/16/2018: There was violence, of course, and has been violence since primed by the radical Left antifa and college campus activists who have used Trump’s Presidency to justify threatening violence to suppress “hate speech.”
Yesterday also, numerous Democratic House members revealed that they would not endorse this ritual, and would boycott the event to show disrespect for the elected President. There will be more. Here is the current list, with some smoking-gun quotes:
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) (“I cannot go to [the] inauguration of a man who’s going to appoint people to the Supreme Court and turn back the clock on women and turn back the clock on immigrants and the safety and freedom that we fought for them.” This is ignorant and dishonest, and essentially a statement that he does not regard any non-Democratic leader as worthy of support. These are the seeds of totalitarianism.; Rep. John Conyers (Mich.); Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.) (“I had hoped the President-elect would use the transition period and his appointments to change course and fulfill his promise to be a President for all Americans; however, this has not been the case. After discussions with hundreds of my constituents, I do not feel that I can contribute to the normalization of the President-elect’s divisive rhetoric by participating in the Inauguration.” But any lawful policy or decisions by the President are by definition “normal.” Only hard ideologues otherize lawful acts that they disagree with as “abnormal.” She will combat divisive rhetoric by her divisive actions. Brilliant.); Rep. Jared Huffman (Calif.) (“However, there is nothing ordinary about this inauguration or the man that will be sworn-in as our next President. I do accept the election results and support the peaceful transfer of power, but it is abundantly clear to me that with Donald Trump as our President, the United States is entering a dark and very dangerous political chapter.” See Rationalization #31, above.) Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) “Donald Trump has proven that his administration will normalize the most extreme fringes of the Republican Party. On Inauguration Day, I will not be celebrating. I will be organizing and preparing for resistance.” Res ipsa loquitur, for one of the worst race-baiting Democrats alive.)
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) “My absence is not motivated by disrespect for the office or motivated by disrespect for the government that we have in this great democracy. But as an individual act, yes, of defiance, at the disrespect shown to millions and millions of Americans by this incoming administration and by the actions we are taking in this Congress.” Translation: ‘I am not doing what I am doing.’); Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) (“You cannot be at home with something that you feel that is wrong, is not right.” Lewis is an embarrassment, and has been for a long, long time.); Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (Calif.) (DeSaulnier has said that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution due to conflicts of interest, proving that he is an ignorant hack.); Rep. Lacy Clay (Mo.); Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.); Rep. Kurt Schrader (Ore.) (“I’m just not a big Trump fan. I’ve met the guy and never been impressed with him. I’ll do my best to work with him when I think he’s doing the right thing for the country. But he hasn’t proved himself to me at all yet, so I respectfully decline to freeze my ass out there in the cold for this particular ceremony.” Funny, no GOP House members boycotted Clinton’s second inauguration because they weren’t “fans.” Has anyone explained to Kurt that Inauguration Day isn’t a Fan Club meeting, unless it’s “fans of the United States”? Or that the forecast is that it will be 60 degrees outside?) Rep. José E. Serrano (N.Y.) “[I] cannot celebrate the inauguration of a man who has no regard for my constituents.” Interesting. All of his constituents are illegal aliens?)…
Rep. Nydia Velázquez (N.Y.); Rep. Mark Takano (Calif.) (“I stand with @repjohnlewis and I will not be attending the inauguration,” he tweeted, including a photo of Lewis with Martin Luther King Jr. Because participation in a righteous movement 50 years ago provides a lifelong pass to be a hyper-partisan, divisive demagogue…); Rep. Ted Lieu (Calif.) (“Do I stand with Donald Trump, or do I stand with John Lewis? I am standing with John Lewis.” Translation: ‘I deem divisive party politics, more important than unity and respect for the. United States of America.’); Rep. Yvette Clarke (N.Y.); Rep. Judy Chu (Calif.). “After much thought, I have decided to #StandWithJohnLewis and not attend the inauguration.” More of the same: the priority is to support a divisive and misbehaving colleague rather than to respect the office of the President and the nation she was elected to serve. Got it.
12/16/2018: The strategy of isolating the President of the United States from the perquisites and prestige of his office has continued. It is a despicable and irresponsible strategy, again one that no other Chief Executive has had to endure. He cannot participate in the White House Correspondents dinner. He could not host the Kennedy Center Honors. Bitter John McCain banned him from his funeral, which became an extended and ugly Trum-bashing session. Because basic respect and civility toward the office of the President has been eroded by constant fearmongering, name-calling, ad hominem attacks, lies, rapid punditry, daily hate and rudeness by late night comics (this post pre-dated Kathy Griffin’s severed Trump head, suggestions that the President had an incestuous relations with his daughter, Stephen Colbert calling him a “cockholster,” his avatar being assassinated nightly in Central Park, etc.), the President could not even engage in ceremonial, light-hearted duties like throwing out the first pitch of the baseball season.
It is two months since the election, and the 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck has not slowed as predicted. It is accelerating. It is doing so because progressives, Democrats and the news media are stoking the engine. There are only three possible results of this that I can see, all of them bad.
The first is that the Democrats will so infuriate conservatives and moderates that it will marginalize itself, and become weaker, more frustrated, more irresponsible and more violent. The second is that this primal partisan scream will successfully create a dysfunctional Presidency, at a time when there are critical, festering problems that cannot wait another four years.
The third is that the nation will literally be torn apart.
12/16/2018: I believe that option 3 is increasingly the most likely result. I also believe that this is what a large number of the increasingly totalitarian-leaning progressives, socialists and anti-U.S. zealots in the Left want.
So again, I’m sorry. This is wrong, however, and dangerous. Professionally and personally, I have to cover it, and keep explaining why.
17 thoughts on “Flashback: Revisiting January 15, 2017, When I Was Horribly, Depressingly Right.”
The left can’t angle for breaking up the country. Even the basic election map shows that the split would be into at least three or four pieces, because the Democratic areas are not contiguous. More detailed maps strongly suggest that each Democratic region would find itself with its own secession movement. So they have to land the thing intact to have much of anything to rule.
Oh, progressives expect to use the full force of government (like the Army, Federal police, and even nukes, as one dem recently alluded to) to ‘pacify’ the red areas they cannot subvert directly.
A simply look at who grows the food should dissuade them.
Thanks for resurrecting this post. It is a good time to reflect on what you said. Of your three possible outcomes, US isn’t to my mind being ‘literally torn apart’, although the Republican party might be. Option 2, the ‘primal partisan scream’ creating a ‘dysfunctional Presidency’ seems far nearer the mark. And yes there are plenty of critical festering problems which aren’t being addressed; and many are being made worse.
It would be good to think lessons will be learned. Some leaders will never be able to secure sufficient support to rule effectively. It is irresponsible, if not ‘unethical’, to put them forward as candidates. Both parties failed in putting forward Trump and Clinton; as you pointed out, for many, an impossible choice.
The ‘resistance’ is what it is, a deep well of defiance. You are to my mind wasting your time lecturing them on any duty to respect and support President Trump. We must all surely hope he goes quietly, without pulling the Temple down around him.
You are to my mind wasting your time lecturing them on any duty to respect and support President Trump.
Almost all of my work is futile. On the other hand, fanatics prevail because we eventually get sick of telling them, and everyone else, that they are wrong and why. That’s the strength of fanaticism.
We must all surely hope he goes quietly, without pulling the Temple down around him.
He’s not going to “go” at all, and that’s his duty at this point, as well as why I and everyone else should be grateful for one of his few good and admirable features: he doesn’t quit, he enjoys combat, and he’s incredibly resistance. If he allows this assault on the office and institutions to succeed, the US Presidency is dead. Every President will get stuck with a predatory prosecutor who will dig up “crimes.” So far, there is no legitimate reason for him to “go,”and also a huge group of supporters who won’t stand for him to be ejected, as well as non-supporters like me. He’ll go when he’s defeated at the polls, or when 8 years run out….I suspect the latter.
We must all surely hope he goes quietly, without pulling the Temple down around him.
Oh: based on who the Democrats have running so far, they have not learned the lesson you correctly described.
“…a huge group of supporters who won’t stand for him to be ejected, as well as non-supporters like me.”
Who will object with extreme prejudice.
These people are increasingly aware that the circus trying to ‘get Trump’ are setting precedent to ignore the results of the democratic process, meaning our votes will not be counted in the future. this means that what little consideration we get in our government will be lost.
Seems to me that ‘taxation without representation’ caused a certain reaction over 200 years ago…
Andrew we do not elect Presidents or members of Congress to “rule” them. We elect them to create an environment that promotes peace and prosperity for the American people.
If the internal peace is disrupted by those that do not approve of the outcome from the outset they are the ones to blame the lack of tranquility. Their responsibility is to participate in the process not work to undermine the successful candidate.
Not a single prominent Democrat—not one–has had the integrity and courage to stand up and oppose his or her party’s betrayal of traditional, crucial American democratic norms.
If you’re referring to elected officials, present and prior, that’s probably true. But I’d consider Alan Dershowitz a pretty prominent Democrat…. and he has stood up regularly to do exactly this. At a cost he ruefully chuckles about…
No, he is not one of ours. We reject him.
Thus begins the road to the demise seen by the Ikarrans.
Good show. I had a crush (or maybe just lusted after) Boxleitner’s XO.
His replacement was not bad either.
Both were whip smart, which increases the attractiveness.
Yeah, I don’t mean registrations, but actual figures within the party. He’s not a party figure, and has no political influence, or any influence, really.
It was depressing to read it the first time. It is equally depressing to read it again.
I’m sorry you’re forced to do this, Jack, I really am. Thank God somebody has the guts to do so. I know I don’t have the courage to alienate friends and family over this, even though it’s every bit as important as you describe.
I haven’t done it lately, but I will again — Thanks for what you’re doing here. It is important, small though it may be. I’m reminded of the “lone voice crying in the wilderness.” It’s a lonely job with scant reward other than the knowledge it needs to be done.
I would second that. Jack, remember, “Giant oaks from little acorns grow.”
Anger makes you stupid and repeatedly do stupid things which is what the Democratic Party, “Resist!”, most universities, and the leftist mainstream media has consistantly engaged in over the past several years. I think we’re headed for some more bloody conflicts and perhaps civil war in this country.