Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 2/20/2019: MAGA Cap Day Edition

Good Morning!

No, I’m not going to wear a MAGA cap today, though I am sorely tempted. The Second Niggardly Principle inveighs against it: just because some people are offended by something based on ignorance or bias doesn’t mean its right to intentionally trigger them, much as they may deserve it.

“Make America Great Again” had, and has, many legitimate and defensible interpretations, and it could have been adopted by either party at many times in our history. Democrats put a racist spin on Trump’s slogan in 2016 because that was how they had responded to all criticism of the Barack Obama Presidency for 8 years, and the tactic was effective, if divisive and despicable. The current tactic is to attcahe racism to any supporter of the President who wears the hat, thorough narrative-supporting fake news like the “racist smile” of a Catholic teen at the Lincoln Memorial and the recent Jussie Smullett hoax, which led the news media to accept the fantasy that MAGA hat wearing thugs were roaming Chicago looking for minorities to assault.

The idea that electing someone with the personality, qualifications and character of Donald Trump could possibly make America greater seemed ridiculous to me during the campaign, and still does. That still does not mean that Barack Obama and his administration did not make the nation significantly worse: weaker, less financially stable, more divided, and less committed to democracy, individual initiative, free enterprise, the rule of law, and civil rights. Under President Trump, despite himself, many of those trends have begun to reverse themselves. Good. I would not say that this has made America greater, not with an ongoing effort on the Left to overthrow Trump’s Presidency without the inconvenience of an election, and not with racial, ethnic and gender divisions being deliberately widened by Democrats for perceived political gain.

I also wouldn’t wear a MAGA cap because the “again” rankles me, and always has. The United States is great, which does not mean it is perfect, or that it should not constantly strive to meet the dauntingly high ideals of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Gettysburg Address. Ironically, it is those who seek to demonize the slogan who really don’t think America is great, and who want to deconstruct it. They have to be fought, and rebutted, and exposed. Wearing a cap, however, is not the way to do it.

1. Unfortunately, these MAGA cap hate stories aren’t fake. An employee at Van’s, a clothing store in Kansas demanded that a teenage boy take off his MAGA hat, and when the boy refused—good for him— didn’t, the employee said “Fuck you!” according to the boy’s mother, who witnessed the exchange.

“He did nothing to you,” the mother says she told the employee. “What did you say to my son, to my 14-year-old?”

“I’m sure he’s heard it before,” the employee responded. You know: “everybody does it.” And besides, Democrats say its the right thing to do.

She complained, and Van’s fired the jerk.

The episode in Tennessee was scarier: A  man was arrested over the weekend after pulling a gun on a Sam’s Club customer who was wearing a MAGA cap, WBKO 13 News reported.  Eventually the media and Democratic narrative about what the hat means—it’s like KKK hood, you know— is going to get someone killed.

2. From the rapidly expanding “God, this woman is awful” files:  Elizabeth Warren, Democratic presidential candidate and shameless demagogue, actually tweeted this a few days ago:

Back when I was a kid, a minimum-wage job could support a family of three. Today, a full-time minimum-wage job in America won’t keep a mama and a baby out of poverty. Our movement is about making real, fundamental change to fix this.

Warren was born in 1949. Let’s say 1969 was in her “day.” The minimum wage that year was $1.30 an hour, making a 40 hour work week $52 before taxes. That’s $2,700 a year. Nobody supported a family of any kind, much less a family of five, on that, unless they were living in an abandoned car.

Warren is a former Harvard law professor. She knows this is a lie, she knows her audience is young and ignorant, and thinks that dinosaurs roamed the Earth in “her day.”  She is exploiting their stupidity, making them dumber still, and using false facts to gain power, as socialists and Communists always have.

God, this woman is awful.

[Pointer: Advice Goddess Blog]

3. An Ethics Hero passes. Don Newcombe, former Dodger baseball great, civil rights trailblazer, war veteran,mentor to young players and rescuer of many athletes in the throes of alcohol and drug addiction, died yesterday.

His obituary is here.

4.  Meet Candace Payne, another Ethics Hero. I apologize to Ms. Payne, whose exemplary conduct occurred in the worst throes of my recent, not-quite-over-but-almost illness, and should have received a full post. From the New York Times:

As temperatures plunged to life-threatening lows this week, more than 100 homeless people in Chicago unexpectedly found themselves with food, fresh clothes and a place to stay after a local real estate broker intervened. The broker, Candice Payne, 34, said it was a “spur-of-the-moment” decision to help. “It was 50 below, and I knew they were going to be sleeping on ice and I had to do something,” she said on Saturday.

Ms. Payne contacted hotels and found 30 rooms available at the Amber Inn for Wednesday night at $70 per room. Temperatures in Chicago reached lows of minus 25 and minus 26 on Wednesday and Thursday, according to the National Weather Service. After Ms. Payne paid for the rooms on a credit card, she asked on her Instagram account for anyone who could help transport the homeless people. Soon she had a caravan of cars, S.U.V.s and vans with volunteer drivers.

People like Candace Payne make America great.

5. Baseball vs Technology. The time-honored tradition of sign-stealing in baseball—no, it’s not cheating—has become an ethics problem over the past few years because of technology. Players trying to decipher the opposing team’s signals on the field is part of the game, but using secret video feeds, Apple watches and computers to do it is supposedly taboo, but teams are so paranoid about it—in part because of what they know they are doing—that every game is lengthened by periodic meetings in which the catcher’s signs are changed. Now, Sports Illustrated reports, Major League Baseball will install a new rule banning in-house outfield cameras from foul pole to foul pole, limiting live broadcasts available to teams to the team’s replay official only, and that official will be watched by a league official to keep them from relaying signs to the team.  Other TV monitors the teams use will be on an eight-second delay to prevent real-time sign stealing, and there will be be limits on where TV monitors can show the game feed. Penalties for violation of these rules will include the forfeiting of draft picks and international spending money. General managers now must sign a document stating that they know of no prohibited sign-stealing methods being used by their teams.

Good.

6. In more MAGA news: Lawyers for Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann have filed a lawsuit against the Washington Post seeking $250 million in both compensatory and punitive damages. The compliant is here. No, the lawsuit doesn’t have a prayer of succeeding, though it is not frivolous, and from a public education standpoint, I think it’s a good idea. The Post breached basic journalistic ethics standards in its flagrantly incompetent and biased reporting of the story, and if the lawsuit helps explain that to the public, then the harm the news media constantly inflicts on the nation might begin to become clearer.

In the  complaint, Sandmann’s lawyers argue that the Post led the mainstream media stampede to “assassinate Nicholas’ character and bully him.”

This story was not “hot” or “breaking news.” To the extent the Post performed any investigation at all into what occurred, its unreasonable investigation did not take long, and contrary information did not stop it from publishing its first story in its Sunday newspaper the next day. One of the reporters on the story first retweeted the video approximately four hours before receiving credit for the Post’s first article. In the intervening time, the Post apparently managed to track down and interview Phillips, write a story, and fan the flames of the social media mob into a mainstream media frenzy of false attacks and threats against Nicholas.

In the Post’s own words – albeit a far cry from the true scope of the false and defamatory accusations it made against Nicholas – the readers of the Post’s coverage were “licensed to conclude that the students saw [Phillips] from afar, targeted him and advanced.”…the Post’s readers were also licensed to falsely conclude that Nicholas physically and verbally assaulted Phillips while blocking his egress from a mob of students who were similarly engaged in racist conduct. The Post, whose coverage emphasized that Nicholas was wearing a “MAGA” hat, contributed to the rampant cyber-assault and cyber-bullying suffered by Nicholas in the aftermath of its initial reporting which was also undertaken in mass by the mob of other bullies made up of other members of the mainstream media, individuals tweeting on Twitter, church officials, celebrities, and politicians.

The complaint says that the Post published “no less than six false and defamatory articles of and concerning Nicholas, including two in its print newspaper and four online. This number does not include those articles that the Post updated and changed after initial publication.”

Of course, this was one more chapter in the Washington Post’s  crusade to advance the Big Lie, central to its two-year assault on the Trump Presidency, that the President is a racist and his supporters are motivated by racism.  Bias makes you stupid, and it makes newspapers vicious, unethical and dishonest. The First Amendment guarantees that the Post, like the Times, CNN, MSNBC and the rest, cannot be punished for their misconduct in the courts. Their just desserts lie in their diminishing power and influence over public opinion. Unfortunately, this leaves the nation with no reliable and objective sources of news at all, and as the Post so ironically puts it, given their own role in turning out the lights, “Democracy dies in darkness.”

32 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 2/20/2019: MAGA Cap Day Edition

  1. I posted #6 on Facebook, since I can’t link to the blog. I know it will anger lots of FBF, because in DC people still think the Post is an honest, ethical newspaper despite so much evidence to the contrary it’s comical. To hell with it: I’m not going to cater to the Facebook bubble any more. My friends can start growing up.

  2. I thought the point of the Covington lawsuits is that the press CAN be held responsible for libel in this case. In the case of a public figure, it is almost impossible, because you have to prove that it was false and printed with malice. For a private individual, you only have to prove it was false, you don’t have to prove malicious. That is what I read on an article with the Covington groups’ lawyer.
    https://www.westernjournal.com/covington-teens-attorney-gives-journalists-48-hour-ultimatum-lawsuits-begin/

    • Yeah, but this would be punishing bad journalism, and you can’t do that. The Post was lazy, biases, careless, but still: it thought it was publishing a factual version of what occurred. Absent a smoking gun memo (“Let’s stick it to these MAG hat wearing assholes!”) I can’t see any Appeals Court allowing us to go down that slippery slope.

      • Yeah, but this would be punishing bad journalism, and you can’t do that. The Post was lazy, biases, careless, but still: it thought it was publishing a factual version of what occurred.

        Jack, the post was utterly negligent. The truth about the matter was available to all contemporaneously with the biased account. There is no excuse for their not waiting for the facts. It is prima facia negligence, and may even be so negligent it could survive a motion to dismiss against a public figure, which Sandmann manifestly is not.

      • I’m pretty sure some forms of bad journalism can be punished depending on the circumstances. This case skirts pretty close. The one I vaguely remember from a media class I took years ago was one where a woman, a preacher’s wife, attending a convention went out on the town, got separated from her group and ended up in a bad part of town. A freelance photographer or videographer got a picture of her wandering around the area as a stock photo (without her knowledge) which a local news channel used as the promo pic for a story on prostitution. She sued for defamation was either successful or got a settlement.

        Whether this suit is successful or not, I think it shows that in our digital age we need some updates to wiretapping and reporting laws. Names and faces of minors should not be able to be recorded and broadcast without parental consent absent criminal proceedings.

  3. 2. Warren is purposly conflating the idea of a minimum wage job and the idea of a jobs for unskilled workers, which a ton of Democrats seem to do. It drives me crazy.

    A minimum wage job, then and now, is entry level, and often part time. You can’t support a family on it, you can barely support yourself on it, but no one needs to. Whether you’re working fast food, retail, farm work, whatever, you take a minimum wage job to get experience or get your foot in the door. From there you get promoted (it’s a joke among my crowd that if you show up at McDonald’s for a month they make you a manager,) get a raise, move to a better paying department or specialization, or get hired at a better place (Starbucks, Target, or Home Depot are popular. Or other fields like cable/phone installation, banking, low level IT, call centers, etc.)

    In Warren’s day the path might have been more obvious, you start working at a factory and move up the line, but you still had to work your way up to being able to support a family. And you absolutly can still do that.

    • ” (it’s a joke among my crowd that if you show up at McDonald’s for a month they make you a manager,)”

      That’s not a joke. I worked for McDonald’s when I was in college. I saw it happen.

      • Yes, but that may not be how it works in blue states. When I worked fast food, I got a raise about every 3 months. If you were a high school graduate and reliable, they would start you on management training with tapes in the break room. However, I was watching a documentary on minimum wage employees in California and that doesn’t seem to be how it works there. They interviewed people who had been making minimum wage for years. One employee was taking a bike and 3 buses to get to a Burger King where they worked full time for minimum wage. This guy had been working at the same Burger King for 8 years and still was making minimum wage. Either it works different there, he is the worst fast-food employee who hasn’t been fired yet, or this is another case of fake news biased journalism.

  4. In 1862, Secretary of State William Seward forwarded a letter to President Lincoln from a citizen named Edgar Cowan. Included in the letter was the statement, “no greater mistake was ever made than to suppose the newspapers are correct indices of popular opinion.” ~ “Lincoln and the Power of the Press: The War for Public Opinion”, Harold Holzer, pg 405

  5. If red MAGA hats are racist so too are those red, black and green knit hats and other articles of attire, similarly emblazoned, that members of another race wear for political reasons.

    Some time ago a fairly common slogan on certain clothing articles was “It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand”.

    I can just see Steve King wearing a sweatshirt saying Western Civilization, you wouldn’t understand

    • I wonder how much one could make peddling crested blazers with the motto “Western Civilization, you wouldn’t understand”, perhaps in Latin. I’d probably buy eight. I’d like to start a movement of patriarchs who dress in that fashion – who laugh dismissively and haughtily at and flick their cigar ashes on people who call their blazers racist. I think we can out-elitist these elitists.

      Now I want to quit my job and start a politically-charged business, thanks!

  6. 1 MAGA cap

    What’s going to happen when someone attacks or pulls a gun on a MAGA-wearing person lawfully carrying concealed? Bloodshed could ensue.

    The incident you refer to as the “Tennessee” incident actually happened in Bowling Green Kentucky. Bowling green is about 127 miles from the Tennessee border. When I went to school at Western KY, we would routinely drive to Nashville, about 1.5 hours away to party, because the drinking age then was 18 in Tennessee and 21 in Kentucky.

    The Tennessee guy pulling the gun on the Kentucky guy was just lucky. We have very permissive gun laws here, and are very likely to become the 16th state to allow concealed carry without a permit. Pulling guns or beating up on Kentucky residents is a good way to find out what getting shot feels like. For the record, I strongly advise against it.

    2 Elizabeth Warren

    For what it’s worth, $2,700 in 1969 would equal $19,136 today. Nobody could feed a family of five on minimum wage, then or now, let alone house them.

    Elizabeth Warren is just the kind of Democrat I love — so inconsistent that you don’t even have to fact-check her, you just assume she’s lying.

    3 and 4 Ethics heroes

    RIP Roger Newcomb. God Bless you, Candace Payne. They both helped make America great.

    5 Sign-stealing

    Wow. I don’t pay attention to baseball anymore, but this falls under the rubric of “modern problems.”

    Glad they are taking appropriate action.

    6 MAGA suit against the WaPo

    No, the lawsuit doesn’t have a prayer of succeeding, though it is not frivolous, and from a public education standpoint, I think it’s a good idea.

    I think you are wrong about this, and so do a lot of legal minds, including Jonathan Turley. Having said that, the complaint was a piece of crap, way overdone. It may be offputting enough to the judge to engender entertaining a motion to dismiss he/she might otherwise reject. It also suffers from questionable use of “gist,” which is likely to be too general for a judge. Better if they’d just stick to the facts, and been very specific about the wording that constitutes defamation.

    But there is no real question that there has been prima facia defamation by the media in this case. I think the Post was not the best respondent for this, and was chosen for suspect reasons which won’t be lost on a judge, and it will be harder to prove against the Post than some others.

    I hope that the Supreme Court takes a look at this case or the follow-ons I presume will be forthcoming and makes significant changes to NY Times v. Sullivan. Justice Thomas alluded to the need to do that just yesterday, and I think his point is well taken. The media has far too much power to defame, and no reasonable reading of the First Amendment requires allowing that to happen. There should be reasonable exceptions, but the bar is far too high right now, especially with the fairly low bar required to establish a plaintiff as a “limited use public figure.”

  7. If TRUMP and his people were really smart, they would keep the red caps, but change the slogan to “Make America Greater Still,” or “Make America Greater Yet.” Or even “Make America Ever Greater.”

    I agree with Jack that the country already is great – not perfect, but problem-plagued, in deep and possibly insurmountable trouble in fact – but, still great nevertheless, somehow. It was great, even before the first MAGA cap was made.

    So, TRUMP could pull a little sleight-of-thought with a new slogan on the red caps – implying “mission accomplished” in one sense, during his watch. That would be right in line with all his other typical hyperbolic and grandiose rhetoric, while denying his earlier denial (which he had to do, to connect with voters’ angst and frustrations) – namely, that America was great all along. Making America great “again” is a kind of phantom or throw-away aspiration, anyway – and too appealing to the hopelessly nostalgic, in my opinion. Well, TRUMP has to give the resistance something to hammer him for. So, why not let them hammer him yet again for “lying?”

    Leave it to TRUMP’s resistance forces, such as they are, to join the battle of dueling-slogans-to-wear. I imagine they’ll roll out little stick-pins with the President’s face (or a caricature of it), saying “Lock Him Up!” or somesuch. Maybe, while they’re at it, they could change the standard national flag to one which is malleable in shape, and colors, and themes – with velcro abounding, so that stars, stripes, and colors can all be torn off and replaced with other symbols and colors, according to the left’s cause du jour.

  8. he plumbers were well known for failing drug tests. They did a decent job, so (at that time, early ’90s) the effort was not made to do more than take pay and rank from them when caught. Their squad leader was a sergeant who had lost more rank than I ever gained, for a variety of reasons. Once he passed a drug test… but turned up pregnant. His girlfriend, a nurse who taught him how to tape an IV fluid bag to his inner thigh and donated the urine for the test, did not know she was preggers when she did so.

    He had been snipped (at his wife’s insistence) so this is how he discovered there was ‘nuther rooster in the hen house. Drama ensued. Providing material help to falsify a federal drug test was a felony, you see. Actually falsifying a drug test was as well.

    None of the other noncoms wanted to oversee the plumbers, who thought this was just freakin’ hilarious. So all was reported as an ‘anomalous’ lab error. The sergeant was retested (he failed due to pot), got a divorce, ‘fired’ his girlfriend (for cheating on him, a married man… go figure) and lost pay.

    Recall that Barack Obama sought to fundamentally transform America.

  9. 2. What did we in the baby boom generation do to deserve getting both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren? I guess we should have seen it coming. (They both resemble my college girlfriend both physically and in their haughty, scoldy demeanor. Definite types of our generation.) Mrs. OB invariably found her women bosses the most difficult to deal with during her corporate career. They were among the nastiest and bossiest. And humor deprived.

  10. Re: Don Newcombe–

    From his wiki page: “Newcombe attended Jefferson High School in Elizabeth. The school did not have a baseball team, so Newcombe played semiprofessional baseball while attending high school.” I guess that tells us something about his talent. How many high school kids played semi-pro?

    “Newcombe dealt with alcoholism in the 1950s and 1960s, describing himself as “a stupefied, wife-abusing, child-frightening, falling-down drunk”. His alcoholism became so severe that, in 1965, he pawned his World Series ring in order to afford alcohol. He quit drinking in 1966, when his wife [one of three] threatened to leave him.” Yikes! Some serious demons.

  11. My aunt, a teacher, shared some dumb meme on Facebook that claimed 1968’s $1.25 federal minimum wage is equivalent to $21-something today, when adjusted for inflation. But you see, any idiot can find an inflation caculator online and learn that $1 in 1968 is worth about $7.40 today, so while the federal minimum wage would be about $9.25 if it had kept pace with inflation, no one would be supporting a family on it. She also posts regularly about how teachers can’t live on the incomes they earn (ex., a teacher in NC making $70K per year??) and shares statistics about how minimum-wage earners can’t afford 2-bedroom apartments. Fortunately she’s not an economics teacher.

    • Teachers get summers off. I painted houses during the summers I taught grade school and then high school in the mid ’70s. My starting salary was $6500 a year and I maxed out at $8000 per year for teaching (and coaching the debate team). At which point I went to law school, for many reasons, some economic, some not. By the way, I challenge anyone to find a more toxic environment than a high school teacher’s lounge. Ugh. Makes the atmosphere in a large law firm feel absolutely healthy.

  12. I thought about buying a ‘MAGA’ cap, and wearing it. Decided against it. I’m old and can neither run nor fight as well as I used to.

    • I will inherit a red MAGA hat, it seems. Dad just had one sent to him as part of a bet he won… and he is not long for this world.

      Not sure I would wear it: I don’t even have bumper stickers on my cars. It is an under-the-radar thing I have always had.

  13. This is easy. As long as we treat speech as “violence”, then people offended by speech are behaving perfectly reasonably to respond violently and aggressively towards speech. And Leftist agitators are actively convincing their blind followers that speech is violence. So their blind followers are behaving exactly as expected.

    MAGA hats mean you are an evil person who wants to subjugate your fellow man and that you ultimately want to do violence via the political system towards your fellow man. Ergo, it only makes sense to behave like a savage towards anyone wearing a MAGA hat.

    This is how we get Civil Wars. I know the Left want to bring down the system with the hopes of building a Utopia from the ashes, but I really don’t think they have a hope in hell of managing the fall out when the civil war comes. But then again, I don’t think they care.

    • Can you imagine a platoon of sensitivity-trained, toxic-masculinity-free, gender-nonspecific, firearm-ownership-opposed vegans? A single unarmed centrist who learned how to throw a punch by reading a short essay on a website could decimate them. My only apprehension about Civil War is the gibberish political resolution that would follow in these philosophically-devoid modern times.

    • This is easy. As long as we treat speech as “violence”, then people offended by speech are behaving perfectly reasonably to respond violently and aggressively towards speech. And Leftist agitators are actively convincing their blind followers that speech is violence. So their blind followers are behaving exactly as expected.

      I try to read widely (to say the least). Just now I am reading (((Semitism))) Being Jewish in America in the Age of Trump by Jonathan Weisman. The introduction lays out his case. The election of Donald Trump has opened a door to strains of anger and violence that seem to have been latent in the culture. He is, of course, most concerned for the ‘up tick’ as he refers to it in antisemitism, which he refers to with no depth analysis of it, as if it is a blind contagion with no rhyme or reason. I find it really interesting to read because it clearly explains why ‘people on the left’ (progressive Americans I guess one would say) are very concerned with the *blind rage* that is upsurging.

      They say that Progressive types tend to read only progressive-type books, and Right-leaning types only read right-leaning type books. I have made an effort to read extremely — perhaps too — widely: Savitri Devi, Adolph Hitler, Jonathan Bowden, Madison Grant … but then also Orwell, Gandhi, Chomsky, Gramsci.

      It is not helping me necessarily to get to a point of clarity. Things just seem more and more muddled and difficult to unravel.

      What is the nature of the conflict in the present? What is the source of it? Why has it arisen? Where is it tending? What will resolve it? Should it be resolved or should it go to its extremes? What possible positive outcome will open violence bring? Will violence eventually manifest even when, as it seems, no one has a clear idea what they are fighting about? Or, when each one has a different story about what *value* they are defending?

      It is clear from reading Weisman’s account of (excuse the expression) his experience that he is aware — and I think it is true — that speech can be the first step toward actual criminal violence. There are deep wells of profound anger and violent sentiment that are coming to the surface and from both ends of the spectrum. It is only fair to say that Antifa and some of the aggressive Alt-Right factions deal in similar emotional tropes. Antifa holds the progressive center in contempt. But the more extreme Right hold the American Conservative in similar contempt. But can these poles be simplified and reduced to the available categories? Is this Antifa-Left nothing more than communist totalitarianism? And is the Right-Extreme really & truly a manifestation of fascism? Does it make sense to resort to such a simplistic — and easily accessible — dichotomy? It comes reflexively, but I am uncertain if applying the reduction will aid understanding.

      MAGA hats mean you are an evil person who wants to subjugate your fellow man and that you ultimately want to do violence via the political system towards your fellow man. Ergo, it only makes sense to behave like a savage towards anyone wearing a MAGA hat.

      No, or yes . . . but it all has to be carefully explained! Is it that people can only see through the lenses of ‘tropes’? According to Weisman — and there is merit in his view and description — there really is an aggressive and violence-prone segment of the population, and they are active even if their numbers are not huge. Who are they? Where are they? They could be anywhere, but they are there. They exist. (He recounts getting well over 1000 judenhass-type messages. You know, the real ugly stuff.) He conflates it with the virulently anti-feminists, the anti-Muslim, and of course those who are concerned about demographic shifts. How could he not interpret *Trump* and the whole phenomena that has come with him as negative-bad-dangerous, and how could he not conflate it together with the primary Trump symbol: the MAGA cap?

      People see through tropes. But how could you ask someone, like Weisman, to see things differently?

      This is how we get Civil Wars. I know the Left want to bring down the system with the hopes of building a Utopia from the ashes, but I really don’t think they have a hope in hell of managing the fall out when the civil war comes. But then again, I don’t think they care.

      I want to ask — as a kind of counterpoint — what the Right would desire to ‘build’ in the same sense that you indicate that the Left desires to. But what *right* am I talking about? The Conservative-Republican ‘Right’? They are not really a ‘right’. Who knows what they are.

      I think that you are not seeing correctly. I think that this Progressive Left is the larger faction within the American polity right now, and they likely want things to keep going on as they had been going on. And I also think that the larger System-Understructure of government and industry want the same thing. They do not want enormous disruptions.

      I can say with a certain authority (based on reading of course) that the more radical right or the Identitarian Right (white nationalism) does desire to push things to a more open conflict. Or, to get so many people involved in their program and their view that, somehow, they achieve their objectives in a natural flow. But what they propose, what they desire, cannot in any sense be achieved easily. It is an uphill battle. It would be almost amazing if they gained ground (though in places like Poland and Hungary, already homogenous, their struggle is easier).

      But the Progressive American Left only has to succeed in not losing much ground, because already its *values* dominate in the culture. Largely, the run the show. They just need to avoid open civil conflict . . . and allow Time to do its work.

      They [the Left] don’t really have to bring down anything. All they have to do is keep inching along.

      Sorry if this seems confused. I have always admitted being confused. I cannot make sense of things. I go from one pole to the other. Explaining *Power* and how it works . . . and then explaining why communities of people attempt to resist Power and its machinations.

  14. 2) She’s relying on the Hollywood Trope of the warrior of the working day single income households as seen on screen. She’s wrong on minimum wage accomplishing that, but the sheep who have only been educated by the Hollywood screen don’t know any better.

    But it is true that Americans time immemorial have prioritized differently and survived on a single income…even a low income. But then, like now (with single income families), those families made quality of life trade offs that weren’t unreasonable for the choices they made.

Leave a Reply to Jack Marshall Cancel 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.