by Curmie
[Notes from your host: 1) Curmie and I did not coordinate our posts, and 2) as usual, his erudition puts me to shame.]
***
I’m currently in the process of moving into a new office which is far too small to accommodate my collection of books, even after I gave away over 1000 of them. One of the volumes I still haven’t figured out what to do with is my Penguin paperback copy of Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War,” purchased over 40 years ago for a course I took in grad school.
Coming across that volume triggered a memory of struggling with one of that book’s most famous sections, the Stasis in Corcyra. It wasn’t that the passages in question were too confusing. Rather, it was that word “stasis”; no one would describe the civil war on the island of Corcyra in 427 BCE as static.
A little digging (well, actually more than a little, as these were the days before the internet) revealed that virtually all English translations of those passages of Thucydides had simply adopted a cognate of the Greek word στάσις (stásis), meaning roughly “that which is stood up.” So something firmly placed and unchanging would be static, or in a state of stasis. But the word also carried the meaning of “standing up against,” in the sense of resisting authority. So the insurrection on Corcyra was, in fact, an act of stasis.
These linguistic constructions, known as contranyms, auto-antonyms, or “Janus words” (among other locutions) are not uncommon. We all understand that a peer might be a member of the English nobility or an equal, or that “it’s all downhill from there” might mean that the system is in decline or that the hard part is over and we can coast to the finish line.
I’m not sure if there’s a word for the variation on the theme that forms the title of this essay: the two meanings of the term are not in direct contradiction, but they lead to pretty close to opposite conclusions. What I find interesting is that both definitions can apply simultaneously.
That is, “having no convictions” can mean lacking a system of guiding principles, especially one involving a moral compass or an ethical center. It can also mean that the subject has never been convicted of a crime. I’d argue that Donald Trump fits both descriptions rather well.
I doubt that even his staunchest defenders (the ones not a member of the cult, at least) would deny that his actions on innumerable occasions have been considerably less than honorable, or suggest that he’s anything but a narcissist. I note also, that, as was demonstrated in the episode of the old “Perry Mason” TV show I watched last night, it is possible to frame the guilty. (In real life, there’s a really good chance that this is what happened in the OJ Simpson trial.) The fact that some (many? most?) of the criminal cases against Trump may well be politically motivated doesn’t mean he didn’t do what he’s accused of doing.
On the flip side, even the most rabid of Trump’s political enemies, specifically the ones ululating about the 14th amendment, must agree that the man has not been convicted of anything. They might even grudgingly acknowledge that barring a conviction on certain specific charges relating directly to the events of January 6, it doesn’t really matter how many indictments there are. (Insert cliché about ham sandwiches here.)
Rhetoric being what it is, there are, of course, two ways of reading the title of this piece. We could see Trump as an unethical person who has, however, not been found guilty of a relevant crime, and therefore should not be prevented from running for the presidency again. Or we could argue that the standard of conduct to assume the most important job in the country if not the world ought to be a little higher than never having been found guilty of what amounts to treason. ¿Por qué no los dos?
Voting against someone despite the obvious problems with that candidate’s opponent is a time-honored tradition at Chez Curmie, and I would not deprive my fellow citizens of the right to do likewise. But voting for someone ought to require a belief that the candidate has something positive to offer, and is of at least average mental acuity and integrity. Neither front-runner meets those standards, nor, frankly, do I see any of the likely alternatives in either party doing so. Alas.
So we’re left with this: barring an intervening event, Donald Trump should be allowed to seek the presidency again, and no one should vote for him (or, at least for him). He has no convictions, but he has no convictions.
Ethics Alarms 
I would suggest Trump may have one conviction that Biden does not have; Biden would sell out America in a heartbeat if he would benefit financially from it. Trump would not.
This essay could have just as easily used Biden as the subject.
Well, except that Biden hasn’t been indicted yet.
Wasn’t the gist that Trump had no convictions?
I will not try to put a positive spin on Trump’s human failings but I don’t like to see anyone pilloried for behavior that is endemic in our culture. Every candidate has his or her faults and I don’t anticipate a Jesus ( pick your prophet) like character to emerge on either side.
I, like Steve W want to vote for someone who will advance the the somethings that I believe are best to advance our culture of independence, limited government, and self reliance. Barring some perfect candidate emerging, we will have to choose the next best alternative who will promote that which each of us make priorities.
Given that I prefer substance over appearance I am willing to sacrifice some social aesthetics to see my priorities are high on the agenda.
Very much the way I feel. I would adore a candidate who isn’t Trump. Any one of the Republicna current candidates are rather flawed, and none have really impressed, which is dissapointing. But as flawed as every single one of them are, none of them are beholden to tyrannical left. Any one of them presents at least a statistical possibility that the headlong sprint into madness will at least abate somewhat. There are so many things wrong that I would love to see made right, but barring that, I will at least vote for a candidate who wants to stem the tide of the increasing wrongness. The first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging. The democrats today can do nothing but complain that we need more expensive and efficient shovels to dig faster. And Trump, for all his many faults, has at least both articulated and demonstrated that he feels we all need to put down our shovels. It may be dismissed as merely the lesser of two evils, but if we cannot hit the brakes, I’ll still vote for someone who wants to take his foot off the gas. And then I’ll have a stiff drink.
The ultimate question is this: What conduct and attitudes will you, as a citizen and a moral and ethical human being refuse to tolerate in your leader? Promising to lock up political opponents should be an easy call, along with state sponsored genocide, the imposition for permanent martial law, the elimination of freedom of speech, the imposition of a national religion, and the nationalization of private enterprise.
If one is not willing to draw the line at those, among others, all is lost, including civilization itself.
Jack, I am in agreement. I do not want to vote for Trump. He is not who I want in the White House. However, what do you suggest we do if he wins the Republican primary? Do we vote for Joe? Do we vote for Trump? Do we vote third party, knowing that it is the equivalent of throwing the vote away?
I don’t see other options. To say, “here is how vile he is” is fair as a warning, but is there something actionable, a step we can take? It seems that we are stuck with a proven blowhard who may or may not weaponize the Justice Department against his foes or a man who already has begun to do so. This makes Trump the lesser of two evils in my mind because he didn’t go totalitarian lite on his first term and Joe has. What third option have we?
If Trump does not win the primary, and I plan to put my vote towards that end, this is not a concern. But if he does, aren’t we stuck?
Yeah, it’s a miserable choice, and one that the Democratic party at least seems determined to force upon us. I cannot see myself ever voting for Biden, so I will be stuck.
I won’t vote for Trump in the primary — I am actually leaning towards Nikki Haley, but I could live with DeSantis or Pence. As all this sinks in over the next few months, I think it possible that Republicans will have second thoughts about Trump and then the primaries will decide.
One thing no one mentions (because we’re so focused on Biden) is that Trump is nearly as old as Biden. What if he were elected but cannot serve out his second term? If he is the nominee, let’s at least hope we get someone closer to Pence than Harris.
Ugh.
Given that the Justice Department is already weaponized, what is the additional, marginal harm of Trump replacing the Justice Department with loyalists and siccing them on those who weaponized the Justice Department in the first place?
Marginal??????
Yes, marginal.
“Well, except that Biden hasn’t been indicted yet” is not necessarily a fair response.
Only prosecutors present evidence before a grand jury, and neither the accused nor his or her lawyer is present when a grand jury meets. An indictment is a road map to what the prosecution intends to prove at trial. To return an indictment, a minimum of 12 members of a grand jury must find probable cause.
The point being, President Biden controls the US Attorney General who would take the evidence against this sitting President to a Grand Jury …which is the only reason Joe Biden hasn’t been indicted yet.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…
I want something to vote FOR!
I’m interested in hearing the specific policies the GOP candidates and how they would achieve their goals if President. Here is what I’d like to see Fox do; interview all of the GOP candidates one-on-one, they all get exactly the same questions and any time the candidate starts attacking any other GOP candidate they turn their damn mic off and get them back on track. Give each a 2 minute opening and 2 minute closing statement to start and finish the interview and limit the interview to 60 minutes, no exceptions.
I’m quite sick and tired of being sick and tired!
I don’t want to vote against someone, I don’t want to vote to get vengeance for past wrongs, I don’t want to vote and then have to perform a post vote purge because all the candidates on the ballot makes me sick, I want to vote FOR someone.
Oops, bad boldface ending tag after the word FOR!
Well, Steve, at least we agree that having someone to vote for is the consummation devoutly to be wished, and that such a candidate has not yet emerged. We’ll almost certainly disagree about what that pol’s policies ought to be, but that’s for another day…
Abstaining because Trump is [insert here] is a vote for the kiddie corps manipulating the strings attached to Joe Biden.
I’m sick of this argument. In any given election, one might be able to hate vote for a candidate because the alternative is unpalatable.
But if this election is so damned important, if beating Joe Biden is so damned important, then Republicans have had an election cycle to sort their shit out. Donald v. Hillary was a competition between the first and second most hated politicians in living memory. Apparently the lesson learned is you need to run the second most hated politician in recent memory a second time against the third.
It’s stupid. How many cycles of “What? Are you going to vote for the Democrat?” are we going to get before you decide to field a candidate you can actually be proud to support?
Other Bill wrote, “Abstaining because Trump is [insert here] is a vote for the kiddie corps manipulating the strings attached to Joe Biden.”
Come on OB, that’s a bull shit false argument and I’m very firmly with Humble Talent on this one, I’m sick of reading/hearing it.
Reality is that a “vote for the kiddie corps manipulating the strings attached to Joe Biden” requires a physical action of voting for Joe Biden, abstaining is literally not a vote for anyone.
Conservative minded people and Republicans need to be careful not to use the same manipulative false propaganda tactics that Democrats and progressives are using.
I’m confused. I’m supposed to single-handedly make the GOP nominate someone other than Trump? I’m supposed to not vote for Trump (in the general, not a primary)? I’d love to be able to vote for DeSantis. He seems perfectly fine to me. But if it’s Trump vs. Biden in the general, what’s your, and HT’s recommendation. You’ve lost me.
An old, old rationalization. It takes one to start making many.
Maybe so. However, the choices we get will be the choices we get, and we will have to choose from among them. Those choices are likely to be: 1. Vote for Joe, and settle for four more years of the current institutionalized incompetence, 2. Vote for Trump, and hopefully bring back the prosperity of the Trump years, together with the severe division that is likely to result, or 3. Vote third party, and throw your vote away. 2024 needs to be a resounding victory for the Republican party, no matter who they nominate. This country needs to send the clear message that we reject the institutionalized incompetence that the Democratic Party foisted on us by relying on hatred, obfuscation, and the fact that China unleashed a deadly virus on the world. In the best of all possible worlds, this country would also be sending the message that we want leaders who are actually going to work for the good of the American people and try to get things done on their behalf. What we don’t want our leaders who use their elected office as a vessel to settle old scores or attack those they don’t agree with. We’ve already established a lot of what the US is not, but one other thing that this country is not is a feudal state where the nobles or the kings fight and the ordinary people get hurt. This is not the jungle where the elephants fight in the villagers get hurt. The people of this nation don’t exist to simply get stepped on by the political leadership and every so often ratify the status quo. If that’s where we’re headed, then you might as well take the Constitution and tear it up, because we’re no better than some third world banana republic.
Something is only a choice if we accept it as an option. At this point, that thinking is why the nation is in this position. Trump is not a rational option, people need to spread the word and make that point (it’s not hard) and get the cultists to take their heads out of their asses. It can be done. There are tipping points ahead.
I’m not sure where most commentators live but I live in Illinois, which is an embodiment of what the Dems want to mold the US as a whole into if they can, and that’s why I will vote for Satan if it’s between him and a Dem. yes, in a perfect world I’d like to have politicians to vote for, but Dems pose existential threat to the US as a system that the constitution envisioned. All stories you hear about Illinois in general, and Chicago in particular, are true. It’s a hell hole headed for financial collapse.