“Sick and tired of all this nonsense. She is a Democrat and will govern like a Democrat and that is good enough for me. Some polices will be a little too far left for a few and some will be a little too centrist for others, but you can guarantee that she will uphold democratic norms and try and govern to make the lives of ALL Americans better, whilst behaving with the decency becoming of the office. Everything else is just window dressing and noise.”
—A highly rated comment on the Washington Post article, “Harris’s policies have shifted and are still taking shape”.
I was torn whether to include the Post reader’s name or not. It’s public, so I could justify it, and I have focused on unethical commenters elsewhere before while using their names. This time, I decided that the individual doesn’t matter. It’s the message; it obviously is how lots of (unethical, ignorant, foolish) people think, and that’s what matters.
The toxic ignorance communicated by a statement like that one is almost too horrifying to bear. I have studied—and, on occasion, practiced—leadership for most of my life, and for anyone, especially any American, to state with such certitude that who the leader of a nation is doesn’t matter as long as a comforting party label can be affixed to him or her really tempts me to go looking for a wood-chipper. That attitude shows a wilful contempt for history, common sense and reality.
The statement is factually and philosophically wrong from beginning to end: the fallacy seems to be that by definition anyone who puts a D next to their name “governs like a Democrat” even if the tactics, goals and philosophy resembles governing as a socialist, a communist, and anarchist or a fascist. Is working to defeat opposing candidates by contriving ways to lock them up “governing like a Democrat,” or is the commenter simply tied up in a tautology: if a Democrat does it, then it’s governing like a Democrat and therefor “good”?
Does the commenter really believe that the current Democratic administration has “up[held] democratic norms”? By attacking the Supreme Court? Deceiving the public regarding the mental health of the President? Switching Presidential candidates with no traditional democratic processes involved? Extending national emergencies to justify the President bypassing Congress?
When did “democratic norms” start including making race, gender and ethnicity the basis for distributing powerful jobs in the government? What is the democratic norm that directs the President of the United States to accuse half of the public of being “clear and present” threats to the nation?
The deeply troubling fact is that this commenter, confused or dishonest and gaslighting as she seems to be, represents a huge percentage of voters whose minds are made up. Truth, facts and reality will never penetrate their certitude. Unbiased, open-minded critical thinking is beyond them.This is why the current Democratic Party thinks it can prevail in November by never letting the vast majority of the public know what Kamala Harris believes or has done in her career. [Now there’s a democratic norm for you]
After all, what difference does it make? She’s a Democrat, so Kamala must be trustworthy.
[Here is where I would list all of the many prominent Democrats, past and present, who were or are clearly not trustworthy, But it would be too long, and you can make out the list as well as I can. Could the commenter? I wonder.]
_________________
Althouse gets the pointer for this: she actually reads comments on Post and Times articles. It’s nice to be retired.
Ethics Alarms 
This only reinforces the trend that I have noticed over the years that Democrats view their party as if they are in a cult and Republicans tend to vote R without such enthusiasm for the party. They may like candidates, but I don’t really know anyone who likes the Republican Party. It is like the NRA. I am an NRA life member. I know a lot of NRA life members. I don’t know anyone who likes the NRA.
The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote a memoir toward the end of his life. The title was _Interesting times: A 20th century life_. I can’t say that I read the whole thing, because I rarely read every page (Dr. Johnson said it was ok).
I’ve never been enamored of Hobsbawm but some of his histories at the undergraduate level have been staples for decades.
Hobsbawm (a Brit raised outside UK) said that twice he saw the US presidency change hands in the USA, new presidential administrations come in, and he couldn’t tell the difference in US policy. To him, nothing seemed to have changed. That’s what he wrote. I don’t believe him, but I believe that he perceived it at first glance.
= – = – = – =
The counter-arguments are obvious. Just the other day I was remarking to one of my long-suffering friends that if Al Gore had been president in 2001 it’s quite likely that we would not have invaded Iraq. Offhand that sounds plausible. Any president would have launched some punitive expedition targeting Afghanistan. Not just any person serving in the presidency during that time would have plunged into Iraq.
So…
Not just any American serving as US President would have chosen to invade Iraq after 9/11.
Not just any Turk besides Mustafa Kemal would have expelled the imperial powers and founded the modern Turkish Republic after the the First World War.
Not just any Brit besides Churchill would have so effectively opposed Hitler nearly alone, willing to sell off the entire Empire piece by piece in the process. Not just any Brit besides Thatcher would have worked so single-mindedly to halt decline in the UK after the 1970s.
Personalities matter.
= – = – = – =
Additionally, this is not your grandparents Democratic Party. Joel Kotkin had an essay about that today. The link follows.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-happed-to-my-party/
cheers!
charles w abbott
Rochester NY
From a Daily Mail article about Harris’s speech in North Carolina today in which she spoke of her anti-price “gauging” legislation and a bunch of give aways:
“The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates her series of expanded tax credits, subsidies and support for homebuyers would increase the deficit by $1.7 trillion over a decade. But according to the campaign, any additional costs above the 2025 fiscal year Biden-Harris budget would be offset by increased taxes on corporations and high earners.”
Sounds like governing like a Democrat to me. I first typed “giverning.” Freudian slip.
“The deeply troubling fact is that this commenter, confused or dishonest and gaslighting as she seems to be, represents a huge percentage of voters whose minds are made up.”
I think the Dems start any presidential election with fully fifty percent of the popular vote in their hip pocket. Who knows, they may even start with an electoral vote majority.
Funny how Harris says she’s working hard on inflation and the first thing out of her mouth policy-wise is the promise of more inflationary giveaways. They really are intent on turning the U.S. into a shithole country like Mexico where PRI gives you a new washing machine after you vote for their candidates. What a way to govern: buy people’s votes with the taxpayers’ money. Remarkable it’s a successful program when it’s so blatant.
I was a bit young for it but there really were lapel pins for the WIN Campaign.
“Whip Inflation Now.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_Inflation_Now
Maybe they know it’s pointless. Are they that stupid, or do they think that we’re stupid. Discuss.
charles w abbott
Reminiscent of Jimmy Carter lowering the federal speed limit to a preposterous 55 MPH so everyone was late as well as out of gas.
Evidently- quite a few democrats are calling on Harris not to release *any* policy platform. With the idea they will make it up after election.
She’s the candidate version of “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”.
Unbelievable.
Quite believable from a rotted political culture like the Democrats have now. No respect for democracy, no respect for informed voting. Cheating. Anything goes. If the public lets them get away with this, the U.S. deserves to have a failed democracy for raising civically ignorant citizens.
Perhaps we should cleave the nation into Red and Blue countries and let them reap the consequences of their decisions.
Or, we should demand that all new federal spending be distributed equally among the states so that there is equity.
It’s the Obama campaign all over again. He ran as a blank canvas, inviting people to project onto him whatever they wished to. The Obama campaign people are back running the Harris campaign. Nasty people. Amazing Obama is still running the country.
Kamala is blaming evil corporations gouging consumers after supply chains got restored but fails to remind people that the minimum wage was accelerated under Biden to 15bucks an hour thus increasing aggregate demand and the PPI. She fails to admit that during her administration 20 million new mouths had to be fed because of liberal border policy. Increases in population are a key determinant of aggregate demand which if supply does not rise commensurate with the increase cause prices to climb. Massive increases in spending by the government do not increase aggregate supply through investment that can occur through tax policy. Burdensome regulations combined with government programs that do nothing but increase demand is the reason for sustained inflationary pressures.
No politician can lower existing price levels without force unless they enact policies to increase supplies. That means they must work to make the costs of production lower. I should remind Keynesian Dems that Keynes said prices are flexible upward and sticky downward.
The writer of the comment that precipitated this post is unwilling to accept norms in Economic theory.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power. Ben Franklin
The Left will quickly point out that there is no evidence that Franklin or any other early founder uttered these words or something similar. The Atlantic devoted an entire article after the 2012 election bashing conservatives who used the quote after probably pulling it from a published book of quotations. Nowhere in the article does it reject the premise itself. The sentiment has merit.
When the Left says something is false because some minor element is unproven you know they don’t want you to consider the overall proposition. That is their tell.
I should have removed the hyperlinks. I thought they would go to the source, they just define the terms.