Yesterday George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley registered one of his increasingly frequent columns mocking the Democratic Party. Conservative pundits, blogs and websites continue to describe him as a liberal Democrat professor because it makes his criticism seem more damning, but I’d be shocked if Professor Turley continues to support his old party.
In the post he writes, a bit in his academic weenie mode, unfortunately, “As many know, I was raised in a politically active, liberal, Democratic family in Chicago and worked much of my life for Democratic candidates and campaigns. This week again reminded many of us how far the party has moved from its more centrist history. That includes another call to pack the Supreme Court with liberals to force or ratify sweeping political and social changes.”
What Turley is really saying is that his old party is now thoroughly nuts, and he’s embarrassed to be associated with them….as he should be. As anyone should be.
I first became acquainted with Turley when he was one of the few commentators on the Left who appeared on cable news to condemn then President Bill Clinton’s conduct in the Monica Lewinsky mess. (Longtime readers will recall that it was the lack of any coherent discussion of Clinton’s ethics that led me to start my first ethics website, The Ethics Scoreboard, now lost in cyberspace.) In those days, CNN and MSNBC hosted Turley, because those networks weren’t completely corrupt then. Now, he is only permitted to opine on Fox News.
Turley, in his post, describes just how bonkers his old party has become, focusing on the recent meeting of the Democratic National Committee. He writes in part,
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) appears to be doubling down on crazy in Minneapolis this week with calls to pack the Supreme Court and other extremist priorities…Lindy Sowmick, treasurer of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) spoke to the delegates after DNC Chairman Ken Martin asked her to recite the land acknowledgment [saying] “The DNC acknowledges and honors the Dakota Oyate – the Dakota people – who are the original stewards of the lands and waters of Minneapolis. The Dakota cared for the lands, lakes and the Wakpa Tanka – the ‘Great River,’ the Mississippi River – for thousands of years before colonization. This land was not claimed, or traded – it’s a part of a history of broken treaties and promises. And, in many ways, we still live in a system built to suppress Indigenous peoples’ cultural and spiritual history.”
Riiiiight. The United States was created to suppress Native Americans at least when it wasn’t being craeted to oppress blacks. Turley went on…
Delegates continued to show how out of touch the party has become, including one assuring delegates that the public really does not care about carjackings and migrant crimes despite the polls. Another insisted that today the nation is worse to live in than during the pandemic. Laurence S. Zakson is a DNC member from California and a partner at Reich Adell & Cvitan in Beverly Hills. He and others called for Congress to act on changing the size of the Supreme Court due to the alleged partisan agenda of the majority and the failure to reach correct decisions. …Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) stated that she wants to impeach all six of the conservative justices. She was immediately joined by other Democratic members. Previously, she admitted that she does not understand why we even have a Supreme Court. She asked, “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”…
Polls show the public understands that such moves are madness.
Well, barely. If the public really understood, the Democratic Party would be in much worse shape than it is. Most of the public is neither as smartn or as well-educated as Turley, and the Axis campaign to spread the Trump Derangement Virus has been quite successful. For example, even though the major cities run by Democratic mayors have become cesspools of crime, homelessness and illegal immigration, only a small majority currently supports President Trump’s completely legal (and necessary) use of the National Guard to make our Capital reasonably safe—this even as D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had to eat metaphorical crow, She admitted yesterday, “We greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been able to do…the difference between this 20-day period of this federal surge and last year represents a 87% reduction in carjackings.” That result is almost entirely due to the sense that someone in the District is serious about enforcing the law, for the presence of the Guard in D.C. is mostly invisible.
Meanwhile Democrats are going to elect a Communist as the next mayor of New York. Potty-mouthed, jive-talking Jasmine Crockett is considered a rising star. Bernie Sanders still draws big crowds, and the GOP holding on to a majority in Congress, thus preventing Democrats from impeaching President Trump for existing, is hardly a certainly. Turley calls the recent DNC meeting “one last pitch for crazy.”
If only that were true….
Ethics Alarms 
Jack wrote, “I’d be shocked if Professor Turley continues to support his old party.”
I’d fully agree with that statement. Even Alan Dershowitz has publicly left the Democratic Party and become an unaffiliated independent voter, not because he’s become a conservative or Republican but because Democrats have gone so far towards the lunatic totalitarian left that they have completely left him, ideologically.
I think on this, from time to time. I don’t think party status is as malleable as you seem to think it is, Jack.
There’s a problem with the parties in that they’ve been polarizing for years. As opposed to there being any public ground, it seems like the current meta is to wait to see where your opponent plants their flag, and then run as far away from that position as you possibly can to plant yours. There’s no position too extreme, too stupid, to preclude support so long as your opponent is doing the opposite of it. Right now, Trump actually seems to be better-than-not at picking good positions, which means that the left is forced into zugzwang, but make no mistake: Some of Trump’s policies are deeply stupid and the right immediately cedes the intelligent position when Democrats plant their flag in opposition.
This has led to an increase in NPC’s carrying what I’m calling the “basket of policies”, this might have another term somewhere else, but it basically describes a general set of policies in alignment that almost always appear in the same basket, despite having nothing to do with each other. If someone declares support for Gaza, I can basically predict their position on Ukraine, trans issues, criminal justice, and the economy. I call the people carrying these baskets NPCs as a reference to a gaming term: These people aren’t player characters in that they aren’t really in control of their decisions. There’s a very small population in control of what goes into or comes out of a basket, and it’s not likely to be anyone you know.
Now if you aren’t an NPC, and you don’t ascribe to a basket of policies, you’re going to find life uncomfortable, because you might generally align with a basket, and so the NPCs around you will generally agree with you and assume that you’re one of them, but when you find points of disagreement it chafes, because NPCs treat discordant thoughts very poorly, particularly on the left… A failure to accept any of their sacred tenants is a ticket straight out of the party. And that’s where Turley is.
The problem is that I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect him to turn his back on all the values he’s held over the course of his lifetime. If you forced a gun to his head and threatened to shoot him unless he voted his values, he’d probably still have to hold his nose and vote Democrat, because deep down, he’s not a Republican. The best we can reasonably hope for with lifelong party members, I think, is that they get disillusioned enough with the current iteration of the party that they stay home.
The latest (disturbing) Gallup poll suggests that you are right. The Gallup Poll just out finds a ridiculous divide in Trump’s approval rating (though, again, I don’t know exactly what that measures). Only 1% of Democrats approve of Trump as President? That’s astounding, especially since so many of his policies—like illegal immigration—should be hailed regardless of partisan divide. I guess there is just one big “hate Trump” bucket, constantly reinforced by the media.
My experiences with Canadian culture suggests that the worst thing you can do is be rude to them(their perception). You could kill their dog or do worse to their child and they would be tolerant of you. But rude? No. Go roast marshmallows!
I suspect that Trump/media portrayal has tapped into the Dems experience of being offended and kicked while down so much that the entire party is convinced that it’s them vs. Trump like a personal fight. Like he’s coming for them as individuals next.
Thus, Trump represents rudeness, rejection, anti-affirmation etc and his success portends a loss of prosperity for them, simply because they meditate in their perceived exclusion. Though, they fail to understand that prosperity does not happen without the stability that results from established standards of law and order.
Everyone tends to reduce situations to the coarsest and simplest of terms. Hate Trump is fairly simple and efficient.
Welcome to the Greatest of American pastimes: Underestimating and Misunderstanding Canadians.
It’s not that we don’t tolerate rude. Americans are an incredibly rude people, generally, and if “rude” was all it took for us to write us off, you’d have never been written in. No, we accept your rude, it’s kind of quaint. We don’t even mind if you do rude things that negatively effect us. And we don’t mind when you go off kilter and do something egregiously stupid, so long as you keep it in your own backyard.
The line is when you do a rude thing that negatively effects us and that thing is also egregiously stupid.
As an example: In Trump’s first term, I thought his tax policy was some of the best and brightest policy America had put forward in a generation. It reversed the tax inversion with Canada, which staunched the flow of American Head Offices coming north of the border to keep more international profits. This probably hindered our rate or growth more than the current tariff lunacy, but we didn’t squawk about it because It. Made. Sense. Good policy is good policy, game recognizes game, and I said so, often, here.
As the other example: In Trump’s second term, he put tariffs out onto the world, increasing the domestic cost of a slew of items that America cannot produce domestically. The price of coffee is exactly 25% higher than it has to be, thanks entirely to Trump. If that were the extent of it, we’d roll our eyes at the stupid Americans doing their thing again…. Except this also hurts Canada. You’ve tariffed our Potash, but not Russian Potash, which means that American farmers can buy Potash cheaper from Russia than they can from Canada, but not as cheap as they used to buy from Canada without Tariffs. Which means that you’ve shifted vital food production imports over to Russia while simultaneously shipping arms to Russia’s enemies.
During a period where people are hurting and food security in America has never been worse, your government is taxing food producers into buying product at higher rates from your geopolitical adversaries and just for good measure are alienating your largest trade partner in the process.
It’s incredibly dumb. No one here has ever pulled up their big boy pants and tried making a full chested defense of Trump’s second term economic policies other than to say something like “We don’t understand this, but we trust him”. That’s not a Canadian’s fault, America just found a new religion.
Humble Talent wrote,
In my opinion, this is a perfect example of the Canadian short fuse that I’ve observed and what I mentioned in my comment to OhWhatFunItIs. To be truthful, open, and completely honest; Humble Talent and I have a really long history right here in Ethics Alarms threads of being overly rude, to unwarranted extremes in some cases, to each other.
I think this part of HT’s comment is likely the same kind of limited tunnel vision as OhWhatFunItIs‘ comment.
Overall, I’ve found that Canadians and people from the United States, especially from the upper midwest, aren’t so different and these nonsensical cross border generalized insults, which sometimes border on bigotry, need to stop. We all need to be the kind of amicable neighbors that we expect those across the border to be. The Golden Rule applies otherwise we’re being hypocritical. We need to swallow that biased pride, give it a rest and recognize the similarities, and move on.
Steve, I know I can’t explain this to you, because you are completely information-resistant. But I’ve been calling balls and strikes on Trump for years.
I supported his first term economic policy, I called out the more egregious examples of his rhetoric, I supported him through his impeachment trials, I loathe his second term economic strategy, and I think it’s hurting you more than it is us… But even then, I’m able to separate the wheat from the chafe and point out that Trump’s immigration policy has basically fixed your southern border, and I support in principle what he’s doing in DC.
I come to these positions as a rational, thinking human being, able to articulate why I have the positions I do. Some of those positions, to date, have not been challenged by the commentariat here. This isn’t a short fuse, bud, Trump’s been center stage for more than a decade.
Humble Talent wrote, “Steve, I know I can’t explain this to you, because you are completely information-resistant.”
That’s unwarranted bias based on bigotry, how rude.
Unwarranted: lacking justification.
Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group.
Bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Rude: offensively impolite or ill-mannered.
Your insulting claim is false. You’re welcome to your opinion, but not your own facts.
Humble Talent wrote, “…I’ve been calling balls and strikes on Trump for years.”
Please notice, the three paragraphs I originally quoted are stand alone as the core thesis of your comment, everything after that were examples in support of your thesis. Your thesis is what I discussed as an example of what I’ve observed not your examples.
Humble Talent wrote, “This isn’t a short fuse…“
Actually HT, I think it’s a reasonably decent example of the short fuse I’ve observed when Canadians are challenged by an American. It’s kinda like, it’s generally considered to be rude for an American to dare to challenge a Canadian, that’s the observed behavior.
You don’t have to agree with me or even like it for these to be an accurate and truthful observations.
Bias has been getting a bad rap lately. Bias is actually usually a good thing. Bias is fundamentally necessary for a whole lot of things. As an obvious example: Take a jury trial. We expect, or at least hope, that the average juror will enter the jury box unbiased…. But over the course of the trial, we expect them to become biased, in order for them to provide a verdict.
The question is whether that bias is unwarranted, and again, I don’t think so. I’ve known you since you were going by Zoltar Speaks. There probably aren’t many people on the internet who understand what you are quite like I do. If you think that I’m biased, that’s what other people might call “forming an informed opinion over 15 years.”
As for bigoted… You use words like this. Words that often do not mean what you think they do, despite having actually produced a working definition in real time. I assume you do this because you think it makes my behavior seem worse than it actually is, but you could also just be that dumb. Steve…. I can’t be bigoted against you because you aren’t a plural. You aren’t a belief, opinion, or faction. You are a person, I’m not biased against you because of some group membership, I’m biased against you because we’ve interacted for years, and I’ve deemed you to be mentally deficient.
I think what you’ll come back with is “Well, you’re biased against all the Americans”, because that would at least be internally consistent, but it’s also obviously not true. I’m rough with anyone who disagrees with me, but I’m never as rough with Jack or Ryan as I am with you, and that’s because I respect them and they can string a sentence together. I was just as rough with that crazy cat lady (Elizia? I can’t even remember) as I am with you, and I’m pretty sure she was in Brazil. You should hear how I talk to other Canadians!
This isn’t a Canada-America thing. You, Steve Witherspoon, have an online presence, and I’m not insane enough to pretend that every time we interact, that presence doesn’t exist.
Humble Talent wrote, “I can’t be bigoted against you because you aren’t a plural.”
I disagree. Humble Talent needs to reread the definition I posted.
Humble Talent wrote, “I’m not biased against you because of some group membership…”
I disagree. Of course Humble Talent is bigoted against a group, in fact he alluded to the narrowly focused particular group that I’m clearly a part of, they are people that have the audacity to publicly challenge or disagree with Humble Talent, “I’m rough with anyone who disagrees with me”. How dare anyone publicly challenge or disagree with Humble Talent. More specifically, how dare someone pointedly challenge or disagree with Humble Talent and not put up with the personal insults that are spewed forth when someone has the audacity to pointedly stand up for their opinion(s).
I’ll say that anyone that participates in online discussions probably has a thin streak of egotistical running through their psyche, but then there are others where that streak is about 5 kilometers wide and sticks out like an infected zit in the middle of their forehead.
Humble Talent wrote, “I think what you’ll come back with is “Well, you’re biased against all the Americans”, because that would at least be internally consistent, but it’s also obviously not true.“ [my bold]
Nope, Humble Talent got that wrong; however, his claim of it being “obviously not true” is interesting after he boldly posted his bigotry towards Americans for everyone to read. I am an American. Here it is in his own words…
Read that as many times as it takes for it to really sink in. Whether Humble Talent likes it or not, that statement shows actual bigotry as previously defined.
I’m not fabricating Humble Talent’s bias and bigotry, he reveals it. This is quite unlike what Humble Talent does when he fabricates his long list of personal insults out of thin air, just like the can’t “string a sentence together” BS innuendo he posted above. Nearly all of Humble Talent’s personal insults are him intentionally trolling someone trying to incite anger.
Humble Talent wrote, “You should hear how I talk to other Canadians!”
That’s an unethical rationalization not an argument and it’s on Jacks list. Can anyone guess which rationalization it is? That was a trick question because it’s more than one.
Lastly, Humble Talent wrote, “There probably aren’t many people on the internet who understand what you are quite like I do.”
Is it possible that Humble Talent doesn’t understand how arrogant that sounds? I don’t think Humble Talent’s prowess isn’t as self-evident as he thinks it is.
What’s clear to me is that Humble Talent is just making up stuff again. He doesn’t have a clue how long I’ve been actively participating in comment threads on the internet or how many people I’ve known via the internet for years prior to being referred to Ethics Alarms in December of 2015. Let’s just say that it’s a lot longer than just the past 10 years I’ve spent here. I think I can boldly say that there are a few right here on Ethics Alarms that know who and what I am far better than a biased person that trolls me with nonsensical personal insults.
As I have done before; I’m bowing out of this sidebar discussion with Humble Talent now so this thread doesn’t go deeper into the gutter and will allow Humble Talent to have the last word. I’m choosing to drop it, maybe Humble Talent should drop it too.
Life is all about choices…
Now choose.
Steve, the reason I usually don’t respond to you is because you’re an idiot, and this is what I’ve come to expect from you. This week, I was feeling frisky. Most of this I’m going to hand-wave away as the delusion of a crazy person, but I’ll respond to a couple of points, because I think they’re instructive:
“Read that as many times as it takes for it to really sink in.”
Context matters. The comment I was responding to made sweeping generalizations about Canadians, I don’t think either is sufficient to level a charge of bigotry, but if in your estimation that’s enough, welcome to the club.
“That’s an unethical rationalization not an argument and it’s on Jacks list. Can anyone guess which rationalization it is?”
It’s…. really something. Amazing to me, that you’ve been able to come here and read what Jack has written, multiple long-form posts for years… And still not know what a rationalization is. A rationalization is an unethical dodge at accountability, but not every use of the words that generally resemble the structure of a rationalization is a rationalization. In that case, I wasn’t saying “I’m just as rough with Canadians, so my treatment of you isn’t bad.” On the contrary: My treatment of you is particularly awful, because you as an individual deserve it. I was saying the point you were inferring, that I treat Americans as a class poorly, doesn’t have the benefit of being true because I’m fine with most Americans (particularly the ones who agree with me) and rough with anyone who disagrees with me (albeit with caveats). That’s not a rationalization, it’s a description of reality. As for the idea that “people who disagree with you” can be thought of as a class, well… If you say so.
“Is it possible that Humble Talent doesn’t understand how arrogant that sounds?”
Well Zoltar, I’m old enough to remember the antics that caused you to change your online handle and try to memory hole and distance yourself from the name.
And my personal favorite has got to be when you picked a fight on Facebook with a member of the school board, hurled abuse until she blocked you, and came on here seeking free legal advice on how to sue her into unblocking you so you could continue to hurl insults on her over the internet.
Or when you attempted to argue that Covid vaccine requirements violated the Nuremberg Code.
Your history is replete with small pettiness, misuse of the internet, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the world around you. I knew, for instance, when I went to your blog, I’d find something to make fun of…. But I didn’t expect the trove!
A post about you not understanding how he didn’t even read the bold print as he was signing up for a 15% discount and hilarity ensued. Or the five entry series of how even your neighbors can’t put up with your obnoxious ass, and have banned you from NextDoor.
Steve, you absolute moppet of a human being. Take a step back for once in your life and ask the question “Am I the problem?”
Rude: offensively impolite or ill-mannered.
OhWhatFunItIs wrote, “My experiences with Canadian culture suggests that the worst thing you can do is be rude to them (their perception).”
I think your experience must be really limited.
I think as a generalized statement, your statement might be a bit unfair. I’ve found that most Canadian’s I’ve come in contact with are generally very nice people, especially on the surface. I have some really good friends in Canada and I spend some quality time there. Something else I’ve observed with my limited experience, a lot of Canadians I’ve met have a short fuse when being challenged by an American.
The actual poll: https://news.gallup.com/poll/694370/trump-ratings-mood-stay-tepid-august.aspx
As to the point. Yes… But… To be fair, 93% of Republicans rate him positively. It’s pure tribalism. Scroll down to the bottom of the poll, “Americans’ Satisfaction With U.S., by Party ID. The complete 180 every time there’s a change in who is the president, regardless of who controls the House or Senate is the most vivid example of political toddlerism I’ve ever seen. It really is as simple as “My guy is in right now” for an amazing amount of people. If you asked the people in that 93% why they support Trump, the average articulation would be embarrassing. Meanwhile, the average Independent has a support rate of about 35%. I think that’s probably about right, on balance, seeing as his average approval is 40%.
The problem is that these polls lean into the basket of policies: They don’t tend to break the support down categorically. This one had four categories: Overall, Foreign Affairs, Education and Economy. It would be interesting if they asked about specific line items under each, like say… Tariffs. And you can kind of read reality between the lines. In the economy as an example. R93 I29 D4. 63% of Americans polled think the economy is getting worse. Which means that there are about 10% of Republicans that will rate Trump positively on the economy, even though they think it’s getting worse.