Timely. Especially after the holidays when my wife's side of the family wouldn't stop talking about Evil Orange Man, and it seemed like the talking points were being beamed directly into their heads from a transmitter at MSNBC, which was on in the other room even at dinner. And the turkey was overcooked.
I'll only repeat a story I've told before. Before the 2020 election a friend announced "If I had the choice between Trump and a lump of shit on that table, I'd vote for the lump of shit."
That may make you feel good but doesn't actually help. Our system of two dominant parties is actually an advantage compared to the proportional representation schemes found in many European countries.. The dynamics force both parties to move a little closer to center in order to attract a majority. You may not want to believe that, but it's true. The empirical evidence is the closeness of our elections.. A protest vote on either side is functionally the same as not voting. Pick the least bad alternative, if that's the way you view things. I did that in 2016 and was pleasantly surprised when he picked from the list of nominees published before the election. Given the outsized power we've let SCOTUS accumulate and the highly politicized standards for nomination since Lawrence Tribe's 1980s book God Save This Honorable Court, I think the voters should demand such a list from every candidate.
I profoundly disagree, but well argued. No. When the two parties are tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee and they have a Gentleman's Agreement to compete, yes, but more importantly to keep real competition away, then voting for either one is to perpetuate the system. Notice how, no matter which party is in power, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
And notice too that the center is being ignored. Visibly, the two parties have never been more polarized opposites. Both parties play to their base, not the majority. Either could win easily by appealing to common sense, but the deeper powers that control both parties like the current situation. Divide and Rule.
I disagree with your disagreement. Not with the substance thereof but as it applies to this, and to the 2020 election. One party is led by a man who is not an establishment candidate; he is hated as much, maybe more, from within his party as he is by the opposition party voters. The guy for the opposition party is IMO a shill. That party puts its thumbs on the scale in its preliminary elections and campaigning. My hope is that all of this is indicia that the parties are in transition. Additionally all of this emphasis on picking the Prez is misplaced. Congress is by and large the problem.
I understand your point of view, but "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is not correct. For the 3 years 2017-2019 (ignoring the wild card of the pandemic), incomes rose for all income groups, even more after taking transfer payments into account. Search for CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and "distribution of household income" plus the year for 2016 and 2019. Nominal growth for the bottom quintile was 13% over those three years and inflation was low. Compare and contrast to the last 4 years..
The center looks like it's being ignored in the rhetoric, but cannot be ignored in reality or we wouldn't be so evenly split.
Congress has allowed the Supreme Court to accumulate that much power by not doing their jobs. They have also done the same thing with the Executive Branch.
I don’t think the contemporary results support this. What the two party system has allowed is an abdication of responsibility by congress due to partisanship. If other parties were on equal footing I could see several combining forces to get things done. Things like immigration, entitlements, abortion, the budget, etc. All important issues stymied by the left and right extremes wanting a good campaign issue. They have ridiculous fantasies about “running the table” which never materialize. When they do have enough power to accomplish something they never deal with these key issues.
As a result the executive and judicial branches keep increasing their power which I think they justify by the impotence of congress.
Diogenes, when I taught college level American and Comparative Government in the 1980s, this was exactly the argument I made for our system over a PR system. And it was true; having only two parties created great moderation.
It is no longer true. It's hard to say when exactly it changed, but as a someone who long defended gerrymandering as a nothing-burger, it pains me to say that the change started with the reapportionment following the 1990 census. The 1992 districts were the first-ever drawn with powerful computer algorithms that could split districts to order. (It was also the first year that racially drawn gerrymanders were specifically encouraged, though SCOTUS then sort of backpedaled on that one). So why do these precision gerrymanders matter?
I suspect you know where I'm going, but please indulge me. With such precise gerrymanders, almost 400 of the House districts in any election are predestined to either go D or R. If a House district is already guaranteed to go R in November, then the election that matters is the primary election for that house seat. And in THAT election, moderation is a losing strategy. The candidates who appeal to the center-right lose to the candidates who just swing right. And the reverse happens in guaranteed-D districts, where moderate candidates will lose in the primary to more progressive candidates. And then, in November, we get a "close" election that is never really in question, because the seat is gerrymandered for one party over another.
Now you might say that this is House elections, it's not the Presidency. But the fact is, when people get accustomed to the taste of red meat, that's what they want. Moderate presidential candidates do have a better chance than moderate House candidates, but the extremists care more than the moderates, and increasingly, they will get their way. This is arguably more true on the Right than the Left, but that is just today.
My fiancés family was doing the same. People have become so obsessed with seeing things as binary. Good or evil. Oppressor or oppressed. Black or white. It leaves no room for actual intelligent conversation or exchange of ideas. It’s exhausting and sad.
I'm from the North lol. We know there will be disagreements so everyone knows politics is off limits. Who puts on cable news shows during the holidays? How can you when Frosty the Snowman is on?!
Daniela, you write: "People have become so obsessed with seeing things as binary. Good or evil. Oppressor or oppressed. Black or white." You are so right. I really, really hate the "blue state-red state" thing, which only started with the 2000 election; I wish it could be stopped, because I think it exacerbates our differences by pointing to an entire state as being "red" or "blue", when in fact all states are mixes.
When I was first into politics, starting in the early '70s, it upset me that the two parties seemed to have so few real differences. But wow, I would love to go back to that time when people could have different political points of view and yet still be friends.
I am amazed that anyone bothers with broadcast media anymore. I learn infinitely more reading TFP than I ever did watching cable news. I’m down to 5 publications I will even bother with. Sprinkle in interesting comments thoughtful people add to the discussion and that’s about all I need to stay informed.
When someone says “I heard xxxx on MSNBC” all I hear is “Blah ba blah blah blah!”
- Epoch Times - right. Hates the CCP. I’m pretty skeptical about what I read here, but there can be some pretty in depth pieces that can give you good grounding in a topic.
- The Fifth Column on Substack - libertarian? Not hard news but an awesome send off of all the news today. Kinda like TGIF on steroids. It is a great way to let off steam about annoying news today. They are big fans of TFP too.
I do read other stuff here or there and will admit to getting my breaking news from X. But I filter it heavily!
I used to do Fifth Column on Patreon; I still like Kmele, but just guess I grew tired of their talkfest after couple of years.
I allowed my Reason subscription to expire because I never touched the print copy and their comments section is THE worst. Nothing but spam.
Not sure why, but I’ve never subscribed too WSJ.
Epoch Times? They sent me a print copy a couple of months ago, but I’ve never read them. They used to scare me, but after what we’ve seen the past three years, I wonder if I was unfair to them. I think it is a bit odd that in their video ads they don’t all pronounce “epoch” the same way.
I’ve never done Twitter.
I do pay for National Review, but I’m less and less certain why; my favorite writers are all gone.
I’ve given up on taking the high road in such situations. When my family would launch into Orange Man Bad, I would launch into every latest embarrassment of the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, my family doesn’t take it as well as they give it. My sisters formally stopped speaking to me about a year ago. The reason? I have incorrect views on abortion. They’ve never talked to me about it, they’ve never explained why they hold their views, and I never brought the topic up in front of them. I merely reposted something on Facebook and so my sisters stopped speaking to me. These are adult women in their 40s. To make matters worse they didn’t even have the courage to tell me to my face, they made my parents tell me, then my parents sided with them. Why? Because my politics are “heinous.”
I lost my family because after 32 years of silence I decided to share my opinions in the same way everyone else does.
Wow--what a sad story. It is awful to hear. There are so many things wrong with how they reacted. I hope your family comes to its senses soon. Take care.
A parent that does that is “heinous.” I learned long ago that you have to value your children as human beings that may have differing opinions. You love them even if you disagree with those opinions.
My suggestion: get them into counseling with you. Any therapist worth their salt will eviscerate your parents for doing that. They need to get a clue.
I recommend a new tradition we have adopted. Go to a good Italian restaurant and have a family style dinner with lots of drinks. Most of the time will be spent gorging, the food will be great and the food coma afterward will put everyone to sleep. A win for all.
Oh yes....I had that same experience at a dinner earlier this week. And lordy, you should have heard their explanations about the 14th amendment and original intent and so on. Totally bubbled. Totally MSNBC.
I really appreciate this piece because it has always seemed obvious to me that our allegiance was to a set of rules called the Constitution. That document and its various state counterparts were then used to promulgate laws which were then tested and refined by the courts. As intended. Slow. Deliberative. High context, low speed. It gives me no pleasure to say that, in watching all this for nearly five decades and dedicating my life to law, I was sickened (and am still sickened) by the Merrick Garland hearing denial by the Senate. I remember thinking “this is where it will all start to unravel.” And I can remember where I was when Trump was banned from Twitter and I thought “here we go. This will mark the next unraveling.” And I lived to see the day a candidate be struck from a ballot without due process. Sadness does not begin to cut it.
There have always issues of policy that separated democrats from republicans, but it wasn't until Bill Clinton - who was RELIABLY accused of rape and then had a dalliance with an intern (lets not forget that if it wasn't for Linda Tripp and the "blue dress", the dems would have been able to make her out as a stalker/nutcase) and his enablers told us all that his personal life and his character wasn't our concern.
Then when the Bad Orange Man came around, all of sudden, character matters?
If not for the Democrats giving a pass to Bill Clinton, Donald Trump would never have been a viable candidate. Once they declared that good moral character does not matter in a POTUS candidate, they opened the floodgate.
I had not thought of this but it is true. I remember them arguing openly during the Clinton years that character did not matter. I also remember the stunning silence of the women's movement. Utter complete silence.
I seem to remember a Big Name Feminist writing an Op Ed--possibly in the NYT--that argued that regardless of the individual women Bill harmed, he was in a position to do so much good for feminism in general that feminists needed to look the other way.
Feminists have been HUGELY complicit in #MeToo. As long as it benefited the feminist movement as a whole, individual powerful men must be allowed to have their "fun." Everyone knew about the Casting Couch, for example, but as long as the men demanding sex were making women famous, no one wanted to rock the boat.
"If not for the Democrats giving a pass to Bill Clinton, Donald Trump would never have been a viable candidate. "
I have made this observation many times since 2016. If Clinton had resigned (as most of the talking heads expected to happen within a week of the scandal breaking), a message would have been delivered that there are still standards. But yeah, Clinton made Trump possible.
Perhaps if HRC had moved out of the White House in 1998 she would have had a little moral capital with which to defeat Trump in 2016. Probably not, but it's a thought.
If she thought that her "stand by your man" position would win her points on the Right, she was much mistaken. It was all too obvious that she stayed because it benefited her to remain in a position of influence and among people of power. And since Feminist leaders had declared that it was okay for Bill to be a rapist adulterer as long as he supported Feminist causes, it would made the Feminists look bad for her to say, "Well *I'm* not going to tolerate it."
Oh, there's always been behind-the-scenes immorality in high places. But it was also understood that if it came out into the open, it was over. It wasn't until Bill Clinton that the Democrats publicly said that they didn't care and no one else should either.
I worked for a U.S. Senator in the late 1980’s. It started with the failed nomination of Bork to the Supreme Court. The politically organized opposition to that nomination was unprecedented and, I believe, started the slippery slope away from long held norms. Traditionally, the process granted leeway to the victorious candidate/party, but with a healthy “loyal opposition” to keep the winning side in check. Now, all politics is a zero sum game where there is only “we win, they lose.” Those old norms seem quaint now.
Mr. Cribben I'll submit 20 March 1854 in Ripon Wisconsin and the we know what's best for youists Horace Greeley, Salmon Chase, John Freemont and others who's names now elude me. The seeds of vile "progressivism".
Applying the rule of law equally cannot be over stated. It is the crown jewel that separates the USA from 3rd world countries and totalitarian governments
Equal application is the foundation of the rule of law. Without it there is no rule of law. And it is the rule of law which allows further examination of what equal application means.
Your wrong Merrick Garland was subject to hardball politics. Thank god McConnell’s bet paid off. There is zero requirement for the senate to act on a Supreme Court Nominee. This was not the first time this was done. There was historical precedent for it. Garland has proved that he is nothing but a partisan hack and he would have been an horrific judge.
He was. But it started under Democrat Harry Reid who arranged a 52-48 vote to override a 60 year Senate rule that called for a "supermajority" of 60 votes to confirm federal judicial and executive branch nominees to aid confirmation of Obama nominees. They were executive branch and lower court nominees so Supreme Court nominations were excepted from.the new rule. McConnell said at the time Democrats would come to regret it. He made good on thst statement the opportunity of Trump's nominees presented itself. All he did was extend Reid's rule change to the Supreme Court and voila, Trump had three nominees confirmed.
I don't have your knowledge of the law (just a dumb housewife here), but I knew that McConnell's move was going to come back to bite us all. I said at the time that they should have held the hearing, and refused to confirm Garland. That would have been the end of it. Now we are embroiled in a tit-for-tat showdown, with no end in sight. We need someone to end this, and I don't see anyone on the horizon capable of doing that.
Your comment is appreciated, Liz. But as it appears more and more frequently these days, following our sacrosanct Constitution and its set of rules has become quite contentious. How else to explain conservative Federalist legal scholars who will under any circumstance uphold the 2nd Amendment, find that the 14th Amendment art. 3 can apply to a President in 2023 but also find that corporations are entitled to free speech protections? Is it a living document or one held in stone?
In regards to Garland, I agree. He may have made a poor judge, but my reading of the Constitution led me to believe he deserved a hearing in the Senate and be vetted. I would have liked to have seen McConnell challenged in the Supreme Court on that one. But timid heads prevailed.
They should have held a hearing and voted no. I know who I feel started this but it doesn't matter. It needs to stop. Did I think Garland should be on the Supreme Court. No way, but they should have voted in public and said no. We desperately need term limits.
IMO, It all started to unravel when Senators Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy “borked” Judge Robert Bork from reaching the Supreme Court (nominated by Reagan in 1987). He was clearly qualified by intellect, education, skill and experience. But he was a conservative jurist. A few years later, President Bush 41 nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. He had to overcome “a high tech lynching” to be voted in. That’s when the Democrats began to engage in scorched earth tactics to achieve/keep power. Every time some political norm or rule is violated, it’s done by Democrats. Ask Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Republicans then, belatedly, follow suit, even sometimes increasing the ante (blocking Merrick Garland) and that’s how we got to where we are. Any solution to the present dysfunction that I can think of is, unfortunately, wishful thinking.
There is no such thing as the Biden “rule” and such slippery spin (remember “Spin City”? Loved that show) is the nonsense we are dealing with these days - spread by the SM blob. Biden made a Senator floor speech during GHWB’s term about a SC vacancy. It was never adopted by the Senate as a rule. The DC lore that gets spun by the MSM for pure advertising reasons is beyond hard to listen to. Particularly around boring things like Senate procedural rules and Supreme Court precedent regarding granting writs of certiorari. But it happens and then repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated.
I have watched Mitch for years as a native citizen of the Commonwealth. He is nothing if not a masterful politician but that also includes the slip of language you see here for the sheep to bleat at. Keep on repeating on.
My question, since Merrick Garland is the subject: was it a precedent that a candidate's nomination was withheld? My understanding is that it was not the first time. My second question: would Merrick Garland have made as disastrous a Justice as he has been an AG? Perhaps it was a provocation for McConnell to have acted as he did, but in hindsight...
Excellent essay. I've had several discussions with friends and family about the lawfare that has been unleashed in the last few years. Trump isn't the only target, but he is the most visible and is the one who generates the most heated debate. For those who are convinced that we need to do everything, and anything, to keep Trump from winning in 2024, I show them the "give the devil the benefit of the law" scene from A Man for All Seasons. I've practiced law for 40 years and have never seen a more succinct and eloquent defense of the rule of law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2a2fAEQaGo
"They're actually after you and I'm in their way."
💯
If they succeed in the assault on Trump they will be empowered to go after any Republican anywhere who meaningfully threatens their power. And they will.
Perhaps not, though it will take quite an investigation to prove it. In any case, it's an irrelevant argument. Is the Left now engaging in "lawfare," as Jim Kaucher puts it? Yes! But, it's foolish to believe that the Right, or any political party or mob with power, is incapable of falling to using any means necessary to justify its ends. History has proven that time and time again. So, it's not a "both sides" narrative. It's the simple truth that power corrupts and the rule of law is the only defense we have.
No there is a distinction. Although it is not necessarily as simple as a Republican or Democrat label. The real divide is people who believe power is surrendered to the collective and those who believe power is retained in the individual. Those who utilize the collective approach relinquish their autonomy, believe in a hive mind and that the government can and should fix what ails them. Even if what ails them.is me because I believe I retained my power IOW because I do not agree with them.
Because I, and millions of my brethren, believe in the autonomy of the individual I am reluctant to punish other individuals absent unlawful (as opposed to disagreeable)
I believe the current political state in this country is caused by the fact that the Constitution was written to protect individual rights. It doesn't work with the far lefts groups mentality.
I'm actually agreeing with you, Lynne. The current DEI "movement" has formed itself into such a punitive collective that has infiltrated schools, clinics, public organizations, local governments, and even the judiciary (e.g. Colorado and Maine). But that doesn't mean average citizens who believe power is retained in the individual aren't susceptible to ascribing to a collective mob mentality. Human beings crave the acceptance of a group. The true test of belief that power is retained in the individual is being willing to stand against a group one belongs to when that group sacrifices principle -- in this case, the principle of rule of law. From my endeavors in studying history, I see no group of people who have achieved power who have not abused it at some point. Their leaders did not do that alone. They had support from their followers, in many cases because not giving support meant death. --JRG
He did nothing of the sort. He is all talk and zero action if you were to actually pay attention to reality and not the fiction that is on the MSM like Russian collusion or the so callled Jan 6th insurrection.
January 6th was fiction? I must have imagined it. Well, let’s see what the jury decides (eventually). Will you accept a jury verdict or will you keep saying the election was stolen?
It wasn’t the Republicans that started the last one. And they won’t be the ones that start the next one. And there is another coming and it be lead by some insane democrat.
Jim, what a great scene, and so close to what we have today. There may have been a different era where the roles were reversed, but today, in 2023, that would be any Conservative, talking to just about any Liberal/Progressive/Leftist/Democrat with Trump derangement syndrome. (This coming from someone who'd rather see any other Republican in the mix over Trump)
I actually think of this often too. Would you want this argument in the hands of your opponent? This USED to be something taught in law schools to budding trial lawyers. I have no idea what they teach now but judging from recent events - it ain’t “reason free from passion.”
'The results will be counted state by state and sent to the Electoral College. Those are the rules. If you mess with them, there will be hell to pay. If your side wins, be boring about it—no censorship, no demonization, no show trials.'
The essay from which the above quote comes from pretty much states that Trump should not be demonized. Got it. And I agree. But then he writes the above - there will be hell to pay if you mess up with the Electoral College. So, notwithstanding the fact that Jan 6 could easily be construed as not being an 'insurrection', it does appear factual that at least four states had illegal electors chosen by the Trump team. So 'if there is hell to pay' for that transgression - who's to pay for it? And if that payback is a trial, is that a 'show trial'?
I've been voting since 1976. Over the years, many people I disagreed with profoundly have been elected to Congress and the Presidency. Until recently, though, they had a fundamental understanding of our constitution and how our government works.
What scares me the most today is the members of Congress who have neither. How can we continue to function like this?
i would like to see everyone who wants to run for a political office have to pass the same test as those who want to become US citizens. I wonder how many our current representives, all the way up to the President could pass the test. I doubt that Biden could and I know that Trump couldn't. I'm sure we can all think of senators and congress people who probably couldn't pass.
At this point in time I wish we can have voter literacy tests. I really see some benefit. But I also know that is a slippery slope to hell. Same for candidate requirements.
A lot of those on the other side “despise” Trump. Some, like my daughter, don’t even realize what their side is doing, and don’t care. Stopping him by any means is more important than anything else, justifiable with slogans like “save our democracy”, or “he deserves whatever he gets”. The way forward seems to be education of the ignorant, so let’s keep talking and remind them of the Russia hoax, the Steele dossier, the riot that got named an insurrection, the anti-semitism of a two-state solution, the Abraham Accords, and four years of no wars.
Rob- good luck getting past the loud humming and fingers jammed in ears! It's been my experience that most of these folks REFUSE to let any info that runs counter to their MSNBC/Wapo talking points.
The Marvelization of America: The opposition isn’t just people with whom we disagree, they’re the bad guys; Trump isn’t just a blowhard, he’s a supervillain a la Thanos or Magneto (both of whom actually have guiding philosophies, if twisted ones). We were once a more intellectual society, we embraced debate and recognized nuance. Now, collective thinking is simplistic, childish.
The "dumbing down of America" is complete. Why do you think they don't teach critical thinking anymore. That is why math is racist. You have to follow steps and use logic. That is how you teach if you don't want people who can think.
Rob, I wish they would listen but most will not. The women I know who hate Trump do so out of a feminist viewpoint. They don’t care about any policies, not really.
You're preaching to the choir, Martin. We know we hold no real power. How do we convince our over-"educated" overlords to stop treating us like minions and to lay down their arms and join us in the obscurity of life?
No one will remember any of our names or theirs in less than a century. Hell, even young adults now reject the Holocaust as factual history less than a century later. Hitler is just a word. It's like saying "dude" was to us 40-somethings. As Taibbi and Kirn discussed last week on 'AtW' it's/we're all FUBAR!
Happy New Year, dudes! Start planning your home garden early this year. While you may need the food I can guarantee the therapy will be rewarding.
I said in 2016 that Trump was a natural and even inevitable response to the grotesque hatred and ugliness on the Left. They spew vitriol and venom, then get SURPRISED when people take offense. They are surprised when someone who is almost as bad as their average gets popular on the other side.
Let's be clear: Trump is nowhere NEAR as ugly, abusive, self absorbed, and hateful as most of the Left. What he does do is hold up a mirror. The problem is, the people who should be learning something, don't. They can't recognize those ugly monsters as themselves.
I've been on the internet interacting with Leftists for something like 20 years. I used to often pursue them into their ghettos, tone myself down, focus hard on reasonable and emotionally neutral arguments, and STILL get insulted and banned, over and over. It's not the manner of speech: it is DIFFERENCE ITSELF. That is the problem. They don't want to hear anything that they don't already have bouncing around in their heads. Difference is violence to them. And Difference--having an honest and principled and clearly articulable difference of opinion--they construe as violence, to which the response is a very different soft of violence, that of censorship, blacklisting, persecution by the "legal" system, and even physical beatings and even murders (Trump supporters HAVE been killed by left wing nut jobs).
Accurate. Same here. I used to try to take the high road, find areas of mutual agreement, be open to “agree to disagree”…leftists can’t do this. Disagreement means you’re “literally Hitler.” Leftists are totalitarians at heart, always.
My experience as well - very hard to take having spent my academic career in public health teaching students to understand how people in different circumstances held differing views on hot-button issues like abortion. I know I couldn't teach in this environment, and am grateful to be retired! SR
Well, right now we have Jews being beaten or killed , and unabashedly threatened by the left mob who feel that in this case , violence is ok. But get their pronouns wrong and that’s considered violent.
RULES Without rules we have anarchy and chaos. Since Donald Trump appeared on the scene in 2016, the Democrats/Deep State have been ignoring the rules of propriety on a regular basis. They used the dirtiest of dirty tricks to try to ensure victory in 2016, and have almost totally abandoned all RULES if it would hurt Trump. The Steele dossier, the Russia hoax, the Mueller investigation, the "impeachments," the Jan 6 investigation, the midnight raids on Trump and his allies - all outside of the boring RULES. And now we have chaos - we haven't quite reached the stage of anarchy. Yes, who would ever want to abandon boring RULES unless the object was anarchy? So can you believe it? We all need to vote for boring Donald Trump!!!
People tend to have an innate sense of fair play and to abhor bullies. Trump talks like a bully, but the left has unleashed the entire apparatus of the state and media against him, and it makes all but the most blind partisans appalled. And the nakedly partisan and excessively harsh treatment of the January 6th protesters compared to the mobs who looted and burned our cities three years earlier demonstrates that the lawfare will inevitably expand to political opponents and then the population at large. It is independents who determine the outcome of elections, and many of them now see Trump as the victim of bullies rather than the bully. Quite an accomplishment by the establishment, and one that will come back to haunt them.
I do not think they want anarchy. I think they want control. Full, complete, and total control over every man, woman, and child, every fish, fowl and animal, every insect, every blade of grass and the soil in which it grows, the water that seeps and flows, every plant, every mineral, the air we breathe and every atom that makes up any of it.
My ex and I look at a field and see something completely different. I see a football field and she sees a field like in Sound Of Music with Julie Andrews running across it with a beautiful backdrop. The problem is, in a marriage her field has no borders, no rules, no consequences for violating the rules of stated play. I feel like that is our country today. There is no border, those who vote don't have to show they are actually citizens, leaders in politics, education and corporate worlds lie with as much ease as it takes to tie a shoelace, virtues and values are defined by a $ sign, and so on. And in the meantime, we escape to a field on a hillside to find a sandpit where we can stick our heads.
Spot on. I would add two more points. FIRST, Do not stereotype. Evaluate others at an individual level. History proves that stereotyping almost always leads to violence. SECOND, tyranny whether by a majority or a minority also tends to lead to violence. That is why clear rules are important to have and TO FOLLOW.
Gurri is right, but we need to go deeper. There is too little honor among us. It’s bad when the hoi polloi are vile, destructive to civilization when the powerful are. Our founders had an honor culture. Hamilton and Burr were willing to risk death defending theirs. Today we tolerate prosecutions based on fabricated evidence. And even when the falsehood is exposed the fabricators hears not a peep of condemnation from their side. They are only sad it didn’t pay off.
Trump’s personality is crude. So was Patton’s. But Patton had what Ike needed, so Ike gave him what he wanted. He put him to work. Aren’t we all glad he did?
Mr. Morris I'm pretty sure that Mr. Trump devised or was well advised in the execution of an excellent strategy to depose Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign despite the circumstantial evidence indicating the fix was in favoring the Clinton campaign. The Trump organization stepped in and broke things. The poor Hildebeast is still sore eight years on.
I don't when it happened, sometime in the last 40 or 50 years I suppose. But people stopped thinking and feeling about the Good and the Beautiful, exchanging it for the evacuation of their bile. Gurri is of course correct. Trump isn't Hitler or Stalin or your nasty uncle Fred who hates everything. Rather, he is a loudmouth who loves America just as much as you do, but just gets crass about it. Vote for him or don't vote for him, but please, for the love of God, put a plug in your bile duct. Because Trump is also an opportunist. You feed him bile, you get it back twofold.
This would be a great article, if not for the fact that the half of this country that demonized the other half for a decade explicitly said they are a revolution to overthrow our society and install Marxism.
Revolutions aren't political differences. They're an assault on the system. The incessant leftist brainwashing over "systemic racism" is a fundamental assault on the system itself and its pillars.
You can't play by the rules with revolutionaries. They openly said they want to end the rules.
Democrat extremism must stop. Immediately. They must denounce the cultural revolution and reaffirm their commitment to our foundational principles. They must reject One World globalism and stop handing the WHO power over our policies.
We're not "disagreeing over politics" anymore, we're in an existential fight for the future and soul of the country. A fight with a Democratic Party that has insisted for years that "the entire thing must come down."
The Democrats are the source of our hatred, division and extremism. Nothing changes unless they change their hearts.
This is not helpful. You’re doing exactly what this article urges against. Half of the country doesn’t want to install Marxism. A minority of illiberal leftist extremists would love that, but they don’t speak for all democrats. If you insist on seeing 50% of the country as an irredeemable enemy then you are part of the problem.
That is exactly what the loudest elements from both sides do. They don’t understand ( or can’t ) once you have evoked Hitler you have lost the argument
"Nearly half of the voting body of the USA consistently supports the spread of Marxist ideology in the highest seats of power while also weakening the country's border controls."
But here's what will really blow your mind now- go read Trump's speech after Charlottesville in its full text and realize that the "let's calm down and listen to each other" is what Trump said back in 2017!
The Democrats have always demonized him, lied about him, vilified him, and then used their own hatred as justification for breaking norms and traditions.
But the media took that to mean let's listen to what white supremacists have to say..as in there are fine people on both sides imbroglio..
Seriously, the time for Trump to say something that sounds moderate, open and forthcoming and aimed at the half of the country that will not vote for him is right now. I dislike Trump intensely and yet if he were to come out in a major address for the entire country to listen to and not just his base - I would be there with a drink in hand in front of the screen and listen. He has to try and appeal to Americans on the other side. He doesn't want to do that, perhaps because he feels that by doubling down on the rhetoric that his base enjoys that's all he needs. But as he continues to do that, that's all the media will report on. Anyway, just my thoughts..
President Donald Trump, 08/15/2017 press conference remarks regarding Charlottesville, Virginia, protests:
“[Y]ou also had people who were very fine people, on both sides….
“[Y]ou had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group….
“There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit.”
Any literate person who reads, and honestly assesses, Trump’s comments can see that he said (1) there were “very fine people” in both sides of the protests about what to do with the Robert E. Lee statue; (2) there were also bad people in both sides of those protests, such as the “neo-Nazis and the white nationalists” in one group, and the “troublemakers…with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats..a lot of bad people in the other group”; and (3) “the neo-Nazis and the white Supremacists” were “rough, bad people” who “should be condemned totally.”
Anyone - such as Joe Biden - who reads Trump’s comments as including “the neo-Nazis and white supremacists” among the “very fine people” at the protests is either feebleminded, or dishonest, or both, and deserves to be treated as a cipher.
Agreed. Biden is ripe for the taking. I think that if he was convinced Trump would not be the '24 GOP nominee he himself wouldn't run again - and thus we would all be spared this dismal rematch.
Donald Trump is "just a guy with a loud mouth and a desperate need for attention", eh? He also has a penchant for cronyism, a tendency to break the law whenever and however he wants, a powerful inclination towards political corruption and, oh yes, a fundamental disdain for democracy. As has been said, Trump has none of the qualities you'd want in a president, and all of the qualities you wouldn't.
First, let me say that I don't like Trump. Never have. I remember every single person in my office rehashing "Apprentice" episodes the day after they aired for years. I watched about 15 minutes of it and couldn't stand his personality. I voted for him in 2016 because I disliked him slightly less than Hilary. After he was elected, I just didn't watch or listen to him...same as I did with Obama. They both seemed like used car salesmen to me, Obama was just slicker. I keep waiting for someone to provide sane examples (that haven't been heavily edited) of all the things Trump is accused of. So far, all I've found to be true is he has a horrible attitude toward women. Kind of like my four brothers and their friends when they got ahold of a Playboy magazine with no adults around!
Thank-you for pointing that out; when he was just a reality TV star/Rich Guy, nobody acted is if he was the devil incarnate that half the country now thinks he is. The left was so gullible to believe that crooked Hillary DESERVED the presidency because 1) woman 2) she stepped aside for Barry 3) it was some sort of national penance being paid for having put up with Bill philandering.
Good point, in the race for points in identity politics, it was more important to get a black person in the white house than a woman. (Now in hindsight, with the left not being able to define a woman, will that ever even matter?)
Yes, American politics has been surreal since 9-11.
2008 Obama was a great example of a slick used-car salesman, total self interest, zero concern or capability for the health of America, was my most ignorant vote, ever.
2016 Avoiding an obviously corrupt Hillary was a no-brainer, but forced me to vote for Trump promoted in the debates by mainstream media because they believed "he's so bad that no one would vote for him." Karma.
2020 Another D&R debacle that ignored better candidates in both parties, exacerbated by self-serving incompetent amoral mainstream media only interested in capturing eyeballs and advertiser $.
2024 More of the same, but with a ray of hope from independent (not government controlled ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) media like The Free Press, several others and X. Can we have a strong 3rd party candidate with proven governing experience and high constituent approval ratings? Please!!
"Cronyism" could also be called surrounding yourself with people you trust.
As the head of the executive branch of government, ANY president, regardless of party, should be given a lot of deference to appoint people who support their agenda.
The issue of using this political patronage for personal gain is a separate issue and is why we need smaller government - there is less temptation to use taxdollars for personal gain.
I still have fond memories of that surreal press conference where Trump assembled his entire Cabinet around him at a long table and basically obligated them to stand up and sing paeans of praise towards him at the head of the table while TV cameras whirred and even reporters squirmed.
Timely. Especially after the holidays when my wife's side of the family wouldn't stop talking about Evil Orange Man, and it seemed like the talking points were being beamed directly into their heads from a transmitter at MSNBC, which was on in the other room even at dinner. And the turkey was overcooked.
I'll only repeat a story I've told before. Before the 2020 election a friend announced "If I had the choice between Trump and a lump of shit on that table, I'd vote for the lump of shit."
He got his wish.
The question is, do you reelect the lump of shit, vote for the evil orange man, or just abstain?
or vote libertarian like I did in 2016 and 2020 and seems likely again in 2024
That may make you feel good but doesn't actually help. Our system of two dominant parties is actually an advantage compared to the proportional representation schemes found in many European countries.. The dynamics force both parties to move a little closer to center in order to attract a majority. You may not want to believe that, but it's true. The empirical evidence is the closeness of our elections.. A protest vote on either side is functionally the same as not voting. Pick the least bad alternative, if that's the way you view things. I did that in 2016 and was pleasantly surprised when he picked from the list of nominees published before the election. Given the outsized power we've let SCOTUS accumulate and the highly politicized standards for nomination since Lawrence Tribe's 1980s book God Save This Honorable Court, I think the voters should demand such a list from every candidate.
I profoundly disagree, but well argued. No. When the two parties are tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee and they have a Gentleman's Agreement to compete, yes, but more importantly to keep real competition away, then voting for either one is to perpetuate the system. Notice how, no matter which party is in power, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
And notice too that the center is being ignored. Visibly, the two parties have never been more polarized opposites. Both parties play to their base, not the majority. Either could win easily by appealing to common sense, but the deeper powers that control both parties like the current situation. Divide and Rule.
I disagree with your disagreement. Not with the substance thereof but as it applies to this, and to the 2020 election. One party is led by a man who is not an establishment candidate; he is hated as much, maybe more, from within his party as he is by the opposition party voters. The guy for the opposition party is IMO a shill. That party puts its thumbs on the scale in its preliminary elections and campaigning. My hope is that all of this is indicia that the parties are in transition. Additionally all of this emphasis on picking the Prez is misplaced. Congress is by and large the problem.
I understand your point of view, but "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is not correct. For the 3 years 2017-2019 (ignoring the wild card of the pandemic), incomes rose for all income groups, even more after taking transfer payments into account. Search for CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and "distribution of household income" plus the year for 2016 and 2019. Nominal growth for the bottom quintile was 13% over those three years and inflation was low. Compare and contrast to the last 4 years..
The center looks like it's being ignored in the rhetoric, but cannot be ignored in reality or we wouldn't be so evenly split.
Not sure I agree with “polar opposites”.
I believe Senator Alan Simpson had it right:
Democrats: evil party
Republicans: stupid party
If you believe I am one attacking the other, you are still a partisan.
Congress has allowed the Supreme Court to accumulate that much power by not doing their jobs. They have also done the same thing with the Executive Branch.
Thanks - you've stated my observations about third-party "protest votes" very succinctly!
I don’t think the contemporary results support this. What the two party system has allowed is an abdication of responsibility by congress due to partisanship. If other parties were on equal footing I could see several combining forces to get things done. Things like immigration, entitlements, abortion, the budget, etc. All important issues stymied by the left and right extremes wanting a good campaign issue. They have ridiculous fantasies about “running the table” which never materialize. When they do have enough power to accomplish something they never deal with these key issues.
As a result the executive and judicial branches keep increasing their power which I think they justify by the impotence of congress.
Diogenes, when I taught college level American and Comparative Government in the 1980s, this was exactly the argument I made for our system over a PR system. And it was true; having only two parties created great moderation.
It is no longer true. It's hard to say when exactly it changed, but as a someone who long defended gerrymandering as a nothing-burger, it pains me to say that the change started with the reapportionment following the 1990 census. The 1992 districts were the first-ever drawn with powerful computer algorithms that could split districts to order. (It was also the first year that racially drawn gerrymanders were specifically encouraged, though SCOTUS then sort of backpedaled on that one). So why do these precision gerrymanders matter?
I suspect you know where I'm going, but please indulge me. With such precise gerrymanders, almost 400 of the House districts in any election are predestined to either go D or R. If a House district is already guaranteed to go R in November, then the election that matters is the primary election for that house seat. And in THAT election, moderation is a losing strategy. The candidates who appeal to the center-right lose to the candidates who just swing right. And the reverse happens in guaranteed-D districts, where moderate candidates will lose in the primary to more progressive candidates. And then, in November, we get a "close" election that is never really in question, because the seat is gerrymandered for one party over another.
Now you might say that this is House elections, it's not the Presidency. But the fact is, when people get accustomed to the taste of red meat, that's what they want. Moderate presidential candidates do have a better chance than moderate House candidates, but the extremists care more than the moderates, and increasingly, they will get their way. This is arguably more true on the Right than the Left, but that is just today.
OK Bruce true or false: "If I had the choice between Biden and a lump of shit on that table, I'd vote for the lump of shit."
False.
There would be two lumps of shit.
Hobson's choice.
My fiancés family was doing the same. People have become so obsessed with seeing things as binary. Good or evil. Oppressor or oppressed. Black or white. It leaves no room for actual intelligent conversation or exchange of ideas. It’s exhausting and sad.
I grew up in the Deep South. Manners dictated no discussion of religion or politics in social settings.
I'm from the North lol. We know there will be disagreements so everyone knows politics is off limits. Who puts on cable news shows during the holidays? How can you when Frosty the Snowman is on?!
Daniela, you write: "People have become so obsessed with seeing things as binary. Good or evil. Oppressor or oppressed. Black or white." You are so right. I really, really hate the "blue state-red state" thing, which only started with the 2000 election; I wish it could be stopped, because I think it exacerbates our differences by pointing to an entire state as being "red" or "blue", when in fact all states are mixes.
When I was first into politics, starting in the early '70s, it upset me that the two parties seemed to have so few real differences. But wow, I would love to go back to that time when people could have different political points of view and yet still be friends.
I am amazed that anyone bothers with broadcast media anymore. I learn infinitely more reading TFP than I ever did watching cable news. I’m down to 5 publications I will even bother with. Sprinkle in interesting comments thoughtful people add to the discussion and that’s about all I need to stay informed.
When someone says “I heard xxxx on MSNBC” all I hear is “Blah ba blah blah blah!”
Hear hear! I’ll drink to that !!
May I ask what your 5 publications are, Gregg?
Let’s see:
- TFP - pretty much center
- WSJ - center right, but some center left?
- Reason - libertarian
- Epoch Times - right. Hates the CCP. I’m pretty skeptical about what I read here, but there can be some pretty in depth pieces that can give you good grounding in a topic.
- The Fifth Column on Substack - libertarian? Not hard news but an awesome send off of all the news today. Kinda like TGIF on steroids. It is a great way to let off steam about annoying news today. They are big fans of TFP too.
I do read other stuff here or there and will admit to getting my breaking news from X. But I filter it heavily!
I used to do Fifth Column on Patreon; I still like Kmele, but just guess I grew tired of their talkfest after couple of years.
I allowed my Reason subscription to expire because I never touched the print copy and their comments section is THE worst. Nothing but spam.
Not sure why, but I’ve never subscribed too WSJ.
Epoch Times? They sent me a print copy a couple of months ago, but I’ve never read them. They used to scare me, but after what we’ve seen the past three years, I wonder if I was unfair to them. I think it is a bit odd that in their video ads they don’t all pronounce “epoch” the same way.
I’ve never done Twitter.
I do pay for National Review, but I’m less and less certain why; my favorite writers are all gone.
Same.
| And the turkey was overcooked
So perfectly apt.
America is now much like that turkey.
I’ve given up on taking the high road in such situations. When my family would launch into Orange Man Bad, I would launch into every latest embarrassment of the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, my family doesn’t take it as well as they give it. My sisters formally stopped speaking to me about a year ago. The reason? I have incorrect views on abortion. They’ve never talked to me about it, they’ve never explained why they hold their views, and I never brought the topic up in front of them. I merely reposted something on Facebook and so my sisters stopped speaking to me. These are adult women in their 40s. To make matters worse they didn’t even have the courage to tell me to my face, they made my parents tell me, then my parents sided with them. Why? Because my politics are “heinous.”
I lost my family because after 32 years of silence I decided to share my opinions in the same way everyone else does.
Wow--what a sad story. It is awful to hear. There are so many things wrong with how they reacted. I hope your family comes to its senses soon. Take care.
A parent that does that is “heinous.” I learned long ago that you have to value your children as human beings that may have differing opinions. You love them even if you disagree with those opinions.
My suggestion: get them into counseling with you. Any therapist worth their salt will eviscerate your parents for doing that. They need to get a clue.
They sound like a wonderful family. Good luck next Christmas.
So sad, Douglas, but yet, increasingly common these days.
Other than that, how was Thanksgiving?
Slightly cold, but still very funny. :+)
I recommend a new tradition we have adopted. Go to a good Italian restaurant and have a family style dinner with lots of drinks. Most of the time will be spent gorging, the food will be great and the food coma afterward will put everyone to sleep. A win for all.
Oh yes....I had that same experience at a dinner earlier this week. And lordy, you should have heard their explanations about the 14th amendment and original intent and so on. Totally bubbled. Totally MSNBC.
But I spoke up and things kind of dissipated...
you mean, deteriorated ... ?
I would call this, “crazy uncle upside-down world.”
Brigattista -sounds like you were in my house last week
A great piece.
Anyone who thinks the government should decide what information you get to see just doesn’t get it.
And that person would enjoy living in Putin's Russia or Xi's China.
I really appreciate this piece because it has always seemed obvious to me that our allegiance was to a set of rules called the Constitution. That document and its various state counterparts were then used to promulgate laws which were then tested and refined by the courts. As intended. Slow. Deliberative. High context, low speed. It gives me no pleasure to say that, in watching all this for nearly five decades and dedicating my life to law, I was sickened (and am still sickened) by the Merrick Garland hearing denial by the Senate. I remember thinking “this is where it will all start to unravel.” And I can remember where I was when Trump was banned from Twitter and I thought “here we go. This will mark the next unraveling.” And I lived to see the day a candidate be struck from a ballot without due process. Sadness does not begin to cut it.
Without the rule of law, applied equally, we are nothing.
Democrats have been working for decades to unravel that.
The evidence is now too clear to reject.
It's not both sides, it's the Democrats, and it started with Obama.
I'm still waiting for the leftists to acknowledge, this is exactly what Obama promised and why the conservatives were furious with him.
I think it started quite a bit before Barry.
There have always issues of policy that separated democrats from republicans, but it wasn't until Bill Clinton - who was RELIABLY accused of rape and then had a dalliance with an intern (lets not forget that if it wasn't for Linda Tripp and the "blue dress", the dems would have been able to make her out as a stalker/nutcase) and his enablers told us all that his personal life and his character wasn't our concern.
Then when the Bad Orange Man came around, all of sudden, character matters?
If not for the Democrats giving a pass to Bill Clinton, Donald Trump would never have been a viable candidate. Once they declared that good moral character does not matter in a POTUS candidate, they opened the floodgate.
The hypocrisy that the left can produce with absolutely no shame is astounding.
I had not thought of this but it is true. I remember them arguing openly during the Clinton years that character did not matter. I also remember the stunning silence of the women's movement. Utter complete silence.
I seem to remember a Big Name Feminist writing an Op Ed--possibly in the NYT--that argued that regardless of the individual women Bill harmed, he was in a position to do so much good for feminism in general that feminists needed to look the other way.
Feminists have been HUGELY complicit in #MeToo. As long as it benefited the feminist movement as a whole, individual powerful men must be allowed to have their "fun." Everyone knew about the Casting Couch, for example, but as long as the men demanding sex were making women famous, no one wanted to rock the boat.
"If not for the Democrats giving a pass to Bill Clinton, Donald Trump would never have been a viable candidate. "
I have made this observation many times since 2016. If Clinton had resigned (as most of the talking heads expected to happen within a week of the scandal breaking), a message would have been delivered that there are still standards. But yeah, Clinton made Trump possible.
Perhaps if HRC had moved out of the White House in 1998 she would have had a little moral capital with which to defeat Trump in 2016. Probably not, but it's a thought.
If she thought that her "stand by your man" position would win her points on the Right, she was much mistaken. It was all too obvious that she stayed because it benefited her to remain in a position of influence and among people of power. And since Feminist leaders had declared that it was okay for Bill to be a rapist adulterer as long as he supported Feminist causes, it would made the Feminists look bad for her to say, "Well *I'm* not going to tolerate it."
It began further back in time. President Clinton was at the start of the crescendo.
Oh, there's always been behind-the-scenes immorality in high places. But it was also understood that if it came out into the open, it was over. It wasn't until Bill Clinton that the Democrats publicly said that they didn't care and no one else should either.
I worked for a U.S. Senator in the late 1980’s. It started with the failed nomination of Bork to the Supreme Court. The politically organized opposition to that nomination was unprecedented and, I believe, started the slippery slope away from long held norms. Traditionally, the process granted leeway to the victorious candidate/party, but with a healthy “loyal opposition” to keep the winning side in check. Now, all politics is a zero sum game where there is only “we win, they lose.” Those old norms seem quaint now.
Watching debates and news from the 80s is amazing. We've changed so much and not for the better.
💯
PATRIOT Act had bipartisan support. DHS has become, predictably, an instrument of oppression against the people.
No it started in the mid 19th century.
By all means illuminate me.
Mr. Cribben I'll submit 20 March 1854 in Ripon Wisconsin and the we know what's best for youists Horace Greeley, Salmon Chase, John Freemont and others who's names now elude me. The seeds of vile "progressivism".
Are you serious ? Their goal was to curtail the western expansion of slavery.
Applying the rule of law equally cannot be over stated. It is the crown jewel that separates the USA from 3rd world countries and totalitarian governments
Equal application is the foundation of the rule of law. Without it there is no rule of law. And it is the rule of law which allows further examination of what equal application means.
Agreed
The Merrick Garland blockade was made possible by senate rules jerry rigged by previous majority leaders with (D) in their on-screen chyrons.
Your wrong Merrick Garland was subject to hardball politics. Thank god McConnell’s bet paid off. There is zero requirement for the senate to act on a Supreme Court Nominee. This was not the first time this was done. There was historical precedent for it. Garland has proved that he is nothing but a partisan hack and he would have been an horrific judge.
Right but the cloture rules that allowed an R Senate to delay and then confirm three Trump appointees was made possible by Dems.
He was. But it started under Democrat Harry Reid who arranged a 52-48 vote to override a 60 year Senate rule that called for a "supermajority" of 60 votes to confirm federal judicial and executive branch nominees to aid confirmation of Obama nominees. They were executive branch and lower court nominees so Supreme Court nominations were excepted from.the new rule. McConnell said at the time Democrats would come to regret it. He made good on thst statement the opportunity of Trump's nominees presented itself. All he did was extend Reid's rule change to the Supreme Court and voila, Trump had three nominees confirmed.
Sure
I don't have your knowledge of the law (just a dumb housewife here), but I knew that McConnell's move was going to come back to bite us all. I said at the time that they should have held the hearing, and refused to confirm Garland. That would have been the end of it. Now we are embroiled in a tit-for-tat showdown, with no end in sight. We need someone to end this, and I don't see anyone on the horizon capable of doing that.
Harry Reid's is the move that came back to bite Democrats. McConnel simply played the hand Reid dealt him
Your comment is appreciated, Liz. But as it appears more and more frequently these days, following our sacrosanct Constitution and its set of rules has become quite contentious. How else to explain conservative Federalist legal scholars who will under any circumstance uphold the 2nd Amendment, find that the 14th Amendment art. 3 can apply to a President in 2023 but also find that corporations are entitled to free speech protections? Is it a living document or one held in stone?
In regards to Garland, I agree. He may have made a poor judge, but my reading of the Constitution led me to believe he deserved a hearing in the Senate and be vetted. I would have liked to have seen McConnell challenged in the Supreme Court on that one. But timid heads prevailed.
They should have held a hearing and voted no. I know who I feel started this but it doesn't matter. It needs to stop. Did I think Garland should be on the Supreme Court. No way, but they should have voted in public and said no. We desperately need term limits.
IMO, It all started to unravel when Senators Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy “borked” Judge Robert Bork from reaching the Supreme Court (nominated by Reagan in 1987). He was clearly qualified by intellect, education, skill and experience. But he was a conservative jurist. A few years later, President Bush 41 nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. He had to overcome “a high tech lynching” to be voted in. That’s when the Democrats began to engage in scorched earth tactics to achieve/keep power. Every time some political norm or rule is violated, it’s done by Democrats. Ask Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Republicans then, belatedly, follow suit, even sometimes increasing the ante (blocking Merrick Garland) and that’s how we got to where we are. Any solution to the present dysfunction that I can think of is, unfortunately, wishful thinking.
Thankfully garland was opposed by the Biden rule . What got me was the manufactured kavannaugh trial.
There is no such thing as the Biden “rule” and such slippery spin (remember “Spin City”? Loved that show) is the nonsense we are dealing with these days - spread by the SM blob. Biden made a Senator floor speech during GHWB’s term about a SC vacancy. It was never adopted by the Senate as a rule. The DC lore that gets spun by the MSM for pure advertising reasons is beyond hard to listen to. Particularly around boring things like Senate procedural rules and Supreme Court precedent regarding granting writs of certiorari. But it happens and then repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated.
I have watched Mitch for years as a native citizen of the Commonwealth. He is nothing if not a masterful politician but that also includes the slip of language you see here for the sheep to bleat at. Keep on repeating on.
My question, since Merrick Garland is the subject: was it a precedent that a candidate's nomination was withheld? My understanding is that it was not the first time. My second question: would Merrick Garland have made as disastrous a Justice as he has been an AG? Perhaps it was a provocation for McConnell to have acted as he did, but in hindsight...
Excellent essay. I've had several discussions with friends and family about the lawfare that has been unleashed in the last few years. Trump isn't the only target, but he is the most visible and is the one who generates the most heated debate. For those who are convinced that we need to do everything, and anything, to keep Trump from winning in 2024, I show them the "give the devil the benefit of the law" scene from A Man for All Seasons. I've practiced law for 40 years and have never seen a more succinct and eloquent defense of the rule of law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2a2fAEQaGo
"They're actually after you and I'm in their way."
💯
If they succeed in the assault on Trump they will be empowered to go after any Republican anywhere who meaningfully threatens their power. And they will.
And the Republicans will do the same until we end up in another uncivil war.
This is bullshit "both sides" narrative that isn't supported by the last 30 years at all.
Perhaps not, though it will take quite an investigation to prove it. In any case, it's an irrelevant argument. Is the Left now engaging in "lawfare," as Jim Kaucher puts it? Yes! But, it's foolish to believe that the Right, or any political party or mob with power, is incapable of falling to using any means necessary to justify its ends. History has proven that time and time again. So, it's not a "both sides" narrative. It's the simple truth that power corrupts and the rule of law is the only defense we have.
No there is a distinction. Although it is not necessarily as simple as a Republican or Democrat label. The real divide is people who believe power is surrendered to the collective and those who believe power is retained in the individual. Those who utilize the collective approach relinquish their autonomy, believe in a hive mind and that the government can and should fix what ails them. Even if what ails them.is me because I believe I retained my power IOW because I do not agree with them.
Because I, and millions of my brethren, believe in the autonomy of the individual I am reluctant to punish other individuals absent unlawful (as opposed to disagreeable)
conduct.
I regret that I have but one like to give your post.
I believe the current political state in this country is caused by the fact that the Constitution was written to protect individual rights. It doesn't work with the far lefts groups mentality.
I'm actually agreeing with you, Lynne. The current DEI "movement" has formed itself into such a punitive collective that has infiltrated schools, clinics, public organizations, local governments, and even the judiciary (e.g. Colorado and Maine). But that doesn't mean average citizens who believe power is retained in the individual aren't susceptible to ascribing to a collective mob mentality. Human beings crave the acceptance of a group. The true test of belief that power is retained in the individual is being willing to stand against a group one belongs to when that group sacrifices principle -- in this case, the principle of rule of law. From my endeavors in studying history, I see no group of people who have achieved power who have not abused it at some point. Their leaders did not do that alone. They had support from their followers, in many cases because not giving support meant death. --JRG
Then why is Trump wanting to go after Democrats? How is that different?
He did nothing of the sort. He is all talk and zero action if you were to actually pay attention to reality and not the fiction that is on the MSM like Russian collusion or the so callled Jan 6th insurrection.
January 6th was fiction? I must have imagined it. Well, let’s see what the jury decides (eventually). Will you accept a jury verdict or will you keep saying the election was stolen?
What are you talking about? Be specific.
If you'll provide a frame of reference I'll do my best.
I don't know what you're referring to.
I don't think Republicans 'go after' Democrats in the same manner they go after us.
They are responsibly investigating the Bidens with sound evidence.
Give an example anywhere near the cooked up Russia collusion charge.
Or the insurrection charge. Or fabricating the steele dossier.
I do not see evidence of that. Trump did not do that his first term.
It wasn’t the Republicans that started the last one. And they won’t be the ones that start the next one. And there is another coming and it be lead by some insane democrat.
It not only about who starts, it's also about who responds and how they respond.
I think history tells us the Lincoln pulled off the impossible task and he was hated in much the same way by the same type of folks that hate Trump.
Thank you for the link to that scene. Most excellent.
Great scene from a great movie
Wonderful! I may watch whole movie tonight!
Jim, what a great scene, and so close to what we have today. There may have been a different era where the roles were reversed, but today, in 2023, that would be any Conservative, talking to just about any Liberal/Progressive/Leftist/Democrat with Trump derangement syndrome. (This coming from someone who'd rather see any other Republican in the mix over Trump)
Please watch out for the candidates who identify as Republican but are in reality Uniparty.
I actually think of this often too. Would you want this argument in the hands of your opponent? This USED to be something taught in law schools to budding trial lawyers. I have no idea what they teach now but judging from recent events - it ain’t “reason free from passion.”
https://nypost.com/2023/05/30/cuny-slam-students-hate-speech-against-israel-nypd-military/
'The results will be counted state by state and sent to the Electoral College. Those are the rules. If you mess with them, there will be hell to pay. If your side wins, be boring about it—no censorship, no demonization, no show trials.'
The essay from which the above quote comes from pretty much states that Trump should not be demonized. Got it. And I agree. But then he writes the above - there will be hell to pay if you mess up with the Electoral College. So, notwithstanding the fact that Jan 6 could easily be construed as not being an 'insurrection', it does appear factual that at least four states had illegal electors chosen by the Trump team. So 'if there is hell to pay' for that transgression - who's to pay for it? And if that payback is a trial, is that a 'show trial'?
I've been voting since 1976. Over the years, many people I disagreed with profoundly have been elected to Congress and the Presidency. Until recently, though, they had a fundamental understanding of our constitution and how our government works.
What scares me the most today is the members of Congress who have neither. How can we continue to function like this?
Precisely my concern. The rules she speaks of are being challenged by the institutions that are suppose to uphold them.
i would like to see everyone who wants to run for a political office have to pass the same test as those who want to become US citizens. I wonder how many our current representives, all the way up to the President could pass the test. I doubt that Biden could and I know that Trump couldn't. I'm sure we can all think of senators and congress people who probably couldn't pass.
At this point in time I wish we can have voter literacy tests. I really see some benefit. But I also know that is a slippery slope to hell. Same for candidate requirements.
Dear Lynne Then whoever suggests that will be labelled racist before the ink dries.
I know.
Still would be fun just for the information.
Still it would be great to see that condition offered up as a bipartisan bill in the house of representatives.
I would argue that most do understand. They simply don’t care for their feelings, outweigh rule of law.
I would argue that if you do not understand you are ruled by emotion you are incapable of grasping the meaning of the rule of law.
Same here. Timewise and all the rest.
A lot of those on the other side “despise” Trump. Some, like my daughter, don’t even realize what their side is doing, and don’t care. Stopping him by any means is more important than anything else, justifiable with slogans like “save our democracy”, or “he deserves whatever he gets”. The way forward seems to be education of the ignorant, so let’s keep talking and remind them of the Russia hoax, the Steele dossier, the riot that got named an insurrection, the anti-semitism of a two-state solution, the Abraham Accords, and four years of no wars.
Rob- good luck getting past the loud humming and fingers jammed in ears! It's been my experience that most of these folks REFUSE to let any info that runs counter to their MSNBC/Wapo talking points.
Add NYT to that !
The apotheosis of “any means necessary” is October 7. At least that’s what the river to the sea folx endorse.
The Marvelization of America: The opposition isn’t just people with whom we disagree, they’re the bad guys; Trump isn’t just a blowhard, he’s a supervillain a la Thanos or Magneto (both of whom actually have guiding philosophies, if twisted ones). We were once a more intellectual society, we embraced debate and recognized nuance. Now, collective thinking is simplistic, childish.
The "dumbing down of America" is complete. Why do you think they don't teach critical thinking anymore. That is why math is racist. You have to follow steps and use logic. That is how you teach if you don't want people who can think.
Tell your daughter the people she supports consider her a "colonizer" who deserves to be "decolonized".
Even worse, tell her that sexual atrocities are perfectly ok because she’s western.
amen!
Rob, I wish they would listen but most will not. The women I know who hate Trump do so out of a feminist viewpoint. They don’t care about any policies, not really.
Wonder how they felt about Bill Clinton? They were pretty quiet then.
These folks are too young for Clinton. They were toddlers when he was in office.
Thanks for calling me old. (Joking). I half made that comment so that the ones who don't know might ask somebody about it.
Same here.
Rob. Perfectly said. Sadly, sounds like our daughters are kindred spirits, results of a biased press, education, and pop culture.
Exactly.
You're preaching to the choir, Martin. We know we hold no real power. How do we convince our over-"educated" overlords to stop treating us like minions and to lay down their arms and join us in the obscurity of life?
No one will remember any of our names or theirs in less than a century. Hell, even young adults now reject the Holocaust as factual history less than a century later. Hitler is just a word. It's like saying "dude" was to us 40-somethings. As Taibbi and Kirn discussed last week on 'AtW' it's/we're all FUBAR!
Happy New Year, dudes! Start planning your home garden early this year. While you may need the food I can guarantee the therapy will be rewarding.
Confirming the garden on all fronts. Lessons learned: every year is different, Mother Nature is in charge. Enjoy!
I said in 2016 that Trump was a natural and even inevitable response to the grotesque hatred and ugliness on the Left. They spew vitriol and venom, then get SURPRISED when people take offense. They are surprised when someone who is almost as bad as their average gets popular on the other side.
Let's be clear: Trump is nowhere NEAR as ugly, abusive, self absorbed, and hateful as most of the Left. What he does do is hold up a mirror. The problem is, the people who should be learning something, don't. They can't recognize those ugly monsters as themselves.
I've been on the internet interacting with Leftists for something like 20 years. I used to often pursue them into their ghettos, tone myself down, focus hard on reasonable and emotionally neutral arguments, and STILL get insulted and banned, over and over. It's not the manner of speech: it is DIFFERENCE ITSELF. That is the problem. They don't want to hear anything that they don't already have bouncing around in their heads. Difference is violence to them. And Difference--having an honest and principled and clearly articulable difference of opinion--they construe as violence, to which the response is a very different soft of violence, that of censorship, blacklisting, persecution by the "legal" system, and even physical beatings and even murders (Trump supporters HAVE been killed by left wing nut jobs).
Accurate. Same here. I used to try to take the high road, find areas of mutual agreement, be open to “agree to disagree”…leftists can’t do this. Disagreement means you’re “literally Hitler.” Leftists are totalitarians at heart, always.
My experience as well - very hard to take having spent my academic career in public health teaching students to understand how people in different circumstances held differing views on hot-button issues like abortion. I know I couldn't teach in this environment, and am grateful to be retired! SR
Leftists can't do this but old school Democrats can. I chat with some of them on here. Let's be careful.
I hear you, that's what I used the term "leftists" - not all Democrats are leftists. Leftists are awful.
We'll just agree to disagree that Floyd's killing was police abuse but Ashley Babbitt's killing was heroism that saved lives.
We'll just agree to disagree on whether killing Trump supporters is always justified or sometimes justified.
I really hate that phrase
Depends on the context, no? That is sarcasm BTW.
Well, right now we have Jews being beaten or killed , and unabashedly threatened by the left mob who feel that in this case , violence is ok. But get their pronouns wrong and that’s considered violent.
I literally believe it is a form of contextual psychosis. Like all authoritarianisms.
RULES Without rules we have anarchy and chaos. Since Donald Trump appeared on the scene in 2016, the Democrats/Deep State have been ignoring the rules of propriety on a regular basis. They used the dirtiest of dirty tricks to try to ensure victory in 2016, and have almost totally abandoned all RULES if it would hurt Trump. The Steele dossier, the Russia hoax, the Mueller investigation, the "impeachments," the Jan 6 investigation, the midnight raids on Trump and his allies - all outside of the boring RULES. And now we have chaos - we haven't quite reached the stage of anarchy. Yes, who would ever want to abandon boring RULES unless the object was anarchy? So can you believe it? We all need to vote for boring Donald Trump!!!
People tend to have an innate sense of fair play and to abhor bullies. Trump talks like a bully, but the left has unleashed the entire apparatus of the state and media against him, and it makes all but the most blind partisans appalled. And the nakedly partisan and excessively harsh treatment of the January 6th protesters compared to the mobs who looted and burned our cities three years earlier demonstrates that the lawfare will inevitably expand to political opponents and then the population at large. It is independents who determine the outcome of elections, and many of them now see Trump as the victim of bullies rather than the bully. Quite an accomplishment by the establishment, and one that will come back to haunt them.
God, I hope so
Let's hope the 60% rational citizens in the middle show up to vote in every election this year.
Good points Art. I’d pretty much take any Republican over Trump. But if it’s Trump or pretty much any Democrat, I’ll go with Trump.
I do not think they want anarchy. I think they want control. Full, complete, and total control over every man, woman, and child, every fish, fowl and animal, every insect, every blade of grass and the soil in which it grows, the water that seeps and flows, every plant, every mineral, the air we breathe and every atom that makes up any of it.
I agree. Look at any communist/authoritarian utopia to understand the truth of your statement.
Your last line just made me LOL!
My ex and I look at a field and see something completely different. I see a football field and she sees a field like in Sound Of Music with Julie Andrews running across it with a beautiful backdrop. The problem is, in a marriage her field has no borders, no rules, no consequences for violating the rules of stated play. I feel like that is our country today. There is no border, those who vote don't have to show they are actually citizens, leaders in politics, education and corporate worlds lie with as much ease as it takes to tie a shoelace, virtues and values are defined by a $ sign, and so on. And in the meantime, we escape to a field on a hillside to find a sandpit where we can stick our heads.
Spot on. I would add two more points. FIRST, Do not stereotype. Evaluate others at an individual level. History proves that stereotyping almost always leads to violence. SECOND, tyranny whether by a majority or a minority also tends to lead to violence. That is why clear rules are important to have and TO FOLLOW.
Gurri is right, but we need to go deeper. There is too little honor among us. It’s bad when the hoi polloi are vile, destructive to civilization when the powerful are. Our founders had an honor culture. Hamilton and Burr were willing to risk death defending theirs. Today we tolerate prosecutions based on fabricated evidence. And even when the falsehood is exposed the fabricators hears not a peep of condemnation from their side. They are only sad it didn’t pay off.
Trump’s personality is crude. So was Patton’s. But Patton had what Ike needed, so Ike gave him what he wanted. He put him to work. Aren’t we all glad he did?
So you're comparing Donald Trump to Patton?
Both are divisive destructors. N'est pas?
Patton had discipline and strategy in his aggressiveness. Trump has none of that..
Mr. Morris I'm pretty sure that Mr. Trump devised or was well advised in the execution of an excellent strategy to depose Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign despite the circumstantial evidence indicating the fix was in favoring the Clinton campaign. The Trump organization stepped in and broke things. The poor Hildebeast is still sore eight years on.
But she conceded..
Did she?
I hope not.
I don't when it happened, sometime in the last 40 or 50 years I suppose. But people stopped thinking and feeling about the Good and the Beautiful, exchanging it for the evacuation of their bile. Gurri is of course correct. Trump isn't Hitler or Stalin or your nasty uncle Fred who hates everything. Rather, he is a loudmouth who loves America just as much as you do, but just gets crass about it. Vote for him or don't vote for him, but please, for the love of God, put a plug in your bile duct. Because Trump is also an opportunist. You feed him bile, you get it back twofold.
A good observation Mr. Bacon.
This would be a great article, if not for the fact that the half of this country that demonized the other half for a decade explicitly said they are a revolution to overthrow our society and install Marxism.
Revolutions aren't political differences. They're an assault on the system. The incessant leftist brainwashing over "systemic racism" is a fundamental assault on the system itself and its pillars.
You can't play by the rules with revolutionaries. They openly said they want to end the rules.
Democrat extremism must stop. Immediately. They must denounce the cultural revolution and reaffirm their commitment to our foundational principles. They must reject One World globalism and stop handing the WHO power over our policies.
We're not "disagreeing over politics" anymore, we're in an existential fight for the future and soul of the country. A fight with a Democratic Party that has insisted for years that "the entire thing must come down."
The Democrats are the source of our hatred, division and extremism. Nothing changes unless they change their hearts.
This is not helpful. You’re doing exactly what this article urges against. Half of the country doesn’t want to install Marxism. A minority of illiberal leftist extremists would love that, but they don’t speak for all democrats. If you insist on seeing 50% of the country as an irredeemable enemy then you are part of the problem.
That is exactly what the loudest elements from both sides do. They don’t understand ( or can’t ) once you have evoked Hitler you have lost the argument
150 million Americans are Marxists?
Here I'll fix it:
"Nearly half of the voting body of the USA consistently supports the spread of Marxist ideology in the highest seats of power while also weakening the country's border controls."
Better. I can only say that animosity towards Donald is so strong that given the choice millions of Americans probably would choose Karl..
But here's what will really blow your mind now- go read Trump's speech after Charlottesville in its full text and realize that the "let's calm down and listen to each other" is what Trump said back in 2017!
The Democrats have always demonized him, lied about him, vilified him, and then used their own hatred as justification for breaking norms and traditions.
But the media took that to mean let's listen to what white supremacists have to say..as in there are fine people on both sides imbroglio..
Seriously, the time for Trump to say something that sounds moderate, open and forthcoming and aimed at the half of the country that will not vote for him is right now. I dislike Trump intensely and yet if he were to come out in a major address for the entire country to listen to and not just his base - I would be there with a drink in hand in front of the screen and listen. He has to try and appeal to Americans on the other side. He doesn't want to do that, perhaps because he feels that by doubling down on the rhetoric that his base enjoys that's all he needs. But as he continues to do that, that's all the media will report on. Anyway, just my thoughts..
I'm afraid he doesn't have that in him.
President Donald Trump, 08/15/2017 press conference remarks regarding Charlottesville, Virginia, protests:
“[Y]ou also had people who were very fine people, on both sides….
“[Y]ou had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group….
“There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit.”
Any literate person who reads, and honestly assesses, Trump’s comments can see that he said (1) there were “very fine people” in both sides of the protests about what to do with the Robert E. Lee statue; (2) there were also bad people in both sides of those protests, such as the “neo-Nazis and the white nationalists” in one group, and the “troublemakers…with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats..a lot of bad people in the other group”; and (3) “the neo-Nazis and the white Supremacists” were “rough, bad people” who “should be condemned totally.”
Anyone - such as Joe Biden - who reads Trump’s comments as including “the neo-Nazis and white supremacists” among the “very fine people” at the protests is either feebleminded, or dishonest, or both, and deserves to be treated as a cipher.
I can't understand why Republicans want Trump. Running literally anyone else would remove the #1 reason to vote for Biden.
Agreed. Biden is ripe for the taking. I think that if he was convinced Trump would not be the '24 GOP nominee he himself wouldn't run again - and thus we would all be spared this dismal rematch.
I think that is the story his administration is telling people but who knows?
That's funny. A good reply. You're aware of what Marxists do to their indegnenous sympathizers no?
Eat them just after they mate? Just joking. Please inform..
Excellent article, Mr. Gurri. You'd be welcome for a boring dinner with my family any time.
Donald Trump is "just a guy with a loud mouth and a desperate need for attention", eh? He also has a penchant for cronyism, a tendency to break the law whenever and however he wants, a powerful inclination towards political corruption and, oh yes, a fundamental disdain for democracy. As has been said, Trump has none of the qualities you'd want in a president, and all of the qualities you wouldn't.
None of which is true.
I'd agree he has a penchant for cronyism.
The rest is so unbelievably hypocritical it's comical. The coke heads in the White House are real bothered by Trump breaking the law, huh?
Don’t all politicians have a penchant for cronyism? Especially cronies who donate to their campaigns? Not a defender of Trump here.
You forgot to say Hitler
I believe you need to read the article again because the main point was missed.
And so you will resort to "any means necessary," won't you?
First, let me say that I don't like Trump. Never have. I remember every single person in my office rehashing "Apprentice" episodes the day after they aired for years. I watched about 15 minutes of it and couldn't stand his personality. I voted for him in 2016 because I disliked him slightly less than Hilary. After he was elected, I just didn't watch or listen to him...same as I did with Obama. They both seemed like used car salesmen to me, Obama was just slicker. I keep waiting for someone to provide sane examples (that haven't been heavily edited) of all the things Trump is accused of. So far, all I've found to be true is he has a horrible attitude toward women. Kind of like my four brothers and their friends when they got ahold of a Playboy magazine with no adults around!
Thank-you for pointing that out; when he was just a reality TV star/Rich Guy, nobody acted is if he was the devil incarnate that half the country now thinks he is. The left was so gullible to believe that crooked Hillary DESERVED the presidency because 1) woman 2) she stepped aside for Barry 3) it was some sort of national penance being paid for having put up with Bill philandering.
She didn't "step aside", she was shoved over lol. That is why she is so bitter now.
Good point, in the race for points in identity politics, it was more important to get a black person in the white house than a woman. (Now in hindsight, with the left not being able to define a woman, will that ever even matter?)
Yes, American politics has been surreal since 9-11.
2008 Obama was a great example of a slick used-car salesman, total self interest, zero concern or capability for the health of America, was my most ignorant vote, ever.
2016 Avoiding an obviously corrupt Hillary was a no-brainer, but forced me to vote for Trump promoted in the debates by mainstream media because they believed "he's so bad that no one would vote for him." Karma.
2020 Another D&R debacle that ignored better candidates in both parties, exacerbated by self-serving incompetent amoral mainstream media only interested in capturing eyeballs and advertiser $.
2024 More of the same, but with a ray of hope from independent (not government controlled ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) media like The Free Press, several others and X. Can we have a strong 3rd party candidate with proven governing experience and high constituent approval ratings? Please!!
"Cronyism" could also be called surrounding yourself with people you trust.
As the head of the executive branch of government, ANY president, regardless of party, should be given a lot of deference to appoint people who support their agenda.
The issue of using this political patronage for personal gain is a separate issue and is why we need smaller government - there is less temptation to use taxdollars for personal gain.
What laws?
Yeah, that quite 'desperate need for attention.'
I still have fond memories of that surreal press conference where Trump assembled his entire Cabinet around him at a long table and basically obligated them to stand up and sing paeans of praise towards him at the head of the table while TV cameras whirred and even reporters squirmed.
Something to look forward to, I guess.
Enjoy the show. Well, if it airs.
The first sentence is seemingly true (some subjectivity there). The rest is objectively false.