The one issue that Trump really cares about
[Instead of reading the following trash, I encourage everyone to read Tyler’s brilliant post on neo-reaction.]
The Trumpistas are gradually coming around to the view that Trump is a buffoon, and that his policy proposals are nonsense. Their last stand seems to be immigration. “Yes, he’s a flip-flopping politician, but at least he’s anti-immigration, the only issue that matters for the future of the country.” Or something like that. A few days ago I showed that Trump blamed Romney’s loss in 2012 on his hard line on immigration, and suggested we needed to be much nicer to all those good, hard working Mexicans who sneak into the country.
The Trumpistas were not fazed; they insisted that he’d had a sudden “road to Damascus” conversion on the issue, after reading a book by Ann Coulter. That’s right, Trumps defenders view this source of information as a plus, and perhaps relative to Trump himself, Ann Coulter is another Ross Douthat or George Will. But that was then and this is now:
Donald Trump has inserted himself into one of the most contentious House primaries in the country this weekend, endorsing GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers in her member-versus-member race in North Carolina.
So you probably think Ms. Ellmers is the hard-liner on immigration, the one issue that Trump “really cares about”. Well she’s certainly an extremist on the issue, but in the opposite direction:
Representative Renee Ellmers of North Carolina was one of 10 Republicans who voted with Democrats on Wednesday against legislation that would roll back President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
The immigration provisions were attached to a bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security. The House of Representatives passed the bill, 236-191 along party lines. All but two Democrats voted against it.
While Ellmers criticized Obama’s executive actions, saying she would “fight tooth and nail to put a stop to his amnesty plan,” she said in a statement that the bill was “overly broad in scope, as it has the potential to have a real negative and lasting impact on jobs and families in North Carolina.”
“There are businesses in the Second District who contract with Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and many of these jobs could be put in jeopardy with the passing of this legislation,” Ellmers said in a statement. . . .
She also was one of 26 Republicans who voted against an amendment that would eliminate the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which has granted work permits and stopped deportation of 600,000 immigrants who arrived illegally as children.
And she was one of just two Republicans who opposed a measure that objected to the exemption of DACA immigrants from the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
I warned you guys that Trump couldn’t care less about your issues; Donald Trump’s greatness is the only issue that matters to Donald Trump. Ellmers endorsed Trump, and that’s all that matters. With Trump, everything is personal. Here’s The Economist:
Short of designing himself a uniform involving ermine and red velvet, he could hardly make it clearer that he dreams of reigning over, rather than governing, America.
To get a sense of the breathtaking scale of Trump’s paranoid illusions, let’s go back to the late 1980s. It was the tail end of the Cold War, when the US towered over the rest of the world like a colossus, like the Roman Empire at its peak. The socialist model was failing everywhere, and neoliberalism was on the march. This was before the rise of China, and before NAFTA. The US military budget had soared, and the rotten Soviet empire was beginning to crumble. And how did Trump describe the US position?
Trump began by telling the people who were there that he wouldn’t run for president in 1988, which disappointed some, especially Dunbar. Then Trump railed, with no notes, and for roughly the next half hour, about Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Washington, Wall Street, politicians, economists and “nice people” of whom he had “had enough,” he said. This country was facing “disaster” and was “being kicked around.” Other countries were “laughing at us.”
“It makes me sick,” Trump said.
“If the right man doesn’t get into office,” he warned the Rotarians, “you’re going to see a catastrophe in this country in the next four years like you’re never going to believe. And then you’ll be begging for the right man.”
This can only be described as a mental illness, a mind utterly removed from reality. All of these paranoid delusions push Trump to strike out at all his imagined enemies. Again, here’s the Economist:
He has promised not to devolve power from Washington but to concentrate it in the Oval Office, where a President Trump would bully and browbeat global friends, foes and corporate bosses alike. At rallies he asks roaring crowds to imagine him lifting the telephone to impose punitive taxes on businesses or trading partners who defy him.
Trump is a sadist, who enjoys torturing others, just to see them squirm:
The Caligulan malice with which Donald Trump administered Paul Ryan’s degradation is an object lesson in the price of abject capitulation to power.
Trump has perfected the “big lie”, which he learned from his bedside reading of Hitler’s speeches. (And admit it, isn’t that 1987 speech right out of Hitler’s playbook?) But you neo-Nazis should not get your hopes up, Trump’s no Hitler. He’ll double-cross you just like he double-crossed the anti-immigration people in North Carolina.
One of the most comical strands of Trumpism is the view that he’s a pacifist on foreign policy. Wars start when countries are provoked by real or (mostly) imagined slights from other countries. Trump would be the anti-Obama, the most easily provoked President in all of American history. And yet his supporters think’s he’s the one that will keep us out of war, citing his opposition to the Iraq War (which he actually favored, another big lie.)
Another theme is that while Trump is indeed ignorant on policy, he’ll “hire the best people” to advise him. How do we know? Because he says so. The Trumpistas don’t seem bothered by the fact that Trump has actually been hiring the worst people. His foreign policy advisors thought it was a good idea to suggest that the US become isolationist and then tell the countries we were protecting to get their own nukes. So Trump advocates this plan, then has to back off when the experts tell him how idiotic it is. His economic advisor is like something The Onion would have come up with, a man with no discernible background in economics, who doesn’t even understand the tax plan that he’s supposed to be defending:
However, there is nothing in Clovis’s academic background that suggests he has had the sort of formal training one would expect so see on the CV of a professional economist, much less a “professor of economics.” Additionally, some of Clovis’s interactions with experts in the field of economic and tax policy have left them puzzled.
During his appearance at the Fiscal Summit, he had a tense exchange with Harwood about the Tax Foundation’s analysis of the Trump Tax plan. Harwood pointed out that the analysis found a $10 trillion deficit even when it used dynamic analysis — taking growth effects into account — rather than a more conventional static model.
“That’s not entirely true. The Tax Foundation model is a static model, not a dynamic model,” Clovis said.
Harwood pushed back, saying, “They do it both ways but I believe the $10 trillion figure they came up with was in their dynamic model.”
Clovis replied airily, “Well, that’s not what they told me, and I’ve sat across the table from them just like this, John.”
Two things about that statement: First, the Tax Foundation analysis clearly and unambiguously used both a static and a dynamic analysis to look at the Trump plan. Second, one of the guys who Clovis “sat across the table” from distinctly remembers explaining that to the Trump advisor.
“About a month ago, Clovis asked us to walk him through how we came to our conclusion,” said Kyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the Tax Foundation. “He came into the office and we showed it to him, and ran a few simulations.”
I just don’t understand how Clovis could be so confused, after all, he has a degree from one of the most world-renowned PhD programs:
Okay, well is Clovis at least an economist? On that, the answer is somewhat less clear, but the weight of the evidence suggests that he is not, at least in the conventional sense of having extensive training in the discipline. In addition to a bachelor’s degree in political science from the Air Force Academy (1971), he holds a Master’s in Business Administration from Golden Gate University (1984) and a Doctorate in Public Administration from the University of Alabama (2006).
The doctoral degree appears to have been earned through a distance-learning program not offered on the University’s main campus, according to the school’s public affairs office. The school was unable to provide much information about the program, as it was discontinued the year after Clovis graduated, but an early course catalogue shows that the requirements for the degree include only one course in advanced microeconomics and another in public expenditures. The vast bulk of the program is dedicated to management and administration studies.
Well, at least it wasn’t from Trump University. But then the article continues:
To be fair, when asked if there is any hard and fast rule about who can and who cannot claim to be “an economist,” Kristine Etter, a spokesperson for the American Economic Association, said, “No, there is not.”
See Sumner, don’t be such an elitist, anyone is entitled to call himself an economist.
Caligula appointed a horse to the Senate, to show his contempt for the Roman establishment. Expect Trump’s cabinet to be full of people best described as the posterior section of a horse:
In an appearance at a fundraiser for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie last week, Trump took the same tack on the economy. “A lot of you don’t know the world of economics and you shouldn’t even bother,” he told a crowd of wealthy donors. “Just leave it to me, I have so much fun with it. Just go and enjoy your life.”
I don’t doubt that Trump will have lots of fun. But at whose expense?
PS. The thing that makes me the most sad about this election is that one of the quotes above also applies to Hillary:
He has promised not to devolve power from Washington but to concentrate it in the Oval Office, where a President Trump would bully and browbeat global friends, foes and corporate bosses alike. At rallies he asks roaring crowds to imagine him lifting the telephone to impose punitive taxes on businesses or trading partners who defy him.
PPS. One of the few nice surprises of the campaign is the revelation that left wing campus PC nuts and Trumpistas are clearly shown to be two sides of the same coin. People should not be viewed as individuals with agency, but rather as bundles of special interests, whose views are predetermined by their gender or skin color. A “Mexican” judge, for example. They only differ on one small point; are white males the good guys or the bad guys?
HT: Mike Sax, Jim Geraghty
Tags:
7. June 2016 at 08:42
That post on neo-reaction (which doesn’t mention Yarvin or Land!) was crap, and I refuted it in less than 100 words in my first comment on it.
“The Trumpistas were not fazed; they insisted that he’d had a sudden “road to Damascus” conversion on the issue, after reading a book by Ann Coulter.”
-That was Massimo’s explanation; definitely not mine. Don’t strawman.
Who has more power to ram law through the House? A single Congressguy or a President? That’s why Trump doesn’t care about any one representative’s immigration position.
“citing his opposition to the Iraq War (which he actually favored, another big lie.)”
-Again, there’s “favored” and there’s favored. Trump was solidly against the Iraq War by mid-2003, and said “I guess” when confronted by it in 2002. Not exactly a sterling endorsement. Compare Hillary’s uncritical presentation of Bush administration lies when she defended her pro-Iraq war vote in 2002.
“His foreign policy advisors thought it was a good idea to suggest that the US become isolationist and then tell the countries we were protecting to get their own nukes.”
-Because it was a good idea!
I wouldn’t say race predisposes one to certain views with total accuracy (just look at the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court), but it may well bias one in one direction or another. Of course, judge-shopping is illegal.
Again, WHO SHOULD THE TRUE NEO-NAZI HAVE VOTED FOR IN THIS RACE?
7. June 2016 at 08:44
Crap, it seems like “Make America Great Again” is being banned from here, too. Aw, well. Make America Great Again!
7. June 2016 at 08:53
I think Trump is primarily a response to Obama. Obama fought too many policy arguments by bringing out a child or grandmother or person of color who was struggling. And said his policy would fix there situation. It avoided dialogue and made their other side “evil” for opposing his policies because they hurt a neglected or vulnerable class.
So Trump is just the next level of debating. He completely avoids anything of substance and goes on the attack of the other guy. The GOP had little response to Obama’s attacks other than having a guy like Paul Ryan or Romney come off wonkish. So they replaced the wonk with the demagogue. And Trump is the best we have at dumbing down (but winning) arguments.
7. June 2016 at 08:55
“by bringing out a child or grandmother or person of color who was struggling”
-Like all those raped Yazidis in Iraq? Thanks, Obama!
“And Trump is the best we have at dumbing down (but winning) arguments.”
-Yup. Winners aren’t losers.
7. June 2016 at 09:01
I think you constantly and intentionally misrepresented the views of many Trumpistas. For example in the case of the immigration issue their point is pretty much that the political agenda of Hillary is well known and not liked at all while with Trump there’s at least a chance that he’s not as bad as Hillary. That’s the point of a lot of Trumpistas I’ve read in this blog and it’s hard to argue against that.
Why elect someone whose politics you don’t like at all compared to someone who got at least the benefit of the doubt? I also assume that there are many Trumpistas who don’t care too much about immigration at all. Like me for example. I couldn’t care less about immigration to the US.
It’s also known that I’m a supporter of the theory Sean mentioned above me: Trump is a direct reaction to Obama and his politics. Maybe the only possible reaction.
This phenomena might also not be so much about Trump himself. I bet there are many people who don’t elect Trump because of Trump but despite of Trump – given the other alternatives. I guess people like Paul Ryan fit in this category.
7. June 2016 at 09:19
Another theme is that while Trump is indeed ignorant on policy, he’ll “hire the best people” to advise him. How do we know?
Just look at his campaign staff.
Caligula appointed a horse to the Senate, to show his contempt for the Roman establishment.
I’m still crossing my fingers that Trump will show his contempt for the GOP establishment by selecting David Duke for VP.
One of the few nice surprises of the campaign is the revelation that left wing campus PC nuts and Trumpistas are clearly shown to be two sides of the same coin.
I wonder if Trump’s wall is so appealing because it feeds the illusion of making America a “safe space” for the alt-right. His threatened legal punishments of his ‘libelers’ are the alt-right version of lefty campus PC extremists punishing speech they don’t like.
7. June 2016 at 09:22
Sotomayor got praise when she said that her race influences her decisions. Then Trump believes he’s being mistreated and makes a pretty basic connection between his anti-Mexican rhetoric and the Mexicanness of the judge. Why is it okay for a non-white to say race affects things but it’s not okay for a white to say race affects things?
Why should we let racial double standards, identity politics, and not being allowed to call things what they are cause more problems?
7. June 2016 at 09:23
I also read a lot about very serious psychiatric diagnoses constantly “diagnosed” by Trump haters that got no medical background whatsoever. Even a physician like me could only find or exclude diagnoses like these in a thorough personal examination. But you guys can make it over your TV in a few seconds – which is just awesome.
We pretty much got every psychiatric disorder from the DSM-IV-TR by now. Diagnoses made by complete laypersons about a person that you totally hate and that you’ve never even met. It just very laughable. Maybe you are working in the wrong field? Maybe you should become the new Rasputinian faith healer?
In reality you couldn’t even safely distinguish a running nose from a common cold or a common cold from influenza. And so on. And so on.
7. June 2016 at 09:47
“The Trumpistas are gradually coming around to the view that Trump is a buffoon, and that his policy proposals are nonsense. ”
Anyone who thinks Trump is a buffoon is very silly: he is a persuader. His policy proposals aren’t academic papers or think tank articles: they are marketing ploys. And they are designed well enough that they won him the nomination of a major party.
The one issue Trump cares about is Trump winning.
Unfortunately, that is preferable to the one issue the other candidates cares about, which is serving her corporate masters.
7. June 2016 at 09:48
Harding, Those comments are too ridiculous to respond to, but thanks for confirming my view of Trumpistas.
I’ll say this about Massimo, at least he understood that Trump’s 2012 comment on immigration contradicted his current views, you didn’t even pass that low threshold.
Sean, You said:
“And Trump is the best we have”
You still don’t get it. You don’t have Trump. Trump has the GOP, and he will use the fools within the GOP for his own amusement.
Christian, You said:
“For example in the case of the immigration issue their point is pretty much that the political agenda of Hillary is well known and not liked at all while with Trump there’s at least a chance that he’s not as bad as Hillary.”
That’s absurd. For months my comment sections have been full of Trumpistas telling me that immigration was the one issue he was sincere about. If you are telling me otherwise then I’ve won. I’ve convinced you guys that he’s not even sincere about immigration.
That makes me very happy.
Tom, You said:
“I wonder if Trump’s wall is so appealing because it feeds the illusion of making America a “safe space” for the alt-right. His threatened legal punishments of his ‘libelers’ are the alt-right version of lefty campus PC extremists punishing speech they don’t like.”
That’s actually kind of perceptive.
Scott F. You said:
“Sotomayor got praise when she said that her race influences her decisions. Then Trump believes he’s being mistreated and makes a pretty basic connection between his anti-Mexican rhetoric and the Mexicanness of the judge. Why is it okay for a non-white to say race affects things but it’s not okay for a white to say race affects things?”
One of the things I’ve noticed about racists is that they don’t know what racism is. Talking about how your culture has made you more perceptive of some issues may be silly, it not the same as saying a person is unqualified to be a judge simply because of their ethnicity. Did Sotomayor ever say non-Hispanics should have to recuse themselves because they lacked her ethnicity? Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comment was a textbook definition of racism, and almost all Republicans seem to agree, even Trump supporters. But some die-hard fans can’t even spot racism when its right in front of their eyes.
7. June 2016 at 09:51
This phenomena might also not be so much about Trump himself. I bet there are many people who don’t elect Trump because of Trump but despite of Trump – given the other alternatives. I guess people like Paul Ryan fit in this category.
No doubt due to Trump’s embarrassing ego-driven drive to keep digging when he’s in a hole, Lindsey Graham just un-endorsed him. There’s a good chance there’ll be more un-endorsements between now and the election.
…with Trump there’s at least a chance that he’s not as bad as Hillary.
Not really. Hillary has the benefit of being within 1 sigma of normal. I deplore pretty much all of Ted Cruz’s positions, and in fact superficially, Trump’s positions (if we were to average them, say over the past 200 days, since they change from tweet to tweet) are, on the whole, more attractive to me, but I’d vote for Ted Cruz over Trump simply because Ted is within 1-sigma of normal while Trump has demonstrated how unstable and ego-centric he is. It’s all about Trump. If Trump feels personally slighted, then he’ll probably use his presidency to get revenge. And he won’t let it go. He keeps digging when he’s in a hole. As conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin says today, that’s because he’s a “grudge holding racist who wallows in self-pity.” To say you might get lucky with Trump is worse than saying we might get lucky with a magic eight ball. Trump is a magic eight ball from hell. So yes, I’d vote for a standard issue magic eight-ball before I’d vote for Trump. If it comes down to being lucky I’d rather take my chances with an eight ball.
If you don’t like Hillary, it’s likely a GOP congress can limit what she can do. How do I know? What legislation has Obama passed recently? And what were the devastating consequences? Nothing devastating. No existential threats the the Republic. Could the economy be better? Sure. Is it terrible? No. Same goes for pretty much every other category: crime, foreign entanglements, etc.
However, if you don’t like what Trump is doing or proposing to do, what are the chances congress’s or the supreme court’s opinion will slow him down any? And when it comes to something that’s almost entirely within the wheelhouse of the executive (like foreign policy), then (to avoid disaster) we’re reliant on the candidate not having narcissistic personality disorder (or some other mental derangement), and I’m not willing to bet that Trump is free from that. I’m willing to bet almost every other candidate for president in either of the two major parties over the past 100 years has been free from that.
Here’s six silly lies Trumpkins tell themselves:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/06/six-silly-lies-that-trumpkins-tell-themselves/
7. June 2016 at 09:53
Scott,
When did Trump say the judge was not qualified to be a judge because of his race? All I saw was that there is a supposed conflict of interest in this particular case. It can be the case that Trump is being unfairly treated, and it can be the case that it is because a Mexican American judge doesn’t like the most infamously anti-Mexican-American person in the country today. I’m not saying this is true, but the point has merit.
7. June 2016 at 09:58
Gene, No, he’s a buffoon, he’s winning because millions of GOP voters and some talk radio personalities decided to vote for a buffoon.
Your post is a perfect example of the great man fallacy—if someone is a great man, a highly successful man, he must be doing something right. This is encoded deep into human DNA, but it’s illogical and false.
Instead of looking for hidden signs of Trump’s greatness, we should take his idiotic comments at face value. If he’s spouting nonstop nonsense, then he must be a buffoon.
When Trump supporters are interviewed by the press they do not offer sound reasons for their support, they gush about how big his testicles are, or how much they hate minorities. Don’t make this so complicated.
Here’s an analogy. Suppose someone’s a complete buffoon, but also very good at chess. Say a Bobby Fisher. Does his skill at chess mean that he’s not a buffoon? Of course not. Similarly, Trump’s undeniable skill at demagoguery has no bearing on whether he’s a buffoon. If you can’t see that then I don’t know what I can do to help you.
7. June 2016 at 10:00
“I’ll say this about Massimo, at least he understood that Trump’s 2012 comment on immigration contradicted his current views, you didn’t even pass that low threshold.”
-Because Trump’s 2012 comments you referenced don’t contradict anything he said in 2016 on immigration.
I think Trump is sincere on deporting the illegals, but there will be some kind of door in the wall for the deported, if they’re qualified. Again, Trump has been very consistent on illegal immigration.
“But some die-hard fans can’t even spot racism when its right in front of their eyes.”
-“Mexican’ isn’t a race, Scott. And fraud isn’t free speech. Trump’s proposal of tougher libel laws on the absolute scum in the press makes a lot of sense, and I’m perfectly willing to support it.
“Those comments are too ridiculous to respond to”
-I suspect this means little more than “they are irrefutable in their logic”.
7. June 2016 at 10:02
@Steve F: that judge was born and raised in Indiana. He’s an American. Should black defendants only have black judges? Should white defendants only have white judges? Should Jewish defendants only have Jewish judges?
Identity-based politics are proto-racist, and both the left and the alt right are guilty of it. Not that I will convince anyone to change their views. Tribalists gonna tribal.
7. June 2016 at 10:04
Here’s the full quote from Rubin (which I mostly agree with, although [full disclosure] I wouldn’t be as tough on HRC as she is):
That, you see, is only one problem with electing a grudge-holding racist who wallows in self-pity. To him, entire groups of Americans are disloyal and out to get him.
And while you are thinking of that, consider how Trump would do with the powers of the Internal Revenue Service, National Security Agency, FBI, CIA and every regulatory agency and board under him. It is hard to imagine him overseeing the fair and impartial operation of all of those bodies. In his hands, every power becomes a weapon to settle scores and punish people being “unfair” to him.
Hillary Clinton is no angel when it comes to rigging the system for her own benefit. Nevertheless, she generally has manipulated the system for her own and her husband’s benefit, to protect their secrecy and their pocketbooks. It’s hard to imagine her seeking to refashion the federal government by institutional bigotry or trying to warp its powers into instruments of revenge. She may be somewhat corrupt (judging from the conflicts of interest emanating from her foundation and speech-giving), but she isn’t a threat to the republic. I do not think you can say the same about Trump with any degree of confidence.
7. June 2016 at 10:06
The most entertaining thing about Harding here and at MR is how he thinks his comments are scoring points and proving the blog hosts wrong and showing his intelligence when in fact they do the exact opposite. Exact. Opposite.
7. June 2016 at 10:06
Steve, He’s saying that the judge is unqualified to judge this case because of his race. Trump presumably also believes that black judges should not judge something like the Rodney King case because of their race. Is that also your view?
But here’s what Trump will never do. If I were a judge, he’d never say I could not preside over a case with a politician who had strong views on Brexit, even though I am of British descent. That’s because “descent” only matters when it’s minorities that the Trumpistas don’t like. We people of British descent obviously have no biases.
It’s the mirror image of the campus PC nuts, who argue white males are uniquely handicapped by the biases from being white males.
7. June 2016 at 10:11
msgkings, Yes, his statements about Tyler Cowen are quite revealing.
Tom, Rubin is right about both Trump and Hillary, in my view.
7. June 2016 at 10:18
Scott and msgkings,
“Trump presumably also believes that black judges should not judge something like the Rodney King case because of their race. Is that also your view?”
— That is not my view. The same could be said of white judges being affected by their race. The Trump situation strikes me as different because his premise is that he is being mistreated already. Trump isn’t saying that Mexicans can’t handle this case because of conflict of interest, but that he thinks this particular judge is portraying a conflict of interest based on prejudice. It could totally be the case that Trump is wrong, but I don’t think it’s wrong for him to make that accusation.
Ryan’s response strikes me as not seeing this nuance and moving directly into the identity politics that does such damage in the country. It’s as if the moment any non-minority mentions race, he’s the bad guy, regardless of whether or not his point has merit.
7. June 2016 at 10:18
Steve F, You said:
“It can be the case that Trump is being unfairly treated, and it can be the case that it is because a Mexican American judge doesn’t like the most infamously anti-Mexican-American person in the country today.”
Just for the sake of argument, I’ll agree with you. The Trump comments are not racist because he’s widely known as being a notorious racist, and would not get a fair trial from this judge. And so what does that argument get you?
7. June 2016 at 10:27
Steve, He’s saying that the judge is unqualified to judge this case because of his race.
IIRC, his complaint was that the judge was a member of an organization with the character string ‘La Raza’ in it.
Again, in this day and age, taking the pretentions of the federal judiciary at face value is dumb. Reducing the social unassailability of judges is a public service.
7. June 2016 at 10:28
Senator Bob Corker (R) repeatedly avoids saying Trump is “fit to be president” given ample opportunity to do so (and this guy was/is on Trump’s VP list??):
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/07/cringeworthy-bob-corker-repeatedly-refuses-say-trump-fit-president-video/
Wouldn’t be “prudent” to say so at this point.
7. June 2016 at 10:30
Cowen’s remarks on ‘neo-reaction’ were mostly a summary of the thinking of inconsequential bloggers. Nothing very insightful there, though it is amusing that for all his maneuver, Cowen cannot avoid revealing he shares the social prejudices of his class. Not that that surprises anyone. Faculty libertarianism is largely humbug, but useful humbug for the image conscious provost.
7. June 2016 at 10:33
Say a Bobby Fisher. Does his skill at chess mean that he’s not a buffoon?
His skill at chess largely dissipated as he descended into buffoonery.
This is really a wretched analogy. Fischer never functioned well socially and may have been addled by late-onset schizophrenia. That’s not Trump.
7. June 2016 at 10:34
This election circus has confirmed my existing biases. Americans (like most people) are morons.
Thank god we don’t have a real democracy.
7. June 2016 at 10:35
Scott,
Last month the Supreme Court decided 7-1 that race is a factor in a jury deciding a black man’s guilt. Would you be surprised that the one dissenter was Justice Thomas? Also, most people agree that if OJ had been tried by a jury of his (white) Brentwood peers it is more likely he would have been found guilty.
It is “common sense” to believe that race influences how we think and judge. Consider that it is PC wisdom that whites are inherently racist. Then Senator Obama said so himself when explaining how his own white grandmother was a “typical white person” who unfairly judged blacks on the streets.
So why is Trump being criticized? It is because he is being politically incorrect. He is recognizing that minorities may also harbor racial preferences. Of course the reason Trump has succeeded as a candidate is because he is politically incorrect. So what critics see as yet another Trump face-plant, Trump supporters see as more evidence he is the right choice.
7. June 2016 at 10:35
Scott,
“Just for the sake of argument, I’ll agree with you. The Trump comments are not racist because he’s widely known as being a notorious racist, and would not get a fair trial from this judge. And so what does that argument get you?”
— It gets me to say that Trump says a lot of racist stuff. But that doesn’t mean he’s wrong with this particular criticism.
As usual, the media (and Republican brass) has turned a nuanced subject into the generic “the white man is being racist again” claim.
7. June 2016 at 10:36
I wonder if Trump’s wall is so appealing because it feeds the illusion of making America a “safe space” for the alt-right.
No, you don’t. That would mean you’d fancy that north of 40% of the general public qualifies as a member of the alt-right.
7. June 2016 at 10:40
Also, most people agree that if OJ had been tried by a jury of his (white) Brentwood peers it is more likely he would have been found guilty.
He’d have been found guilty by the issue of just about any jury pool other than the one from which his was selected. Another episode in the file marked “M*&^%$f%$#@*rs in California”.
7. June 2016 at 10:45
I think it comes down to what George Will said. What difference is it what Trump’s policies are? Ryan shouldn’t support him whether Trump believes in the Ryan budget or not.
I mean I might like a higher MW-you don’t I know. But with a President Trump the real worry is not getting this or that policy wrong, it’s that he has no respect for the basic constitutional structures or the rule of law-evidenced by his attacks on that Trump U judge.
You don’t vote for Putin because of the MW, or his view on Obamacare.
Or as you’ve put it, you wouldn’t vote for Trump if he came out for NGDP tomorrow.
7. June 2016 at 10:49
“Yes, his statements about Tyler Cowen are quite revealing.”
-About Tyler Cowen. I recognize your intelligence, Sumner, except on the matter of the Donald. I have not yet seen any place where Tyler has thought up anything remotely intelligent. And that “neo-reaction” post was, indeed, crap, and I did refute it soundly in my first two comments, if not my first comment on it.
“he’s widely known as being a notorious racist,”
-No, Scott. He isn’t. He pointed out an African-American member of his audience less than a week ago. Trump is the most appealing GOP candidate to Black people.
Make America Great Again!
“that judge was born and raised in Indiana. He’s an American.”
-So what? It’s not whether you were born on a certain side of a state border, but whether you identify with a country.
Also, see
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145560612726/the-robot-judge
7. June 2016 at 10:52
“it’s that he has no respect for the basic constitutional structures or the rule of law”
-Do you really think any other Presidential candidate was any different? Hello, Mike? The days of the limited executive ended with FDR. Hillary Clinton still attacks the Citizens United decision for this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IOpbj8ajZs
and the very concept of the right to bear arms. Trump has never gone anywhere near that far.
“You don’t vote for Putin because of the MW, or his view on Obamacare.”
-Indeed. You vote for Putin because he’s the best leader Russia’s had since at least Lenin.
7. June 2016 at 10:55
“It’s hard to imagine her seeking to refashion the federal government by institutional bigotry or trying to warp its powers into instruments of revenge.”
-No, it’s not. Again, see her remarks on Citizens United.
7. June 2016 at 10:56
I liked the article, but Trump is way more than a buffoon. He is a crazy MOFO. Check out this Charlie Manson/Trump video, and you can come away with no other conclusion. The article is dead right about Trump being about Trump and wanting to be king. He is dangerously narcissistic, and so was Charlie Manson. Just something to consider when you decide if you want a madman for president.
https://www.facebook.com/Mrs-Betty-Bowers-Americas-Best-Christian-312383761871/?pnref=story
7. June 2016 at 10:56
Scott, I second Jennifer Rubin’s predictions here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/07/what-happens-once-hillary-clinton-is-the-nominee/
Here’s a taste:
By late summer or early fall, Republicans will run for cover, pushing back against Trump and imploring voters not to give Clinton a “blank check.”
…
One could see at this point Trump unraveling entirely, flailing away at his own party, the media and Clinton. Maybe he will refuse to debate or maybe he will show up and lose it in front of a national audience likely to be as large as a Super Bowl audience.
…
We’ve seen far too much in this presidential race to predict with certainty that this scenario will play out, but it is certainly a strong possibility.
I’ve said it before, but it’s worth saying again: the GOP needs to split. Let the alt-right have the rump-GOP. They deserve to have their own voice, so let them have one. An anti-alt-right conservative party (not beholden to authoritarian cult-of-personality white nationalist sentiments) has a chance of attracting voters who’ve been pushed into the Dem camp, to say nothing of Republicans who’d like to escape Trumpism. They might even get a few sitting congressmen and senators to change their party affiliation. In other words, such a party might start out small, but it has real growth potential. Plus it would force each individual member of the right-wing media complex to choose sides. Candidates and politicians in the new party would not be beholden to the same right-wing media scrutiny they are now. Who cares what score the purity police of the right-wing media gives you, if the source of that score has aligned themselves with the ‘wrong’ half of the right?
7. June 2016 at 10:59
You vote for Putin because he’s the best leader Russia’s had since at least Lenin.
I think you mean ‘since Stolypin’.
it’s that he has no respect for the basic constitutional structures or the rule of law-evidenced by his attacks on that Trump U judge.
For about 60 years now, appellate judges have been issuing grotesquely comical rulings making use of a single phrase in a constitutional amendment enacted in 1868 as an excuse. Since at least 1937, that same body of appellate judges has ignored black-letter provisions in the federal constitution which vest only discrete powers in the federal legislature. Did I mention the IRS mess. You all sleep through that and then fuss and fret because Trump has the audacity to call out a judge on his political associations. Not impressive.
7. June 2016 at 11:01
I’ve said it before, but it’s worth saying again: the GOP needs to split.
When ever you state a ‘need’, you have an implicit purpose in mind. Allowing you to strike attitudes more readily is not a purpose of any interest to anyone other than you.
7. June 2016 at 11:02
What makes Sumner’s bitching and moaning about the supposed evils of the next President of the United States is that he is completely blind to the flaws of every other politician who doesn’t say them in a Queens accent. I decided to support Trump via process of elimination. It’s not about “the right answer”, but “the best answer”. If you can’t get that, don’t comment on politics.
Make America Great Again!
7. June 2016 at 11:06
Art, I said “at least”.
7. June 2016 at 11:21
“the GOP needs to split”
Except the faction represented by the GOP leadership is the Whigs. Sure they can split, but who will follow?
7. June 2016 at 11:24
@Harding and Art: I won’t have you slander Putin like that. He’s the best Russian leader since Peter the Great.
7. June 2016 at 11:24
Zizek on MIGRANTS, RACISTS AND THE LEFT:
http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/migrants-racists-and-the-left/18395#.V1cHrZMrJBw
—-
Me, cross posted from Tyler’s site, bc Scott’s analysis on Trump and Elmer fits right in it:
Trumpism (where NRx rightly pledges fealty) is completely & perfectly summed up as: US as Country Club for 10% of Earthlings. Solving immediately for both the interests of NRx and Tyler here “Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work.”
1. Trump is a lifetime RE developer. It’s literally all he knows and it’s plenty. Build Country Club. Put up WALL. Increase membership.
2. Define this as the ability to PAY THE DUES (let’s say earn $75K). Get along with members (let’s say LOVE BEING AROUND BIKINIS). and NO your extended family can’t use club.
3. Strategically, this can be best understood as BRAIN DRAINing the rest of the Earth. The effect of Google and FB hoovering up all the talent, not only make them faster and stronger, it makes the competitors slower and weaker. Who needs nukes? we are where all the nuclear scientists get to live.
4. Economically, this can be summed up as… US Natives get to have best low skill service jobs on Earth. See Caddyshack.
5. Politically, SEE CADDYSHACK (also Back to School). Trump is literally & figuratively Al Czervick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai_imjgKPas a deeply loved and appreciated American archetype and pure modern day NRx: crass, right, fun, rich, domineering, disrepectufl to both Bushwood rich dweebs and snooty academics (Back to School)
There is nothing else to Trump. Nothing dangerous. Nothing unknown. Nothing deeper. Certainly nothing scary. He sees the US as America’s favorite kind of white rich guy. He’s only here bc he might buy the place and we’re all going to get laid.
Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.
—-
We will NEED and WANT migrant worker visas.
7. June 2016 at 11:25
“is the Whigs.”
-You are being too charitable, Dan. After first being a random coalition of anti-Jacksonians (including opponents of Eaton in the Eaton affair and nullifiers), the Whigs actually had a nationwide party that could win over 40% of the vote. #NeverTrump aren’t Whigs. They’re Gold Democrats.
7. June 2016 at 11:26
@Harding:
“-So what? It’s not whether you were born on a certain side of a state border, but whether you identify with a country.”
Wait….what? How does this logic apply to immigration then? Should all those born on the wrong side of the US border be allowed in because the identify with the US?
7. June 2016 at 11:29
“If you want to see some amusing work by master contortionists, just read how the gullible Trumpistas spin this in the comment section. ”
Are all the Trump opponents who are outraged at Trump’s prospective immigration restrictions also gullible and going through similarly masterful contortions to reach the exact same conclusion?
Was Bryan Caplan so gullible as to believe Trump’s “anti-foreign bias” along with Trump supporters? Will he retract that accusation or will he go through masterful contortions to justify keeping it as is?
“I warned you guys that Trump couldn’t care less about your issues;”
Who should a serious, reasonable supporter of reduced immigration vote for and endorse? I’ve asked this and you repeatedly dodge the question. If Trump doesn’t really care about building a wall and limiting immigration, who does?
Similarly, Bryan Caplan refers to voters as “irrational” when they vote for the reduced immigration policies that they want. Arguably, voting for the policy that you prefer is the completely rational course of action. What is irrational, is letting some academic shame you or jedi mind trick you into voting against the policies that you want.
7. June 2016 at 11:31
The Trumpistas are actually correct to point out that Trump’s comments about Judge Curiel are not racist. “Mexican” isn’t a race, and Trump said clearly it’s the Mexican heritage that presents a bias. That said, Trump has certainly made racist statements previously, and many other bigoted statements, so I’m only making a technical point.
And Trump’s demands that the judge recuse himself are absurd, of course. You don’t get to insult virtually every minority in the country, and women, and then claim that no one from any of those groups can be a judge in a case against you. By that logic, only the alt right would be fit to judge him.
Does this also mean Trump would demand that there be no “Mexicans” or Muslims on the jury in the cases either? What about other minorities or women? Trump’s just being moronic.
7. June 2016 at 11:33
I predict Gary Johnson will receive the same percentage of the vote this year as the Gold Democrats did in 1896.
7. June 2016 at 11:35
Scott,
I can understand you not supporting Hillary and not liking her, but why use the word “despise”? I don’t get the reasoning for such an extreme word.
Yes, she’s corrupt to a degree, plays fast and loose with the truth too often, has some bad economic policy ideas, and has made some horrendous foreign policy mistakes, but to despise her? I don’t get it.
I support her, not because I’m enthusiastic about her. I’m not and never have been. But, she’s not Trump, and I’m in a swing state, so I passionately support her. But, even if Trump weren’t the candidate and there were a third party candidate I could support, I wouldn’t despise Hillary. I just wouldn’t vote for her.
7. June 2016 at 11:36
“Should all those born on the wrong side of the US border be allowed in because the identify with the US?”
-Theoretically, yes, but it’s hard to tell whether a person genuinely identifies with the U.S. or not. Proving they’re not is much easier than proving they are.
“I’ve asked this and you repeatedly dodge the question. If Trump doesn’t really care about building a wall and limiting immigration, who does?”
-Exactly, Massimo. I predict Sumner will never answer this because of his irrational nature.
7. June 2016 at 11:38
“But, she’s not Trump, and I’m in a swing state, so I passionately support her.”
–Why? Why would you even consider supporting Her?
7. June 2016 at 11:40
Harding,
lol You need to wake up. The Republican Party’s in a civil war. Graham has retracted his support for Trump and is openly calling for others to do the same. Many of the Party’s leaders have openly accused Trump of racism over the past few days, and Trump’s team is firing back in kind. They are nastier to each other than they are to the Democrats.
It’s hard to see how this doesn’t help the Libertarian Party this year, especially considering Clinton’s unpopularity.
7. June 2016 at 11:44
Harding,
I will vote for Hillary, because I expect her to mostly continue with Obama’s agenda, though while possibly being worse on foreign policy and perhaps worse on the economy(minimum wage).
That’s not to say Obama’s agenda is great. It hasn’t been. I didn’t even vote for Obama the first time he ran. I voted for him the second time, because I wanted to make sure that the constantly flip-flopping, pro-plutocrat Romney didn’t win.
7. June 2016 at 11:45
“The Republican Party’s in a civil war.”
-The Democrats actually set up a #NeverBryan candidate. Nobody cared come the general. Bryan’s unpopularity was all his own doing, not the elites’.
“Graham has retracted his support for Trump and is openly calling for others to do the same.”
-Good. Trump doesn’t need the support of the likes of him. And do you seriously think South Carolina won’t vote for Trump come November? LOL. Trump will be the next President.
Also, you didn’t answer my question: why would you even consider supporting Her?
Clinton opponents on the Left will vote Green, not Libertarian.
7. June 2016 at 11:49
“I voted for him the second time, because I wanted to make sure that the constantly flip-flopping, pro-plutocrat Romney didn’t win.”
-I totally understand. I would have done the same had I voted. But this time it’s different. Scalia’s dead, the future of the court is at stake. Obama’s foreign policy in Syria and Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Lebanon has been absolutely abysmal; Trump offers the prospect of change. Same for trans bathrooms. I can’t see how Trump could be worse than Obama/Clinton on anything, except maybe the future of Congress.
7. June 2016 at 11:52
Harding, you went full retard in this thread. Never go full retard.
7. June 2016 at 12:05
Sumner went full retard on the Donald in January. I honestly don’t care how retarded I sound any more, least of all on these threads. In any case, short of a couple sentences, I have been 100% right here.
7. June 2016 at 12:05
You don’t get to insult virtually every minority in the country, and women,
When did he do that?
I can understand you not supporting Hillary and not liking her, but why use the word “despise”?
1. Because she was fired for misconduct before the ink was dry on her bar admission letter; the man who dismissed her said in a decade and a half of supervising attorneys in that job, there were only three he’d never give a reference for: Hillary Rodham and the two other attorneys he dismissed the same day.
2. Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, commodities trading, or, as Lewis Amselem put it, HRC is a familiar sort to Foreign Service officers who’ve had 3d world postings where the function of the 1st lady is to launder the bribes.
3. Grotesque career marriage. Hillary’s not a member of Una Voce and the Big He wasn’t visiting Jeffrey Epstein’s Pedo Island to give lectures on “Institutional Leadership and the Agency Manager”.
4. Chelsea as campaign accessory. They have one kid born 5 years after they were married in the midst of a difficult re-election campaign.
5. Little people as roaches to be squashed. See Billy R. Dale.
6. Brazen cupidity: $189,000 a pop for 50 minutes of boilerplate, the Clinton Foundation, &c. Lauder them bribes! If you want to track the small money, recall the six-figure sums in government property which stuck to their fingers as they were moving out of the White House.
7. Terror to work for. The latest installment is from a retired Secret Service agent. Nothing too surprising, though I though she threw lamps rather than vases.
8. Brazen liar, with accomplices. “What difference does it make?”
9. Laws are for little people. Put the server in the water closet.
10. Bizarre ambition. A 69 year old woman criss-crossing the country addled by post-concussion syndrome. Ordinary people know when they’re properly out to grass.
11. Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, a.k.a the Smith Brothers.
7. June 2016 at 12:14
Graham has retracted his support for Trump and is openly calling for others to do the same.
Graham’s career (like Michael Castle’s) is testimony to the role of inertia in legislative elections. Last time, he was held to 55% in a Republican primary wherein his opponents included one state legislator and a squall of private citizens unknown to anyone but their families or their business customers. Should a Republican with a certain amount of stature show up the next time, stick a fork in him. You notice how well he performed in the Presidential contest: 15th place in a field of 17 and scoring too low among poll respondents for his support to be gauged at all; he got kicked out of the undercard debates. He doesn’t have much rapport with or influence over the public.
7. June 2016 at 12:14
Harding,
I wouldn’t vote for Trump if I agreed with all of his positions(and his positions were stable). He’s a maniacal narcissist, bigot, and spoiled trust fund baby type. He doesn’t seem to recognize any limits of decency or care what or who he destroys around him. He also doesn’t strike me as competent in any sense, other than marketing using lowest common denominator tactics. He doesn’t even demonstrate self-control.
Other than that, maybe he’s not a bad guy.
7. June 2016 at 12:15
Looking forward to Art’s list of Trump’s despicable moments and attitudes in his past. I’m sure he’s working on it now, because he’s a thoughtful political critic and not a wheezing partisan hypocrite.
He could save time cutting and pasting most of his Clinton list to Trump.
7. June 2016 at 12:17
Oh, and I strongly disagree with pretty much all of Trump’s shifting positions, except that veterans should be free to get healthcare at non-VA facilities, paid for by the government.
7. June 2016 at 12:17
It’s hard to see how this doesn’t help the Libertarian Party this year, especially considering Clinton’s unpopularity.
The Libertarians had their moment around about 1978.
7. June 2016 at 12:19
He’s a maniacal narcissist, bigot, and spoiled trust fund baby type.
He’s not your patient and two of these terms do not mean what you fancy they mean.
7. June 2016 at 12:20
or who he destroys around him.
Just who did he destroy?
7. June 2016 at 12:28
“I wouldn’t vote for Trump if I agreed with all of his positions(and his positions were stable).”
-I think that’s pretty stupid.
“He’s a maniacal narcissist, bigot, and spoiled trust fund baby type. He doesn’t seem to recognize any limits of decency or care what or who he destroys around him.”
Scott, personality traits are not reasons to vote for and against a candidate. And I haven’t seen you make an explicit comparison between Trump’s and Clinton’s personalities or policies. Please consider that though Trump may be bad in an objective sense, he was the best of the field of Republican candidates, and is way better than Hillary on the most important issue of 2016 (even more so than Obama’s disastrous foreign policy): the Supreme Court.
7. June 2016 at 12:29
Props To Sumner for linking Cowen’s excellent article on neo-reaction. That is a super insightful read with a few flaws.
@morgan s warstler,
“We will NEED and WANT migrant worker visas.”
Forget the Caddyshack reference and everything else you said, it boils down to this: If you oppose larger levels of immigration, you support Trump. If you support larger levels of immigration you oppose Trump.
In theory, guest worker programs are completely reasonable. Saudi Arabia’s guest worker program seems far more beneficial to the host nation and existing citizens than to the guest workers and no one would turn that down. That arrangement isn’t realistic in the US.
The US is incapable and/or unwilling to enforce any limits of government benefits supplied to migrants or any requirements expected from migrants.
In recent US history, there have been several reasonable sounding compromises and trade offs regarding immigrants and guest workers, but then the requirements on immigrants aren’t enforced, and the limits to benefits aren’t enforced, and you have scenarios like Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango; where migrants enter the US, don’t even work a single day, and live off vast arrays of government funded services spanning food, education for her son, full service health care, housing in desirable neighborhoods, and then even government legal services to fight for more benefits and fight against any restrictions or deportation requirements.
7. June 2016 at 12:32
Scott, personality traits are not reasons to vote for and against a candidate.
Sure they are. Especially when the candidate’s policies are fuzzy or change from day to day. All you’re left with is personality, or in Trump’s case personality disorder.
In other news, the number of GOP senators who won’t be supporting Trump: looks like at least 5 so far (the number has been climbing dramatically over the last 48 hours):
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/07/rats-sinking-ship-two-republican-senators-say-wont-vote-trump/
I hope Trump cools it a little at this stage: the way things are headed he may get his ass dumped at the convention in some sort of coup. I want him to at least make it through the convention! But Trump’s unfit-for-office personality is to grab the shovel and keep digging when he’s in a hole, so who knows…
7. June 2016 at 12:57
In theory, guest worker programs are completely reasonable. Saudi Arabia’s guest worker program seems far more beneficial to the host nation and existing citizens than to the guest workers and no one would turn that down. That arrangement isn’t realistic in the US.
Massimo, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have these guest worker programs in part because they had natural resource bonanzas to exploit and a deficit of skilled personnel to do that and in part due to a feedback loops: the presence of the guest workers in that particular cultural context induced truncated development of the domestic human resources in those Arab societies, a problem exacerbated by the use of oil revenues as sources of generalized patronage for the indigenous population. The persistence of large populations of guest workers are indicative of a rather odd social pathology, not something you ever want for your own society. Essentially, what you had by 1990 was a society of merchant-traders; salaried employees in finance, the civil service, &c; oddly well compensated service employees (e.g. security guards); and layabouts. These form a communally defined stratum above a highly variegated population of foreigners. You had mobs of domestic servants (some of them treated like slaves). However, nearly all of your grunt labor, skilled tradesmen, technicians, engineers, school teachers, miscellaneous professions &c were imported from abroad. Foreign resident business executives would tell researchers that they did not like to hire educated natives (“most expect immediate promotion after minimal effort”), American soldiers would amuse themselves placing bets on when they’d see that Saudi yonder pick up anything heavier than his billfold, and researchers would find these odd anomalies (e.g. the native Kuwaiti security guard at a school, not really literate, paid double the Egyptian teachers at the school).
Nearly always and everywhere, the ideal number of guest workers to import into your country is “0”. Import settlers who can take their place in your society once they’ve demonstrated their devotion to it. Or forego deveopment until you have locals who can work it.
7. June 2016 at 13:06
Harding,
Okay, you go ahead and vote for someone who’s so narcissistic that he can’t even hide it publicly. Go ahead and vote against American interests with respect to immigration and trade. But, don’t complain at the same time about the faster relative decline of US power versus China.
7. June 2016 at 13:12
there have been several reasonable sounding compromises and trade offs regarding immigrants and guest workers,
Nope. The only temporary residents a country should have are diplomatic personnel (and the like), refugees, students and teachers, and dependents of same. They can work in the domestic private sector with whatever discretionary time they have. A country like the United States or Italy is so skill rich that any work performed should be done by people on site with only tiny exceptions. One would be technicians imported to manage disaster response (e.g. the BP spill). Another would be technicians with nearly unique skills which could be imported under an academic exception, e.g. art restorers to nurse Italy’s treasures. You have a program like H1-B, what you get is laid off programmers training their Indian replacements. Bad business.
7. June 2016 at 13:14
you go ahead and vote for someone who’s so narcissistic that he can’t even hide it publicly.
Billy Vote’s no longer eligible and John Edward’s isn’t running.
7. June 2016 at 13:16
the way things are headed he may get his ass dumped at the convention in some sort of coup.
You think the likes of Lindsay Graham and Reince Priebus are going to Jedi mind trick Trump delegates into supporting someone else?
(Wait a moment. I thought Trump supporters were all mindless bots who will cheer when he caps someone on 6th Avenue. When you figure out which, let us know).
7. June 2016 at 13:17
I agree with everything you say here about Trump. He’s a liar, he’s a fake, every position he takes is insincere and only what he thinks will advantage him in this moment. He has no principles and cares for nothing except his own personal power. He lies and cheats whenever he thinks he can get away with it. He thinks rules are for other people.
So remind me again why we should prefer Hillary?
7. June 2016 at 13:23
Art,
Can you really be that ignorant? Most of the Republican establishment can’t stand Trump and can decide to dump him as nominee if they want. They’d be throwing away any chance of winning elections this year, and could doom majorities in both houses in the short-term, but Trump is threatening the long-term viability of their very careers. If enough of them feel personally politically threatened, they will act. It’s in their interest to do so, which is all they care about.
7. June 2016 at 13:26
Art,
Trump is creating a toxic political environment for minorities and women,and as Frum recently put it, removed 7 guardrails in American politics we’d traditionally enjoyed.
He personally attacks anyone he thinks has slighted him or when he sees it in his interest to do so.
7. June 2016 at 13:27
@Scott F: It’s really too late for that. They would destroy their party more thoroughly doing that and overturning the result of a fair election. All of those voters would never vote GOP again. It’s gonna be Trump vs Clinton, let’s get ready to rumble. Easily the nadir of our federal democracy.
You would think this mess would spur changes to the system of how we elect presidents but I’m not holding my breath.
7. June 2016 at 13:38
msgkings,
I think the evidence of the last 24 hours speaks against your statement. Several Republican politicians were openly calling Trump’s statements racist, and Trump’s people were in the media today returning the charges. Then, several Republican Senators revoked their endorsements later in the day.
Yes, if they deny Trump the nomination now, they are stealing the election from him as far as the Trumpistas are concerned, and even some of the non-Trumpistas. Hence, probably at least 15-20 million would-be supporters would perhaps actively turn against the Republican Party. It might even be much worse than that. Many would at least stay home during this cycle, probably leading to a blowout loss to Clinton and vast losses in Congressional races.
But, Trump is lately threatening them with potentially even wider Congressional losses should they support him, especially in the Senate. Remember that Senators run state-wide, so many can’t win with Republican support alone. If too many of them feel threatened, they can and will try to dump Trump. Why wouldn’t they?
7. June 2016 at 13:43
@Scott F: don’t get caught up in the daily (hourly) noise. Trump’s already walking his judge comment back (see Sumner’s latest post above), and this latest thing will be forgotten in a week. People thought they’d dump Clinton many times in this cycle for Bernie or Biden because of servers and so on. Sometimes the obvious thing happens. Trump’s going to be the nominee. The chances aren’t 100% but they are probably 98%.
7. June 2016 at 13:51
Can you really be that ignorant? Most of the Republican establishment can’t stand Trump and can decide to dump him as nominee if they want. They’d be throwing away any chance of winning elections this year, and could doom majorities in both houses in the short-term, but Trump is threatening the long-term viability of their very careers. If enough of them feel personally politically threatened, they will act. It’s in their interest to do so, which is all they care about.
Let me help you, Scott. To answer my question, you have to come up with an algorithm which demonstrates the steps these shadowy people are going to take in order to deny the nomination to Trump. Then you can come up with an explanation of why some. Then you have to come up with an explanation of why HRC, who, per the RCP average, has a notional lead of 1% over DJT is the inevitable winner and why, given her current standing, she can be expected to produce a thumping majority for her party in both houses of Congress (which would require a 32 seat shift in the House of Representatives, something that hasn’t been managed since RR).
When you’ve tackled these problems, you may just have earned the right to call an addled nursing home resident ‘ignorant’. You’ll have to pass more tests if you’re to call anyone else ignorant without making an ass of yourself.
7. June 2016 at 13:52
mskings,
I never predicted Trump would be dumped. My point is that if Trump and the rest of the establishment continue to flame each other like this, he might get dumped.
7. June 2016 at 13:56
Trump is creating a toxic political environment for minorities and women,and as Frum recently put it, removed 7 guardrails in American politics we’d traditionally enjoyed.
Frum has a business to run, and he’s full of it. The real 7 guardrails are as follows:
1. The first true guard rail was broken during the Depression and the years immediately succeeding when black letter provisions of the federal constitution were blatantly disregarded. I can see an argument for that derived for exigency, but that’s all.
2. The second guardrail was broken in 1954 and subject to staged demolition since when the appellate courts arrogated to themselves the franchise to impose their preferred social policies in defiance of law and democratic discretion.
3. The third set of rails, which had seen some damage already, was broken in 1965 or thereabouts when it came to be commonplace for superordinate governments to use subordinate governments as conduits and agents and the local governments happily complied, never missing an opportunity for free money.
4. The fourth set of rails has been demolished in stages, the first breach being in 1964, when it was by federal authorities decreed that freedom of contract and association had to bow to social policy. Conjoined to this was MANDATED political patronage in civil service appointments and college admissions. Frum’s blather about non-descrimination is risible given the franchise state colleges and universities have arrogated to themselves to engage in try-every-door noncompliance and the franchise federal judges have arrogated to themselves to annul civil service examinations.
5. The fifth breach was in 1998 when two things happened. The President of the United States was revealed in real time to be a lounge lizard addicted to sodomy and revealed to be a brazen and serial liar and the Democratic cognoscenti manages to persuade the public that his opponents are the villains. Obama and HRC are brazen liars and suffer not at all for it.
6. The sixth breach came in two stages, one administered during the period running from 1968 to 1975 and the other from 2004 to 2009, when it became acceptable for the political opposition to undermine American foreign policy in time of war, and to think well of themselves for having done so. There’s no serious argument that one life was saved by this activity.
7. The 7th breach has been ongoing at least since 1986, and it concerns elites contriving to displace the common-and-garden working class by importing foreigners and doing so by non-compliance with Congressional mandates in favor of immigration control.
Donald Trump is taking a walk through the ruins and Frum is blaming him for demolishing the building.
7. June 2016 at 13:57
Art,
Wow. It must be a delightful world when you think you’re winning and alternative perspectives can never penetrate.
Look, if Trump gets dumped, there could easily be enough Republicans that either stay home or vote third party in Congressional races to doom Republican majorities in both Houses. Blindly, and clumsily referring to history doesn’t change that.
I would remind you that we’ve seen titanic shifts in control of Congress over the last ten years, and that was in absence of an open civil war in one of the parties.
7. June 2016 at 13:58
By the way, you’ll notice the Mercatus crew has not one complaint about the loss of any of these guardrails. Gottfried Dietze is dead and his successors are a mess of superfluous men.
7. June 2016 at 13:59
Wow. It must be a delightful world when you think you’re winning and alternative perspectives can never penetrate.
First everyone is treated to your inane trash-talking. Now we get treated to your projection.
7. June 2016 at 14:02
I would remind you that we’ve seen titanic shifts in control of Congress over the last ten years, and that was in absence of an open civil war in one of the parties.
Always in reaction to the incumbent administration. The last time we had large shifts as an affirmation of the incumbent party was in 1964. The incumbent President had an approval rating north of 70% at that time. It’s not happening for you all this year, no matter how much you run your mouth, Scott.
7. June 2016 at 14:12
Art,
I was concerned Trump had a decent chance to win before this week. True, he has to do better than just be tied in the polls, given the electoral college map, but Hillary is so unpopular.
However, I feel better about this everyday. Republicans don’t have even the appearance of unity. In fact, Trumpistas and the establishment were just accusing each other of racism earlier today, so I feel pretty good from where I’m sitting.
7. June 2016 at 14:17
You convinced me of a lot of things and I’m very thankful for that.
But in this one case I said at least as soon as you that Trump is not serious about this stuff and that this is actually a good thing.
7. June 2016 at 14:22
@Art Deco,
“These form a communally defined stratum above a highly variegated population of foreigners. You had mobs of domestic servants (some of them treated like slaves).”
In the gulf states, you are saying the hereditary citizenry have these outrageously privileged cushy lifestyles and the guest workers are treated like dirt and arguably slaves. This sounds beneficial to the former group. What is the downside to the privileged citizenry? I see the downside to the domestic servant slaves.
“the ideal number of guest workers to import into your country is ‘0’.”
Are you really claiming that no recent US immigration scenarios have had a positive, desirable effect? There are certain immigration scenarios that seem overwhelmingly beneficial in hindsight. Take for example, Sergey Brin. Are you seriously saying it was a mistake to allow Brin to immigrate to the US?
Next, Gulf States like Saudi Arabia surely aren’t recruiting low end servant semi-slave labor for some charitable cause. They are being completely self interested. If the ideal number of guest workers is zero, why are they doing it?
7. June 2016 at 14:26
Answers to your question are in my original post.
7. June 2016 at 15:06
@Scott Freelander,
“as Frum recently put it, removed 7 guardrails in American politics we’d traditionally enjoyed.”
Wow, so you cite David Frum when he bashes Trump, but when Frum cites lots of evidence on why certain forms of immigration to the US and Europe are very bad ideas, you ignore?
You’ve recently said, to paraphrase, “none of the Trumpistas have evidence of immigration problems”, I link Frum with overwhelmingly strong evidence and you just ignore it, and continue to claim that no one is citing evidence against immigration.
Frum’s “guard rails” were all ridiculous:
1. “how candidate should speak and act.” Mannerisms? Really?
2. “trustworthiness.” Hillary is a full pro liar. Obamacare legislation was advanced deception of the public. This argument is nuts.
3. “adequate knowledge of issues”
4. “ideology.” Ideology changes all the time. The Republican/Democrat parties have never had consistent ideology and simply compete for votes.
5. “national security concerns.” Trump is arguably better on this than the invade-the-world-invite-the-world strategy of George W Bush and Obama.
6. “tolerance and non-discrimination.” When US nuked large numbers of civilian non-combatants in Japan, was that tolerance or non-discrimination? No! The premise of a nation is to discriminate on behalf of your citizens and against outsiders.
7. “Negative Partisanship and voting for the lesser evil.” People have always voted for the lesser evil. This is nothing new.
The real guard rails that have been destroyed:
1. Destroying ethnic homoegenity. The US was always a NeoEuropean, ethnically homogneous, English speaking, Judeo Christian nation. Mass immigration of permanently rival ethno religious factions and establish group competition for government is a recipe for deep, structural division and strife. The US advocated ethno religious segregation in Bosnia and Iraq for peace and stability. Why would we not want to keep internal segregated peace and stability?
2. Break down of Constitutional Law: The recent idea that the constitution is a “living document” and can be creatively reinterpreted by judges to suit any political bent or ideology is completely antithetical to the idea of our constitution and our nation.
3. Centralization: The US was conceived as independently run states with no remote federal control over things like health care and education and housing finance. If citizens wanted to move to a state where they felt more represented, or flee laws that offended them, they were free to do so. With increased centralization, that freedom of exit is drastically curtailed, and people have less control over certain aspects of their lives and communities and cultures.
7. June 2016 at 15:07
Yes, The Donald is a demagogue. He pushes wish fulfilment politics. Nothing he says proves he is “essentially” anything ideologically (including a racist) except a demagogue.
“One of the few nice surprises of the campaign is the revelation that left wing campus PC nuts and Trumpistas are clearly shown to be two sides of the same coin. People should not be viewed as individuals with agency, but rather as bundles of special interests, whose views are predetermined by their gender or skin color. A “Mexican” judge, for example. They only differ on one small point; are white males the good guys or the bad guys?”
The idea that only “nice” people will play identity politics was always a remarkably silly one. But folk locked in conformist echo chambers have a natural tendency to produce remarkably silly ideas.
Support Heterodox Academy! http://heterodoxacademy.org/
7. June 2016 at 15:11
On Tyler Cowan on Neo-reaction, Vox Day endorses the description in the Tyler’s post (and he should know) but has some responses to the criticisms. Which are standard Vox Day — bright guy, but less knowledgable about history than he thinks he is. (Though still far more knowledgable than many.)
https://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/what-is-neo-reaction.html
7. June 2016 at 15:22
On the wish fulfilment of The Donald. Folk I know who are pro The Donald are sick of having to watch very carefully what they say and to whom, where their job or career can be trashed for breaking language taboos, where folk regard dissent as evil and where policies they think are disastrous (at a civilisation level) are protected by said language taboos.
Which are deeper problems than The Donald, whose success so far rests powerfully on them.
(I should also stress I don’t agree with Vox Day’s politics, but his critiques often have some bite.)
7. June 2016 at 16:13
“Folk I know who are pro The Donald are sick of having to watch very carefully what they say”
Why not oppose PC-police on both the left (college campuses) and right (Trump “opening up” libel laws [so he can go after people ‘unfair’ to him?])? What’s the point of opposing lefy PC policies, if you insist you need a “safe space” and a petting zoo to ameliorate the PTSD you felt after somebody called you a racist for using a racial slur?
I suspect there’s significant sympathy in the center (both right and left) for rolling back the excesses of political correctness. Dave Rubin interviews many such people (see the “Rubin Report”). Electing an orange hued clown to be POTUS seems like an extreme measure, and it would likely be very counter productive.
7. June 2016 at 16:38
Tom,
How bad is this campus PC stuff? I’ve heard Seinfeld and Maher complain about it, but I haven’t been a college student in a long, long time.
I don’t see this liberal PC identity stuff Scott and others complain about, but Scott’s a professor, so he may see it daily.
7. June 2016 at 16:53
Here’s a link for those who doubt the seriousness of the possibility that the Republicans could dump Trump as their nominee:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/what-if-republicans-change-their-mind-700970051591
It’s an interview with James Carville, who undoubtedly is both a more learned and better connected political handicapper than me. It is also mentioned that Mark Halperin remarked that one of the presumed nominees will not be showing up at the convention.
7. June 2016 at 16:54
I’m not saying Trump and the Republicans can’t patch things up now, at least temporarily, but to totally discount the possibility of Trump being dumped is a mistake.
7. June 2016 at 17:02
but to totally discount the possibility of Trump being dumped is a mistake.
Sure. I don’t totally discount it. There’s a small possibility that a deranged Scott Sumner will run over Trump in a rented Prius.
7. June 2016 at 17:19
Harding, You responded to my statement:
“he’s widely known as being a notorious racist,”
-No, Scott. He isn’t. He pointed out an African-American member of his audience less than a week ago. Trump is the most appealing GOP candidate to Black people.”
???????????
Massimo, You asked:
“Who should a serious, reasonable supporter of reduced immigration vote for and endorse?”
You should have voted for Cruz or Walker. I didn’t vote for them, but if I’d opposed immigration I might have.
Now it’s too late. I warned you, Trump primary voters are about give America a President Clinton.
Scott, You said:
“It’s hard to see how this doesn’t help the Libertarian Party this year, especially considering Clinton’s unpopularity.”
Johnson actually showed up on the Betfair site, 0.3% chance. I never thought I’d see that.
Lawrence, You asked:
“So remind me again why we should prefer Hillary?”
Trump is trying to turn the GOP into France’s National Front. Hillary is trying to prevent the Dems from turning socialist.
Scott, You said:
“I don’t see this liberal PC identity stuff Scott and others complain about, but Scott’s a professor, so he may see it daily.”
It’s there. I never really suffered from this nonsense, but I know a number of other people who did. And quite unfairly in each case I’m aware of.
Ironically, many of the people who now suffer the most are older professors on the left, who are in highly politicized fields, like social science and the humanities.
Bentley’s a business school where most of the faculty are business profs. But even Bentley recently rescinded an invitation to a outside speaker because of faculty protests.
7. June 2016 at 18:12
“Electing an orange hued clown to be POTUS seems like an extreme measure”
-Desperate times call for desperate measures:
http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-megaphone-in-one-graph/
A Trump presidency will smash the power of the megaphone and Make America Great Again!
7. June 2016 at 19:09
“You should have voted for Cruz or Walker. I didn’t vote for them, but if I’d opposed immigration I might have.
Now it’s too late. I warned you, Trump primary voters are about give America a President Clinton.”
I totally voted for Ted Cruz in the primary. I donated to Cruz’s campaign. I would absolutely prefer a Cruz presidency to a Trump one. My biggest issue with Cruz was electability. He’s super smart, he’s spot on on policy, but the unwashed masses are not going to vote for such a nerdy abstract minded libertarian lawyer.
But at this point, a strictly Hillary v Trump contest, I presume it’s obvious who a rational immigration restrictionist should vote for?
7. June 2016 at 19:28
“Now it’s too late. I warned you, Trump primary voters are about give America a President Clinton.”
-You recommend the dude who represents the idiotic “tough on Cuba for human rights” stance while handing out gift baskets to illegals and some dude who dropped out before the primaries? Sure, Cruz was never really soft on immigration, but he didn’t make a ruckus about it like Trump did. If he was truly sincere, he would have made a ruckus on more than just policing of Muslim neighborhoods (which I find redundant), and marked himself out as the pro-closed-borders candidate from the start. If Cruz didn’t have the balls to challenge Obama’s amnesty as loudly as Trump did, why would we trust him to have the balls to bite Crooked Hillary where it hurts?
“Now it’s too late. I warned you, Trump primary voters are about give America a President Clinton.”
-Cruz was more likely to give us President Clinton, as he sounded too much like Barry Goldwater. And I’ve never trusted your election predictions ever since you said Trump had a 0% chance of getting the nomination back in August, and that you could make money by shorting Betfair’s ~10% chance of a Trump win that time. Did you make any money off your claim, Scott? Will you make any money off your claim Trump will lose now?
“I never thought I’d see that.”
-That’s because you believe the Efficient Market Hypothesis, and Betfair’s election markets sure as heck aren’t efficient.
“Hillary is trying to prevent the Dems from turning socialist.”
-[citation needed]. Clinton and Sanders voted over 90% in common while in the Senate together.
And
“Not everything is about an economic theory, right?” Clinton asked her audience of a few hundred activists, most of them wearing T-shirts from the unions that had promoted the rally. “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will, if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?”
“No!” shouted her audience.
“Would that end sexism?”
“No!”
“Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?”
“No!”
“Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”
“No!”
“Would that solve our problem with voting rights, and Republicans who are trying to strip them away from people of color, the elderly, and the young?”
“No!”
“Would that give us a real shot at ensuring our political system works better because we get rid of gerrymandering and redistricting and all of these gimmicks Republicans use to give themselves safe seats, so they can undo the progress we have made?”
“No!”
is not exactly encouraging. I’d much rather prefer breaking up the banks to being reduced to serfdom by people fundamentally opposed to my identity, either as a Russian-American or as a White man.
BTW, the National Front is a bunch of pussies and gays. Trump’s way better than that.
7. June 2016 at 19:33
“???????????”
-According to the National Review, Trump’s candidacy is doing a lot to help the GOP make inroads into the Black vote:
“There are lots of black folks to be seen — lots for a Republican convention, by which I mean black people in something almost approaching their proportion of the general population — but this seems to be the only place in Texas where there isn’t anybody of Hispanic background to be found.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435401/donald-trump-texas-republicans-hispanic-outreach
Black turnout in the GOP primary was also estimated at 9% in a Virginia exit poll -Black voters may have made the difference between a Trump and a Rubio victory there:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/01/us/elections/virginia-republican-poll.html
BTW, Trump won’t need the Hispanic vote to win. The days of New Mexico most accurately approximating the national popular vote (as recent as 2000 and 2004) are over.
7. June 2016 at 19:38
“Trump is trying to turn the GOP into France’s National Front. Hillary is trying to prevent the Dems from turning socialist.”
Ok that’s actually a really good point’s. Trump is way worse than most of the other republicans and Hillary is way better than Bernie.
7. June 2016 at 20:02
Sumner hates Trump mainly because he’s wealthy and does not say politically correct things.
That is what all of these posts boil down to.
Sumner only cares about himself. He ingratiates himself daily doing everything he can to convince himself that being wealthy requires either pure luck or having a deceitful demagogue personality. When he sees Trump, he sees everything that is unjust with the world. Shouldn’t EMH have forced this guy into the gutter already?
Racism? Sumner is racist in favor of Asians, which means non-Asians are looked at relatively down upon. Just look at Sumner views on immigration and “culture”. Limit immigration to predominantly Asians, they’re better people you see, but Sumner can’t see the racism because he is favoring a race! As Sumner said, racists usually can’t see their own racism.
Sexism? Sumner dedicated a whole post teaching us the techniques and strategies of how to be sexist in a politically correct way, as opposed to a politically incorrect way per Trump.
Buffoon? The definition of that word is “A ridiculous, but amusing clown”. I do not believe Sumner is amused by Trump. I am justified in calling Trump a buffoon because I do find him hilarious. Sumner is just using whatever word comes to his mind, not thinking too much about it.
I think deep down Sumner dislikes Trump because he shares so many qualities with him, except the being wealthy part, and that is what probably burns him the most.
7. June 2016 at 20:05
LOL at Major Freedom, so jealous of Sumner’s blog and national following and credentialed superiority. So much envy.
7. June 2016 at 20:39
Hey Major freedom, four years later… Is the inflation you said had to happen, still hiding in commodities ? Remember ? hahaha…
Where did to go ? Is it hiding under your bed now ?
7. June 2016 at 20:57
major freedom say…”Sumner hates Trump mainly because he’s wealthy and does not say politically correct things.”
i can’t speak for Scott… but people who complain about PC are just people complaining about how mean other people are for finding their views offensive.. Its just rude people claiming victimhood because someone had the nerve to be offended by them…
poor trump… the PC police are rejecting him just because he deeply offends people’s morality… That stuff shouldn’t matter…NO fair…whahahaha… the wolds so unfair to trump and and most other wealthy people… Trump is being forced to bend over and take it… poor misunderstood donald…
Tears…
7. June 2016 at 21:46
“Trump is way worse than most of the other republicans and Hillary is way better than Bernie.”
-Both claims are not just false, but blatantly false.
7. June 2016 at 22:07
msgkings:
“LOL at Major Freedom, so jealous of Sumner’s blog and national following and credentialed superiority. So much envy.”
LOL at msgkings, so jealous of my posts and following and credentialed superiority. So much envy.
————————–
Bill Ellis
“Hey Major freedom, four years later… Is the inflation you said had to happen, still hiding in commodities ? Remember ? hahaha…”
Where in 2012 did I make any predictions of what price inflation would be now?
I have always held that price inflation is a combination of money supply, real goods supply, and, crucially, demand for money holding, none of which can be scientifically predicted.
I love it how you did not address the argument above, just like that guy msgkings who is envious of me.
“Where did to go ? Is it hiding under your bed now ?”
How can inflation “hide under a bed”?
“Major freedom say…”Sumner hates Trump mainly because he’s wealthy and does not say politically correct things.”
“I can’t speak for Scott… but people who complain about PC are just people complaining about how mean other people are for finding their views offensive.. Its just rude people claiming victimhood because someone had the nerve to be offended by them…”
Why do you speak for others but “can’t speak for Summer”? You know him more than the random unnamed people you’re mentioning.
No, I complain about PC because it is an attack on free speech, and I know and understand that free speech is necessary for a progressing human population that I live in.
You have a crude, hypocritical view of people, and it stems from your self-image.
>poor trump… the PC police are rejecting him just because he deeply offends people’s morality… That stuff shouldn’t matter…NO fair…whahahaha… the wolds so unfair to trump and and most other wealthy people… Trump is being forced to bend over and take it… poor misunderstood donald…
Your brain is defective.
Tears…
8. June 2016 at 03:54
Major Freedom, you are out of your mind. Sumner has made a very clear argument that Trump is a narcissistic fool, who will change his views to suit his march towards power. And he is a crazy man, having such a narcissistic syndrome.
It has nothing to do with his wealth and I think you make a big mistake accusing Scott of being jealous of Trump. I wouldn’t want to be Trump. I am sure Scott would not want to be Trump. There is something wrong with the guy. He isn’t normal. And as to his wealth, no one knows that it is even that significant since he won’t post his tax returns.
8. June 2016 at 05:52
Bill Ellis,
You are exactly right. I’ve never heard a non-dickhead complain about PC culture, except for this newer campus PC-stuff, of which I’m not familiar. If Seinfeld doesn’t feel he can even tour college campuses anymore, as mild as he is, it could actually be bad.
Also, Larry Summers has an interview on Youtube with Bill Kristol in which he speaks out against this particular campus PC phenomenon.
8. June 2016 at 05:54
I think major.freedom is mentally ill. Now Scott’s supposed to hate people because of their wealth? Scott defends wealth inequality all the time, on economic efficiency grounds. He’s argued for years, persuasively in my view, that instead of focusing on wealth and income inequality, we should focus on improving the lives of the poor through efficient tax policy and redistribution.
8. June 2016 at 08:40
@Art Deco,
“Frum has a business to run, and he’s full of it. The real 7 guardrails are as follows:”
That is a cheap shot against Frum. His seven guard rails are horrible, but they are genuinely his viewpoints, and not him catering to some revenue stream.
Your seven guard rails are brilliant. You should be writing for The Atlantic or similar magazine. I’d like to hear elaborations on #1 and #2. Also, the big one you missed is Abraham Lincoln. He completely violated Habeas Corpus, he used overt military intimidation of citizens to vote a certain way, he interfered with press outlets who were unfavorable to him, he tried to have a supreme court justice arrested for not voting in his favor, and ultimately he turned the US military onto US citizens and massacred large numbers of civilians, burned homes, farms, and entire cities to the ground to break the Thomas Jefferson endorsed state right of peaceful secession.
8. June 2016 at 08:45
I’ve never heard a non-dickhead complain about PC culture,
The rest of us are left to surmise that you’ve defined anyone who might complain as a ‘dickhead’ a priori or that you actually do not associate in meatworld with people who are not dickheads.
8. June 2016 at 08:52
but people who complain about PC are just people complaining about how mean other people are for finding their views offensive..
No, they’re complaining that campus funds to host outside speakers are allocated in an opaque and sectarian manner, that the student affairs apparat maintains several sets of disciplinary standards (and a mess of humbug to ward off complaints), that faculty loudmouths are allowed to veto outside speakers for no decent reason, that loudmouth meatheads in the student body are allowed to exercise a heckler’s veto over outside speakers, and that, in general, there is no culture of deliberation. Public squares are seen as venues for the amplification of the official idea on the campus, not as venues for public discussion.
8. June 2016 at 10:40
Massimo. You said:
“I presume it’s obvious who a rational immigration restrictionist should vote for?”
Not at all. If you opposed communism would it have been rational to vote for Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy? Didn’t he do more than anyone else to discredit anti-communism?