"... Trump is a spiritual black hole. He has no ability to transcend himself by so much as an emotional nanometer.... He represents the ultimate triumph of a materialist mindset. He has no ability to understand anything that is not an immediate tactile or visual experience, no sense of continuity with other human beings, and no imperatives more important than soothing the barrage of signals emanating from his constantly panicked and confused autonomic system.... In his daily coronavirus briefings, Trump lumbers to the podium and pulls us into his world: detached from reality, unable to feel any emotions but anger and paranoia. Each time we watch, Trump’s spiritual poverty increases our own, because for the duration of these performances, we are forced to live in the same agitated, immediate state that envelops him.... Each of these presidential therapy sessions corrodes us until the moment when the president finally shambles away in a fog of muttered slogans and paranoid sentence fragments.... We are all living with him in the moment and neglecting the thing that makes us human beings instead of mindless fish swimming in circles."
Such are
the entirely subjective ruminations of Tom Nichols (author of "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters")(in The Atlantic).
I watch the briefings every day, and my subjective experience is nothing like that. I don't feel myself dragged into soullessness or losing touch with reality.
AND: The poll results are very clear:
पोस्ट्स
३११ टिप्पण्या:
311 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»a fog of muttered slogans and paranoid sentence fragments
I thought this article was about Trump.
At what point did the article start being about Biden?
Whenever I want an expert opinion, I turn first to Tom Nichols.
"losing touch with reality"
Reality is that Trump has shown himself to be a competent crisis manager, on top of the issues, cooperative with "experts," responsive to governors, decisive at times, as with the flight bans, and cautiously optimistic, as befits his role.
Sure, he made mistakes, but most of those had to do with the politics of the panic--he could't be too far out in front without having all further deaths pinned on him.
It's hard to handle for progs. Actual deaths will turn out much lower than expected (and they hoped), and with Dem govs having touted worst-case scenarios as justification for draconian measures, they gave Trump the perfect campaign argument: see, I saved thousands, millions of lives.
Trump is a spiritual black hole.
The Hawking radiation is everything. Zingers in the form of particle pairs appearing out of nothing, with one of the two emerging new into the universe and unexpectedly smiting the enemy.
It's a form of remembering what was lost long ago.
I started to read it, then skimmed it.
Nothing new. The collective left hate Trump, hate Trump supporters, hate regular folk, and love the corrupt deep state because the corrupt deep state feels normal and safe.
That sounds like a horrible world. Nichols should probably kill himself.
I'm glad I didn't waste my time and money on his book. He has the insight and clear vision of a moldy dish rag. This is why the country is divided. Because self-appointed idiots like this think it is their right to dictate how the rest of us should live.
"Lumbering" means he thinks Trump is Canadian.
Nichols isn't Crazy; he's just a lying sack of (partisan) shit
I voted just Nichols. For one thing, he doesn’t mention the fishs' bicycles.
‘"Lumbering" means he thinks Trump is Canadian.’
Even lumberjacks can tell Nichols is crazy.
Poor Tom thinks he is Napoleon.
I still say that if Trump had ran as a Democrat the left would love him. At least the centrist left. Most of his policy positions are to the left of Bill Clinton when he was president. I remember labor union leaders arguing in the 90s that NAFTA and other trade agreements would cause manufacturing jobs to be moved overseas, allowing companies to avoid US health and safety regs and to pay the foreign workers slave labor wages. The reply was that manufacturing jobs wouldn't move overseas, and when they did the workers would get better jobs. Environmentalists argued that manufacturers wanted to move their operations over seas to avoid environmental regulations, and were correct. Paleocons argued that moving manufacturing overseas would weaken the US and should not be allowed. Probably the only time they ever agreed with the left on anything.
That's generic type he hates. Not Actual Trump.
Fucking Blogger.
Nichols is one of the never-Trump Twitter personalities who has found what must be a lucrative niche saying the same thing over and over again to the same people in slightly different ways. He has no friends on the right and only allies of convenience on the left. Whether it's 2020 or 2024, I have to wonder what he plans to do for a career after Trump has gone.
However, a couple of my liberal friend's heads exploded when I told them that a lot of Trump's policies are to the left of Bill Clinton's when he was president, I had to quit doing so. It annoyed my wife.
When did these Progs become mind readers, psychiatrists and with the magical ability to look into another man’s soul?
And he’s a fucking expert?
Nichols is a crazyman and I discount to zero anything he has ever written.
Nichols sole job is to advance "The Conservative Case for (Insert Democrat Name and/or Policy Here)"
He's a "LLR"-lefty at the national media level in the same way certain LLR-lefties are at the Althouse blog level.
Is Nichols a spiritual or psychological leader? If not, he says we shouldn't listen to non-experts. This time I'll take his advice.
The comments on Nichols’ Twitter feed are over the top. “You are in my head.” Etc.
DDB replied. I’m in a distinct minority.
I think there are probably some grains of truth to this analysis of Trump's psyche, but as happens so often with so many of Trump's critics, it is way over-the-top. This kind of presidential psychoanalysis might be interesting in an abstract way, but I don't see how it really gets you anywhere. What a president does is much more important than why they do it. These kinds of articles only feed the thing that Trump craves most: attention.
What's the point of continuing to read people like this, other than to mock them? It's all projection from their bitter souls. I feel sorry for people who read this and it resonates. Sad, bitter people who can't get over losing an election.
I wanted to vote Nichols and Althouse.
It's like they write the same column over and over week after week.
Another 2 minute hate.
Emmanuel Goldstein, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
Yawn.
Tom Nichols gig is to argue that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because Twitter randos spout off their opinions about things, and ignore what the exports have to say.
So, apparently, he believes that he is also an "export" on spirituality.
What he's actually expert at is being an ass
These kinds of articles only feed the thing that Trump craves most: attention.
Yellow card.
I would just like to second rehajm's suggestion that Nichols kill himself. I am tempted to give some methodological recommendations, but I'm really not an expert.
Talk about paranoia?!
“ These kinds of articles only feed the thing that Trump craves most: attention.”
Let’s put this to the test. If Trump were such an attention whore he would do something absurd, like boast about his ratings during an epidemic.
He should have written The Expertise Of Death.
“I would just like to second rehajm's suggestion that Nichols kill himself. I am tempted to give some methodological recommendations, but I'm really not an expert.”
Talk to Begley. He wishes Lou Gehrig's disease on people.
Trump broke Nichols and the rest of the conservative pundit class. It's been fun to watch their meltdowns in real time, along with their fantasy that post 2024 we'll somehow come crawling back to them.
How is this guy gonna survive 3 more terms of Trump?
"Lumbering" means he thinks Trump is Canadian.
It means he's stumped by Trump.
I don't know if it's crazy, but it's far, far distant from what I get out those pressers.....It's very hard to figure out a way of processing the raw data of experience in such a way as to be logically and morally consistent. I suppose if you take the position that everything Trump does is wrong, then it helps to clarify things. The only need is to elaborate on how and why he is wrong.
@Ron Winkleheimer:
The reply was that manufacturing jobs wouldn't move overseas, and when they did the workers would get better jobs.
Ah yes, the much ballyhooed "job retraining." That was the 90s equivalent of "learn to code." There is a scene in Primary Colors where the Travolta character gives a speech on this topic that is supposed to signify his political acumen.
Paleocons argued that moving manufacturing overseas would weaken the US and should not be allowed. Probably the only time they ever agreed with the left on anything.
Absolutely right. But I would also add that there is some convergence of between paleocons and the left on matters of militarism. The last gasp of the paleocons was to oppose George H.W. Bush's "new world order" and that culminated in Pat Buchanan's primary challenge against Bush in 1992. Between the pro-business wing that loathe the impediment national borders pose and the evangelical wing that loathed Buchanan's skepticism towards the US-Israel relationship, the paleocon wing of the Republican Party was pretty much pushed aside.
Clinton carried on with the new world agenda, and it went into overdrive under George W. Bush. It was more or less continued under Obama. The Trump victory has been the first real repudiation of it. Brexit and the rise of nationalists parties in Europe have been other flash points. People are finally beginning to wake up to the fact that the new world order has been great for the upper class and devastating for the lower classes.
I would just like to second rehajm's suggestion that Nichols kill himself. I am tempted to give some methodological recommendations, but I'm really not an expert.
And I thought Nichols was being overwrought.
In Nichols an expert, an expert on expertise, an expert on expertise on experts, or just crazy?
Death of Expertise.
Trump has more on the ground real world experience with expertise than most. And from the vantage point of someone who has to pay for what they say.
To put it mildly, you come out of those experiences with absolutely no respect for 'Expertise', and you find individuals who through experience, education and intelligence have the knowledge to help you make decisions.
So when someone says 1 million dying, someone else says tens of millions unemployed, he insists on another option. The experts say that it would take a year and a half to develop a vaccine, and he says how about 3 weeks? Someone finds a drug that has an effect, and his experts say that it will take 6 months to study the issue, and he says how about next tuesday?
Anyone who blindly follows an 'expert' is an idiot.
I'm soulless and I turned out okay.
I voted none. Nichols is just parroting a line he thinks might actually persuade someone. What Nichols doesn't understand is that he is preaching to the choir and is persuading no one.
It's an interesting narrative AA - but straight out of the Liberal propoganda playbook! "Tom Nichols (author of "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters")(in The Atlantic)." This writer should know better. Since the beginning of Time, there have been errors committed by "Experts" and "Established" knowledge. For example, Galileo (was convicted of Heresy - Earth Center of Universe). Moreover, Galileo's belief of the World being round went against the established 'Experts' of his time. These are just two example of experts being wrong - there are millions of other examples. "Tom Nichols" must be a real "Expert" cause he's also wrong. What is more evident is that 'Experts' appear to believe they are the anointed and must be correct all the time. I ran a business, now retired, and we had a saying "Have the experts on tap - never on top".
FWIW, Farmer, I agree with your observation.
I'd like to add that my wife visits far left and far right sites, mainly dealing with preppers, and she mentioned that their positions are remarkably the same. Both distrust the government, both distrust the media, and both advocate individual preparation for an unstable future. They only differ on guns.
Also: I wanted to vote for Nichols and Althouse only as well.
Off topic but food for thought: Napoleon was understood by the really smart people of his era as a kind of neo-Charlemagne. I think historians nowadays are starting to understand Napoleon not in terms of Charlemagne but in terms of Hitler. In any event, at the end of the Napoleonic wars, 30% of French men between the ages of 18 and 46 were dead or disabled and the cause of liberty, equality and fraternity had not been substantially advanced.... Sometimes you have to live through history to understand history......Woodrow Wilson was celebrated by the smart people of his day, and Warren Harding was held in contempt. Perhaps we can now better understand Wilson's achievements not by his establishment of the FDA but rather by his response to the flu epidemic. His response was a non-response and the censorship of news regarding it. His non-response substantially aided in the worldwide spread of this disease. He loaded actively infected soldiers onto crowded troop ships and sent them overseas where the disease could work its magic. I wonder if historians will ever consider Wilson's role in the spread of that disease or if Democratic plot armor will still protect him.
Fuck Nichols.
And fuck the lying NYT.
"And I thought Nichols was being overwrought."
Hey, we're not all getting out of this alive. Like everyone, I have my preferences.
J.Farmer said ... These kinds of articles only feed the thing that Trump craves most: attention.
I think that is correct.
It explains why Trump has been a successful POTUS.
"I think historians nowadays are starting to understand Napoleon not in terms of Charlemagne but in terms of Hitler."
It looks to me like historians nowadays are mostly concerned about transexual dictators of color or something. But I think you should include Lincoln. What they had in common was being the first national "leader" to take full political advantage of the immense increase in potential military power afforded by the industrial revolution and the accompanying population surge.
At this point, the only thing the Left can say Biden has going for him is his heart: Biden is a good guy who feels people's pain. Therefore the new label for Trump is that he is cold and heartless; Trump has no soul; Trump is a psychopath. Soulless is the new racist.
Good God! In an absence of charity I'll say that Tom Nichols has no knowledge of spirituality of any sort---if he can write this kind of clap trap.
Well from
https://www.cineaste.com/summer2017/trump-at-the-movies-ayn-rand-fountainhead
Last year, in an interview with Trump for USA Today, columnist Kirsten Powers wrote:
Trump described himself as an Ayn Rand fan. He said of her novel The Fountainhead, “It relates to business [and] beauty [and] life and inner emotions. That book relates to…everything.” He identified with Howard Roark, the novel’s idealistic protagonist who designs skyscrapers and rages against the establishment.
When I pointed out that The Fountainhead is in a way about the tyranny of groupthink, Trump sat up and said. “That’s what is happening here.”
I don't even know who Nichols is but he sounds like one more TDS sufferer.
Woodrow Wilson was celebrated by the smart people of his day, and Warren Harding was held in contempt.
I wish Amity Schlaes would do a Harding biography like her Coolidge biography. He is really the one who ended the Depression that followed WWI and the Wilson Fascist government. The biography would have to include Wilson and his errors.
I did a study of Coolidge a few years ago, which is here if anyone is interested. I'd like to see a good biography of Harding.
Nichols is probably paid by the PRC. He's propaganda.
@Bill Peschel:
I'd like to add that my wife visits far left and far right sites, mainly dealing with preppers, and she mentioned that their positions are remarkably the same.
I think the unifying factor is a general loathing of the establishment, which exhibits a horrible trio of mendacity, incompetence, and self-regard. The 2016 campaign showed the blueprint: more restrictive trade policy, less immigration, and less foreign adventurism. The Democrats actually have an advantage with some of their redistributive economic policies, but because of the demographics of their base, they are wedded to policies like abortion on demand, open borders, and social justice.
"The Campaign Against Established Knowledge" was something that Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition were determined to stamp out. Heretics will be tortured and or burned at the stake. Lovers of established knowledge, whether it be religion or the new secular religion of science do not tolerate dissent or heresy. Some things never change.
… He's a "LLR"-lefty at the national media level in the same way certain LLR-lefties are at the Althouse blog level.
Please tell me again what LLR stands for? Sorry.
@Francisco D:
I think that is correct.
It explains why Trump has been a successful POTUS.
I think it certainly goes a long way to explaining his success as a candidate. As I think is known by now, I am far less enthusiastic about the Trump presidency than most others here. I suppose if you thought too high of taxes and too many regulations were the primary problems facing America, Trump has been a success. For those on the dissident right, Trump has been far less successful. But they at least realize that Trump, for all his faults, is preferably to the psychotically anti-white social justice left.
The “Trump craves attention” commenters deserve some sort of medal for abject stupidity.
God alone knows what these chuckle heads mean. They certainly don’t know.
I’m not even sure why this “criticism” is a criticism. I gather it displays some kind of omniscience.
It doesn’t. But it sure is damned stupid.
Morons, do yourselves a favor and quit farting out this meaningless blabber.
William
Chuck, a much vilified and banned poster who hates Trump , claimed he was a Life Long Republican. Most of us doubt this claim. LLR is a scornful allusion to that.
Farmer 227
Well put, I agree. And I am not even part of the dissident Right.
Let me state the obvious.
Jealousy of Trump is overwhelming, particularly among men.
Jealousy of Trump’s wealth and success with women drives a lot of men stark raving mad.
It’s his money and his gorgeous wife that’s making you eat your guts out, boys.
And, on top of that, he has the audacity to win the presidency.
Michael K, 2:21:
"I don't even know who Nichols is"
A certified expert in national security whose career in national security consists of studying it, writing about it, holding various reasonably impressive professorships in the area - and getting angry as hell when people suggest that maybe experts should be judged on the results they deliver rather than the credentials they hold.
Apparently we do this to insulate our fragile egos, or so Foreign Affairs wrote in praise of Nichols' book "The Death of Expertise," which has been acclaimed by many experts who hate Trump.
So, it’s not that Trump craves attention that’s eating at you guys.
He’s getting naked and getting into bed with a naked Melania. That’s what’s eating at you.
He’s getting a hell of a lot of attention that you wish you had and you’re never going to get.
@Shouting Thomas:
The “Trump craves attention” commenters deserve some sort of medal for abject stupidity.
Sweet of you to say so. I never ceased to be amused at how quickly some people here turn into melting snowflakes at even the slightest criticism of Trump. Yes, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real phenomenon. But the answer is not to turn yourself into a Trump spin doctor.
You’re being silly J. Farmer.
I’m simply pointing out that you uttered an empty, idiot statement.
You did, too.
Own it.
@Shouting Thomas:
He’s getting naked and getting into bed with a naked Melania. That’s what’s eating at you.
Please do us all a favor and go back to posting clips of your shitty music. I can assure you my criticism of Trump has exactly zero to do with who he is fucking. Be it Melania or Stormy Daniels. The issues facing our society are much bigger than Trump. Unfortunately, unlike you, we do not all have the luxury of having half our foot in the grave. Try to look a little further down the road than the 24-hour news cycle.
I worked in men’s movement politics with a lot of gay guys like you, J. Farmer.
You’ve got that odd combination of pride in intellectual abstraction and inability to relate to the reality of people that I encountered with great frequency in that group.
You’ve got a lot of growing up to do J. Farmer.
The Peter Pan thing is common in gay men, and you’ve got it bad.
You’re a very silly little boy.
"There has never been an Atlantic writer as spiritually impoverished as Tom Nichols...."
When my opponent starts to refer to himself as an “us,” well, you know he’s fucked.
“It's like they write the same column over and over week after week.”
Wordy white flags. Less an attack than a failure of courage and morale.
@Shouting Thomas:
We're on board the Titanic, and you want to argue about the arrangement of the deckchairs. Fine by me, but don't lash out at the people who are trying to point out the iceberg up ahead. The fact that you're going to drop dead before we make impact isn't a defense.
I remember the first decade of this century when left and right spent most of their time arguing about Bush. Then we got eight years of arguing about Obama. Meanwhile, the establishment agenda continued unabated. You start getting the idea that the occupant of the oval house is actually a bit of a distraction from the bigger issues. Almost as if by design.
More blather from a soul-theory spiritualist. I had never heard of Tom Nichols (AFAIR) but anyone who spouts off about such stuff in regard to politicians and public figures goes into my Never Mind file.
One of the funniest criticisms I ever received was at the old 2Blowhards site, after I scoffed at the use of "spiritually impoverished" to describe . . . LOL . . . people who don't care for sports!
Narr
If that's a measure, count me as negatively-spiritual. X2 in politics
Concerning the Spanish Flue pandemic, there's a growing body of thought that it originated in France (specifically, Étaples), made its way back to the U.S. (Kansas, Massachusetts, etc.), then recrossed the Atlantic in even more virulent form. Some scholars believe that the Russian Flu pandemic of 1889-90 was actually an early version of the Spanish Flue. This would account for the resistance to the Spanish Flu among older people who were alive at the time of Russian Flu pandemic. Younger people who born after the Russian Flu pandemic were particularly hard hit by the Spanish Flu because (or so it is theorized) they had not acquired the immunity to the later version that the earlier flu bestowed on their elders. The belief that the Spanish Flu originated in the army camps of Kansas no longer carries much weight.
detached from reality, unable to feel any emotions but anger and paranoia
A Stephen King wannabe.
Do these frustrated novelists think these two-minute tales of their own heroic hatred become meaningful or important if that hatred is directed toward Goldstein, er, Trump?
The Atlantic is kinda like The New Yorker - but without the charm, humor and insightful commentary....
It’s actually quite an important argument, not at all about the deck chairs.
There are half a dozen men on this board who have been driven half mad by Trump’s wealth and his beautiful wife.
It’s the source of TDS. So, it’s an issue of great importance.
You don’t really understand these things, because, as I said, you’re deep in the Peter Pan shit.
Your belief that people operate on an intellectual level, or even that they should, is the first sign of that Peter Pan dilemma.
Life is funny, kid. I might outlive you by decades.
Farmer: "The issues facing our society are much bigger than Trump. Unfortunately, unlike you, we do not all have the luxury of having half our foot in the grave. Try to look a little further down the road than the 24-hour news cycle."
Weren't you the guy saying we might as well vote for Bernie because you were a sort of "fail faster" kind of guy and that we (the US) are on an inevitable downward spiral and that anyone with the means should just leave the nation?
If so, what are you getting so upset about?
And, I get paid to play music. In the long run, that’s what counts, you silly boy.
I developed a thin skin about people stabbing me in the back a long time ago. That’s how I survive and make money in a profession in which most people run in terror and hide the first time they encounter somebody employing your tactics.
I’ve been doing that for 60 years. Abandon all hope that that is a point of entry for attack.
Telling me you don't like Trump is like telling me you don't like eggplant: Lots of people do, lots of people don't, but who really gives a fuck?
Many times I have wished that the people who disagree with Trump and aren't entirely fond of him personally would just come clean and tell us what they really think, deep down in their hearts.
Why hold back?
How does one become an expert in presidential spirituality anyway?
Narr
Do you start at congressional spirituality and work your way up?
For those on the dissident right, Trump has been far less successful.
Trump is not a part of the dissident right. He never claimed to be and I don't see why anyone would expect him to govern like he was. In fact nobody who advocated dissident right positions is electable right now. He is a liberal who came of age before the education system was retooled to teach children to hate their country and civilization. So, compared to the left of today, he seems to be on the right. That's probably about as good as we can expect right now. When he does advocate for a position that is right of center such as abortion its because he needs allies and is not overly concerned with ideology beyond America First.
such as anti-abortion, obviously
From women’s perspective, TDS is predominantly driven, not by hatred of Trump, but out of anger that he didn’t choose the woman afflicted by TDS.
Sexual and financial jealousy is really the core of TDS.
"Woodrow Wilson was celebrated by the smart people of his day, and Warren Harding was held in contempt."
Can I start for the record that I hate Woodrow Wilson? Worst President ever.
Yeah, I know I'm being irrational. But lookee here - WWI (epic clusterfuck) lead to the artificial subjugation of Germany which lead to the rise of beer hall trouble-maker Adolph Hitler which led to WWII (where we had to rescue both the Soviets & British) which led to the Commies taking half of Europe, and the Cold War for the next 45 years.
I blame Wilson!
@Shouting Thomas:
Your belief that people operate on an intellectual level, or even that they should, is the first sign of that Peter Pan dilemma.
That is the exact opposite of what I believe, Thomas. If you were not so obsessed with attacking strawmen and caricatures, you would see that more clearly. Unfortunately, there is no point in talking to someone who refuses to listen. So carry on.
Skeptical Voter,
Yes. People who find fault with others’ “spirituality” or “faith” are almost by definition, spiritually barren people themselves. Pete Buttigieg fell into this category.
Those of us who confess Christ must of course be careful when we diagnose others. The beam in our eye, etc. While we are not called to NOT reprove others, we do so within a liturgical community and in the context of charity.
These strange, repetitive screeds about Trump’s lack of a soul are curious to me. And perhaps a case of projection. How can one who feels he himself has a soul be so confident in diagnosing its lack in another? Humility is surely the first fruit of self-awareness. Thus, I surmise that Mr. Nichols is posturing. For if he knew the nature of his own soul, he would join with St. Paul, crying out, “For the good that I would do, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do!”
In one basic sense, unfathomable to Never-Trumpers and progs, Trump is not spiritually impoverished: he loves America.
@Drago:
Weren't you the guy saying we might as well vote for Bernie because you were a sort of "fail faster" kind of guy and that we (the US) are on an inevitable downward spiral and that anyone with the means should just leave the nation?
That is not quite what I said but reasonably close. My point is that the problem does not hinge on the presidency. In our system, the president is quite constrained in what he can do. And the problems are much more pervasive in our society. They are in much of the academia. the media, and the corporate world. I don't really believe in inevitability, but I have always said that I considered Trump a hail mary pass and that I was very pessimistic about America's long-term future.
If so, what are you getting so upset about?
I am perfectly calm. And quite resigned in my role as my nation's obituarist.
And hes the one still? Teaching at the war college.
Shouting Thomas,
I find your comments hard to parse, sometimes.
That aside, I think you are wrong about women who are anti-Trump. Assuming we are talking about white women. I will have to give it more thought.
Why does Nichols still have a job?
Didn't bother reading. Did Nichols point out HCQ is being used to impurify his precious bodily fluids?
When you stare out from an abyss the abyss stares back at you.
I can't say what Trump feels, but I do hear him at least trying to express something more than anger and paranoia - trying in clumsy way to convey an image of someone who cares. That may be the best he (or me or you or Nichols) can do sometimes.
As I said last time this topic came up,"soulfulness" isn't necessarily a desirable quality in politicians. You can be fail and still be "soulful" - indeed, failure really brings out soulfulness (or soulfulness makes for failure): Carter, Bush the younger.
Admittedly, Trump doesn't seem very spiritual, but he does seem spirited and lively. The two don't always go together well. There's a stillness in spirituality (or a spirituality in stillness) that people who are active in the world don't have.
But I haven't seriously examined the souls of John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Warren G. Harding yet to find out how high in spirituality they were.
@Ron Winkleheimer:
Trump is not a part of the dissident right. He never claimed to be and I don't see why anyone would expect him to govern like he was.
That is absolutely correct. My point was that Trump's "success" is obviously dependent on what you think the relevant metrics are. Those of the dissident right differ considerably from the mainstream right. Trump differentiated himself from the Republican pack on immigration, trade, and interventionism. Those are three of the biggest areas where the dissident right diverge from the mainstream right.
like genghis khan
WWI (epic clusterfuck) lead to the artificial subjugation of Germany which lead to the rise of beer hall trouble-maker Adolph Hitler which led to WWII
This is a topic that I am very interested in although this is not the place for the discussion. I think WWI began with the Boer War, at least that led to it. France was always after revenge for 1870 but the British caused Germany to build a fleet because of the Boer War, No German fleet, no British loses in the Somme.
Sexual and financial jealousy is really the core of TDS.
I think you have a point there, ST.
Foreign Affairs wrote in praise of Nichols' book "The Death of Expertise," which has been acclaimed by many experts who hate Trump.
I gave up on Foreign Affairs a few years ago. I was a subscriber for years. It has gotten as far left as Foreign Policy.
This is a topic that I am very interested in although this is not the place for the discussion.
Yeah, we can save for another thread. Last kibbitz - The Boer War is where young Churchill got his head filled with so many bad ideas about war, in general.
Farmer
Remember when you advised me to not bother arguing with a brick wall?
@Lurker21:
I can't say what Trump feels, but I do hear him at least trying to express something more than anger and paranoia - trying in clumsy way to convey an image of someone who cares. That may be the best he (or me or you or Nichols) can do sometimes.
Very true. I think Trump probably has an instinctual understanding of why America First is a preferred strategy. It's pretty basic common sense. The entire point of having a nation is that you prioritize the interests of the group to those outside the group. One of the things I liked most about Trump during the campaign was that he was basically going off the cuff, relying on instinct and pragmatism. That is far preferable to someone who is ideologically driven. That said, I don't think Trump has displayed much managerial competence as president. And I think there is a case to be made that is excessive egoism gets in the way. The establishment has been fairly successful at keeping him boxed in.
Trump differentiated himself from the Republican pack on immigration, trade, and interventionism.
As far as I can see Trump is advancing those agendas against a lot of entrenched opposition. Not as quickly as we might want, but its a hell of a lot better than when those issues were given lip service by the Republican party while it was selling out its base to the CoC. By running on those issues, and winning, Trump has changed the playing field of American politics.
@Ken B:
Farmer
Remember when you advised me to not bother arguing with a brick wall?
Do as I say, not as I do ;)
"Sexual and financial jealousy is really the core of TDS."
Ahah! So that's why nobody likes me either! :)
Well he was a junior officer in the tribals as well as sudan, where he clashed with future marshall kitchener.
Consider the source: The Atlantic -
"In 2016, the editorial board endorsed a presidential candidate, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, for the third time since the magazine's founding, in a rebuke of Republican Donald Trump's candidacy.[33] Since the election, the magazine has become a strong critic of President Trump. The March 2019 cover article by editor Yoni Appelbaum formally called for the impeachment of Donald Trump: 'It's time for Congress to judge the president's fitness to serve.'" ...from Wikipedia.
Rae: "Why does Nichols still have a job?"
Leftist billionaires are happy to write checks to have Fake Conservatives pen screeds attacking republicans and conservatives to advance the interests of democrats.
Some leftist billionaires even happily fund fake conservatives to post anti-conservative/pro-dem narratives on blog threads.
Food for thought.
@Ron Winkleheimer:
As far as I can see Trump is advancing those agendas against a lot of entrenched opposition. Not as quickly as we might want, but its a hell of a lot better than when those issues were given lip service by the Republican party while it was selling out its base to the CoC.
I pretty much agree with this but still think it's beside the point. You can be the better of two options and still fail. "Better than" isn't the same thing as "enough."
Trump has changed the playing field of American politics.
That was certainly my hope. That Trump's victory would provide an alternative blueprint for the GOP. I am much less hopeful about that prospect now than I was in 2016.
The most soulless President in our nation’s history, by the post modern standards of Nichols and his ilk, was surely Andrew Jackson. Until he was found in bad political odor in the past five years or so, every state and local Democratic Party in the country was throwing Jefferson-Jackson Day parties.
Was there ever really a "paleocon" wing of the Republican party? Pat Buchanan had a set of views. Some of them he shared with neocons, mainstream conservatives or other Republicans. Some of them had more of a home with the Democrats or the left. Some of them were decidedly fringe ideas. People who agreed with him about some things weren't enthusiastic about other things he believed or about Buchanan himself. Did it really add up to a wing of the party? And if paleoconservatism didn't take off, paleocon leaders and luminaries had more than a little to do with that. After a decent start, they seemed to be more interested in refighting the Civil War than in doing anything constructive.
I think you have a point there, ST.
Even if that armchair psychoanalysis were true, it doesn't get you anywhere. Knowing why some people are motivated to make dumb arguments against Trump doesn't actually help in analyzing Trump. In fact, it can have a deleterious effect, leading you to be dismissive of any criticism of Trump. It's better to confront good, smart criticisms of Trump rather than finding way to dismiss bad arguments. The truth certainly lies somewhere between "everything is Trump's fault" and "nothing is Trump's fault."
J. Farmer said...I remember the first decade of this century when left and right spent most of their time arguing about Bush. Then we got eight years of arguing about Obama. Meanwhile, the establishment agenda continued unabated. You start getting the idea that the occupant of the oval house is actually a bit of a distraction from the bigger issues. Almost as if by design.
That is probably your most astute comment so far, Farmer. Not bad for someone so young and inexperienced.
I do not think it is by design that we are distracted by presidential politics, but the "establishment" (what many call the Deep State) is nothing if not opportunistic. We probably need some very significant structural reforms, starting with civil service and government employee unions. Obviously we also need to close the borders and select the people we want to come here.
The atlantic had their first big grandmal freakout with andrew sullivam and his kramerica intern conor friedersdorf
Trump is a spiritual black hole.
The Hawking radiation is everything. Zingers in the form of particle pairs appearing out of nothing, with one of the two emerging new into the universe and unexpectedly smiting the enemy.
Covid 19 - It's a form of remembering what was lost long ago
I appreciate Althouse red meat every now and again. Thank you.
"his kramerica intern conor friedersdorf"
Is getting a new keyboard and an essential activity these days? If so, you owe me one.
@Lurker21:
Was there ever really a "paleocon" wing of the Republican party?
We run the risk of getting into semantic weeds with that question. Perhaps we should dispense with the word "wing" and replace it with "disposition." It was most strongly expressed during the presidency of Clinton, in opposition to his "free" trade deals, a lot of his foreign policy, and his social liberalism. Unfortunately, these criticisms were dampened under George W. Bush, who gave us Wilsonianism abroad and "compassionate conservatism" at home. I tend to think that nationalism vs. globalism is a better prism for understanding the issues, but of course those terms come with baggage of their own.
I ahould have warned you, its not a new coinage.
"The atlantic had their first big grandmal freakout with andrew sullivam and his kramerica intern conor friedersdorf"
Heh! First links and now Seinfeldian humor? Narciso is ready to explode!
More red meat from AA for her commentators.
I only persevered through the local quote. I feel pity for this guy who has to produce words to encourage hate. Perhaps his anger is due to his prostitution of whatever native ability to write he has demonstrated.
"The atlantic had their first big grandmal freakout with andrew sullivam and his kramerica intern conor friedersdorf"
Can we nominate someone for the position of kramerica intern for this blog? I have a suitable candidate...,,,
Leftist billionaires are happy to write checks to have Fake Conservatives pen screeds attacking republicans and conservatives to advance the interests of democrats.
I assume you know that "The Atlantic" is owned by Steve Jobs' widow,.
QED
Farmer
Knowing why some people are motivated to make dumb arguments against Trump doesn't actually help in analyzing Trump.
It is what elections are about. Why do some people vote the way they do ? That was my point.
I'm not analyzing Trump. He was elected to throw a brick through the window of the "Establishment," which includes both parties.
I think he has done better than expected.
After a decent start, they seemed to be more interested in refighting the Civil War than in doing anything constructive.
And now civil war monuments are being torn down to protect the sensitives of the black underclass. The fun thing about being a paleocon is that you tend to be ignored or dismissed about issues that 10 or 20 years later people end up agreeing with you about. The Iraq War is a more recent example. The problem with immigration is that people are waking up to the problem too late. Peter Brimelow, editor of V Dare, published his immigration restrictionist book Alien Nation in 1995.
Much seeming defense of Trump is actually defense of ourselves for voting for him. Due, of course, to being smeared for years as (fill in the blank).
Many of the filthy smears and disgusting lies about Trump are due to the stupidity of the people who did not vote for him.
People who were either ignorant, evil or moronic and now have to attempt to justify their unwillingness to do the right thing for America and Americans.
It is very easy to assume there have been many presidents as "spiritually impoverished" as Trump. A good many people toiling in Washington at any given time are so impoverished.
I find it fascinating that people who decry and HATE Christian heritage keep going on about their "spirituality" based on whatever weepy-woo nonsense most dovetails with their current lifestyle. Tom Nichols has less to say about thoughtful religious impulse than the average house cat, which is naturally why he gravitates to empty claptrap.
I'm interested in Jfarmer's theory about what Trump represented to him: I'd be willing to wager that he pays attention to The American Conservative or Jacobin (I read the latter). You could break down Trump's first term however you like, and it's been pretty clear that he's been successful on trade, jobs, and the economy. Not even the Democrats are seriously contesting that, to the degree that they're serious about anything. He's done a lot in terms of abortion and conservative judges, which liberals obviously hate. He's been less successful on Obamacare and illegal immigration, at least to the degree of success that he needed, but that's as much the fault of judicial overreach by Obamajudges and betrayal from the chuckservative wing as any other factor. And on foreign policy, I don't doubt that Donald Trump has been an overall disappointment to Jfarmer, specifically on the questions of Russia and Iran. I have relatively positive but mild feelings about the former nation and negative ones about Iran, so I'm rather happy with how things are going. It would have been nice to not react to Russia like John Birch on PCP, but the confirmed lies propagated by the Mueller inquiry forced the Administration into a hostile position early, and few anywhere in the country care enough to turn that around in a second term.
I'd happily stack Donald Trump's managerial competence against Bernie Sanders, who can't even manage a winning nomination campaign, but it's not a necessary argument in the face of the DNC's contemptible, Goldberg-sized treachery. The Democrats trying to draft Andrew Cuomo is a Hail Mary, not a sure win, and it's probably going to end with Tom Perez claiming "we had to destroy the democracy in order to save it." Laughs all around.
Say, any of you guys ever learn or realize something obvious and think to yourself"damn, why didn't I think of that before?"
Think I have been here for around six years and just today realized ST intentionally trolls some with the crazy talk. He tripped rock steady Howard on another thread. A method to his madness. It's great.
May have happened before, but I cannot recall JF ever giving up.
BTW, a fan of all three.
Spiritually impoverished? Deplorable. Trump publicly stands with people... persons against normalization of a popular and profitable transhuman orientation.
Tom Nichols foreign policy brilliance is no excuse for his extreme elitist attitude towards Trump. For a more realistic assessment of President Trump there is none better than Victor Davis Hanson.
@doctrev:
I find it fascinating that people who decry and HATE Christian heritage keep going on about their "spirituality" based on whatever weepy-woo nonsense most dovetails with their current lifestyle.
I usually roll my eyes when people make the "not religious but spiritual" claim. As best I can tell, it means that they don't want any external limits on their behavior, but they still think they're going to live forever.
He's been less successful on Obamacare and illegal immigration...
'
Without getting a handle on immigration, all of the other successes are meaningless. They will simply be undone by demographic change.
And on foreign policy, I don't doubt that Donald Trump has been an overall disappointment to Jfarmer, specifically on the questions of Russia and Iran. I have relatively positive but mild feelings about the former nation and negative ones about Iran, so I'm rather happy with how things are going
I don't find "feelings" about a country to be particularly useful Iran is no kind of society I would ever want to live in. But neither is Saudi Arabia. I am still for doing business with both of them, and I don't think we need to insert ourselves in their regional squabbles. The US-Iran obsession is, I think, just a symptom of a much larger problem. Namely, we define our national interests far too broadly.
I'd happily stack Donald Trump's managerial competence against Bernie Sanders, who can't even manage a winning nomination campaign, but it's not a necessary argument in the face of the DNC's contemptible, Goldberg-sized treachery.
Doctor A can be better than Doctor B, but it doesn't matter much if the patient still dies.
im sure nichols is on board
Nichols is the best example of why "expertise" has lost its luster.
@FullMoon:
May have happened before, but I cannot recall JF ever giving up.
My secret is I never care about winning an argument or changing anybody's mind. My only goal is to explain why I think what I think. Thomas has obviously spent considerable more time contemplating the activities of the Trumps' bedroom than I ever have. Or would ever want to. A rich older man marrying a younger attractive woman is not a very novel concept. Ironic, though, that he considers me to be a Peter Pan. I was considered curmudgeonly in high school.
Another person analyzing some aspect of Trump and concluding that he is defective. Note that this person, Nichols, doesn't know Donald Trump in any sort of familiar way (friends, acquaintances, medical professional, adviser) that would lend credibility to his analysis. Add to that that Nichols' described expertise is in things other than what he claims to be analyzing, i.e.; Trump's spirituality.
Conclusion: the article is rubbish of the TDS variety.
Question for Farmer and others here: I've always thought of the various hyphenated "cons", paleo, neo, crunchy, as a sort of cheat to describe individuals that ascribe to a subset of conservatism or emphasize certain ideological and policy perspectives. Is that a fair way to think about it?
Just another intellectually dishonest asshat that knows he is correct, based on nothing other than his delicate emotions and entitled sense of superiority. No one knows anothers heart and mind. These self-important blowhards lack discernment, are the least charitable, least Christian, least astute individuals you'll come across. Ignore them and increase their misery.
Nichols = another brick in the wall called Liberalism is a Mental Disease.
@stevew:
Question for Farmer and others here: I've always thought of the various hyphenated "cons", paleo, neo, crunchy, as a sort of cheat to describe individuals that ascribe to a subset of conservatism or emphasize certain ideological and policy perspectives. Is that a fair way to think about it?
That's basically how I understand it as well. Sort of akin to the various denominations of Christianity. unified by certain broad beliefs but differing in various smaller questions. My conception of conservatism has always been as a disposition or a way of thinking about politics and political change. I don't see much benefit in attaching a list of policy preferences to the idea.
I always say that the key insight into conservatism is to be highly skeptical of revolutionary change. Unleashing revolutionary change on a society can be quite disruptive and destructive. It's why I was absolutely flabbergasted by the Iraq War. It was probably the most unconservative foreign policy goal the US had embarked on since Wilson's 14 points.
Some people can construct elaborate paragraphs to indicate they really don't like it when they see someone very productive, unwilling to mince words, and successful.
In case you were wondering:
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Nichols argued that conservatives should vote for Hillary Clinton, whom he detested, because Trump was "too mentally unstable" to serve as commander-in-chief. Nichols continued this argument for the 2018 midterm elections.
No real conservative, would vote for Hillary. And no real conservative would vote for Pelosi and the D's to control the House in 2018. And no real conservative would write anti-Trump crap for the Left-wing Atlantic Magazine.
The only difference between Nichols and 100,000 other liberal Democrats who hate Trump is Nichols pretended to be conservative. Just like Jen Rubin and Max Boot.
I was unable to vote. Although the last choice came closest to my personal view there is more than just self-expression at play. With Tom Nichols, the idea of an honest opinion devoid of the most frequently used political criticisms seems beyond his grasp as it does with so many who in their core believe they are morally superior to Trump and use whatever vehicle is available to attempt to persuade others he is not worthy of consideration because of his flaws.
You, Ms. Althouse, do an absolutely great job, in my opinion, of providing a fair commentary while keeping your political beliefs compartmented away from the common understanding of the issues.
Finally, President Trump is so unlike what we've come to expect in a politician where they are expected to hide their thirst for power or their narcissism, that he has truly become a lightning rod for those who hate him, but he relishes the attention.
I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." If anyone epitomises this truth it would be President Trump.
YES! I find your ideas about spiritual impoverishment fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!
I forgot to mention that I voted for all three as woo-woo-woo. Almost everybody I know or know of strikes me as crazed to some degree.
Narr
Especially about politics.
I voted none. Nichols is just parroting a line he thinks might actually persuade someone. What Nichols doesn't understand is that he is preaching to the choir and is persuading no one.
Yancey, I completely agree with the analysis of Nichols, but because he is doing this while not understanding and not persuading moved me to vote for him. It's like that AA definition for insanity.
Whoops, that's an error.
Good thing, that.
I had typed something intemperate.
So who's crazy here?
I voted "just Nichols," but AA deserves some mention here for continuing to read this nonsense.
It's poison.
If we want to talk about spiritual impoverishment, what about JFK? He was fucking some college girl in the WH when Jackie was recovering from her miscarriage. That’s cold. Come on, man!
The only difference between Nichols and 100,000 other liberal Democrats who hate Trump is Nichols pretended to be conservative. Just like Jen Rubin and Max Boot.
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt with their ideological self-affiliations. I thin Rubin and Boot both confuse conservatism with Republican Party politics. Rubin's conservatism seems to me a function of her deference to Israel, and Boot's a function of his cold war nostalgia.
Was there ever really a "paleocon" wing of the Republican party? Pat Buchanan had a set of views. Some of them he shared with neocons, mainstream conservatives or other Republicans. Some of them had more of a home with the Democrats or the left. Some of them were decidedly fringe ideas.
Wrong. Buchanan, for 30 years, was a standard Conservative Republican. He then changed his mind on "Free Trade" in the early 90s, and emphasized the need to stop open borders, and not get involved in useless wars. There was nothing "Fringe" about it. Its globalism that was "fringe". Republicans accepted an interventionist foreign Policy from 1941-1990 because we keeping three evil empires (imperial japan, nazi Germany and the USSR) from taking over the world.
The Bushes and people like McCain decided the Republican party should be a globalist, free trading, open borders, Wilsonian crusading party. This was never supported by the majority of R's. They either didn't think about it, or they bought the hype that it was good for America. Most R's NEVER supported Amnesty. They've NEVER liked foreign Aid. They've never supported Crusades.
Mark said...
So who's crazy here?
I voted "just Nichols," but AA deserves some mention here for continuing to read this nonsense.
It's poison.
Indeed.
There is something much deeper in play here than analyzing the written words of others.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt with their ideological self-affiliations.
That made me laugh out loud, literally.
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt with their ideological self-affiliations.
I definitely do NOT give them the "benefit of the doubt". People who voted for Hillary or wanted Pelosi to be Speaker in 2018, or are supporting Joe Biden are NOT conservative PERIOD.
If they want their own special label and meaning of a word, let them make up their own. Andrew Sullivan is a perfect example, he ran around for years calling himself a Conservative, but it was a special snowflake conservatism that only Sullivan followed. Why was he doing that? Because like Rubin and Boot, if he'd been honest about what he was, then he couldn't have posed as giving the public a "Conservative viewpoint" that countered the dominant liberal one in the MSM. It was a fraud on the public, designed to mislead them.
Spiritual is a huckster's word. There are no spirits, no spiritual realm, no higher plane. Spiritually impoverished means realistic.
If we want to talk about spiritual impoverishment, what about JFK? He was fucking some college girl in the WH when Jackie was recovering from her miscarriage. That’s cold. Come on, man!
Yeah, the lionization of the Kennedy family in American politics is utterly repugnant. The whole thing is like some bizarre amalgam of elitism and Irish Catholic self-pity. Anytime I hear that era referred to as "Camelot," I wish I had a vomit bag handy.
I got into it with Nichols on Twitter once. His Royal Expertness doesn't understand statistics. I mean, basic fucking concepts like the definition of statistical significance. Finally an actuary who had been following along jumped in and tore him a new one.
Reading this is like reading Nazis talk about Jews. As in, a crazy obsession that causes the deranged, not content with civil disagreement like normal people, to resort to utterly un-humanizing the other.
@Browndoag:
That made me laugh out loud, literally.
As opposed to laughing out loud figuratively, I suppose.
Harry Truman said if you want a friend in politics get a dog. I say if you want a spiritual leader in politics, get the Pope.
Yeah, I know I'm being irrational. But lookee here - WWI (epic clusterfuck) lead to the artificial subjugation of Germany which lead to the rise of beer hall trouble-maker Adolph Hitler which led to WWII (where we had to rescue both the Soviets & British) which led to the Commies taking half of Europe, and the Cold War for the next 45 years.
What Jefferson was saying was, Hey! You know, we left this England place 'cause it was bogus; so if we don't get some cool rules ourselves - pronto - we'll just be bogus too! Get it?
Trump's strength is optimism.
@rcocean:
I definitely do NOT give them the "benefit of the doubt". People who voted for Hillary or wanted Pelosi to be Speaker in 2018, or are supporting Joe Biden are NOT conservative PERIOD.
I suppose from my perspective I don't actually care if someone is a conservative or not. I am more concerned with whether they are right or not. Since someone's ideological self-identification has no relation to the merit of their argument, I don't see much point in considering it.
Because like Rubin and Boot, if he'd been honest about what he was, then he couldn't have posed as giving the public a "Conservative viewpoint" that countered the dominant liberal one in the MSM. It was a fraud on the public, designed to mislead them.
That's a fair point, but I also think that says more about the elasticity of big abstract terms like "conservative." SUllivan certainly has a lot of detractors to his left, as well. Mostly they consider him a racist and some kind of self-hating gay guy. Again, I don't find ideological purity tests particularly interesting, and I don't find dividing people into ideological ghettos a particularly useful enterprise. Let the arguments rise or fall on their own merits.
No one is crazy, but Nichols is malicious.
This is what the shrinks call "projection".
J. Farmer said...
Yeah, the lionization of the Kennedy family in American politics is utterly repugnant. The whole thing is like some bizarre amalgam of elitism and Irish Catholic self-pity. Anytime I hear that era referred to as "Camelot," I wish I had a vomit bag handy.
4/11/20, 4:56 PM
No one who says this can be all bad.
As to my feelings on Iran and Russia, I use the term advisedly. Lots of people pride themselves on having a coldly rational approach to Middle Eastern policy, but watching how that affects the judgement of the Boots and Frums leaves me cautious. I know Saudi Arabia pumps out more oil than Iran- much more- yet its nominal GDP is not commensurately larger despite Western sanctions. The petrodollar is partly maintained as part of a de facto alliance with Saudi Arabia, enhanced by the personal friendship between MBS and President Trump, so I doubt the Treasury would appreciate losing that safety net. Meanwhile, the Iranian state aggressively sponsors terrorism against American interests throughout the Middle East. Admittedly, Saudi Arabia happily sponsored ISIS against Iran until Trump asked them to stop. But despite a few decades of Middle Eastern news from a variety of sources, I don't know enough- or care enough, in the past five years- to make that a major policy litmus test.
I would say that paleocon vs neocon vs crunchy con is almost irrelevant in the Trump era, but I'm not influential enough in the intellectual side of the GOP to say definitively that nationalism will triumph for the next decade.
Trump's strength is optimism
Good point. People definitely seem to prefer an optimist who is wrong to a pessimist who is right. American optimism is simultaneously a great strength and a terrible weakness in our society. Eventually that check is going to get cashed, and I imagine it will come as a great shock to many people. But as I've said before, I consider "optimistic conservative" an oxymoron.
I can honestly say that I am sick and tired of reading Althhouse.
Everything always ends up in the same place. The characters may change, but the attitudes remain the same.
rcocean said...
Nothing you've said shows that there was truly a "paleocon" wing of the GOP. Whatever Republican voters felt in their heart of hearts, most of them got behind the Bushes. The segue from supporting the Cold War and free markets to supporting globalization was smoother than you claim.
There was nothing "Fringe" about it. Its globalism that was "fringe".
Buchanan's views on WWII were fringe. The paleos' view on the Civil War was fringe. Things like that made many of us unwilling to identify with paleoconservatism.
They either didn't think about it, or they bought the hype that it was good for America.
That's true. They didn't think about it or they thought it was good for America or they didn't see what was happening.
Most R's NEVER supported Amnesty. They've NEVER liked foreign Aid. They've never supported Crusades.
They - we - accepted amnesty when Reagan was president. It was presented as a one-off that would solve the problem. We accepted foreign aid, however much we complained about it. That's still largely the case. And plenty of Republicans supported Bush's crusade. Whatever qualms we had didn't add up to a wing or a movement.
We could draw an analogy with what's going on with the Democrats now. Plenty of Democrats had socialist sympathies, but they didn't become a wing or a movement until they organized and found leaders. Grumbling about wars or immigration didn't amount to much if all grumbling was all that it was. The flipside of "They misled us" is often "We were willing to go where they led us."
Thanks. I've been a conservative of some sort my entire life. I've always been skeptical of change, particularly if it is proposed without some well defined and near certain benefit. The Chesterton's Fence argument has always appealed. As for foreign policy, consider me an Washington non-interventionist. The most recent Iraq war offered nothing of benefit to the US and so should have been foregone.
Libertarian is the philosophy I most align with: leave me alone and a I'll return the favor. That's impossible in today's United States so I'd be pleased if we could just come close(r).
I'm an expert, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
@doctrev:
Lots of people pride themselves on having a coldly rational approach to Middle Eastern policy, but watching how that affects the judgement of the Boots and Frums leaves me cautious.
I would never describe their judgment as "coldly rational." More like hopelessly naive.
I would say that paleocon vs neocon vs crunchy con is almost irrelevant in the Trump era, but I'm not influential enough in the intellectual side of the GOP to say definitively that nationalism will triumph for the next decade.
I don't possibly see how it could. The American nation barely exists anymore. It's basically a conglomeration of competing interests divided along identity lines (e.g. racial, ethnic, linguistic, sexual, etc.).
For anyone who is interested, you can catch J. Farmer's act on next Friday's Jack Paar show. Also appearing: Oscar Levant, Viktor Borge, Peter Ustinov, Eric Hoffer, Mort Saul, and the Gabor sisters -- all three of them, including Magda!
Be sure and stay tuned for the show's second half when the guests all sit in a row and each guest tells the same joke to his neighbor a in different language. The final version, in English, is always hilarious!
A special cameo appearance by Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir is rumored. No word yet on whether they'll take part in the joke-telling sequence.
J. Farmer will do a stand-up routine, performing his famous "I Talk in Paragraphs" bit.
It'll be an evening of high drollery and middle brow intellectualism. Don't miss it!
J. Farmer said...
People definitely seem to prefer an optimist who is wrong to a pessimist who is right
this goes back, to that Stupid Cassandra bitch! Didn't we have ENOUGH Problems, without Her pointing them all out to us all the time?
J. Farmer said...
@doctrev:
I don't possibly see how it could. The American nation barely exists anymore. It's basically a conglomeration of competing interests divided along identity lines (e.g. racial, ethnic, linguistic, sexual, etc.).
4/11/20, 5:25 PM
True, but that's a definition that's encompassed most nations throughout history. The American South is arguably a nation in its own right, and Texans will happily argue that they are a nation all their own. Despite considerable cultural and religious homogeneity, America was still riven by civil war. The state of modern America is worse, with the Democrats sponsoring a mass invasion from every non-white country on Earth, but for all that the Trump coalition is surprisingly united for its heterogeneity. It isn't the historic American nation, despite Trump's appeal to that demographic, but then there aren't terribly many heritage Americans who adamantly care about that either.
@Roughcoat:
It'll be an evening of high drollery and middle brow intellectualism. Don't miss it!
Middlebrow is quite generous. Thank you!
p.s. Is there anything more middlebrow than describing things as middlebrow?
p.s. Is there anything more middlebrow than describing things as middlebrow?
That's a droll remark! The Gabor sisters are tittering, Peter Ustinov is chortling.
Levant is stuttering.
Sounds fun, Roughcoat!
Narr
I never miss it
@doctrev:
True, but that's a definition that's encompassed most nations throughout history.
Sovereignty was distributed much differently in those societies. Once you get national self-determination, it is a different story. I don't think it is a coincidence that the most homogeneous societies in the world (northwestern Europe, northeastern Asia) are much better functioning than the more heterogeneous ones (Latin America, Africa).
@Roughcoat:
That's a droll remark! The Gabor sisters are tittering, Peter Ustinov is chortling.
Levant is stuttering.
And now I'm snoring.
Nichol's a pitiful example of America's elite, isn't he?
Utterly sure of himself in matters he knows nothing about (Trump's spiritual state).
Farmer “ As opposed to laughing out loud figuratively,”
Browndog isn’t being as silly as you imply. Very little of what he says should be taken literally.
Now THAT was a paragraph!
. But as I've said before, I consider "optimistic conservative" an oxymoron.
Nothing defines Farmer better than this.
I understand how he got there. He's trapped in his own intellectualism.
doctrev said...
. . .
True, but that's a definition that's encompassed most nations throughout history.
...
For most of history, nations were organized on the basis of language, not a convergence of economic interests. Germans were Germans because they spoke German, not because they had the same religion or the same ideas about music.
J Farmer said Anytime I hear that era referred to as "Camelot," I wish I had a vomit bag handy.
doesn't it make you Wonder, if they EVER Read Anything about Camelot and King Arthur?
let's see...
Arthur fucks around with Camille, an Evil enchantress
His best friend fucks Arthur's wife,
Arthur fucks Guinevere's evil twin half sister
(the story is SO TWISTED that they have identical half sister twins!)
Arthur then becomes a BIGAMIST, MARRYING the evil twin
Lancelot and Guinie start FUCKING IN PUBLIC
Guinie is charged with Both Adultery (3 times!) as well as Sorcery
finally, through the sex, sorcery and drug usage... THE ENTIRE KINGDOM FAILS
and is overtaken by invaders from eastern europe (saxons)
yeah! THAT'S the Camelot that JFK's admirers wished on the United States
FUCK THEM!
Tom Nichols’ Twitter feed and others like his remind me of the old Tiger Beat magazine, the one you used to see at grocery checkouts.
Except the giddy teenage and tweenage girls are now giddy, juvenile profs and progs, many in their 70s, reliving their long-gone 1960s “resistance” glory days,
Browndog isn’t being as silly as you imply. Very little of what he says should be taken literally.
Am I to feel insulted?
At a time like this?
Throw a dog a bone--what little of what I say can be taken literally?
That way I'll know, and strive to be better, having learned. What greater achievement than a man teaching another the err of his ways?
Farmer
You are wrong about removing civil war statues. That is entirely about the sensibilities of the white overclass, not the black underclass. The latter, per surveys, don’t care.
Everything symbolic is about the white overclass and only the white overclass. Always.
Joshbraid: Perhaps his anger is due to his prostitution of whatever native ability to write he has demonstrated.
It’s entirely possible, like the way Monica’s Blue Dress and the Starr investigation broke Keith Olbermann. I remember watching him as a sportscaster, he was sharp and funny, entertaining. And he was fine when he first switched to news, but then he completely lost his mind. It was sad.
Olberman? I don’t watch much sports so I never saw him 8n that role. But from the first time I saw him he was a ranting loon. Good hair. Ranting loon.
Okay, the Oscar Levant reference wins the thread as far as I am concerned. Well played Roughcoat.
I can't imagine any other president in my lifetime willing to spend as much time in front of a hostile press. Trump spends more time with and indulges an incredibly hostile press more than other presidents are willing to do with a fawning or fair press. He answers question off the cuff, he doesn't resort to canned political answers, and he's willing to tell us what he knows without hiding things we need to know "out of an abundance of caution".
@Ken B:
Browndog isn’t being as silly as you imply. Very little of what he says should be taken literally.
It was a joke, Ken. I'm not as slow on the uptake as you may think.
That is entirely about the sensibilities of the white overclass, not the black underclass. The latter, per surveys, don’t care.
That's a fair point. Though black activism does play a role. But generally speaking, I think it's true most groups don't give a shit about the causes that activists engage in on their behalf.
Bears repeating. If ya wanna argue with Farmer, cancel all appointments and put on a large pot of coffee. He got more endurance than Manny Pacquiao.
All three sane, but Nichols is a religious fanatic.
The fun thing about being a paleocon is that you tend to be ignored or dismissed about issues that 10 or 20 years later people end up agreeing with you about.
Maybe it's because you're shitty salesmen. Maybe PDT has that going for him. Which is nice.
@Browndog:
Nothing defines Farmer better than this.
I understand how he got there. He's trapped in his own intellectualism.
Anytime someone wants to make the case that a majority-minority America will be an improvement on what's come before, I'm all ears.
bagoh20 said...
I can't imagine any other president in my lifetime willing to spend as much time in front of a hostile press. Trump spends more time with and indulges an incredibly hostile press more than other presidents are willing to do with a fawning or fair press. He answers question off the cuff, he doesn't resort to canned political answers, and he's willing to tell us what he knows without hiding things we need to know "out of an abundance of caution".
And he keeps calling on the worst offenders. Many times reporter asks question about obscure new info as a gotcha and Trump has detailed answers.Now I regret not watching the conferences from the beginning.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा