May 4th, 2016

Did they manage to “burn it down”?

For quite a few years now I’ve been hearing the slogan “burn it down” from a lot of people on the right side of the blogosphere. So one thing I didn’t have to learn from Trump’s candidacy is that there are a lot of angry people out there, and that in particular, they are angry at the GOP.

I’ve argued and discussed why and how and whether I think all their anger is justified or not and how much I share of it and what I think the solution might be. A lot of the “burn it down” folks (although not all) became Donald Trump supporters this year, in part because he fit their definition of a handy incendiary device.

So here we sit tonight, among the still-smoldering ashes. The nominee of the Grand Old Party will almost certainly be Donald Trump. What John Kasich is going to do I no longer either know or care, although he’s nominally still in the race.

The party failed to stop this when they could, or at least the candidates failed to stop it by not dropping out in a more timely fashion. That’s what I thought at the time, and I still think it’s likely to have been true, although now we’ll never know. But I also ask: would that have stopped it at all? Or had the anger been too great for too many years, so great that nothing would have stopped this once Donald Trump tossed his hat in the ring? Certainly nothing Trump himself did during this long primary season made a dent in it. As he said, he could have shot someone on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn’t have mattered, and I believe him. This morning Trump lodged a charge against Ted Cruz’s father that should have stopped almost every GOP voter in Indiana from voting for Trump, but they didn’t even break stride about it.

So maybe it was baked in the cake that the electorate was going to do this, or something of the sort. Trump just provided the perfect opportunity. And I don’t think the GOP establishment has the strength or the will to regroup this year. They certainly didn’t seem to be willing to do it in order to support Ted Cruz; only a random few (Lindsay Graham, of all people) were the least bit interested. They must either think they can work quite well with Donald Trump, thank you very much, or they are afraid of his revenge on them if they cross him. Maybe both.

This year, small government conservatives discovered they are much more of a minority than they ever thought they were. They learned that their old dream of nominating and electing someone who could clearly articulate the conservative cause is more of a pipe dream fantasy. They discovered that a lot of people who call themselves “conservative” on those surveys have their own idiosyncratic definitions of the word. And they may wish they were back in the Big Tent of yesterday, the one that got blown down and ripped apart and can no longer give them the shelter and nourish the illusion that they are very strong in number and influence.

This could change. I’m not suggesting that anyone give up. Commenter “Eric’s” suggestion of activism—particularly on college campuses, where the rot is well advanced—is important. There’s grass roots politics, too. It’s important to keep as many GOP seats in Congress as possible, as well, although how to do that with a Trump candidacy will be quite the challenge. But politics is a long haul, and we can’t see the future and should not imagine that we can.

Back in October of 2012 I made a prediction I’ve had a chance to revisit many times since. I wish I hadn’t been correct, but so far I was (that doesn’t mean that I can see the future, either). To refresh your memory:

One thing I believe is that, if Romney loses this election, the right will start tearing itself apart in anger…I already see some evidence of it in articles and comments from the right that accuse Romney of not wanting to win, of not going on the attack enough (as though that would elude the negative media spin), of not doing whatever it might be that the brilliant armchair strategists would be doing if they were running for president, an election they of course would win by dint of their brilliant strategy. If Romney loses, the RINO theme will rise again undiminished, and the hatred of the “Republican establishment.”

My opinion of what’s going on is quite different: if the American people re-elect Obama despite his failures, lies, betrayals, immaturity, gaffes, arrogance, destructive foreign policy, demonstrated leftism, small-mindedness, lack of leadership, executive power-grabs, fiscal irresponsibility, and a host of other negatives I may have forgotten to list but which have been operating for the last four years, then it will prove that the American people have fundamentally changed in the direction they want this country to take, and it will require some major upheaval to reverse that trend.

I don’t think a man like Donald Trump could have won the nomination just a few short years ago. But this evening has been building and building and building for many years. One hint is in that first paragraph: people were mad at Romney for being too “nice” and not going on the attack enough. Well, that problem has been remedied, hasn’t it?

Tonight the “burn it down” folks got what they wanted. And I believe that tonight the Democrats and Hillary Clinton got exactly what they wanted. So a lot of people are celebrating tonight. I’m not one of them.

144 Responses to “Did they manage to “burn it down”?”

  1. Rondo Says:

    Trump will beat Hillary easily. Your visceral hate for Trump has clouded your thoughts which btw are usually right.

  2. The Other Chuck Says:

    nervous woman : ” Senor D’Anconia, what do you think is going to happen to the world ? ”

    Francisco D’Anconia : ” Just exactly what it deserves “.

    nervous woman : ” Oh, how cruel “

  3. neo-neocon Says:

    Rondo:

    I suspect you haven’t a clue what I or anyone else here has been saying “all along” and whether any of us has been right “all along” or wrong “all along.” You’ve never commented here until these 2 comments this evening on this thread. I doubt very much you’re the least bit familiar with this blog or its contents.

    Perhaps the first month or two of the Trump candidacy I thought he wouldn’t get the nomination. But very shortly after that I took his candidacy very seriously and was never the least bit sanguine about it. As time went on his chance of getting the nomination got better and better. I have been dreading this evening (and expecting it) for a long, long time.

    And why on earth would anyone take your word for whether Trump will win or not? The Great Rondo Has Spoken?

  4. neo-neocon Says:

    rondo:

    One more thing—I’ve noticed when trolls come here they almost always characterize the sentiment here for Trump as “hate.” It’s the way they roll. It’s a way to invalidate criticism of Trump as though it’s motivated by something emotional and irrational. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

    I started out without many feelings about Trump at all. I hadn’t followed his career. Really quite uninterested in him. He has earned every bit of criticism I have sent his way, by his own actions and words.

  5. mollynh Says:

    There can not be a revolution anymore with muskets, pitchforks, or domestic spies. It can only be at the *ballot Box*.
    THAT is what we are seeing taking place !

  6. neo-neocon Says:

    mollynh:

    Did you ever notice how rarely “revolutions” go at all the way the revolutionaries intend?

    Did you ever notice how often the old guard is replaced by something either just as bad or worse?

    What do you mean “what you thought you knew about the topic”? What topic? What did I think I knew? I have no idea what you’re talking about.

  7. brdavis9 Says:

    Interesting times indeed.

    也许你生活在一个有趣的时代

    …or if you prefer accuracy:

    宁為太平犬,莫做亂离人

  8. Yann Says:

    Did you ever notice how rarely “revolutions” go at all the way the revolutionaries intend?

    Did you ever notice how often the old guard is replaced by something either just as bad or worse?

    Does that apply to the American Revolution too?

  9. mollynh Says:

    The topic of history! And yes un entended consequences abound in all revolutions & are in fact the way revolutions usually end up. It ‘s like a tsunami, nobody knows how far it will go or where it will stop.

  10. neo-neocon Says:

    Yann:

    Many people believe that the American “revolution” was a revolt/rebellion, not a revolution. That’s a huge discussion and argument I’m not going to have here, but let’s just say it’s a very valid position.

  11. neo-neocon Says:

    mollynh:

    Your use of the word “revolution” for what’s happening now is way overboard, in my opinion. There is anger and a changing of the guard which is likely to end in a Hillary Clinton victory. Or alternatively, the victory of Donald Trump, crony capitalist and dealmaker.

    I fail to see anything revolutionary about either prospect. Of course, like with any event, we can’t see the consequences, both in the short term or the long term.

    You still haven’t said what you think I thought I knew about history that is wrong.

  12. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    I’m grieving, not celebrating. The coming disrupture of the GOP is merely the harbinger of a far greater national disruption. Though the exact events in the future are not certain, what is predictable is both the direction in which we are headed, which is the abandonment of the Constitution and, the fundamental incompatibility of half the electorate with the other half. However this plays out, it cannot end well.

    No doubt half of America supports today’s W.H. announcement to celebrate sodomy. Is willing to risk some other parent’s daughters to pedophile abuse. And agrees that opinions contrary to their own, should be banned.

    When given the opportunity and put to the test, the majority of Americans have demonstrated themselves to be incapable of rising to the responsibilities of liberty. And this is why throughout history, tyrannical regimes repeatedly arise.

  13. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Yann,

    Every rule has its exception.

  14. mollynh Says:

    Neo this is misplaced
    ,in the other thread you said that perhaps I don’t think know history & I am saying in response that what you assume about the topic of history may nor be valid anymore ! Just look back on Obama’s election & all his unconstitutional power grabs
    That was *new * history too.

  15. mollynh Says:

    Neo this is misplaced
    ,in the other thread you said that perhaps I don’t tknow history & I am saying in response that what you assume about the topic of history may nor be valid anymore ! Just look back on Obama’s election & all his unconstitutional power grabs
    That was *new * history too.

  16. Yann Says:

    Many people believe that the American “revolution” was a revolt/rebellion, not a revolution. That’s a huge discussion and argument I’m not going to have here, but let’s just say it’s a very valid position.

    And the French Revolution which allowed the Enlightenment, is it a revolt/rebellion too?

    How does it work? When the good guys revolt, we call it a rebellion, and when the bad guys revolt, we call it a revolution, that’s OK?

  17. mollynh Says:

    Once more. (Stay with me here )
    You remarked that. I, ME , I do not know history
    and I am saying , that none of us can know history as well anymore when we take the past 20 yrs ( the Internet years about 1996 on) into consideration.
    So don’t despair, it might not be bad is all.
    On the other hand if you want to think it will be bad you can hold that thought too.

  18. neo-neocon Says:

    mollynh:

    Oh, I guess it’s the wrong thread.

    But anyway—I still don’t get what you mean. “New” history? No history is “new,” unless there’s some new discovery like the Dead Sea Scrolls or something. History is the sum of everything that went before. I am not a complete expert on history, but I know a lot about how tyrannies come to be, and how republics have been undermined and then lost.

    I have no idea why you think that any of the events of this evening are somehow outside of history or have changed history or have undone what I think I know about history.

  19. Eric Says:

    Neo:
    “So maybe it was baked in the caked that the electorate was going to do this, or something of the sort.”

    I disagree.

    When I advocate for activism, I’m rejecting that sort of concessionary fatalism of the zeitgeist that’s endemic on the Right.

    “It was baked in the cake”? That passive construction. It’s frustrating because I know from my experience that the impotence in your statement is readily remedied.

    Baked by whom – a mysterious inevitable tide of history?

    Not at all. The bakers are neither mysterious nor inevitable. They’re activists, competitors, just ordinary people engineering the general will of We The People with formula that’s not mysterious at all. Activism is the power of the people available to anyone for any cause. Including conservatives.

    Social activist product only seems inevitable when one side is allowed to run up the score in the arena effectively unopposed.

    The ideas are not the problem. The problem is the inability to compete in the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist caused by aversion to activism on the Right. Your recent post about Republicans versus Obamacare is an example where the prevailing narrative is blatantly false yet the Right seems unable to set the record straight to cure the harm even when the truth of the matter is straightforward. (The Iraq issue is another example.) Again, that indicates the problem isn’t the ideas. The problem is method.

    The discontent that fueled the Trump phenomenon by rights should have fueled a conservative GOP campaign. But the activism-deficient Right and GOP lacked the necessary activist mindset and skillset to marshal it, which opened the door for Trump-front alt-Right activists to commandeer the potent discontent and manufacture it for their purposes.

    The problem is readily remedied. Conservatives must retire their aversion to activism and collectively become activist. (The crippling effect of the aversion to activism on the Right makes me suspect that it’s been a cultural manipulation by the Left.)

  20. mollynh Says:

    Again too neo, there cannot be a revolt with muskets etc
    IT has to be at the ballot box, the elites have told us as much
    So through Trumps ascendency we are having the closest we can come to rebellion/revolution

  21. LJB Says:

    No, it will not end well.

    As for me, my allegiance remains where it was yesterday…to truth, to honor, to dignity, to justice, to conscience, to compassion, to honesty, to that which is pure and of good virtue.

    Recognizing that all are flawed and all fail to fully achieve that standard and none are excused from trying.

    Which means I remain:

    #NeverTrump
    #NeverHillary

    Beyond that foundation, I am not yet certain of a path forward, as the darkness this day is very deep. But it is not total darkness yet…some light remains. So I will grieve and then look for ways I can nurture that light in my community.

  22. neo-neocon Says:

    mollynh:

    I wrote “If you can write ‘This is no worst than the eight years we just endured with O,’ then you lack an imagination about the future and are also ignorant of history.” In other words, if you know anything about the history of tyranny you would know that the 8 years of Obama are not even remotely the worst that things can get. That’s all. It doesn’t take a giant knowledge of history to know that it can get a lot worse than the Obama years, and that it has done so many times in many countries.

    That’s what I meant.

  23. Yann Says:

    Yann,

    Every rule has its exception.

    So let’s say the American Revolution is an exception.

    And the French One that brought the Republic of France, the model for every republic in the world?

    And the Dutch Revolution, where dutch rejected spanish invaders (who ruled half of Europe back then) and founded The Nederlands?

    And the Greek Revolution, where greek people fought back the Turks, who caused a true genocide where 10% of greeks were murdered?

    That seems like a hell lot of exceptions.

  24. neo-neocon Says:

    Yann:

    There is actually a lot of disagreement about whether to label uprisings “revolutions” or not. In general, it does not depend on goodguy/badguy considerations, it has to do with the magnitude of the govermental and societal change.

    For example, see this about the French Revolution.

  25. neo-neocon Says:

    Eric:

    By “baked in the cake” I did not mean some sort of inevitable determinism. I merely meant that perhaps too many people had already made up their minds to “burn it down” and support Trump by the time I thought some of the candidates’ dropping out would have coalesced votes around them and defeated Trump.

  26. mollynh Says:

    The USA has been an anomaly in the history of the world.
    A strongman running a country seems to be the *preferred senario* however with the Internet functioning I see IT as a catalyst to change that. Voila, a change in history.

  27. mollynh Says:

    Ps. Good night all ,zzz

  28. mf Says:

    Newt Gingrich on Trump’s Indiana Win on Hannity

    Newt comes on at 8:15.

    This stood out:

    “Donald Trump may turn out to be the most effective anti-left leader in our lifetimes. He is against political correctness. He is against bureaucracy. He places American nationalism first which I think we desperately need. … He may do more to dismantle the left than anybody in our lifetimes including Reagan and me, so I don’t despair.”

  29. CapnRusty Says:

    I would commend to all readers this article by Victor Davis Hanson, certainly one of the wisest students of history.

    I have been thinking for some years that we are in a time which the future will look back upon as historic. “Historic” because things are changing and no one seems to know what the outcome will be.

    This can be a curse — or an opportunity. Things were changing in the Colonies in the 1760’s and wise and brave men seized the opportunity to forge the greatest nation the world has ever known. Things were changing in France in the 1780’s and a mob seized power and brought The Terror.

  30. Arnaud Amalric Says:

    What Newt said and mf quoted.

    What some of you don’t appreciate is that the ONLY way a non-Democrat can now win the presidency is if that person is literally *shameless*. Stop and think about that and make some proper effort to digest it.

    The entire media and commentariat have for years been in the can for the Demopub UniParty… preference given to anyone tending more to the left side of this — or in recent years and especially as traditional media dies its slow death to whoever has the biggest bankroll (Soros = Obama and now the Clinton ‘Foundation’).

    Regardless of anything be it ever so sane and correct that a Romney or a Cruz could utter, it CAN be drowned in a flood of rhetoric from the bought and paid for. Should any non-left politician utter any home truths about any PC topic or protected group: finito.

    If you think that Cruz could have taken on Hilary qua Hilary in the mud pit and gotten away with it you are delusional to put it mildly. Sometimes too much refinement and too many credentials blind people.

    Finally, there is the deep state and pervasive surveillance. Again, if you think that these don’t hesitate to use their resources against anyone who steps out of line: delusional and naive.

    Trump *is* a very blunt instrument. But he cannot be shamed. If you can’t understand why at this moment in time this is on the balance a good thing, then you really don’t get it. And no amount of de haut en bas condescension will change this one iota.

  31. FOAF Says:

    mf – Gingrich *could* be right. I certainly hope he’s right, if Trump is elected President. The problem is that this is only one of many scenarios that could play out in a Trump presidency. Some may be good, others not so good.

    I do believe there is a chance that a President Trump would reverse the negative trajectory our country is on. I don’t know how much of a chance. But the chances of a President Hillary Clinton reversing that trajectory are zero or close to it. So with much trepidation I will vote for Trump over Clinton.

  32. Barry Meislin Says:

    NNC, that was a truly extraordinary prediction.

    What now?

    God only knows.

    But after seven and a half years of the reprehensible “fundamental transformation” nourished and cultivated by the lying thug in the White House—all the while supported to the hilt by a lying media—and the upcoming election, pitting a lying criminal against a no-holds-barred brute, is more than a little perplexing.

    The Democrats deserve to be drummed out of office. And I believe that Obama has effectively destroyed the Democratic Party.

    What I couldn’t imagine is that by emasculating the GOP (or at least constantly placing them in a defensive position, to which powerlessness the perception seems to be that the GOP acquiesced, though my more charitable view is that the GOP lawmakers were neutralized by the view that they could not be overly aggressive for the sake of the country), Obama effectively destroyed the GOP as well.

    FWIW. (I’ve certainly been wrong before).

    On the other hand, since Obama’s deceitful of “fundamental transformation” means causing as much damage as possible to the USA, one would have to assume that right now, Obama is exultant.

    (As is Hillary…)

    While the MSM, having—in their view, I believe—prepared the ground for encouraging Trump’s success (or at least, giving him as much publicity as possible), under the assumption that Trump would be the candidate most easily beaten by the incredibly poor candidate that is Hillary Clinton, will now proceed to tear him apart.

    Or do their best to try.

    I suppose the only remaining question is, how many people—of both parties, and of course, the independents—are so utterly sick of the Democratic Party after eight years of Obama’s perverse rule, and sick, too, of the rogue MSM, that they will vote for Trump in November?

  33. expat Says:

    It is time for Gingrich, Christie, Giulliani, Carson, and the other Trumpsters with some political experience to prove what they have been saying, ie, that Trump can govern. They need to show us that they can advise him to come up with real policies–not soundbites. They need to show that he is willing to learn about areas where he is totally ignorant. And they need to let him know that the city on the hill which serves as a beacon to many in the world is based on a moral citizenry that wants to preserve freedom. How can we win over others when we are led by a blowhard no better than the thugs they are ruled by? We are what we are (or were) because we shared some very basic beliefs. Trump’s supporters cannot allow him to throw those on the trash heap.
    Gingrich’s use of the word nationalism scares me. No other country in the world is as self examining as the US. Our flaws and failures are out there for all to see. If by nationalism, he means unquestioning flag waving, we will lose our soul. It is possible to stand tall and defend our country, but this has to be because we believe in its basic tenants. We can’t revert to some tribal thinking. If we can’t talk about our flaws, we can’t correct them. Every failed system or country has not allowed its people to point out the flaws. And this goes in two ways. It obviously describe Stalin, Mao, and Maduro, but it also describes places like Germany, France, and Sweden, where the leftist do-gooders have refused to acknowledge that “human rights” doesn’t mean committing suicide. We have to find the right line to tread, and that will take a principled leader. Newt has his work cut out for him.

  34. kennymac Says:

    The Republican elite did everything in their power to keep the grass roots down. They have earned this. Remember Chris McDaniel?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McDaniel

  35. expat Says:

    I want to add one more point. We still have some power in congress. It is really time for our senators and reps to come together and define their program and priorities. And they have to learn to articulate them in a way that makes sense to local voters. We still have Rep governors who are bringing their states back from precipices. Follow Ryan’s goal of making our legislation more specific so that individuals can’t hide behind thousands and thousands of pages of legislation no one can read. Of course, compromises will always be necesary, but they should be clear and not intended merely to give locals a piece of vote-winning pork. There are proposals out there to cut the ability of federal agencies to make unlimited rules for unlimited time periods. A lot of people now hate Ryan, but that’s the circular firing squad again. Get behind and, if possible, improve his reform proposals. If Congress becomes stronger, the presidency can be held in check.
    One of Cruz’s biggest failures was to defend smaller government mostly on principle. That is not enough. Smaller goverrnment is about letting the people who know the most about their situation make the decisions. Bring this up in every district and tie it to situations where the Fed has screwed up local decisions. The fed has too much debt, but they constantly try to dictate how locals should spend their money by bribing them to enact new laws or spend money on things they don’t need.
    We can’t control Trump on all of foreign policy, but if we stand firm and engage locals, we can contain a lot of his leftist leanings at home. We can play the game just the way Trump does, by coming out strong.

  36. BEB Says:

    Here i go again, telling people I’m not a Trump supporter but that is the truth, I’m not. But I was even less enthusiastic with the other Repub candidates this cycle. I won’t go through all their failings but it was a terrible line up and the couple of candidates that appeared decent in the beginning turned desperate later on and revealed an ugly side I couldn’t support.

    So as a right leaning independent, I’ve been watching the GOP tear itself apart with the worst being those that decided their wishes were more important than the people casting votes. People I used to think had integrity were suddenly willing to openly resort to underhanded manipulations to block Trump from a legitimate win. Cruz happened to be the worst of the bunch.

    So now we see Trump victorious and a bunch of people who have dismissed and ridiculed him standing on the sidelines and bemoaning the death of the GOP without ever realizing that Trump isn’t the cause, Trump is the result. The GOP has squandered its standing with the voters for the past several years and brought us to this point long before Trump entered the scene. The GOP will never recover until it stops trying to blame a candidate for the problems of a party and finally admits that it got off track.
    And standing on the sidelines smugly saying “I told you so.” will endear you about as much as the high school social outcast who rolls their eyes at school spirit day. Get over yourselves.
    Finally, I’m not sure how the writer thinks Clinton got exactly what she wants. She got hammered by the guy who’s supposed to be out of the race. How is that a win?

  37. Mark Says:

    I enjoy your blog immensely and love reading your thoughts.

    As an interested Australian looking from afar I have always thought that Trump is the only candidate that could actually beat Clinton.

    Your press is as ideological bent as ours and whomever got the GOP nomination has to fight not just the politics and Clinton (I am of course making the odds on choice she will not be goaled before the election) but the whole of the assembled mainstream media including perhaps Fox and other “conservative” outlets.

    Trump could actually do that by force of character alone. For once there is someone that can look Chuck Todd in the eye for example and tell him to get stuffed and not be dragged down because of it. He can accuse Clinton of everything and anything and completely mock her sex without fear of any rebuttal.

    All “professional politicians” don’t have this latitude. I am going to be interested in seeing how he handles it but I reckon he will just go nuts and sail through the mess in grand style. He has every chance of making Clinton blow a gasket – the debates will be priceless.

    I hasten to add I am not 100% wrapped in the idea of Donald having launch codes that could wipe out the world but if he is sensible and declares Cruz for the Supreme Court, grabs a sensible running mate(hell even a Dem) and picks a right of centre cabinet he might go ok.

    Surely the big job would even humble him. I am probably dreaming though.

    As one of our most famous politicians said in this country (of course he of the left because it actually makes sense) do whatever it takes to win – you can’t do squat from opposition. Trump has that gene. It will be fun at the very least.

  38. tim maguire Says:

    Why did the establishment not line up with Cruz when he became the only alternative? Folks have been saying for months that the GOPe would rather have Trump than Cruz, maybe even rather have Hillary than Cruz. Maybe they’ve been right for months.

    As for all the “burn it down” sour grapes. I’m pretty close to neverTrump myself, but I have a memory and I remember the knuckle-dragging morons being right about everything in 2008. Maybe, just maybe, they’ve earned a little more respect than you show them here in 2016. Ya think?

  39. Dirtyjobsguy Says:

    Consider our Canadian cousins. They had a truly conservative and competent government under Stephen Harper with sound budgets, sound foreign policy and economic growth. When oil prices fell the economy fell. People were angry about the number of h1b type visas and all foreign workers. But they also seemed to want sympathy from their leaders. Harper was seen as a cold fish. So now Canada is lead by Justin Trudeau son of the former prime minister. He is a good looking former pro snowboarder and school teacher. Too much tv and socialist coddling make it tough to get working again

  40. Tom G Says:

    Not liking Trump is reasonable, he’s a “terrible” politician, as far as politicians have been ranked.
    In the past.

    Fearing that Trump would lose to Hilllary, and opposing him for that reason, is also defensible, but looks to me less likely to be true.

    No Dem has ever won against a Rep that as willing to lie as Trump or other Dems.

    “people were mad at Romney for being too “nice” and not going on the attack enough. Well, that problem has been remedied, hasn’t it? ” <>
    “Trump *is* a very blunt instrument. But he cannot be shamed. If you can’t understand why at this moment in time this is on the balance a good thing, then you really don’t get it.”
    << yes, time for a shameless Rep — winner.
    And more Reps in Congress.

    Always argue against what Obama & Clinton actually did, don't bother defending Trump other than in reply to : "He's going to do terrible X" << "you don't know that, you don't know what he's going to do. But you know that Hillary did do terrible X2, or Y2, or Z2 — and your vote for such a liar supports all lying politicians. Voting for Obama in 2012 was a disaster, and you want more disaster."

    Always attack them, and claim that they wanted the bad consequences — genocide of Christians in Iraq, migration crises, Russia annexing Crimea & Ukraine, China taking over the S. China Sea. Millions under employed or having given up looking for work. Billions for the bailed out rich, with calls for ever more bailouts like Puerto Rico.

    Let's get back to listing how terrible the Dems have been.

  41. KountvonNumbacrunch Says:

    I agree that many who call themselves conservative are not that. The Democrats have controlled the schools, universities and media corporations for a long, long time and have influenced most people’s assumptions in ways they don’t even notice.

    The unfolding debt crisis will be painful, but will bring an opening for change. The process of breaking pension promises is underway-slowly for now. Maybe when the nanny state promises are well and truly broken, people will be brave enough to embrace freedom and responsibility.

  42. B Dubya Says:

    Over time, the Democrat narrative has allowed them to position themselves as the Republican party of Lincoln. It is a lie, of course, but that is the way the narrative works.

    The Republican party has, over the decades since WWII, tried to become Democrat Lite, hence the proliferation of RINOs in Congress. It hasn’t helped that these same pols have opted in to the ‘Maverick’ McCain school of reaching across the isle, to get along by going along, and in the process, forgetting their core principles.

    So you get Trump, who is at least as much a Republican as Sanders is a Democrat.

    I see the Republicans going the way of the Whig party after the 1856 elections.

  43. Hong Says:

    It’s not over. The media couldn’t kill Trump. The GOP couldn’t kill Trump. He may lose but this is the GOP candidate that was viscerally needed to give starch back us. All the domesticated betas like the Ryans, Mccains, and Romneys demoralized and de-energized the base. The DNC had their Walter Mondales, Jimmy Carters, John Kerrys, Howard Deans and now Sanders. They ultimately prevail so perhaps this is a necessary step to take back the culture (if at all possible). The GOP history of nominating weak, vascillating candidates and spilling disdain and lip service on conservatism guaranteed that Conservatism was dead already in the GOP. Trump is either the afterbirth or the first Phoenix rising from fire. None of the other ‘candidates’ were going to beat Shrillary anyway

  44. scott in fairfax Says:

    It is not so much that Americans are not as conservative as we conservatives assumed but rather that Republican voters don’t believe right now that Cruz is the correct vessel to wrest control away from the globalists.

  45. Mark Paul Says:

    I wake up this morning with the sense that my options now are: do not vote, vote for a third party, vote Hillary.
    I am not an ‘establishment’ type or a RINO. I really had hoped that the GOP would nominate a decent candidate this year, after putting forth two hold-your-nose candidates the past two cycles. Instead, it nominated a Hillary donor progressive.
    One whose supporters are imbeciles.
    (If you are reading this, and you support Trump, let me be clear: I feel nothing but contempt for you and your pro-abort, pro-nationalized healthcare friend of Katie Couric candidate.)

  46. Lost My Cookies Says:

    I think maybe Trump got traction because no one believes that the “true conservative” candidates were either all that true or all that conservative. Why not vote for the guy who’s neither?

  47. expat Says:

    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/201116/new-american-isolationism

    This is a link (via Powerline) to an article by Josef Joffe, who is publisher of Germany’s weekly paper Die Zeit. I have followed him for years because he is one of the few German journalists who understands America. He is now at Hoover Institute those he does short columns weekly for Die Zeit. It is certainly worth hearing his input into the foreign policy of our candidates. I do think he underestimated Cruz’s ability to conduct a sensible foreign policy. Still, he knows the importance of America in world politics

  48. Brett Says:

    It’s “let it burn,” not “burn it down.” Agency matters.

  49. neo-neocon Says:

    Hong:

    One problem is that “the base” is a shifting group, and it depends on how you define it. Only some of the GOP traditional “base” supports Trump. The conservative part of the “base” tends to detest him, and makes up quite a bit of the NeverTrumpers. So no, he hasn’t energized that part of the base at all; au contraire.

    You write “Trump is either the afterbirth or the first Phoenix rising from fire.” But those are not the only two possibilities. He could be the stillbirth, for example. Or he might end up the adopted child of the Democrats.

    You also write, “None of the other ‘candidates’ were going to beat Shrillary anyway.” That’s a statement of opinion. It may or may not be correct, but for much of this campaign season quite a few of them routinely beat Hillary in the polls, and Trump did not. For example, both Rubio and Kasich beat Hillary in most of the polls. I don’t know and you don’t know how they might have actually done, and we will never know. But I see no reason whatsoever that they couldn’t have beaten her. In fact, my anecdotal evidence (among my liberal friends) is that quite a few Democrats who don’t like Hillary and detest Trump and didn’t want to vote for either were amenable to a Rubio or Kasich candidacy and strongly entertaining the idea of voting for either of them.

  50. neo-neocon Says:

    tim maguire:

    I agree that the GOP establishment would mostly rather have Trump than Cruz.

    You write:

    I remember the knuckle-dragging morons being right about everything in 2008. Maybe, just maybe, they’ve earned a little more respect than you show them here in 2016. Ya think?

    What “knuckle-dragging morons” are you talking about? I have never used a phrase anything like that on this blog, and whoever these people are I doubt I disrespected them then or now. I’m not in the habit of doing that even to opponents. Perhaps you’re thinking of some other blogger on some other blog.

    To refresh your memory, I did not predict a McCain win in 2008 nor did I predict a Romney win in 2012.

  51. Orwells Spectre Says:

    Neo, et all,

    Forgive me as while the following certainly addresses the post and the comments that follow, it also addresses a wider attitude I currently see around in right-wing circles which frankly riles me.

    Trump was not my first choice. When it was 17 candidates, he was not my second…not my third, either. At the start, while I did not rank them in order, I am guessing Trump was nearer the bottom than the top. I can think only of Jeb and Grahmm being lower of the top of my head.

    Frankly, when Trump first threw his hat in, I was highly skeptical, to the point that the theories that he was some sort of shill for the Clintons seemed plausible to me. I knew HRC was going to be a bad candidate, and it seemed logical that the Clinton’s would play some deep ball to get elected.

    Even today, I still don’t what to exactly think about Trump.

    I am not nearly Machiavellian to get the twisted labyrinth of modern domestic politics, so I admit I don’t know what his end game is, and I am not sure what kind of president he would be. I can make and accept arguments from all sides on that.

    Will he be a unmitigated disaster? A needed wrecking ball to established interests? A mediocre flop? A much needed wild card in a nation stumbling toward oblivion? A liberal in disguise or HRC 2.0? A shocking, surprising success defying all expectations just like his run for the office?

    I don’t know for sure.

    He could still be a shill, I guess. He seems to genuinely want the office, and I am convinced if he does, HRC is going to have a really miserable months before November. But, I don’t know.

    Here’s what I DO know…

    1) The trend-lines for this country, in terms of fiscal responsibility, governmental over-reach and corruption, social dissolution, economic stagnation, foreign policy floundering, politically correct lobotomization and self-flagellation over self-interest is heading for unmitigated disaster as it is. Bottom line, we iz in trouble, kids. I think we all agree on that…

    2) HRC will do NOTHING to repair this, either through continuing with progressive nonsense and/or complete incompetence. She will most likely, almost certainly, makes it worse. Maybe much, much worse. I assume most of us can agree on that as well.

    3) Any charge you throw at Trump can pretty much be thrown at HRC. If Trump has one bad quality HRC doesn’t, HRC has one of her own. Trump made some crazy, outlandish accusation about an opponent for cheap political points? How many times to Left-wing politicians do that, make outlandish, crazy statements? How often and how brutally does the right take them to task for it, AND the media, for not covering them equally and fairly?

    Take the claim that Donald Trump hesitated to disavow David Duke’s endorsement (as I understand it, it is not clear Duke even endorsed him, but let’s say her did), and the following claim that having someone with such vile, destructive beliefs said something about the kind of candidate Trump is.

    Now, examine how much criticism is leveled at Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton when admitted Marxists of various stripes openly endorse both of those candidates.

    I do not recall ONE pro-Trump attendee wearing a swastika shirt or wearing a Klan uniform, but plenty of democratic supporters wear the hammer and sickle, or picture of Mao, or Che. Both candidates have supporters who openly revere an ideology an which has murdered and oppressed 10’s of millions of people.

    I don’t recall ANYONE calling for either one of them to disavow Communist supporters, or to disavow Marxism as an ideology, despite it’s bloody, oppressive history.

    WHY DO WE GIVE THEM A PASS ON THIS? WHY DO WE GIVE THEM A PASS ON ALL THE S*** THEY PULL?

    And why is Donald Trump such a scary figure when you have people like BS and HRC running, who both are at LEAST as scary based on their ideology or record of thuggish tactics against enemies, or both?

    My point here is to stop acting like Donald Trump, whatever his perceived or real flaws, could be, or is, ANY worse than what we have had, continue to have, or could have. At this point, he would have to be better than what we have as the other options, especially if we judge them by the same criteria as we judge Trump

    Look, if you are unhappy with Trump, I get it. I do. I would have preferred Cruz, but it didn’t happen.

    But, let’s understand something…part of the reason we are where we are right now is because the right-wing failed to press it’s very clear and substantial case that Left-wing politics is disastrous and poisonous and 90+% of the time leads to horrible outcomes. We are here because the standard right-wing politicians are not willing to push back against the Alinsky crap thrown their way every day.

    Part of the reason Trump is where he is, is because so far, when the Left tries it’s typical horse-s*** tactics, he ju-jistu’s them back in their faces.

    Remember Hillary’s sexism charges against Trump a couple of months ago? When Trump ‘went there’ in regards to Bill, and her covering for him, she shut the hell up about it.

    My hope had been that at least some of the other GOP candidates would learn the lesson from Trump, and begin standing up to the hypocrisy and oppression of the Left. Instead, they flailed around, not understanding what his appeal was. And that appeal was not cowing in the face of petty, politically correct tyrants.

    Maybe, MAYBE, if Trump wins, and even if he is a mediocre President, the fact that he won, and how he won, will change how the Right deals with the Left going forward. If so, that alone may be worth.

    At the very least, stop acting like Trump is the worst possible outcome. Look at the alternatives. Can any of you tell me that if and when HRC is sworn in, you will exhale a genuine sigh of relief?

    Please…

    Yes, this was a bit of a rant, but all due respect to everyone here. I know this is a thoughtful, intelligent crowd. I just needed to vent. Thanks.

  52. LDC Says:

    I had the privilege/honor to serve the country I love for 22 years in the Marine Corps and also had the privilege/honor last week to watch a Recruit Graduation at MCRD San Diego and couldn’t help but wonder as I watched all these young men go from Recruits to Marines, what have we left them? What are we consigning them to? We have left them a World that is vastly more unsettled, chaotic and violent then when they were born. We have left them with a military that is so hollowed out that some of their new brothers in arms are having to strip aircraft parts from museum pieces to keep their aircraft flying. We are leaving them with the knowledge that they are being led by men and women so servile to the body politic that they can’t get anything of substance done to better this country. We are leaving them with choice of a Commander-In-Chief between a narcissistic blowhard who doesn’t have a discernible core principle on anything OR a venal, worn, corrupt and despicable harridan. What a choice. I weep for my country tonight. I will continue to fight and promote conservative principles wherever and whenever I can at the local level, but I fear we as a country are entering the last lines of T.S. Elliot’s The Hollow Man… This how the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.

  53. ErisGuy Says:

    I don’t think a man like Donald Trump could have won the nomination just a few short years ago.

    Probably not. Most of the enlightened electorate, at least in their own self-regard, want professional politicians chosen from the same small class of lawyers and Ivy league grads to govern America. And we can all see how well that has worked.

  54. Trump Phobia? – Orwell's Spectre Says:

    […] it. Part of the reason is I am not entirely sure what to think, but I was prompted to respond to a post by Neo-Neocon, a blogger I have a lot of respect for. My comment is re-printed below. I am sure to expand on […]

  55. neo-neocon Says:

    Brett:

    Both phrases were used.

    I distinctly remember many people writing “Burn it down, salt the earth”—that sort of thing—for years.

    You can find examples of what I’m talking about here, here, and here. A few more: here, here, and here. I could go on, but you get the idea.

  56. ErisGuy Says:

    Did you ever notice how rarely “revolutions” go at all the way the revolutionaries intend?

    Hmm. I wouldn’t know how to count that. I am aware that the Soviet and German (Nazi) revolutions ended with the revolutionaries solidly in charge. And the American one, too. And the Italian Revolution in 1922. And Venezuelan. And Cuban. And Egyptian. And Iranian. And Iraqi. And Turkish. And Paraguayan. And Vietnamese. Not the French.

    That some of these states later failed because of other policies doesn’t negate that the revolution ended with the revolutionaries in command of the state.

  57. neo-neocon Says:

    ErisGuy:

    You are wrong. If used to be the kiss of death if a candidate was divorced, and when that ended (Reagan) it was considered a no-no to have cheated on one’s wife. That ended with Clinton, but at least he denied it. Trump’s infidelity was right out in the open, and he bragged about it (and about how great the sex was), which is certainly a new phenomenon among candidates and which almost certainly would have been unacceptable even a short while ago.

    It used to be that talking wild conspiracy theories involving the claim that family members of your opponents had a connection to presidential assassins would have been unacceptable, too. No more. And lip service, at least, was generally paid to some sort of political experience. Nor would it have been okay to openly brag about having bought political favors, or to have said that not getting VD was your own private Vietnam War, or making sexual remarks about your own daughter.

    It has nothing to do with being a lawyer or an Ivy League grad, which most people do not require in a president or presidential nominee, and which I certainly could not care less about as a qualification. There were plenty of non-Ivy league non-lawyer candidates this year to choose from.

    Trump, by the way, although he’s not a lawyer, IS an Ivy League graduate. So he fits that template, having graduated from Wharton at the University of Pennsylvania, which is an Ivy League school.

  58. Jerryskids Says:

    I think you may be wrong about one basic fact – the Trump supporters are indeed angry, but it’s not at the GOP and it’s not because the GOP has demonstrated repeatedly that they only intend to ever pay lip service to the principle of limited government. Trump has said he’s bringing lots of new voters to the GOP but they won’t support any other nominee than him, which means they aren’t actually GOP voters but merely Trump voters. And he’s bringing them from the Democrat Party. Those are the remnants of the blue-collar Democrats that are supporting Trump because their party has shifted from leftist to full-on socialist. If it were truly angry Republicans supporting an outsider threatening to tear down the GOP establishment, where was this anger for Ron Paul or Rand Paul or even that universally-hated TEA Party monster Ted Cruz? When has Trump ever indicated he supports any GOP principle of limited Constitutional government and the rule of law? He’s promising free stuff to the voters, he deliberately has no principles that might get in the way of making deals, he’s running a strictly appeal-to-emotions substanceless campaign, his positions make no logical sense, he promises to get things done by fiat and hang those obstructionists in Congress – he’s a Democrat.

  59. LDC Says:

    ErisGuy, just because the revolution ended with them in charge doesn’t not mean that the revolution was successful or that it fulfilled their original intentions. The Soviet revolution was to bring a worker’s paradise to Earth. How did that work out? The Italians didn’t have a revolution nor did the Germans in the true sense of a revolution and I don’t believe that we are in fact in the process of revolution. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Ask most Cuban’s if they think their revolution worked. I am pretty sure they will say no. The Egyptian’s have overturned their revolution already. It lasted less than two years. the Iranian…. I will give you that one. Vietnam, not a revolution, a subjugation and isn’t it funny that they are now trying to normalize relations with the U.S. because of their fear of the Chinese. All in all, I think Neo is much closer to being correct on this than not. We are in the midst of a seismic re-alignment, but as of yet, not a revolution. It may become one, but it isn’t yet.

  60. dan Says:

    re: http://neoneocon.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1127476

    Agree. And hating the one who criticizes is a ‘left’ thing…

  61. neo-neocon Says:

    Orwell’s Spectre:

    We’ve had a lot of discussions like that on this blog. How bad can Trump be? Could he be worse than Hillary?

    There are plenty of people who say no, he couldn’t be. There are plenty of people who say yes, he could be. As for me, I waver back and forth on it, but most of the time I think “Of course he could be.” I think this is especially true in terms of trade, free speech, and most of all foreign policy. If you want to read a couple of discussions about this, see for example this and this.

  62. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Usually, if there’s an apt thought or maxim, I mention the origin in order not to seem to be taking credit for it. This is not the same as an appeal to authority.
    However, this time I’m claiming credit:
    While I favored Cruz–and Fiorina–I can see how difficult it is to convince Trump supporters that the way to fix the result of doing things the usual way is to do things the usual way.
    Two examples: Nobody disciplined for Waco and Ruby Ridge.
    The VA’s response is that they’re federal employees and there’s not a G.D. thing you can do about it so screw you.
    They and the IRS are made up of half a million dues-paying members of an untouchable union.
    What to do is hard to figure, but sending what one writer referred to as a human wrecking ball to DC seems to have impressed a good many. Any other ideas?

  63. neo-neocon Says:

    BEB:

    You won’t find dismissal of Trump or ridicule of him from me. I have taken him very very seriously from the start. And it’s not my style to talk about his hair or his tan or that sort of thing.

    In fact, I don’t find him the least bit funny.

    I criticize him, disagree with him, analyze what he’s said and done, and find a great deal of it terrible. Now and then I have defended him.

    This is a different kind of blog with a different kind of style. Some find it boring 🙂 . Mostly long, substantive posts. Not a lot of nasty snark.

  64. Brett Says:

    We appear to be talking about two different fires. I and others have been saying “let it burn,” since the 2012 election, referring to the Leviathan that replaced the Constitutional Republic the left set on fire, and continues spraying with accelerants. The “burn it down” chorus you reference aims at the GOP that did nothing to stop the arson.

    “Let it burn” simply wishes the electorate get what it voted for, good and hard.

    I still maintain that agency matters: the left set fire to our polity, and should share the negative consequences with the rest of us.

  65. LDC Says:

    Brett, unfortunately, I think you are on to something, but that is like saying you have the best hotel room in Hell. At the end of the day, your still in Hell.

  66. physicsguy Says:

    My wife and I enjoy an evening about once a month over at Mohegan Sun. Yes, the odds are always in the house favor, but we do occasionally walk out with more than we came in with. Gambling is like that.

    So at this point, I’m going to be a gambler and most likely vote for Trump in the fall. I know that Clinton is a 100% sure loss. The odds may be against Trump being a winner, but I see a better chance of winning with him than a certainty of Clinton destroying the country.

    David French has an excellent article up this morning over at NR. I’ve always respected him, and he’s never been supportive of Trump. But he explains where the majority of Trump supporters are coming from. And myself being immersed in the toxic environment of higher ed, I understand deeply these people’s frustration with political correctness and the soft tyranny of the left. To continue the gambling metaphor, the money quote from French: ” that millions of Americans freely acknowledge that he’s an S.O.B. But at least he’s their S.O.B.”

  67. neo-neocon Says:

    BEB:

    Also, what I meant when I said that Clinton got what she wanted was a reference to the Republican primary, which after all is the subject of the post. No, she didn’t get what she wanted in the Democratic primary on Tuesday. But she didn’t need to win Indiana. I am virtually certain she will be the Democratic nominee. She got what she wanted in terms of her Republican opponent. I have long thought that Clinton and most Democrats think Trump will be the easiest to beat of all the GOP candidates. I think they thought Rubio would have been the hardest. They wanted Trump for that reason. I guess we’ll see if they were right to want him as their opponent.

  68. Shawn L. Says:

    I agree, the “Burn it Down” idea that fuels Trumps campaign is short sighted. It’s fueled less by Trump himself, than a dislike of everything else in politics.

    But then again, that has been the trend of the major parties, they seem to be less about any actual principles of governing and more about acquiring power to prevent the other team from acquiring it.

    So, with all this lament at the current situation… Any suggestions as to what to do about it?

    In the spirit of trying to build something up, rather than burn something down, I have a suggestion.

    https://garyjohnson2016.com

    I’m not saying you have to change your political party (though I’d approve of that too). But at least consider him as someone to vote for in November, making the race about considering the lesser of THREE evils for a change.

  69. Zhanna Says:

    I like Gary Johnson. He is a good guy with a few good ideas. That’s enough for me in this election cycle. But, it is not enough, and it seems silly to vote third party.

    The greater message would be to have the option to vote for nobody on the ballot. I would take the time and go vote for ‘none of the above’. It would send a greater signal to the elites, the liberals, and the GOPe.
    Imagine that networks and blogs having to report that NOBODY got 20 percent or greater of the vote. Not that people didn’t vote, they actually went out and voted for nobody.
    That would send a message to the central planners of the party machines, and it would be greater than Trump.

  70. MikeII Says:

    “This can be a curse — or an opportunity. Things were changing in the Colonies in the 1760’s and wise and brave men seized the opportunity to forge the greatest nation the world has ever known. Things were changing in France in the 1780’s and a mob seized power and brought The Terror.”

    When I was growing up some 60 yrs ago, I thought there were “brave men and leaders” like there were in the 1760’s. People that actually answered the question- What can I do for my country (Reagan was the last leader IMO that deep down asked that question and followed through.) But looking over the landscape of today’s leaders both Dems and Reps, I see only those that answer the question with- What can the country do for me!.
    I see pockets of the old way in the military and in the Tea Party that actually thought they could change things. But the Intelligentsia and leaders, not so much. I think we have all heard this one before-“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” Alexis de Tocqueville

    I will be voting for the lesser of 2 evils this Nov. simply because I know the Evil she is capable of and hope he is less so. But I view it as a Rear Guard Action. I think the next page of this story will bring the “Mob” which will not bode well for the country or the world 🙁

  71. Paul in Boston Says:

    Orwell’s Specter, +1000!

    Though my first choice was Scott Walker, who quickly realized he was in over his head, and more recently Cruz, I’m not afraid of Trump winning. As far as I can see he has two things going for him. First, he’s not afraid of the MSM and willing to take them on WWE style, which is too gentle in my opinion but the least that they deserve.

    Second, and something never mentioned, coming from the world of business he is well aquainted with “creative destruction”. Sometimes a business needs to kill off parts of itself that aren’t working in order to move forward and prosper, an unthinkable proposition in DC. If he could get rid of even one department of the government, say Education or HUD, that would be an earthquake and start moving the Federal Government in a saner direction.

  72. DNW Says:

    “I don’t think a man like Donald Trump could have won the nomination just a few short years ago. ”

    It’s almost funny. A man who made his fortune being a blowhard and public clown, who manifestly knows and cares nothing whatsoever about constitutional government or liberty, has found his time and place and people : the place, to use an old journalistic turn of phrase, is Post Constitutional America, the time is now, and his people are those ignorant self-stimulating crybabies who reacted in mindless rather than directed rage, as they saw their precious welfare state cradle being robbed from them by people who they had themselves over the years empowered.

    This reminds me of one of those junior high school pep rallies where you saw your friends morphing into wild-eyed lunatics who your could no longer even recognize.

  73. DNW Says:

    ” who ‘you’ could no longer recognize”, of course

  74. John Lynch Says:

    I keep seeing estimates of the death of small government conservatism. Maybe so. I read it differently. It is exactly small government conservatives who have had it with establishment GOP. They added their weight, such as it is, to the republican waves in the off year elections. They were snubbed with the selection of McCain, with the selection of Romney, and with active campaigning in primaries against their candidates, but they stuck it out. And then their elected congress approved, through either action, inaction, or failure theater: big budgets, open borders, and absurd political correctness of a variety of issues each stimulating larger government.

    In short, it wasn’t working. It was, and is, broken.

    Small government conservatives are also somewhat familiar with the capitalist phenomenon of creative destruction. When something doesn’t work: let it fail. It will, eventually, be replaced with something else. If there is truly an appetite for small government conservatism then perhaps it will emerge in version 2, version 3 or even later. Version 1 (The Trump destructor) will not be pretty, but it will serve to answer the question: “They have to vote for us: who else can they vote for?”

    Some call it “burn it down”. Perhaps. But let go what doesn’t work and create support for that which does. Similar to replacing an old computer system with a new: at first the new version has only some of the functionality of the old, and is buggy – but successive releases eventually allow you to pull the plug on the old.

    The test will be conservative support of the down ticket. While there remain some in the GOP that need to go, will there be support for conservative candidates?

  75. DNW Says:

    I tried to have a rational conversation with a Cruz hater yesterday. He’s another business associate in some ways like the one I described last week or so. Technically adept, intelligent, adaptive, hardworking and highly frustrated because he, like the other one, cannot reconcile his progressive emotional commitments with the personal harrowing he is experiencing as a business owner.

    Though neither of these men have a liberal as opposed to a technical education, both are highly tuned into the “news’; but in a peculiar way. Their version of a news story is some bespectacled butterball of a little dweeb on YouTube waving his arms around in indignation as he sputters over short clips of Cruz videos.

    To try and reason with them from first principles, or even to try and find some first principles to agree upon, is impossible. They evade with a kind of urgent vehemence any attempt to do so, as if it is a sport and they are resisting being pinned down.

    This is something I noticed long ago in debating trollish types on political discussion boards; a feral wariness of staking any first principle which could be used as solid ground for extrapolation; a persistent unwillingness to actually engage in the business of thinking and reasoning to an inescapable conclusion. They simply will not stick to the topic long enough to even clear the rhetorical ground.

    Whether this is something that has been done to them deliberately by educators as part of the promotion of a particular kind of worldview and social program, or whether they are just born that way, I don’t know.

    But it has been one of the more sobering reminders of what I guess I have known for many years: The run of the mill “American” Democrat or Independent is no different than the German of the 1930’s.

  76. Steve D Says:

    ‘If he could get rid of even one department of the government, say Education or HUD, that would be an earthquake and start moving the Federal Government in a saner direction.’

    Why would he do that? Based on what he’s said in the past and his general philosophy about government isn’t it more likely he would actually add a department of government?

    I for one will not be voting for Donald Trump.

    ‘In the spirit of trying to build something up, rather than burn something down, I have a suggestion.

    https://garyjohnson2016.com

    Gary is likely to do much better this time around considering his pathetic competition!’

    ‘But, it is not enough, and it seems silly to vote third party.’

    You don’t get a none-of-the-above option and besides the Libertarian Party gets about a million votes each time; far more than the write-in or spoiled-ballet party gets. Imagine the message it would send the elites if the Libertarians got 5 or 10 million votes. Also Gary Johnson is a two term former governor of New Mexico which means he has loads of executive experience. That’s assuming he wins his nomination battle, though which is not a sure thing.

  77. mollynh Says:

    Yeah Zhanna & you are left with your “message ” and a President Hillary. Makes perfect RI NO sense .

  78. expat Says:

    John Lynch,
    Romney is a small government conservative. He tried to rein in Romneycare in MA, but the legislature wouldn’t let him. On a nationwide scale , he was for returning power to the states. He also talked about China’s currency manipulation.

    People act as if Trump is the first person to raise these issues. If they don’t have my full respect, it is because they don’t seem to have paid attention to these things before. Now they act as if they just woke up and have a plan for creating utopia.

  79. DNW Says:

    Physics guy has some interesting remarks as do many others.

    We’ll see.

    In the meantime I have to admit that I am myself an outlier as I have been good naturedly informed.

    Even my significant other watched TV and she admitted to enjoying, in some twisted way, American Idol.

    My own Father mentions Bill O’Rielly to me. Then, “Oh I forgot you don’t watch TV shows.”

    The History Channel is Ice Truckers and the Return of Von Daniken’s biblical aliens. Science shows are framed as drama, and feature girly men talking with their hands and simpering into the lens. Even hunting shows are pathetic.

    You don’t have to wish the country would burn down, you just have to watch the citizens doing it.

  80. Paul in Boston Says:

    I should have added that the other massive issue is the total lack of accountability and consequences for incompence and failure in the gigantic federal bureaucracies. Trump is famous for “you’re fired!”

    Despite warnings, the EPA dumped three million gallons of yellow toxic waste into the Animas River. No heads rolled and there were no financial consequences to its budget. A private company would have been shredded and bankrupted for the same thing. The Office of Personel Mangement managed to have 20 million private accounts stolen. The director, a kindergarden teacher!, is still rolling around the government somewhere getting her pay check. The VA admininistrators who caused the death of veterans through delayed treatment are still working and getting pay raises.

    You know that if Hillary is elected this will just roll on as before. Maybe if Trump becomes President there will be some firings, really big onesI should have added that the other massive issue is the total lack of accountability and consequences for incompence and failure in the gigantic federal bureaucracies. Trump is famous for “you’re fired!”

    Despite warnings, the EPA dumped three million gallons of yellow toxic waste into the Animas River. No heads rolled and there were no financial consequences to its budget. A private company would have been shredded and bankrupted for the same thing. The Office of Personel Mangement managed to have 20 million private accounts stolen. The director, a kindergarden teacher!, is still rolling around the government somewhere getting her pay check. The VA admininistrators who caused the death of veterans through delayed treatment are still working and getting pay raises.

    You know that if Hillary is elected this will just roll on as before. Maybe if Trump becomes President there will be some firings, really big one.I should have added that the other massive issue is the total lack of accountability and consequences for incompence and failure in the gigantic federal bureaucracies. Trump is famous for “you’re fired!”

    Despite warnings, the EPA dumped three million gallons of yellow toxic waste into the Animas River. No heads rolled and there were no financial consequences to its budget. A private company would have been shredded and bankrupted for the same thing. The Office of Personel Mangement managed to have 20 million private accounts stolen. The director, a kindergarden teacher!, is still rolling around the government somewhere getting her pay check. The VA admininistrators who caused the death of veterans through delayed treatment are still working and getting pay raises.

    You know that if Hillary is elected this will just roll on as before. Maybe if Trump becomes President there will be some firings, really big ones. Who knows?

  81. John Lynch Says:

    expat,

    Romney was not awful, but he was not very small government, and he certainly didn’t champion conservative issues, even in the primary when he should have been addressing the base. Result: the conservative base was lukewarm about him.

    He could have been an articulate voice for small government. He probably would have had a very credible series of arguments. He might have been able to swing some of the independents and blue-collar if he had. We’ll never know.

    Partly the issue is all the advisors, campaign consultants, and inside the beltway type who believe that democrat-lite is the official position of winning candidates.

    Maybe they muzzled Romney, or maybe Romney just wasn’t, isn’t, in that place. Again, we’ll never know.

  82. Paul in Boston Says:

    Sorry about that!

  83. Artfldgr Says:

    “anger is justified”

    very interesting in that the game of justification is in play which then requires someone else to judge the justification and imply they grace it or not…

    funny funny funny…

    who is one person to judge justification?
    who is another to submit to that judgment?
    who is giving up their ability to freely have an opinion?
    who is trying to take that away from them?

    in a material(ist) world of the left anything can be justified, and everything is judged.

    [we are assuming this is not biblical justification in faith]

    at its most basic, its a sales pitch..
    the better salesman could justify ovens, and exterminations, while others cant understand how that was possible (in THEIR judgment)

    the perfect example:
    “I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.”
    ― Noam Chomsky

    by saying so, Noam puts himself up as the judge and jury… without ever saying, i will judge you

    “It is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions.”
    ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956

    “The talent for self-justification is surely the finest flower of human evolution, the greatest achievement of the human brain. When it comes to justifying actions, every human being acquires the intelligence of an Einstein, the imagination of a Shakespeare, and the subtlety of a Jesuit.”
    ― Michael Foley, The Age Of Absurdity: Why Modern Life Makes It Hard To Be Happy

    “Wisdom consists of knowing how to distinguish the nature of trouble, and in choosing the lesser evil.”
    ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

    and for those that need a bit of religion:

    “The only man who has the right to say that he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ.”
    ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  84. Steve D Says:

    ‘Yeah Zhanna & you are left with your “message ” and a President Hillary.’

    At least we won’t have to listen to Trump whine like a two-year old for four years. His TV show was bad enough but I could turn that off.

  85. Pettifogger Says:

    This year, small government conservatives discovered they are much more of a minority than they ever thought they were. They learned that their old dream of nominating and electing someone who could clearly articulate the conservative cause is more of a pipe dream fantasy. They discovered that a lot of people who call themselves “conservative” on those surveys have their own idiosyncratic definitions of the word.

    Much to my dismay, this describes me quite well.

  86. DNW Says:

    Following Physics guy’s links I came across this.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434827/individual-cowardice-killing-american-culture

    Isn’t that about half of what we talk about here, and to each other rather than to the opposition?

  87. Richard Aubrey Says:

    DNW
    Your lib friends who can’t be pinned down to…even gravity are a type.
    It’s that in their experience they can be shown to be wrong pretty easily if they admit there’s a first principle. It is, probably, an unconscious fear resulting from such experiences that causes them to resist
    Example. I have a friend who thinks we live in a rapey, violent, misogynist culture. When I remarked that my granddaughter is going to be in restrooms into which any guy can come, trans or not, lying or not, and not be challenged until an actual battery begins, she said that my granddaughter can be taught to defend herself. My granddaughters are eight and four.
    Whatever is necessary for the argument is true and if the opposite is necessary for the next argument, it’s true and the first one is false.
    You have probably had the experience of going back and forth on this a couple of turns and then finding the thing has gone to ad hom.
    I think the manipulators know what they’re doing, but the manipulated BELIEVE each side of the issue, as necessary.
    Why they’ve abandoned rational thought is a question, but I believe it was Robert Heinlein who observed man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. That leaves open the question as to what one is rationalizing about at any given time, and why.
    Walter Williams et al are correct. The llibs pick a position that makes them feel good about themselves and feeling good about yourself is hard to give up.

  88. mollynh Says:

    No Steve you can listen to Shillary cackle for 8 years instead!!
    Enjoy

  89. Artfldgr Says:

    “There you go again…”

    If Trump turns out to be really good, all this bombast and bs is going to really really be ludicrously silly and embarrassing looking backwards… and if he is bad? the best your going to ba able to say “i told you so” without any real ability to know, like betting on a lottery AFTER the numbers are out..

    I’m glad my memory is not like normal humans…

    They forget the past easily, and then make fools of themselves by doing so, and do not believe that anyone else remembers what they forgot, or the level of detail that forgotten memory may hold if not forgotten.

    “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.” – “Time for Choosing” Address 1964

    “Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp, as it is at this moment.” “Time for Choosing” Address 1964

    “The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.” April 18, 1864 Abraham Lincoln

    “Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we’re sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, “We the people,” this breed called Americans.” – Reagan’s First Inaugural Address

    What the left thinks that memory should have served ya’ll:

    Ronald Reagan represents all of the worst elements of the American political experience of the last 50 years. All of them. He was, and always will be, nothing but a steaming hot pile of filthy hyena puke.

    Intellectually, Reagan gave chimpy a run for his money. He was vacuous. He was shallow. He was incurious. He was a puppet and a door stop for a group of sick ideologues who really ran the country. He was a shitty actor and foolish tool.

    Ideologically, he was a hater and an imperialist and far-right loony-tune. He hated the poor. He hated gays. He hated leftists. He hated communists – and he was pretty sure you were one if you disagreed with him. He hated and he hated and he hated. Just ask his own kids. He hated them and himself and his ex-wife. Ronald Reagan was a twisted unrepentant closed-minded shit-bag hate monger. And that’s just for starters.

    on one occasion, Sir Winston Churchill said in exasperation about one of our most distinguished diplomats: “He is the only case I know of a bull who carries his china shop with him.” “Westminster Speech” June 8, 1982

  90. datechguy Says:

    A great piece

  91. Steve D Says:

    ‘Enjoy’

    Well, you elected her so congratulations. But she’s easier to tune out and ignore, anyway than that blathering pugilist so there’s that.

  92. Artfldgr Says:

    AS for predictions of the future by experts:

    Ronald Reagan was up for a role in which he would play the president in a film titled “The Best Man”, but was rejected for the role, because, according to United Artists, “Reagan doesn’t have that presidential look.”

    “A rocket will never be able to leave Earth’s atmosphere.” New York Times 1920

    They later offered a retraction on July 17, 1969, as Apollo 11 was on its way to the moon
    [they never retracted the false news of holodomar, and the pulitzer they got for lying]

    “When the Paris Exhibition closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” Oxford Professor Erasmus Wilson 1878 [the Elon Musk of his day]

    Variety Magazine Spring of 1955 said this about rock and roll: “it’ll be gone by June”

    The Chief Engineer of the British Post Office (1878) said this about the brits getting telephones: “The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.”

    IBM told Xerox (1959) that “the world potential market for copying machines is 5,000 at most.” [US$ 18.04 billion (2015) and 140,800 employees (2015)”

    “I must confess that my imagination refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea.” HG Wells 1901

    “How, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense.” Napoleon Bonaparte

    After the first flight of the first 247 was successfully completed, a Boeing engineer reportedly said “There will never be a bigger plane built.” [Boeing 777-300ER 365 passengers, costs $320 million, cruises at 43,100 ft // Boeing 247 cruises at 25,400 ft, max speed 180mph, It had room for 10 passengers, two pilots, and a stewardess]

    “No, it will make war impossible.” – Hiram Maxim, inventor of the modern machine gun… 1893 – then came WWI

    “If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one.” W.C. Heuper, of the National Cancer Institute, proclaimed in 1954

    “There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.” The President, Chairman, and Founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, Ken Olson told the World Future Society in Boston in 1977

    “Television won’t last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.” Darryl Zanuck producer 1946 [care to mention netflix?]

    “The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty – a fad.” Michigan Savings suggested that Ford Motor Company would be a bad investment and was advising Ford’s lawyer 1903

    The president of the Stevens Institute of Technology Henry Morton said “Everyone acquainted with the subject will recognize it as a conspicuous failure.” – his prediction of the light bulbs future

    President of the Royal Society Lord Kelvin (yes THAT kelvin) said in 1883: “X-rays will prove to be a hoax.”

    Thomas Watson in 1943 said: “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers” – he was the chairman of IBM at the time (and now they named their super computer Watson after him)

    “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” internal memo Western Union telegram

    “We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.” – Decca Record Company refused to sign the Beatles -they are also quoted to have said “The Beatles have no future in show business” – lord paul mcartney is worth near a billion dollars today – and “We don’t like your boys’ sound. Groups are out. Four-piece groups with guitars, particularly, are finished.”

    “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will” – Einstein said in 1932 (while credited with the idea of nuclear bombs, that was not true, the idea and figuring out it was possible was someone else, and the idea of the first nuclear bomb in fiction was HG wells)

    Lord Alan Sugar, 2005 – “next christmas the ipod will be dead, finished, gone, kaput”

    Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breath, would die of asphyxia – Dr. Dionysys Larder, science writer and academic, in 1828

    It will be years – not in my time – before a woman will become prime minister – Margaret Thatcher, future Prime Minister, October 26th, 1969

    want more?
    want to know why no one listens to predictions?

    🙂

  93. Steve D Says:

    ‘If Trump turns out to be really good’

    My views are based on what he says. Since I disagree with almost all his policies, his world view and loath his personality, he would have to do a complete 180 about face in all respects for that to happen.

  94. physicsguy Says:

    Richard said, “I think the manipulators know what they’re doing, but the manipulated BELIEVE each side of the issue, as necessary.”

    The irrationality is on full display with a high school classmate of mine on facebook. She actually believes that airliner contrails are chemical sprays being used by our military aircraft on the population to poison us. After posting several links discounting this particular conspiracy idea, she just said the links prove her point. I then asked why the Obama administration is going out if its way to protect the US population from the grave environmental horror of global warming, and yet at the same time spraying the population with poison. No answer so far, but I bet some rationale will pop up…

  95. AesopFan Says:

    Yann Says:
    May 4th, 2016 at 1:38 am
    Many people believe that the American “revolution” was a revolt/rebellion, not a revolution. That’s a huge discussion and argument I’m not going to have here, but let’s just say it’s a very valid position. (neo)

    And the French Revolution which allowed the Enlightenment, is it a revolt/rebellion too?

    How does it work? When the good guys revolt, we call it a rebellion, and when the bad guys revolt, we call it a revolution, that’s OK?
    ***
    “Every rebellion is legal in the first person — our rebellion; it is only in the third person — their rebellion — that it is illegal.” Ben Frankline, via “1776”

    I think it is a difference of intent.
    The American colonists were initially rebelling against an unjust administration in hopes of having their rights as British citizens restored, but really didn’t intend at first to change the governmental system per se; that came much later (but still did not diverge far from the unwritten British constitutional principles other than by specifically articulating the Rights of Man and abolishing the monarchy).
    The French revolutionaries intended to “burn it down” from the beginning.

  96. Artfldgr Says:

    @ Steve D

    Says you…

    They said the same of reagan, and i remember it!
    they called him a nazi, and said much the same thing about him that they said about trump, and not only that, it was often so much the same you coluld have cut and pasted. similar campaign slogan, tv star, same economics degree, was a dem before a rep, and more

    if you read the list of failed predictions its hard to miss that all of them had PERSONAL ideas as to what constituted what was important, and did not even try to be neutral.

    and as to the correct predictions, they are more often right by luck and a stretching of their form to fit the square peg into a round hole. (like hg wells nuclear bombs)

    Reagan brought in the largest financial explosion the world and mankind has ever known, and he was hated and still is.

    by the way, if you hate trumps personality you learned from TV and the press (and didnt meet him several times and work with him as i did (photography)), you might not even know him as a person. hated people are misrepresented all the time, and if someone followed you around to pick out the things that make you look bad all the time, you might not look at all as the person you are!!!

    been saying that for years as i was part of that machine that created or broke peoples PUBLIC image.

    i remember when a photographer was going to hire a hooker to run up to heidi klums father, kiss him, take the shot and then tell the world her dad was cheating on her mom and make a lot of money. he was french and in france such things do not come with a credit of the photographer, thats secret. so they do that kind of thing often, (same with germany)… their fix made things worse

    in person, even piers morgan ended up liking him. Same is true of most of the women that MEET him, not read about him.

    i laugh because people actually think that a liberal press and media that hates someone and wants them gone and wants them ruined would be someone that they think they know.

    besides, you want horrid personality, bad faults, drunkeness and the presidency, compare trump to Sherman and see what you get…

    then compare him to LBJ who whiped his dick out all the time and showed people, and kept asking “isnt it huge”

    then there is the clinton cum shot machine

    then there is kennedy having afairs all over… but at least he was circumspect when he was using monroe to pass messages to giancarlo

    General Order No. 11 on December 17, 1862, which evicted Jews from certain parts of the country based on president Grant’s ideas

    carter claimed to have seen a UFO from space

    Benjamin Harrison was afraid of electricity and refused to use light switches

    “You are dealing with a very insecure, sensitive man with a huge ego. I want you literally to kiss his fanny from one end of Washington to the other.” Kennedy talking about LBJ

    Bill clinton sent only two emails during his presidency, his wife had her own server 🙂

    John Quincy Adams Was Accused Of Being A Pimp

    during electioneering this was said of jefferson:
    “mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

    When Harry Truman returned home to Kansas after serving in World War I, he opened a haberdashery. The business quickly went belly-up, but the patronage of a powerful Democrat named Tom Pendergast helped to secure him an elected position as judge of the county court in Jackson County’s eastern district. In the interest of furthering Truman’s political career, local car dealer and KKK member Edgar Hinde encouraged him to consider joining the Klan. He even offered to cover the $10 membership fee.

    By the early 1920s, they counted between four and five million members in their ranks and held tremendous political clout. As such, Truman agreed to meet with the group. However, they urged Truman to sever ties with Pendergast, who was a Catholic, and Truman refused. “They threatened to kill me,” Truman said of the bad blood that followed. “And I went out to one of their meetings and dared them to try.”

    Sherman later wrote that the concerns of command “broke me down”, and he admitted contemplating suicide
    then he became President..

    so.. your predictions are about as good as anothers… and even LESS so if your looking at things taht dont mean anything.

    we all want personality and behavior to mean something but if you take a look at who we end up picking for safety sake are shallow potemkin people who hold themselves close to the heart, dont reveal themselves, are cold, calculating and more.

    THAT is what you get when you cant take a normal persons foibles and personalities.

    would america have chosen Obama if we really knew his personality? no, to get past people like you, he had to hide it… Trump doesnt hide it, he is like the old presidents, not the modern sociopathic ones who are empty suits you feel more comfortable with (falsely) cause they are a screen for you to project your desires on and pretend they are confirmed.

    take a look at the successful self made men in the world, they are not the mental gamesters of the political class who you cant get to know… they let it all hang out

    From
    Steve Madden – Started with $1,100 now a 3.2 billion firm

    Fritita started with one steak house now a billion dollar company of brands you know, including owning the golden nugget casino

    Sir Richard Branson lets it all hang out

    your trying to judge a very successful self made man by the measure of politics in which showing your own personality, unless your acting, is a liability.

    sadly, we force that to happen by refusing to like people whose personality we dont like!!!

    you want sociopaths that play you, you get sociopaths that play you, cause they are the ones that marrionette their bodies by their minds to be what you want – then screw you

  97. Ed (from Ypsilanti) Bonderenka Says:

    The dog has caught the car.
    Now what’s he going to do with it?

  98. Nick Says:

    Eric often makes reference to “activism”, but I’m not quite sure what he means by it. He’s using the term more broadly, or narrowly, or somthingingly than most people do. I’d love to see a more in-depth exploration of it. Would Neo permit a guest posting? I ask because, even though I’m a regular reader, I’m having trouble following the conversation.

  99. Artfldgr Says:

    AMAZING=> Anti-Trump Groups Spent $75.7 Million on 64,000 Negative Ads to Take Down Trump – It Wasn’t Enough

    and yet, people think they know someone from the tv screen…

    [funny but true story. producer wanted to hire Dustin Hoffman for a production being filmed, and called him up. I cant remember the exact words, but it was something like “hi, i really like your work and want you to work for me. i think your personality fits the production i am making”. to which Dustin replied “which personality are you referring to”]

    It comprised nearly 64,000 ad spots throughout the campaign.

    And that’s the figure for broadcast television alone. Anti-Trump ads also ran on cable and satellite television, but the tracking data does not capture that.

    One of their spots — “Serious” — was the most-run anti-Trump ad. It ran 3,939 times.

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent $5.2 million on ads with anti-Trump messages, the most of any presidential candidate on either side of the aisle.

    Cruz’s campaign spent more than any other Republican against Trump, some $4.3 million

  100. djmoore Says:

    I am not happy to see Trump nominated; I feel he has no principles. I heard a blip on the radio the other day to the effect that even Obama has more regard for the Constitution, if only so he can get around it.

    But I absolutely hold the Republican leadership responsible for Trump. It has carefully trained the base to know that it does not matter who they vote for at any level, what he says, what his past record is. What they will get is a go along to get along okey-doke who will at best be a foil for the Democrats, and at worst a weak Dem himself who will, like Romney, lose the election.

    Even Cruz brought expertise, intelligence, respect, courtesy, and worst of all, a rule book to an Alinskyite knife fight in the gutters of a slow burning riot. Of course he lost.

    Trump knows his Alinsky. He is turning the left’s own playbook against them, and he’s smeared his knife with his own radioactive feces.

    I don’t want to see it all burn. I don’t. But the Republicans simply would not listen, would not fight, and now burn they will.

    We have a traitor in the White House giving aid and comfort to our enemies while harassing American citizens. His corrupt Secretary of State seeks to follow in his footsteps.

    It’s going to be a long, hot, very strange summer, a nexus of chaos, and I for one cannot see to November.

  101. Wooly Bully Says:

    It’s not quite burned down yet, though it’s singed badly. Here are some things that can still be done to stop Trump:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/04/change-the-rules-to-block-trump/

    The GOP must stop Trump’s nomination by any means necessary, or it will be destroyed as a party.

  102. Oldflyer Says:

    Interesting thread. Too long to digest in one sitting.

    In my opinion, and I think it is shared, Trump is a symptom. His success does not relate to his personal qualifications to lead the country. He happened to appear at an auspicious time, for him, with a level of bombast that appealed to a workable percentage of primary voters. Most, but not necessarily all of those voters were actual Republicans.

    I share Neo’s concerns. Trump has neither done nor said anything that gives me confidence. On the other hand there is a conventional wisdom that Presidents grow into the job. (Carter, Obama and, Clinton in my opinion, being exceptions) So, let us hope. I do wish that I had heard him at least mention the constitution a time or two.

    Assuming that HRC is the opponent, and there is no other credible choice, I will vote for Trump. Although he is a cypher, she is not.

    LDC, your initial post struck a chord, as did several others.

    Clearly, Constitutional Conservatives must coalesce or become irrelevant. Many others are already trying to distort the constitution or make it obsolete.

    Neo, obviously events have brought a brigade of trolls to your blog to rub our noses in their offal. Many new ones, to join a couple of veterans with new ammunition. Right Artfldgr? (BTW, did I read you to say in the part that you emboldened, that Sherman became President? I read that part several times, and that is all I could conclude.)

  103. GRA Says:

    @ Ed: The dog is in the driver’s seat instead of on top of the car.

    I hope he turns on his signal light.

  104. Big Maq Says:

    Sorry for such a long post, who knows if it will be read in this 90+ list of comments, but gotta get it out there…

    There are two types of Trump supporters: 1) the core “Burn it down” crowd at ~30% of GOP supporters; 2) the opportunists – those who just want to be on the “winning” team, for personal gain (e.g. Gov Christie, Limbaugh), or just for their own ego (in the way people pick winning sports teams to cheer for).

    I’m with Neo, whether we call something this big a revolution/rebellion/revolt, it is always a highly risky proposition that rarely turns out for those who are jubulantly calling for it, and it often drags the rest of us down with it, sadly.

    The core problem with the “burn it down” crowd is the lack of a coherent answer on “replace with what?”. If you don’t know what you want, how will you know if it has been a success?

    Anyone honestly, objectively looking at Trump and his campaign would / should have near impossible time of discerning the answer of “replace with what?”.

    Anyway, no sense in talking logically about the choice, as it is effectively made.

    There is still a legitimacy challenge for Trump, or as they say, a “Unity” problem. Having won on the basis of a plurality (as that is how the rules are “rigged”), it is hard to say how many people really will be able to “mind that gap” and step forward as a Trump supporter/voter. No doubt, he will wrap himself in the GOP “flag”, and attempt to make common enemy in Clinton.

    In past elections, many (most?) of us were willing to support a less favorable candidate, but then they were at least >51% conservative in their personal history, their rhetoric, and their proposed policies. Cannot say that for Trump, IMHO. Maybe the opportunists coming on board his “team” can straighten him out on that, but it will be extremely hard to do so convincingly, given his track record these past few months (let alone his entire history).

    As for “aversion to activism”, I think it breaks down along two lines: 1) People have not sufficient involved themselves in the political process; 2) The GOP lacked a working strategy to communicate their actions/rationale/case for conservatism and rally support, even beyond “the base”.

    IMHO the “aversion” is with the people, not the party leaders. While the “establishment” (as some like to group all of them together) had trouble even getting a cohesive vision, let alone a strategy together, there was the “activist” grass roots “Tea Party” (which was/is rather fragmented and far less “professionally” organized). It didn’t help that some of the TP members and politicians seemed more happy to have direct confrontation than to make change, and they too lacked a coherence for the public (and some TP “leaders” didn’t really help foster that either, nor make it seem well thought out – e.g. Palin).

    The GOP strategy and message almost always seemed short term and reactionary to Obama’s agenda vs forging their own. And, definitely as far back as 2008, they’ve been missing the boat on the new media channels to reach voters, especially the young – largely because they relied heavily on much of their support coming from an older population who are equally slow in the uptake of that technology.

    Heck, the GOP “establishment” leaders who should be opposing Trump on principle couldn’t even give a full throated endorsement to the only real alternative (cue Gov Mike Pensive).

    If Trump loses the election, there will be recriminations all around, but there will be grounds for an “I told you so!” from the rest of the GOP. Maybe the GOP can be reformulated from that point on.

    If Trump wins the election, it may take them a while to realize it, but conservatives will have to look elsewhere, and it will take an even bigger effort to make it a success – maybe more focused on small government and less on social issues (which seems fewer are caring about nowadays) to drive votes.

    Anyway, sad day for anyone hoping for smaller government, as we will be going headlong in the opposite direction after 2016.

    With either of the two big party candidates, we would only be projecting our own most optimistic outcome / hopes of the candidate as POTUS. Instead, rather than hoping for the best folks should decide who is scariest of all.

    IMHO, based on rhetoric, history, and policy, corrupt as she is, Clinton is looking far less scary, and much more level-headed and predictable.

    UGH!!!!

    Could a Libertarian win?

  105. NeoConScum Says:

    The Angry Boobs who’ve pounded on massed Highchair
    and made this insane moment come about are saying:
    “Look at us shoot ourselves and our party and our coiuntry
    in the Head by guaranteeing Hillary & Billy back in the White
    House.

  106. GRA Says:

    @ Oldflyer: “Neo, obviously events have brought a brigade of trolls to your blog to rub our noses in their offal.”

    They share the same juvenile trait, the gloating, that I’ve experienced from The Left. Interesting. The Left, when they win, tends to water-down if not destroy institutions, but will the alt-right’s dream of “burning it down” become a reality?

    I’m not sure which I prefer – The Left or the alt-right. It’s like picking how to die – poisonous berries or by the sword, being in a locked room and the only way to unlock it is from the outside.

  107. TrueNorth Says:

    It is time for a new party. Conservatives, by themselves, are clearly not a big enough voting bloc to win, but united with neo-conservatives, classical liberals and right-libertarians, there should be enough to command a majority. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind letting the yahoos keep the GOP. They have become an embarrassment to such an extent that the default party for anyone with intelligence or education is the Democrats. This is a good opportunity to ditch them.

  108. Harold Says:

    Well this phase of the election is over. Trump will be the GOP nominee. Who’d a thunk it ?

    In evaluating what to do now that Trump is the nominee, recognize that the Republican party has never been a conservative party. A few times in my life conservatives have taken control but that’s all.

    Recognize also that Clinton in office means the Supreme Court will shift left. Gun rights will end or be greatly reduced; hate crime laws will become legal, effectively curtailing discussions of Islam, race, religion going forward. Nothing good will come of left wing control of the Court.

    Recognize that the military will not be rebuilt with Clinton in office. Our position in the world will continue to deteriorate. A very incompetent Clinton will likely lead us into a serious war.

    Remember that William F. Buckley (founder of the modern conservative movement) thought things were so bleak in the 1950”s that conservatives would have to function like some monks did during the dark ages, preserving the texts and principles while the world descended into darkness.

    Conservatives voted for Nixon, hardly a conservative, because there were more important issues (the Soviet Union etc.) then ideological purity.

    Save America, vote Trump.

    #neverHillary

  109. bud Says:

    Trump is a creation of the media, in 2 forms: first as a celebrity, and second, as what they – the 95% who are Democrat partisans to one degree or other- view as Hillary’s weakest opponent. You seem puzzled about his rise. Just look at the disparity of coverage – one survey put it at 5X all other R candidates combined. They wanted a creampuff against their girl.

    At the “17” stage, I eliminated all except Cruz and Walker. I knew that Trump was the political equivalent of a used car salesman: a bullshitter who will say anything regardless of any connection to either truth or reality to “make the sale”.

    Dispite that, come November, I will hold my nose and vote for him. Under Trump, the Ship of State will drift and wander aimlessly, but under Hillary it would be relentlessly driven on the rocks of leftist tyranny, following the course that Obama has set.

  110. John Work Says:

    Neo,

    A daily lurker here for many years. Just wanted to say thank you for your thoughtful and interesting posts on many subjects.

    I usually don’t read the comments on your posts, but on this one I did. It reinforces my view that the majority of “conservatives” are short on first principles and long on many opinions that don’t seem all that “conservative”.

    You stated “So here we sit tonight, among the still-smoldering ashes.” I think you know that the real fires haven’t even started. The current political circus is piling up the tinder and waving around the matches, but the worst is yet to come. So many problems in every direction. So many frightened, angry, clueless people. No leadership, and even if there was, how to lead the rabble that the majority have become?

    “Let it burn.” It may have become more of a case of “It WILL burn.”

  111. Oldflyer Says:

    Big Maq, I agree with your assessment that the GOP strategy and vision are rather short sighted and bland. I fear that this is systemic to a conservative based party. They can’t promise a give away. They can’t assure you that the government will make you happy and attractive. All they can really promise is that you will have control of–and gasp–responsibility for your own life.

    That isn’t very sexy message, although there may come a time when people will again find it a refreshing change.

  112. Bob Says:

    Neo said:

    “… then it will prove that the American people have fundamentally changed in the direction they want this country to take, and it will require some major upheaval to reverse that trend.”

    I believe this is correct, and that this nation will have to fall flat on its face hard (maybe Venezuela style), if we are to ever have an opportunity to return to the principle of limited government, an absolute must for the preservation of liberty. Hillary, Sanders, Trump, and Kasich, would all invest government with more power, and between them. as a rough estimate, have averaged three quarters of the vote; Cruz, who would divest power from the Federal government, a quarter. The left’s century long effort to fundamentally transform us is almost complete.

  113. Yancey Ward Says:

    I briefly scanned the comments, but one did catch my eye- the one by Arnaud Amalric. He nails the real strength that Trump has- the ability to literally tell the media to fu** off, and to get away with it. I have often thought there was always the opening to do just this, but have always been perplexed that no Republican candidates for anything have ever really tried it- they always end up backing down to the media when it is utter scorn and contempt that the media almost always deserves. Just remember what happened to Mitt Romney in the second debate in 2012- or rather, more truthfully, what Romney allowed to be done to him.

    I wish the candidate that could do this were someone a bit more thoughtful than Trump, but one can’t always have ones ideal.

  114. Trimegistus Says:

    Anyone who thinks that manipulating the rules to deny Trump the nomination will “save the Republican Party” is either delusional or an idiot. Or Hillary Clinton, but I repeat myself.

    Who would be left to vote Republican? Not the Trump supporters. They’d go third-party or write him in and would be right to do so.

    Not anyone who actually cares about following rules or fairness or democracy. They’ll stay home in disgust.

    Not anyone who cares about the future of the party. The GOP can probably recover from an electoral defeat; it can’t recover from repudiating its own voters.

  115. vanderleun Says:

    When it comes to the past, Sandberg had two points of view:

    I tell you the past is a bucket of ashes.
    I tell you yesterday is a wind gone down,
    a sun dropped in the west.
    I tell you there is nothing in the world
    only an ocean of to-morrows,
    a sky of to-morrows.

    I am a brother of the cornhuskers who say
    at sundown:
    To-morrow is a day.

    — Prairie, Sandberg

    or it can be;

    The past is a bucket of ashes.

    1

    The woman named Tomorrow
    sits with a hairpin in her teeth
    and takes her time
    and does her hair the way she wants it
    and fastens at last the last braid and coil
    and puts the hairpin where it belongs
    and turns and drawls: Well, what of it?
    My grandmother, Yesterday, is gone.
    What of it? Let the dead be dead.

    2

    The doors were cedar
    and the panels strips of gold
    and the girls were golden girls
    and the panels read and the girls chanted:
    We are the greatest city,
    the greatest nation:
    nothing like us ever was.

    The doors are twisted on broken hinges.
    Sheets of rain swish through on the wind
    where the golden girls ran and the panels read:
    We are the greatest city,
    the greatest nation,
    nothing like us ever was.

    — Four Preludes on Playthings of the Wind , Sandberg

  116. Kyndyll G Says:

    I wonder if Trump will get around to attacking Democrats and leftists now. His supporters (who aren’t paid trolls) have fantasized for months about how great he’ll be at shredding his pal Hillary – let’s see him actually go after something other than Republicans and conservatives for once.

  117. expat Says:

    Kyndyll,
    I suspect he will still attack conservatives and Republicans for not giving him enough support. That’s just the way he is.

  118. Steve D Says:

    They said the same of reagan, and i remember it!

    Of course they did. So did I. My views on Reagan just like Trump are based on what he said, his world view and how he acted.

    If Trump said something in person or if he said something on TV, what’s the difference? He still said it.

    If he’s acting or if he means it, what’s the difference? He still said it.

    Still I don’t understand what Reagan has to do with Trump. Why keep bringing that up? They are two different people from two different eras?

  119. neo-neocon Says:

    vanderleun:

    I prefer “Ozymandias” to that last one, for the same theme.

    But those are good poems. I’ve never been drawn to Sandburg’s poetry, but I hadn’t read those before and I like them.

  120. Bob_CA Says:

    What happens if Hillary wins? I am sure Neo is thinking about this but here is a scary article about the plans of a leftist legal academic, Erwin Chemerinsky for the Supreme Court after she appoints a fifth leftist:
    Declare all the following unconstitutional
    1. the death penalty
    2. rifles and guns for individuals. Only a narrowly defined ‘militia’ has the right to possess them.
    3. any restrictions on abortion

    Rules that
    4. make it easier to start a class action lawsuit
    5. Allow governments to implement any affirmative action regulations
    6. strike down Citizens United so the government can stop the airing of movies/videos etc critical of candidates for some period prior to an election.
    7. ensure that union members have to pay union dues to support the union’s political activities.

    Declare all the following as constitutionally mandated rights:
    1. a right to a free education and that disparities in funding between school districts violate the 14th amendment
    2. uphold congressional power to regulate interstate commerce and to tax and spend for the general welfare for any purpose

    see
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-if-the-supreme-court-were-liberal/477018/

  121. J.J. Says:

    Trump was number 17 on my list of GOP candidates. He still is.

    I look at the present situation this way:
    The nation is suffering from a possibly fatal disease. The Democrat treatments (policies) are doing no good. In fact, they are making things worse. Hillary represents continuing the unsuccessful treatment regimen.
    Trump represents a new, possibly risky treatment that might lead to a cure or, at least, improved health. It’s chancy, but I’m choosing the new, possibly risky treatment.

  122. The Other Chuck Says:

    Bob_CA,
    In 1910 my grandfather built a block storefront for his general merchandise and new grocery store. No building permits were required, no government agency sent out inspectors, no city or county business permits were necessary, no taxes were assessed against his business or his person, he wasn’t required to obtain insurance, he could hire anyone at any mutually agreed upon wage, he could put his underage children to work in the store, in short he could do just about anything without any government interference whatsoever. He didn’t pay federal or state income taxes. He and my grandmother housed, fed, and cared for her aging parents until their deaths without receiving government assistance or interference. For his protection he could buy any gun available, board any train and travel anywhere with it.

    So what is your point about how bad things will get in the future? The future is here. The liberty is already gone. What’s one more regulation, one more tax, one more order from an unseen bureaucrat, other than one more nail in the coffin of our already dead liberty.

  123. Matt_SE Says:

    neo-neocon:

    I started out with dispassionate, intellectual reasons to oppose Trump but after seeing his campaign and the utterances of his loathsome followers, I freely admit that I hate all of them.

  124. Matt_SE Says:

    mf Says:
    He [Trump] is against bureaucracy.
    You must be mf’ing kidding me. Trump says both healthcare and education are responsibilities of the federal government. He’s never advocated cutting government at all. His proposals will likely increase regulations.

  125. Matt_SE Says:

    FOAF:

    So, you’re signed up for Hope and Change 2.0. Got it.

  126. blert Says:

    The Lefitst// Collectivist ambit was initiated a century ago with Taylorism.

    ALL of the Collectivist factions are but descendants of Taylor’s mechanical view of how top down management can improve the lot of ‘the greater.’

    What all Collectivists fail to ponder is that Taylorism is oriented towards the factory production of an item that is an already proven desire of the marketplace — via the ‘bottom up’ price signal.

    ALL Collectivists quickly shift away from market driven commands// price signals — towards dictates — crafted by the few — ie themselves.

    This wilful blindness to the larger wishes of the population is the hallmark of every Collectivist society — straight across the board.

    Venezuela being a front and center example.

    The Collectivist there can’t prioritize putting food on the table, public security, even electric power.

    &&&&

    America (& Canada ) will continue in the path of folly — until the clock strikes twelve and the horses turn into rats.

  127. Matt_SE Says:

    physicsguy:

    Your analogy is flawed because the stakes aren’t the same. If Hillary has a 100% chance of being a disaster, she’ll be the one to suffer most. It’s hard to imagine too much blame being taken by other Dems.
    If Trump is a disaster, he will damage the entire party. You can already see the narrative being formed, as every Dem running for office in the country tries to tie every Republican running for office to Trump.

    To repeat: Democrats are running the Todd Akin playbook against us again. If you remember, Akin’s gaffe led to at least Richard Mourdock also losing his very winnable race.

    If Trump loses AND the GOP loses Congress, we’re screwed. We probably even need to save the Senate to prevent hard leftists on the SCOTUS.

  128. blert Says:

    America at this time is highly Collectivist — witness this oblivious maladministration.

    The general public is strongly against open borders and Musilm invasion.

    The top politicians care not, and hector the nation.

  129. Strelnikov Says:

    So, I’m one of those “burn it down” people. I am not a Trump fan but will probably vote for him out of a visceral hatred for his likely opponent. Haven’t decided yet. Playing it by ear.

    Yeah, it’s burning and I don’t care who provided the match. This is one of the few things that might prevent a civil war. The shooting kind. Also, the entertainment factor has never been higher in American politics.

    Let. It. Burn.

  130. DNW Says:

    “Yancey Ward Says:
    May 4th, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    I briefly scanned the comments, but one did catch my eye- the one by Arnaud Amalric. He nails the real strength that Trump has- the ability to literally tell the media to fu** off, and to get away with it.”

    As long as it serves their own interests to encourage the illusion. The moment it does not, he disappears.

  131. Ymarsakar Says:

    I’m not suggesting that anyone give up. Commenter “Eric’s” suggestion of activism—particularly on college campuses, where the rot is well advanced—is important.

    Colleges are fallen mostly. As I wrote 1-2 years ago, people should focus on high schools.

    Bill Whittle is doing it.

    As I mentioned before, Trump’s supporters are 3 pillars. Former and current Democrats. Betrayed and angry Republicans. Alternative Right and Red Pill sub culture internet denizens, who most people would have ignored even in 2012 as inconsequential. Because they were inconsequential and had no interests in politics or ambition.

    That’s the kind of coalition that can win wars, let alone create fake Democrat/Republican votes in Indiana.

  132. AesopFan Says:

    Ymarsakar Says:
    May 4th, 2016 at 8:49 pm
    … As I mentioned before, Trump’s supporters are 3 pillars. Former and current Democrats. Betrayed and angry Republicans. Alternative Right and Red Pill sub culture internet denizens, who most people would have ignored even in 2012 as inconsequential. Because they were inconsequential and had no interests in politics or ambition.

    That’s the kind of coalition that can win wars, let alone create fake Democrat/Republican votes in Indiana.
    ***
    Having never seen the Matrix, I had to look up Red Pill — very interesting allusion. I can see the subculture creating fake votes in some fashion.
    Why would the 3-part coalition win wars?

  133. Steve D Says:

    ‘Trump was number 17 on my list of GOP candidates. He still is.’

    Funny. In the last 4 elections I picked the worst candidate at the beginning of the process for both parties. In each case he/she was (or probably will soon be) their nominee. (except Hillary who was only the second worst but that’s pretty darn close to worst) So the worst nominee is almost always chosen. Says something about the electorate and the American people, don’t you think? (or maybe I am just a negative psychic?)

    ‘As long as it serves their own interests to encourage the illusion. The moment it does not, he disappears.’

    I agree. Trump only manipulated the media because they let him.

  134. Richard Saunders Says:

    The lesson of this primary campaign is that ideas don’t matter — what matters is the ability to use the media. Barry the One-derboy was made by the MSM, Romney was destroyed by it. Trump is a master of the media. They, as leftists, should be doing all they can to destroy him, instead they’re eating out of his hand. He spent almost nothing on ads, he got hundreds of millions, maybe billions, in free air time. Reagan was the same way.

    If we ever hope to get a conservative President, it’ll have to be somebody who knows how to Trump-it.

  135. J.J. Says:

    Steve D: “I agree. Trump only manipulated the media because they let him.”

    Wrong. The media are looking for ratings. Trump brings them ratings. And he will bring them better ratings than Hillary in the next seven months. (Oh no, seven more months of this? 🙁 ) In my mind and yours that may not compute, but it’s all about ratings.

    When Foxnews anchors, who lead cable TV in the ratings, are literally doing cartwheels to get Trump on their shows, it’s a tell. MSNBC and CNN have had their best ratings in years since Trump came on the scene. To much of our culture Trump’s shtick is irresistible. It’s like roller derby, wrestle mania, NASCAR, and Jerry Springer all rolled up into one.

    IMO, the media will not reject him as long as he attracts eyeballs. I’ve become aware that Trump knows this and it is a big part of his strategy. Disgusting, but it seems to work.

  136. Barry Meislin Says:

    “Burn it down”.

    “Let it burn”.

    Sounds a lot like “fundamentally transform” to me…

  137. Steve D Says:

    ‘media are looking for ratings. Trump brings them ratings.’
    That is mostly irrelevant to the final result. People act according to their beliefs and world view (explicitly or not) before their pocket book. Otherwise we wouldn’t be in this mess.
    During the primaries, the media could get both but if it comes down to it in the general election, they will sacrifice ratings to hurt Trump. MSM has been doing this for years. Besides they still get Trump coverage – just negative not positive so the people might be entertained by Trump (and wonder how horrible the Republicans must be to nominate such a horrible person, but that doesn’t mean they will vote for him. (and by the way that sentence above implies the real reason nominating Trump is such a bad idea).
    Look for the worst possible result – Hillary wins by something more than a squeaker but less than a blow out. So we get 4-8 years of Hillary but they don’t lose by enough to make the Republican Party reexamine its premises.

  138. DNW Says:

    J.J. Says:
    May 4th, 2016 at 11:45 pm

    Steve D: “I agree. Trump only manipulated the media because they let him.”

    Wrong. The media are looking for ratings. Trump brings them ratings. And he will bring them better ratings than Hillary in the next seven months. (Oh no, seven more months of this? 🙁 ) In my mind and yours that may not compute, but it’s all about ratings. ”

    JJ, Steve was agreeing with me where I wrote (original and my response)

    ” ‘Trump has- the ability to literally tell the media to fu** off, and to get away with it.’

    As long as it serves their own interests to encourage the illusion. The moment it does not, he disappears.”

    This merely means that they will not do something that is ultimately against their perceived best interests.

    They have loyalties and ego commitments beyond the latest profit and loss statements as the eternal slew of Hollywood bombs overtly promoting progressive agendas has shown. The left media companies will still invest in these films in order to to try and shape opinion. Even if it costs them.

    Thus, as long as assisting in the creation of a circus atmosphere in the Republican candidate selection process gains them ad revenues and is thought not to ultimately harm their political and life way allegiances, they will gladly provide the glowering, incoherent, self-promoting self-funded ignoramus all the free airtime it is in their own interest to provide.

    It was a win-win for them.

    Once Trump’s disruptive utility is gone, and no more tickets to the circus are to be sold, they will go from neutrally marveling at the phenomenon of Trump, to shrieking “Hitler”, and doing their damnedest to make sure he is buried under a blanket of disdainful moral abuse.

    One should remember that for journalists next in importance to their own self-aggrandizement, is the “social engineering” charter they have granted themselves.

    My guess is that they will not unload on and try to bury him before he officially becomes the nominee; lest they tip their hand and trip up the ambush.

    If their behavioral patterns repeat, once Trump becomes the official nominee, the gloves come off and all of those grandmas who once felt emotionally compelled to support Trump in the primaries will be bombarded by the same media which charted his rise, with new stories about what a monster he is.

  139. DNW Says:

    In the comment above, I failed to nest the block quotes in the first quoting instance which ended with ” ‘… ratings’ ”

    Thus, the paragraph that begins with “Wrong … ” is not mine but is being quoted, and should have been indented at least somewhat … but was not. The quotation marks could be missed by someone just glancing at it.

    My apologies.

  140. J.J. Says:

    DNW, you may be right. The goal of promoting their narrative may be more important to them than profits and success. We will see.

  141. Ben Jacobs Says:

    Belatedly (in blog time), your second theory of 2012 is similar to that of (radio show host) Mark Levin. I recall him saying repeatedly as the 2012 election approached that it was the most consequential of our time and that losing meant “it’s over” for America as we knew it. He and you #2 were right.

    Levin talks about having an Article 5 convention of states and about not going down without a fight, but really, the only thing left to do is to plan a way out and be ready to go.

    (I think you agree and that this accounts for your interest – which I share – in finding the point of no return in Nazi Germany. It’s probably earlier than we think. As Barack Obama told us, elections have consequences. Ideas too.)

  142. Ben Jacobs Says:

    Continuing my comment, I am confident that 99 percent of the attendees of the Met Gala have private jets and homes outside the US and are prepared to leave. The great mystery is why they support policies and candidates who will make that more likely. The great injustice is that they will be able to escape despite their participation, whereas so many others will not. Thanks.

  143. Ymarsakar Says:

    Why would the 3-part coalition win wars?

    War fatigue tends to hit in conflicts like Iraq, where the military and the civilian leadership can’t bolster domestic support via enough propaganda.

    Domestic support is key to winning wars overseas, staying the course, or just killing off the traitors domestically before they get into power and disrupt things.

    Democrats, the war party, are very good at hanging dissidents inside the US, they did it before and after 1860 civil war. Republicans, not so good at dealing with internal traitors here.

    In some ways, the Alternative Right is studying more about 4th generational warfare and insurgencies than the US military and AQ put together.

  144. Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove Says:

    […] Neo-neocon discusses “burning it down” […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge