More on the Cruz/Trump clash, plus some reflections on keeping pledges
Why are we still talking about Cruz’s speech last night and the reaction to it? It crystallizes some of the themes that have been building and building this entire campaign season, as well as the frustrations.
Trump is a candidate like no other—there is no comparison to previous “hold your nose and vote for them” nominees. And yet because Hillary Clinton is also a candidate like no other (and I don’t mean that phrase in a good way), the dilemma is amplified and intensely emotional on all sides.
The misinformation and spin about what happened around Ted’s speech has reached a crescendo, so much so that we really don’t know what Trump knew in advance or what he didn’t know, what was planned and orchestrated and what was not. But according to Ted Cruz, he had informed Trump three days earlier about what his plans were:
But Mr. Cruz said Thursday that Mr. Trump and his team should have seen it coming. He said he told Mr. Trump by phone three days ago he wasn’t going to endorse him and that the campaign saw his speech a few hours beforehand.
“In that speech last night, I did not say a single negative word about Donald Trump,” Mr. Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you this morning and going forward, I don’t intend to say negative things about Donald Trump.”
I believe him. You know why? Because he’s a man of integrity—which may be why he’s not the greatest politician (and certainly not the most well-loved one) on earth.
In today’s previous thread, in answer to people saying “but Ted took a pledge!” I wrote the following (here and here):
A pledge is not absolute, if later events abrogate it. I missed the part where Cruz took a Loyalty Oath with his hand on a Bible…
A swearing with a hand on the Bible is not absolute, either.
Ask the members of the Wehrmacht who swore loyalty to Hitler before they had a real clue what he would do in terms of the depths of depravity and destruction and murder.
Ask them.
Unless, of course, you think they did the right thing by sticking to their oaths despite the evil of the man.
Perhaps you’re also against divorce under any circumstances? Because most people who get married swear till death, before a clergyman and a host of people.
Cruz got the equivalent of a divorce from Trump.
When I wrote those two comments, I had not yet read this article in the Washington Times quoting Cruz when he spoke to the Texas delegation concerning his speech and the fallout from it. You’ll see how it dovetails with what I wrote (including the use of the word “abrogated” by Cruz):
Mr. Cruz said he had intended to abide by the pledge candidates had made on a debate stage last year, but he said the day the pledge was “abrogated” was the day “this became personal.”
“I’m not going to get into criticizing or attacking Donald Trump, but I’ll just give you this response: I am not in the habit of supporting people that attack my wife and attack my father,” he said, repeating a similar line he had used on the campaign trail.
“And that pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you go and slander and attack Heidi, that I’m going to nonetheless come like a servile puppy dog and say, ”˜Thank you very much for maligning my wife and maligning my father,’ ” he said to applause.
Someone in the crowd said it was “politics” and advised Mr. Cruz to “get over it.”
“No, this is not politics,” Mr. Cruz replied. “I will tell the truth. I will not malign, I will not insult, I will not attack ”” I will tell the truth. This is not a game. It is not politics. Right and wrong matters. We have not abandoned who we are in this country.”
“No, sir ”” I do not believe that is correct,” he said.
There’s a person of integrity, in my book. But the exchange underscores a very important question—one that has been implicit during this entire campaign season—do “right and wrong matter” in this country anymore? Or have we “abandoned who we are (who we were) in this country”? Cruz does not think so, but I wonder. I have come to think perhaps he is wrong, because the nominations of both Trump and Hillary (and the re-election of Obama before that) seem to all point in the direction of abandonment.
I hope that Cruz is right and I am wrong on that.
I wrote another comment earlier today that I want to highlight. In it, first I quote a commenter who had written: “And let’s not lie to ourselves- Cruz’s point was that people who believe what he believes should not vote for Trump, but should vote for Republicans down ticket.” My response was the following
I’m not lying to myself, and I disagree with you. You don’t read minds and neither do I, but I most definitely think that Cruz was NOT saying that. I actually think that Cruz is a good wordsmith and he meant exactly what he said, which was vote your conscience, and for the person you believe will defend freedom and the constitution.
Now, of course neither of the candidates will do that, but I don’t think Cruz meant to speak in absolute terms, but rather in relative terms. I actually think he himself might vote for Trump, with great great reluctance, as the person more likely to defend those things. And if you don’t think Trump is more likely to defend those things than Hillary is, there probably isn’t any reason to vote for him.
If I vote for Trump it will be for that exact reason: because as awful, disgusting, reprehensible as he is, he may be the one of the two who is most likely to defend those things.
And Cruz may vote for him too””and he was telling people if they believe that, to vote for Trump. He couldn’t say “vote for him” because Trump is a disgusting POS, not to put too fine a phrase on it. But he said what he said, and I believe he meant what he said and said what he meant.
My contention that Cruz may vote for Trump was borne out by the following, which he is also reported to have said to the Texas delegation:
Mr. Cruz did say he is not voting for likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
He said he would be listening to Mr. Trump’s speech on Thursday and watching how the candidate and his campaign conduct themselves going forward.
“I am watching and listening,” Mr. Cruz said. “When friends of mine, when supporters of mine are asking what to do, the answer I give to everyone is follow your conscience. Do what you believe is right. Do what you believe defends your children and defends this country.”
Mr. Cruz had likewise said in his speech on Wednesday that people should follow their conscience ”” which had been a code word for some at the convention to consider supporting the Texas Republican himself.
“What does it say when you stand up and say ”˜vote your conscience’ and rabid supporters of our nominee begin screaming ”˜what a horrible thing to say?’ ” Mr. Cruz said Thursday.
As far as I’m concerned, Cruz once again demonstrates his integrity. But integrity may not be what America wants anymore—if it ever did.
It is beyond depressing. Ace wrote quite a post today on the very depressingness of it all, and I have to say that although my style of writing is different (to say the least), I agree with just about every single word he says, especially this: “I cannot tolerate this unending stupidity from maniacs.” Please read the whole thing.
Ace seems to also be saying that he’s about to quit blogging. I hope he doesn’t; his is one of the few blogs I regularly read these days. But when I wrote that I agree with just about every single word he says in that post, I include that at times I feel the impulse to quit. But I very much doubt I’ll quit.
[NOTE: Jonah Goldberg’s column is also well worth reading in its entirety.]
[ADDENDUM: Here’s an article describing the various pledges that were made, in case you’ve forgotten.]
I certainly understand the impulse to quit. I am finding it harder and harder to bear to keep reading about all of this, and more and more I’m turning my mind to non-political things and tuning out as much of the awfulness as I can. It all seems pretty hopeless. But if you can stand to keep going, please don’t quit. You’re needed.
I just read the ACE post and feel sick. If you and ACE quit, it will be a dark day. It will also be a victory for the dark forces of evil as far as I am concerned.
You, regularly, Ace about 1/3 as much and Diplomad occasionally. Ace should consider posting with no comments. I don’t know if that makes sense or not.
I’m with Mrs, Whatsit – I finding it also very difficult to read all this, let alone formulate a blog-post about it. I’m also turning to non-political things, and working on my books – on the Luna City books, and on the historical that I hope to have finished in time for the Christmas season.
And working up some period 19th century garments to wear at book events, although I will draw the line at a hoopskirt.
Trump shot off his mouth, and it cost him someone who could have been an ally.
Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that there are four “cardinal” or natural virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Truthfulness is a virtue in service of justice. OK, let me unpack that a bit. All natural virtues point to a good, properly-lived life. Prudence is rightness in thought; justice is rightness in action; fortitude is rightness in the face of the passion to avoid pain; temperance is rightness in the face of the passion to pursue pleasure. This is just old Aristotle stuff.
Any natural virtue makes sense only as it relates to one of the four cardinal virtues. For example, chastity and proper eating are parts of temperance. And truthfulness is a part of justice. It only makes sense if it serves justice, properly defined as giving to each person that which he is due. If a Nazi (ah, yes, the staple of philosophical examples) asks you where Anne Frank is hiding, you’re not bound to tell him the truth. Truthfulness is a virtue but only if it serves justice.
One is not bound to follow an oath that contradicts justice.
I actually love ACE’s comments. I am known to read them out loud at night for fun. I hope ACE won’t quit. But, I have seen it coming for some time now. He is worn out by all of it. Plus, I think he has some behind the scenes lawsuit issues. Maybe he should just take a long break.
Another great post Neo. Joanah’s post was also good. I too hope that Ace does not stop writing or podcasting.
Welcome to the jungle. The mob gets herded, rules of order.
Might makes right. Either way, it is interesting that those that just want to fix things end up digging graves.
It always ends up “row well, and live.”
With six thousand or so regulations surrounded the correct response.
I should have built a boat.
I don’t know why people would think that Cruz would endorse a person who insulted his wife and father.
He’s from Texas. Trump’s lucky Cruz did not challenge him to Bowie knife fight.
Being serious know. Why would anyone think Cruz is under any obligation to endorse Trump?
Janetoo:
I have no plans to quit. It’s just an impulse I feel more often these days, but I very doubt I’d do it. Not for a long, long time anyway.
Ace, on the other hand, might. I don’t think he will, though. But that’s just a guess.
As for Ace, yeah, I saw that too. He’d be a real loss. But I’ve looked at his comment threads, and that’s a mighty big lawn to mow. I don’t know how a blog can operate these days without a heavy hand, and it’s obvious that banning people takes a lot out of him. I wish for the best for him.
As texas is still red, i doubt cruz will actually vote for trump
The pledge?
I thought the pledge was to not run as 3rd party?
The writing’s been plain for a while now. At this point, it’s a question of whether Ace’s patience gives out first, or the election (and any follow-up recriminations/gloating/etc…) takes place first and hopefully bleeds off the toxicity. The worst of it is that Ace’s comments (which are one of the big reasons to visit the blog) are a lot less toxic than they were several months ago. They used to be even worse. And he gets attacked in the comments of his own blog due to the presidential election.
Who wants to have to deal with that?
As for integrity and the American public…
I’ve already run into people (friends of friends on Facebook) who’ve made it clear that Hillary’s complete and utter lack of integrity means absolutely nothing to them. You bring up Hillary’s blatant and intelligence-insulting falsehoods, and they do the equivalent of a digital shrug. They don’t care. “Everybody does it”.
jack:
About the pledge.
Neo: Thanks for a thoughtful, reasonable comment. Trump appears to be too self-centered to offer a simple apology, which would have solved this entire issue.
I love love love you Neo and I appreciate you saying you don’t intend to quit.
I just heard Milo being interviewed this morning. There is fresh young blood for free speech. Unfortunately he is for Trump but my point is that civility, discourse, accountability, thoughtfulness seem to mean so little to so many.
One question. Is my point about personal responsibility seem strange??
If we vote up and down the ticket for all other people who match our values and Hillary has essentially little power over all of us with personal responsibility and then somebody brings up a Los Angeles issue – anyways – how am I unclear.
BLM’ers will not move forward. Good people will move forward. People need to be good stewards of their own communities and stop expecting Washington D.C. to swoop in and fix your homeless and permitting problems in LA. Right????
As long as I’ve been reading your work (since 2001) I’ve been impressed with your common sense and clarity.
Stan –
Trump might not have even needed to issue an apology (though I can’t say that for certain). The most shocking bit about Trump’s accusations were that he kept on up even after Cruz announced that he was dropping out of the race.
The moment that Cruz dropped out, he should have been considered “no longer the enemy”. But Trump continued to act as if he was.
Baklava–The last thing I expect is DC to fix LA problems. The whole point I was trying to make is that “progressives” increase the bureaucracy. A vote for Hillary or “not Trump” will result in an exponential increase in DC swooping in. That will be the unintended consequences of your principled position. For those that argue that Trump will do likewise–perhaps–but my opinion is, there is a chance he will not grow government like I have personally seen it grow in our city and state under the rule of the Democrats. There is a reason Obama and Hillary have made regular visit to this state. Respectfully, you’ve been warned. And I would like nothing better than to be wrong.
It must be terribly frustrating and draining to conduct a political blog these days. I can hardly carry on a civil conversation at home–although we are politically aligned except for the question as to whether I am obligated to vote for Trump; and will I elect Hillary if I abstain. (What a fragile campaign Trump runs if lack of endorsement by Cruz, and an abstention by me causes his defeat.)
Neo, is relatively fortunate in that most of the comments here are fairly civil and reasonable. Maybe those who operate more contentious blogs revel in the conflict–they must.
It is reported, but not widely it seems, that Trump did an interview with the New York Times yesterday in which he said he would not necessarily respond to an Article 5 appeal from a NATO country. Put that in the context of Cruz violating a political pledge. But, as I say, the commentary today is all about Cruz; and I expect few people know about that interview. Other than Democrats, that is. They will certainly use it at the time of their choosing.
By the way, I have read that Article Five has been invoked only once in the long history of NATO. That was by the United States after 9/11.
My favorite line from Ace’s post:
“Trump picked the Rules of Engagement. He has to live with him.”
I think that’s a fair — even a just — statement. And I’d guess that late at night, after Donald has taken off his wig and looks at his reflection in the mirror (like Melisandre, the Red Witch does in Game of Thrones), he probably agrees. He went way too far in attacking Ted and his family and I’m sure he knows that all too well. He’s made a formidable enemy, probably for life.
That said I’ll still hold my nose and vote for him.
#Never Hillary
Is it wrong that every time I think of Trump, I think of Back to the Future II, except on a national scale?
I just feel like we’re living through the decline of a nation – not quite to the point where most of us are illiterates killing each other over rats in the crumbled ruins but certainly at a point where good times are behind us and every new day brings new dangers of the sort that citizens of a healthy nation/city-state take for granted being protected against.
That we face these dangers because of the ruling political party is bad enough, without the sobering reality that so many people see the only solution to the problem is throwing away all values and virtues and backing a creepy turncoat like Trump as a hero.
Back when Cruz and Trump were contending, I also said something like vote your conscience.
I also read the Breitbart article about this. It’s pretty much what RNC propaganda would look like, if you hired Leftists to write it for Republicans instead of Democrats.
Especially the comment section, it’s like all the Hate Lust the Left used against Bush II and Palin, except these welfare Democrat white trash traitors, need someone like Cruz to hate on.
Generally, the internet generation got tired of that on Youtube comments, a decade ago.
A vote for Hillary or “not Trump” will result in an exponential increase in DC s
DC is going to swoop in on California? Why, they are all on the Leftist alliance. The Left controls California, or have you yet to notice that, Sharon.
If you are living amongst evil and contributing your resources to it, why is it Trump or Cruz’s job to do something about it?
Thanks for the warning.. I’ve been very politically aware since 1991. Having changed from liberal to conservative in 1991 due to my visiting the library 3 times a week when talk radio challenged my belief system. I’ve had a core belief change so dramatic that I feel I can only relate and be friends and do business with people who aren’t “social justice” warriors, victims, pushing extremist ideology on the left in any form whatsoever.
To me it’s about personal responsibility, equal opportunity, free markets and national security.
I do not believe the President should be a person with the temperament of a Trump insulting anyone who disagrees with him. We already had that for 8 years. Obama did not actually counter or address one argument put forward to him. Sitting there watching him address conservatives during the “health care” round table debate or whatever that was was to me what EVERY person should’ve been told the next day – see – this is NOT how you treat people with respect. He avoided and deflected and impugned Republican arguments repeatedly.
Trump cannot succeed this way.
What he IS SUCCEEDING in is defining conservatism for the next 25 years.
It is sad that people will associate conservatism with Trump – at all. He is inarticulate and cannot speak to free markets, equal opportunity or limited government. You want better trade? Stop buying anything from another country. Government should not swoop in and do another Smoot Holly which ensure the Great Depression lasted 20 years.
I don’t know where Ymarsakar or Baklava got the impression that I expect Washington to do something about L.A. I’m a Constitutional conservative who voted for Cruz, who believes in the founding premise of limited government. So stop with the ridiculous insults. The idea the escalation of progressive assault on your home state should be followed by an immediate up and out of here is absurd on its face. Unless family and livelihood mean nothing to you. I frequent Neo’s blog for her excellent posts and the low degree of this kind of diatribe in the comments.
I just feel like we’re living through the decline of a nation — not quite to the point where most of us are illiterates killing each other over rats in the crumbled ruins but certainly at a point where good times are behind us and every new day brings new dangers of the sort that citizens of a healthy nation/city-state take for granted being protected against.
——————-
Maybe, maybe not.
Remember that Nixon (a Republican who endorsed price controls) was elected just two terms before Reagan. Things can change very quickly.
Baklava–From what you wrote, we agree on core principles. I was raised a constitutional conservative and have voted accordingly in every election since age 18. I know 3 people that I respect that are Trump supporters and frankly I disagree with them. I do not believe that Trump will ever become the face of conservatism. Conservatism unfortunately was in disgrace long before Trump because of a lying media and academia and now the number of people that believe the lies (we are haters, we are greedy and on and on.) I have no problem with respectful disagreement, so please accept my different understanding in a spirit of interested discourse.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/20/ted-cruz-vote-your-conscience/
Donnie Waymire – 2 hours ago
I stand with Cruz I would not endorse someone who made bad comments about my family either and that is why I can’t vote for Trump and I can’t vote for Hillary either
shirleypatriot
What about Cruz posting photo of Trump’s wife? Cruz started with rumble.
Janet Hall – 2 hours ago
There was nothing “unifying” about the Cruz debacle. He reminded me of a 5th grader who still sucks his thumb and whines. Don’t think for a moment Donald didn’t know what the fallout was going to be for this jerk. And I couldn’t be happ
Well, there’s a lot more, but those kinds of sites run so slow, since they try to hog more than 2 gigabytes of ram. A lot of ads and shockwave apps. Breitbart was once started by a man known for his integrity, similar to many people who converted from evil and made a conscious choice to adhere to their conscience and fight against evil and the Leftist alliance. But once Breitbart died, his media empire ended up in the hands of capitalists. Making money selling conservative news and ideas became big. Big Hollywood big.
I do not believe that Trump will ever become the face of conservatism. Conservatism unfortunately was in disgrace long before Trump because of a lying media and academia and now the number of people that believe the lies (we are haters, we are greedy and on and on.)
A third of Trump’s support pillars come from Democrats. Yes, Sharon, the same Democrats that engineered the collapse of your own state, as well as Detroit and Chicago.
So all those Democrats who believed and propped up the lying media, are now on our “side” supposedly. They back Trump and Trump will protect them. But will Trump hold them to account if they get into a riot or will he act like Hussein Obola when his Black Panthers are running around killing and torching?
There will be no miracle from God to save a nation that is irrevocably fallen into evil. Hate for evil is good. Hate for Cruz because of frustration with Leftists… that’s a wonder to behold, however. A wonder the likes of which evil would be proud of.
the idea the escalation of progressive assault on your home state should be followed by an immediate up and out of here is absurd on its face. Unless family and livelihood mean nothing to you.
Your home state is fallen to sin, arrogance, evil, vice, murder, looting, and criminal mafia enterprises that call themselves Leftists, Planned P, and Demoncrats.
You’re just going to have to choose whether “family and livelihood” is enough of an anchor to continue propping up evil with your taxes and business. That’ll be on your conscience. God and free will and all that.
I don’t know where Ymarsakar or Baklava got the impression that I expect Washington to do something about L.A.
You don’t? It has to do with what you wrote here, for me.
A vote for Hillary or “not Trump” will result in an exponential increase in DC swooping in. That will be the unintended consequences of your principled position. For those that argue that Trump will do likewise—perhaps—but my opinion is, there is a chance he will not grow government like I have personally seen it grow in our city and state under the rule of the Democrats.
I do not argue that Trump will do “likewise”. That’s not the way I analyze or predict events.
First of all, ignoring what happens when people vote and before it is counted and applied, you seem to think you can see the future of these “unintended consequences”.
And yet if DC did go into California and impose federal law and power, what difference would it make? Would you be capable of having handguns? Some provinces or counties or whatever you call them in Cal, may have a robust self defense industry and citizen militia. The rest… not so much. Feinstein is part of that.
So no matter whether DC goes into California or not, doesn’t matter. California is still corrupt, and will get more corrupt. Cruz or no Cruz. Trump or no Trump. Vote for Clinton or lack of votes for Clinton. None of it matters.
He went way too far in attacking Ted and his family and I’m sure he knows that all too well. He’s made a formidable enemy, probably for life.
Trump only has 10-30 years to go, but his children will see the collapse of America, in real HD.
Trump never really believed that he would win automatically, until the Alt Right and twitter came to his rescue. Trump’s deal with the Clintons was merely that because Trump can’t run in the Democrat primaries, Trump could get some fun in the Republican primaries. A sort of warm up fun where Trump gets to trash all the Republican players, high and low, and also get some popularity. Unfortunately for Trump, he should have considered that short term tactics may benefit him in the short term, but not in the long term. If he ever does win the Presidential throne, there’ll be a huge target on him, and he will finally feel what Palin and other conservatives felt when the Leftist alliance turned their firepower on their enemies.
For Trump, that is no more than what he deserves. So if he does win, I’ll watch him suffer, gladly. If he doesn’t, I’ll watch his supporters supper and justify blaming it on Cruz. That’ll be less pleasant, but won’t matter once the Leftist alliance and Islamic Jihad is cutting apart babies and executing people on the streets, piling bodies up high to the moon cordwood style.
Ymarsakar–I quoted that very verse, “The beginning of wisdom is to hate evil” in last night’s Mystogogy meeting where a quote from the Pope, “we are all God’s children” was being addressed. Denial of evil, in a Catholic gathering. And excuse making, as though we do not have free-will. No, I couldn’t let that go..
I have no problem with respectful disagreement, so please accept my different understanding in a spirit of interested discourse.
and excuse making, as though we do not have free-will. No, I couldn’t let that go..
Then address my lines on the merits. You can start by not addressing me and Baklava as if we had the same arguments vis a vis your statements.
If you expect high standards here, then start by adhering to them, ponder and ask, instead of assume.
The problem with the Roman Catholic church is that “hating evil” meant obeying orders from the Pope, which included calling for a holy war against the Cathars in France or anybody else that believed differently about what Christendom really was.
I can’t provide a link from the device I’m using for this comment, but if you like Ace’s blogging you really must see the post he put up at 4:19 pm this afternoon about why #NeverTrumpers will have to own their role in electing Hillary Clinton.
#NeverHillary
Wow.. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the comments build up so fast around here. I don’t think it’s a good sign. Anyway, Baklava said:
“I just heard Milo being interviewed this morning. There is fresh young blood for free speech. Unfortunately he is for Trump but my point is that civility, discourse, accountability, thoughtfulness seem to mean so little to so many”
Civility and discourse are totally dead in the one place they should be sacrosanct: higher ed. We are truly in a war, and the other side threw out such notions of reasoned debate about 8 years ago. Trump may be boorish, rude, but damn, being nice and reasonable to these people hasn’t got us anywhere. I’m hoping that he actually believes when he says put America first, because we need a Patton (who also lacked certain social graces, but understood no mercy for the enemy; and make no mistake that group meeting in Philly next week are out to destroy the country).
The question is who actually is part of NeverTrump, the twitter hashtag. Some of us don’t even have twitter accounts, and the ones that do ,may not use them in that fashion.
This nation, if they use political associations as twitter hashtags, already is complete crap and needs a purge. No matter what politics people think they have.
Tump may be boorish, rude, but damn, being nice and reasonable to these people hasn’t got us anywhere.
Trump is equal opportunity. That means you’ll be in his target squares, same as Fox News women who don’t know their place, Cruz, or anybody else in the way of the Trump gravy train.
That’s physics in a way.
California/NY/DC/LondonYurp/Beijing. It’s all one big glob-al elite and we’re the servants.
1. “Vote your conscience” said Ted Cruz, the junior senator from Texas, who was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, and who at 45 years old is still too young to realize just how stupid he was last night.
2. All he had to say was something simple and general in support of Trump; just adding, “I’m going to vote for him in November, and I hope you do, too” after that “conscience” remark would have been enough.
3. But to leave it hanging, with that implication, was just politically asinine. The better course would have been to keep it simple and positive, then stay quiet and let Trump & Pence campaign, and see what happens in November.
4. Am I being harsh? Perhaps, but I fail to see any “integrity” there. Hillary Clinton is openly corrupt. Both the U.S. and France have been hit by major terrorist attacks this year. Trump will defend the country more than Hillary ever will (who will just be a worse continuation of Obama). Defense of the country and national security are the issues this election. That’s what is most important (not someone’s political career, or a political party, or a political philosophy).
5. And the result of the November election will be a binary one: either Trump or Hillary will be President, and there is no other possibility. And Trump will defend the country more than Hillary ever will. That is what ultimately matters. And that is where one can find integrity and conservatism.
Matthew, dueling has been illegal in Texas since 1837. If Ted ever wants to be Governor or Lieutenant Governor, he must never fight or second in a duel. Whatever Hollywood may say, we do not have shootouts at high noon, or any other form of dueling.
4. Am I being harsh? Perhaps, but I fail to see any “integrity” there.
That makes two of us, since I don’t see any integrity in your entire life, Yankee. But hey, that’s just a personal opinion, doesn’t matter much.
Yankee:
Find the horse you rode in on and it will explain that birther stuff to you.
Neo, what you are feeling now is similar to what hit me a couple of months ago when it became obvious that Trump would be the nominee. If you are still grappling with how to vote and trying to understand how this catastrophe came about, you’re not alone. At least part of the blame can be placed on our intellectual leaders who have abandoned reason and are hell bent on destroying what is left of The Enlightenment.
I ran across the following linked article some time ago. It is exceptional. Read it and tell me that Donald Trump is not our first Post-modern candidate for president.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy
Yankee:
How do you square your faith in DJT with his statements yesterday about NATO and Turkey? Look it up in the NY Times. Article 5 of the NATO charter, i.e., US defense of NATO allies from attack, and support for an Islamisist? DJT praised another tyrant. But he’s your tyrant to be so it’s all good.
I really need to see some Hillary Clinton and read some of her supporters. That’ll remind me why I can’t vote for her either. After this week, I could fool myself into believing that she’s worth supporting.
She’s a being of petty anger. So is Obama, and obviously so is Trump. That’s the problem; exposure to petty anger makes a person petty and angry. Obama created Trump. Now petty anger at Trump makes me think about voting for her. No. The trolling has got to stop. The three of them deserve to be on an island together. I need to make sure that I don’t belong there myself.
After the non-charging of Hillary, I was reluctantly looking to vote for Trump. Not because of him, but because of her. The articles and comments about Cruz’s “betrayal and lies,” the vitriol and hatred of the man, sorry. They have pushed me away from Trump.I see so little difference between him and Hillary. Now it’s either third party or ignore that section of the ballot.
Come on, join us for unity’s sake.
“If you go to heaven for following your conscience and I go to hell for not following mine, will you join me for fellowship?”
There are unspoken pledges: One is not to insult another man’s family. if you do insult another man’s family, you have broken the [unspoken] pledge and, as in contract law, when a contract is violated by one party, it’s no longer in effect, no longer binds the other party.
Trump, by his petty and vile actions, broke the contract and released Cruz from the contract.
I am usually on the same wavelength as Neo (and Jonah Goldberg for that matter) but I just cannot use the words “Cruz” and “integrity” in the same sentence. As with the government shutdown a couple of years ago, every carefully parsed word out of Cruz’s mouth is intended to advance the interests of Ted Cruz, regardless of the practical effects it will have on his party and his beliefs.
The fact that the RNC apparently both knew what Cruz was going to do and subsequently lied about it doesn’t change the fact that Cruz clearly intended to sabotage Trump in a way that Cruz perceived would be to Cruz’s advantage. It just means that Cruz ran into something even more cynical than himself.
Cruz could have followed up his high-minded sounding speech (who can argue against “vote your conscience”?) with arguments that 1) Trump is unelectable or 2) Trump is not a conservative. These are both reasonable arguments and all #Nevertrumpers other than Cruz have used some variant of one or both of them. Cruz chose to make it personal, in a way that advances none of the conservative ideals he professes to hold. So I will give Cruz his props. I will agree he is not a servile puppy dog, just a narcissistic self-serving crybaby. It is increasingly clear that pols like John Boehner and Dan Coats (neither of whom is on my favorite pols list) understand on a human being basis what it is they are dealing with.
I would probably just stop reading political blogs altogether if neo and ace quit – they’re my favorite, and precisely because they are about so much more than politics (“come for the politics, stay for the dance,” as we say ’round here).
I see some people on this thread who used to comment here a lot, like I did – happy to see baklava in particular (what’s up!) – and though I can’t speak for them, for myself I will say I already pulled back a lot from engaging with this horrible mess we’re in (I left the country for China over two years ago, and just looking at the nearly Nazi Germany levels of jingoistic madness here, it becomes a lot clearer how fundamentally unserious we are in America at present – I’ll get back to that).
What resonates with me the most are Ace’s increasingly frequent comments to the effect that being around this stuff, devoting precious time to it, allotting it a certain importance in one’s life, is tantamount to swallowing a bottle of poison every day. Spiritual poison, mental poison, poison for the personality – it embitters us, makes us nastier, cruder, harsher, and dumber. So when ace goes onto health threads or movies or whatever, and neo goes to her sometimes funny and always interesting posts on uncanny resemblances between unrelated people, dancing, or more fundamental philosophical ideas, I see it like a drowning person gasping for air. That’s why it’s so refreshing – almost physically refreshing – to read such content.
There’s a proper place for politics in a life, and neo and ace are so valuable above all for having the decency to try to preserve the right balance between politics and life. And that naturally makes the tone more… how to put it?… humane.
At the same time, we are in a war – a cold civil war, so increased and spiritually unhealthy levels of engagement are understandable and even necessary. I spent the last few days for no good reason watching the various debates between conservatives and progs at politicon on YouTube. I watched the entire debate – I mean “debate” – between Cenk Uygur and Dinesh D’Souza, and between Sally Kohn and Ben Shapiro. Also Van Jones and Ann Coulter.
The best I can say is that it filled me with horror. We really cannot talk to each other anymore; we really do inhabit fundamentally different and opposed moral universes. It’s not even that we can’t be polite – surprisingly Coulter and Jones were quite civil (Jones himself is a fairly amiable guy and a rather good speaker) – but that we can’t have a fruitful discussion from which anything will come except a restatement of the obvious: it is impossible for us to agree on anything of substance.
Second, progressives are generally awful, awful creatures. Cenk – who I had never heard of before – is a loatheome personality, the reductio ad absurdism of progressivism. Sally Kohn, who I vaguely knew of, is not much better. Themes emerge. The progs all say, constantly, that the conservatives are lying, misleading, deliberately dishonest and being paid to pander to the lowest in humanity. The conservatives all retort, “no no, here are the facts, listen…” The progs cut them off and say, “Those aren’t facts, those are your lying spin on the actual facts.”
In the Kohn-Shapiro debate there was actually a moment of truth, and afterwards when Shapiro took questions solo he made a pertinent observation. They were arguing about some statistic or another, and Kohn suddenly said in exasperation that she was appalled: they couldn’t have a discussion, because they could not even agree on basic facts as a premise for discussion. She wasn’t saying this in a nasty way; she just had this moment where it struck her like a lightning bolt.
Now, what she meant to say – or what she should have said – was that we cannot agree on basic facts because we cannot agree on a common normative and metaphysical framework in which to interpret them. That’s where we are. Shapiro said afterwards that the right always plays the “facts” game – again, a necessary game, but not the ultimate game – when we should be focused on the moral game. For the real rub of the left’s argument against the right is that we are evil; and though we on the right like to say we don’t think leftists are evil, “just wrong,” it may be time to admit at least to ourselves that that’s not true. I think what we mean to say is that we don’t want to wantonly impute malevolence to people who have not justified the judgment, but the beliefs themselves and their consequences are indeed evil (a kind of political version of “hate the sin, not the sinner”).
So I think Shapiro is onto something there. The left thinks conservatives, as people, are evil – they hate the sinner. The right does not merely think the left is wrong, but rather that their beliefs are evil – they hate the sin. It is moral; it is not moral on the one side and “just the facts ma’am” on the other. A huge part of the crisis on the right at the moment is our struggle to adapt to a world where it seems there is no way to make any public headway without *hating the sinner.* we don’t know what to do. On the one hand, if we play by the old Christian rules we seem to neuter ourselves. On the other hand, if we play by the new barbarian rules we seem to become barbarians, which would render conservatism pointless.
Increasingly, I think, many on the right – many (not all) Trump supporters – have arrived at the following judgment: not that we *ought* to go barbarian because it’s good, but that barbarism is all there is now, and if you’re not Going Barbaric, you’re not serious. The rules have changed, and whether or not we lose our souls playing by the new rules, at any rate there is no choice. (As I understand the sophisticated argument of the now defunct Journal of American Greatness, that was basically it.).
I’m not saying this is correct; just that a whole lot of people feel that way.
The left feels its current power and the contempt that goes with it and gets Hillary, the living embodiment of “current power” and “contempt.” The right feels its weakness, particularly its inability to do anything via Queensbury rules, and it gets the personification of an extended Middle Finger, a barbarian of their own, and somehow a skilled one. This is democracy in the pure, Mencken sense.
Anyway, the effect is that we in America wind up navel gazing and obsessing over ourselves (not in profound ways), our fractures and divisions – and, again, we are forced to do so to some degree, given the way things are – while places like China look with red teeth and claws outward at the world as its natural prey. These people, the real barbarians, are deadly serious; daily I read and hear from people at all levels of society, intellectuals and peasants: “kill them all,” “kill all Americans,” “war now,” etc etc. I wish I were exaggerating or making this up. I was nervous about China before I came here; I am much more nervous now – the news is nonstop vitriol against America, Japan, and anyone who impedes Chinese ambitions. After the UNCLOS ruling on the South China Sea, all one saw on tv was “No one will remove our Chinese hearts from our Glorious Islands in the sea” (this is really how they talk, even on the news). Politicians say it, ordinary people say it, even the newscasters say it. Total unity and uniformity, for a deranged mission of conquest. They are filled with hatred (I could go on about this).
Bottom line: We are not ready for what’s coming.
God bless the queen (neo) and the King (ace). And everyone here who resists barbarism by simply being here.
Wow – I didn’t realize my comment was so long. Apologies.
“Wow — I didn’t realize my comment was so long. Apologies.”
Still about 67 minutes shorter than Trump’s speech.
Ymarsakar:
What is the point to what you wrote on July 21st, 2016 at 9:18 pm (“since I don’t see any integrity in your entire life, Yankee”)? Why on Earth would you say that?
A reasonable argument can be made that what Cruz did at the convention was politically stupid; besides that, as an elected U.S. Senator, he has a duty to the greater good of the country (namely, those earlier points about corruption and defense against terrorism). With his speech, Cruz just made himself look petty.
See also what Larry Kudlow wrote of what he witnessed inside the convention:
https://ricochet.com/mike-pence-saved-republican-party-cruz-disaster/
kolnai – “we are not ready for what’s coming”
Internationally as well as domestically. Thanks for the enlightening comment.
OM:
Earlier, I stated some facts about Ted Cruz to help illustrate the magnitude of his blunder at the convention. The facts remain that Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, in 1970, to a woman who was an American citizen, and from a father who was originally from Cuba, who then became a Canadian citizen in 1973, and then an American citizen in 2005. Ted Cruz also had dual citizenship with Canada until he renounced that in 2014. With all that in mind, some skepticism is warranted about Cruz’s eligibility to be President of the U.S. (the natural-born citizen clause).
With a strict interpretation, Cruz is not eligible for the office that he sought. The point is moot, of course, since he is no longer running. And depending on what happens next, he may be too politically damaged to run for that office in the next election cycle, regardless of anything else.
OM:
Regarding NATO, some debate about the nature, structure, and purpose of that alliance is long overdue. A lot has changed since the Cold War started and ended. How does it benefit the U.S. to go to war (presumably with Russia) to defend small countries in Eastern Europe? How far should NATO expand? Should we not consider the history of Russia, which has been around for a very long time, and the characteristics of its geography? Is there a role for perhaps neutral, non-aligned buffer states in certain areas?
I think that Trump’s instincts are better than those of many experienced politicians who have called for expanding NATO to include Georgia and the Ukraine.
As for Turkey, it’s not yet clear what may happen, considering the recent failed coup. But the country could become more Islamist–and the time to prevent or mitigate that may have already passed several years ago. The Turkish people may also wish for their country to be more Islamist, and there may be little the U.S. can do about that. Turkey could also have an internal crisis that gets worse with the Kurdish separatists (in the eastern portion of that country, and in parts of Iraq and Syria).
It sometimes seems like a shame that our host Neo does not have more posts on foreign policy.
kolnai:
Great comments. Stay safe over there.
Yankee:
Sorry but the birther ploy doesn’t pas muster in the courts. So go on about how corrupt the courts are…..even your DJT didn’t put up his money with that con. So to bring that line up again just discredited your standing.
Your talk about NATO and the cold war and nuance about Erdogan, don’t know what to thing, maybe the yearning for a strong man to bring order. Love your tyrant, Putin and Trump?
kolnai:
Apologies?? No need whatsoever for you to apologize. We should be thanking you for that comment—so let me hereby offer thanks.
It’s always good to see a comment from you, but that one in particular was hit out of the park.
Stay safe. Sounds like “interesting” times indeed.
Kolnai wrote:
I see some people on this thread who used to comment here a lot, like I did — happy to see baklava in particular (what’s up!)
🙂 Thank you Kolnia! I remember you and you write crazy good.
I’ve been arguing your points to people since 1991. That is… we give to liberals saying you are “well-intentioned” and have “rose colored glasses” and you want “utopia” etc.
But lately, I see liberals as LAZY. LAZY to the core. Why? Because at least I have hungrily devoured both set of facts and still do to this day. I know the facts that the left and right present. Larry Elders presents facts unheard of to most leftists and when they hear them they can double-check or get angry. Most of the time they’ll get angry, deflect and just impugn our character and motives.
But I argue on their level now. I point out their laziness and talk about how much I’ve investigated and read and given the due diligence .
In the end – I have’t convinced anyone lately but we are more and more hitting a stalemate because the left operates in an echo chamber.
Here’s one of the reasons why.
You may not like hearing this. But look at GateWay Pundit or Legal Insurrection or Flopping Aces or any of the sites on the right we frequent with an open eye.
The headlines and pictures presented might be appalling to a person on the left. They will discount the site as racist sexist filth that should be shut down.
They won’t even give them a chance by actually reviewing the content and seeing the substantive arguments.
When I read “Who stole Feminism” by Christina Hoff Summers, it was in the day before websites. Now how is a person on the left EVER going to get converted looking at these websites?
We need a go to place. Would I ever recommend a person who is for “refugees” go look at Pamela Gellers site? AtlasShrugs. The answer is NO.
We are in deep trouble until and unless we can have official looking sites present factual information in an interesting way without looking threatening.
Another thing. I try to appeal with heartstrings. I tell liberals, it’s better to teach a man to fish than give them fish. Conservatives are about true love and compassion. But then the liberal hears conservatives talk and my point is negated. Sad but true.
Kolnai. Sorry I mispelled you bro.
Baklave –
I can dig it, and the need for more “official” sites (I understand what you mean) is certainly there.
Aside from politics though, I hope all is well with you, personally and professionally. Hard times now, so it’s not a given.
neo –
Grateful as ever for you comments. I wrote a mid-sized response on just how “interesting” things are in China right now, but I thought better of posting it. Even though I use a VPN, I am not sure of just what the government can see and what it can’t. So, I’ll save it for another day, I guess, or maybe an email.
By the way, I’m currently working in areas related to the Old Testament/philosophy of religion, and since I’m getting in with a new crowd of OT scholars, learning Biblical Hebrew (slowly), and getting to know several scholars from Israel, and – finally – I have a friend here who is going to Israel soon to do archaeological work, I’m on the verge of bolting to Israel for a few months. Don’t know if you’ve ever been, but I figured it’s about time for me to make my pilgrimage to Jerusalem, after spending so much time in various “Athenian” settings.
Alright I’ll stop hijacking the thread now. Just wanted to catch up with Baklava and keep you posted on my peregrinations.
Lol, dammit –
*Baklava*
Eye for an eye!
kolnai:
Have a wonderful trip–sounds exciting.
I was in Israel one time, as a teenager with a group of teenagers one summer on a trip to Europe and Israel. As you can imagine, that was a long long long time ago, and Israel has changed almost as much as I have in the interim.
I would love to go back some day and might do so. I know a couple of people there I’d like to visit.
Would be interested in your China remarks. Stay safe.
I think that Trump’s instincts are better than those of many experienced politicians who have called for expanding NATO to include Georgia and the Ukraine.
It’s quite obvious to me and others like me, that NATO became obsolete when the Soviet Union collapsed. Another coalitional alliance is necessary, of course, for the Pax Americana. But NATO even in Afghanistan, had serious issues. MOstly French related, but I suppose that’s not unexpected.
With a strict interpretation, Cruz is not eligible for the office that he sought. The point is moot, of course, since he is no longer running. And depending on what happens next, he may be too politically damaged to run for that office in the next election cycle, regardless of anything else.
You know, if you outlaw too many of American patriots’ candidates, the only way they can settle the issue is with a war, a shooting war. Is that what you want, to turn this corrupt democracy into a corrupt 1000 factional civil war? Because that’s where you are heading, even without disbarring Cruz.
What is the point to what you wrote on July 21st, 2016 at 9:18 pm (“since I don’t see any integrity in your entire life, Yankee”)? Why on Earth would you say that?
About the same fashion you judge Cruz, I judge you. You will be judged in the fashion you judge. If you don’t like that, well, that’s not my problem. You, chose of your own free will, to narrow your options. Now of all times, you ask why on Earth that happens?
Why do you think Karma and what goes around, comes around, happens? Even the mighty America is not immune to that.
What resonates with me the most are Ace’s increasingly frequent comments to the effect that being around this stuff, devoting precious time to it, allotting it a certain importance in one’s life, is tantamount to swallowing a bottle of poison every day. Spiritual poison, mental poison, poison for the personality — it embitters us, makes us nastier, cruder, harsher, and dumber.-Kol
Funny, that’s what I thought back in 2008, 2012, as I watched the Leftist alliance begin to uncork their strategic reserves, as people were worried about policies which didn’t matter in the end. Since changing the world was pointless, even if feasible, I preferred to change and improve myself.
Now that people started waking up (too late) after 2012, starting around 2013 was it, people are own exercised, panicking, and talking about Clinton being evil. The Leftist alliance is evil, everyone in it is culpable and evil after all. Clinton is no different. But the human heart has a flaw, humans can only learn to hate by isolating individuals down, like Hussein or HRC or Bush II or Palin or Cruz. They can’t just hate an ideal or an amorphous “evil”. The weakness is as pathetic as it is funny.
Cruz could have followed up his high-minded sounding speech (who can argue against “vote your conscience”?) with arguments that 1) Trump is unelectable or 2) Trump is not a conservative.-Glen H Says:
If Cruz had decided not to support Trump, why didn’t Cruz run as a third party like Ross Perot?
People like you think your actually “thinking” with logic, when in fact your brain has been hijacked by your emotions. Like Leftist zombies, you are not actually thinking normally. Alcohol impairment so to speak, except this is emotional impairment.
It is increasingly clear that pols like John Boehner and Dan Coats (neither of whom is on my favorite pols list) understand on a human being basis what it is they are dealing with.
Justifying becoming Boehner’s ally should have made you rethink things. When Cruz broke the DC corruption gov, against the wishes of Hussein and the Republican leadership, you chose to side with Boehner against Cruz. Because of that, you have fallen into sin, but justify it as righteous justice against Cruz. If Cruz isn’t the devil you claim he is, all of that falls apart. Starting with how impaired your logic functions are under emotion.
A huge part of the crisis on the right at the moment is our struggle to adapt to a world where it seems there is no way to make any public headway without *hating the sinner.* we don’t know what to do. On the one hand, if we play by the old Christian rules we seem to neuter ourselves. On the other hand, if we play by the new barbarian rules we seem to become barbarians, which would render conservatism pointless.-Kol
Perhaps that is so, but it depends on whether the interpretation of Christ’s rules were correct. Was it a rule he made for himself? On what basis and context? And if it was a rule, was it something disciples of Christ should have followed?
People should have been very careful attempting to abridge historical accounts and attributing to the modern age, proverbs designed for sheep herders, livestock farmers, and feudal aristocrats with their lawyer court systems. I question whether anyone rally knows what those old 1st AD Christendom rules really were, as applied to the 21st century. Humans have stayed the same, but that doesn’t mean you can copy cat things in history and paste them here, then call it “Christianity”. And if a religious authority like the Pope or Protestant antiPapist says it is so, on what basis do they make their claims of knowing what Christ’s rules were?
Like Socrates, I questionw hether the elites and authorities really have the wisdom and authority which they claim to have. The Authority to demand that Christians hate the sin but not the sinner. If the sinner is evil, then hating evil requires admitting the truth of things to yourself and the world. Hating the sinner would be like Trump vassals hating Cruz, of course. But evil cannot be hated so long as Republicans consider Leftists to be “mistaken” or “merely misguided”.
Evil isn’t about merely mistakes or being merely misguided.
Which is why, even though it is taxing to write and speak to people in an election bogus season, I also find it invigorating and fun. It is fun to watch humans as they collapse into despair and destroy themselves, their families, and then curse and hate God, Cruz, Trump, or anybody else. It is enjoyable watching the basest of human natures express themselves, on a world stage which has deemed such things to be beneath “Americans” or Westerners or “white people”. It will be even more fun to see what Divine Punishment, if any, exists for such a people.
I find it to be quite enlightening and intellectually stimulating. I am sure many here will think the same, in 5-10 years, once they have had time to ingest and grow a resistance to the Poison of Humanity.
Kolnai, Things are really really good professionally. On the personal front is a little tough with the partner being a little bit narcissist.
It’s not that I see narcissists everywhere (Obama, Trump, partner), it’s that it seems to be a thing lately as we move into the information age. People are getting more impatient, more negative, less accountable, more into their phones but less exploratory to find out what is really true.
People that I used to trust as “conservative” believing things that they shouldn’t believe – all due to laziness and the inability to reason or hold a deep diving conversation about the “facts”.
Van Jones WANTS to have his own facts. But why does my partner? There are good days and bad days because in the end it’s truly a lack of caring by the narcissist.
I’ve listened to a hundred hours of videos from Melanie Tonia Evans. She’s not political at all. She’s focused on how to survive and adapt to the narcissist because in the end – the accountable people grow and learn so that is who she can help. Us.
Baklava –
Ah, ye olde narcissistic partner. I know it well; who can date in America without encountering one, or twenty?
You seem pretty well read on the topic, and there was a time (for obvious reasons) I was reading books on the subject fervently – I recall reading Dr. Pinsky’s book and comparing it unfavorably to Jean Twenge’s “Narcissism Epidemic” (I think her straightforward understanding of narcissism is correct, just based on experience).
I recall also reading a very interesting book which got more in the weeds on the subject of narcissists in relationships, called “Emotional Vampires,” by a Dr. Bernstein, if memory serves. I found the descriptive category of the emotional vampire to be worthwhile, and there is a good deal of overlap with the narcissist. And as you note, narcissism is a temptation for all of us in this new age – though I have tested negative for narcissism in the personality battery contained in Twenge’s book I believe, sometimes I think I knew what the narcissist would answer, answered accordingly, and then took narcissistic satisfaction in not being a narcissist.
It’s hard to know with these things.
Regardless, I’m happy to hear you’re doing well otherwise. I’ll drink to that.
I’m going to go have a drink right now. Cheeers !
I also tested negative. Actually a 20 on the scale from 0 to 520 where 20 was actually needing more backbone.
Loved your narcissist joke. To know is not to emulate to a narcissist. To care is truly human. To care is listening, learning, and being accountable.
Later !! You made this place exciting again! This place meaning – the comments area. I’ve read Neo’s work without commenting for awhile. Her perspective is so needed for me. Where else can you truly learn about Turkey?
I appreciate Cruz’s attempt to, as someone described it, thread the needle on Wednesday night. I think he did a pretty decent job of it.
I take his remarks about standing up for the Constitution, freedom, and so on as not so much implicitly bashing Trump because Trump won’t do those things, but rather as an extension of hope, a form of encouragement to Trump to try and do those things when/if he gets to the White House. Much the same sense in which people called the Pacific Ocean pacific in spite of the reality that it was the opposite. A sort of prayerful magic to get the good spirits or what have you to help out.
Now had I been writing that speech for Cruz, I would have done certain things differently. I would have left aside the ‘vote your conscience’ part, perhaps, and added in something to the effect of ‘if you want the Constitution, freedom, etc. upheld and defended, know that there is one candidate in this race who I believe has the ability to do all those things, and he’s sitting right over there – Donald Trump!’ Not so much passive-aggressive, you see. Expressing a truth – Trump does (I think) have the ability to do all that once in office – IF he chooses to. Taking the personal aspect out of it, making the noble gesture toward unity while holding a certain reserve, but not disdain. Paying Trump the respect of acknowledging his great personal drive and hope in his ability to rise to the occasion, while admitting that I/we still need some convincing on whether he actually is prepared to do so (ergo “has the ability to do”, not yet straight-up “will do”). Last but not least: letting Trump know between the lines that if he fails or refuses to do those things – we’ll be watching.
So while Cruz didn’t get it completely right to my mind, he got fairly close. And considering the two times when close counts, maybe I can be happy with that.
Also, hello to
kolniakolnai andbaklavebaklava, whose dialogue is a thing of beauty so far. Kolnai, your China journey sounds fascinating. Baklava, I take you with pistachio.Neo:
“But the exchange underscores a very important question–one that has been implicit during this entire campaign season–do “right and wrong matter” in this country anymore? Or have we “abandoned who we are (who we were) in this country”?”
Right and wrong matter, but the Right is competitively effective only to the degree of activism its championed in the arena. And competitive effectiveness is the bottom line.
The problem is the proponents of Right have self-rendered competitively ineffective by their choice to champion their personal aversion to activism above the social Right.
Right and wrong matter, but the Right is competitively effective only to the degree of activism its championed in the arena. And competitive effectiveness is the bottom line.
I would phrase that as the superiority of crowd funding, crowd sourcing, and bottom up hierarchies, over the corruption and inefficiency of top down hierarchies.
Right and wrong matter, but the Right is competitively effective only to the degree of activism its championed in the arena. And competitive effectiveness is the bottom line.
In other words, perception is reality. Even though there are hard limits on make a wish transforming reality.
The problem is the proponents of Right have self-rendered competitively ineffective by their choice to champion their personal aversion to activism above the social Right.
People born on or who have lived in the internet sub cultures, are in tune with activism and bottom up hierarchies. Nobody did anything except the volunteers. That is just how it works. Even youtube channel content creators were once volunteers, before it got monetized.
Most people are followers. And those who grew up in the 80s or 90s, are reliant on the System to tell them what to do, where to go, etc. However, that System is no longer operational or effective. Only choice is to wait until the old generation die out and get replaced by fresher flood. That’s usually the only way to turn or progress or change a culture that is long and traditional.