Art is a hobby horse. Not at all relevant to salvation. Soteriology. Art can be beautiful or ugly and base vomit. I think any art made after January 1st 1900 is vomit and not art. Prove me wrong. I greatly prefer John Waterhouse or El Bosco from Holland. Heironomous Boche
"If you are a conservative like me, you are finding yourself standing here wondering how on earth Kamala Harris is doing so well against Donald Trump."
As you point out, the machine is at work. Here's a very detailed explanation of how:
Oh please. She's doing so well because the alternative is Donald Trump. Just as, Donald Trump is doing far better than he deserves because the alternative is Kamala Harris, or indeed, and Democrat of her ilk.
I have no concern with the interview you linked. If Tucker Carlson said it was raining, I would definitely step outside to check. He's all opinion, and any factual claims he made would have to be cross-checked from sources that I already peruse.
Actually, during the hour-long interview, Tucker hardly ever comments. Though you do make an interesting ad hominem argument, you should direct it at the person actually being interviewed. It would still be a fallacy, but it would be a more appropriate one.
I have this fantasy in which Rod recommends to Tucker Carlson to invite me on his show. He asks me, what is a lefty like you doing accepting my invitation? Won't all your friends cancel you? I don't have many of THOSE kind of friends. But my basic answer would be, there is no such thing as bad publicity. If a million people who adore Tucker Carlson and a million people who spend time on social media trashing Tucker Carlson all here about whatever I have to say or promote, then its good for me. If he invites JD Vance at the same time, I will compliment Vance's book, but I would have nothing to say admiring his political career.
I'm not sure I agree with that, Martha. He doesn't like disloyal people, though of course he doesn't apply this standard to himself.
I remember something from long ago, something someone who knows Trump well said in an interview. The interviewer was taking the already set - in - stone view of Trump as a general menace, and asked the interview subject something like, "But isn't Trump a terror to work for? Doesn't he constantly interfere with what his subordinates are doing?"
Not at all, said the guy. Trump values expertise, and if he's convinced someone has it in the field he wants it in, Trump will leave the person alone, and will accept the subordinate's view of a matter. It was striking to me, and memorable, because I had that idea, that working for Trump would be somewhat comparable to working for Stalin, of whom that would have been true.
And this does make sense. Trump did not become as successful in New York real estate as he did by thinking that he knew enough to countermand what a subordinate thought was right. ( Obviously, enough mistakes and the person would be gone, but isn't this true of any job? )
He'd better be open to advice, because he's done otherwise.
I don't doubt that, but I think its more because if he doesn't have to be bothered with the details, he's happy to have a paid subordinate doing the hard work of making his money for him. On the other hand, if he's handed an opportunity to drop a missile on an Iranian high level officer in Bagdhad, he's not going to take sober advice on all the pros and cons, he's going to make an impulsive decision and go with his gut.
I've been recommending Brendan Borrell's book, "The First Shots." about the development of the COVID vaccine. Without trying to retype several pages of the book, there were several people in both private industry and government agencies like NIH who thought they could harness mRNA technology to produce a vaccine in record time. They had to do a lot of political maneuvering, including persuading gatekeeper Jared Kushner to arrange access to Trump, but Trump asked, can we really get a vaccine in a year, and assured they could said that's wonderful.
Trump of course had been looking for a magic bullet since the beginning. First he denied COVID would be a significant problem, then he wanted it over and done and out of his way. He didn't have a lot to offer in making it happen, he jumped from one wild idea to another. But presented a workable plan by competent people, he was happy to give them all the funding they needed and clear the way for them.
I said this to someone recently, and if it was you, I apologize for my redundancy:
Inasmuch as the gastrointestinal tract is lined with billions of neurons, and therefore legitimately thought of as an annex of the brain's, going with one's gut is not only not primitive but is a legitimate form of thought. It isn't everyone's, of course, and while I don't doubt that it is primarily Trump's, writing as a gut thinker myself, I would be surprised to learn that when an instinct kicks in, he doesn't gnaw away at it at least a little before making a decision based on it.
Was it gut or was it logic which motivated President Kennedy to overrule every other member of the ExComm sessions, including, his later fibs to the contrary notwithstanding, his brother, Robert, and order not a knockover invasion of Cuba in October, 1962, but a blockade? I think it was informed gut; he'd been deeply impressed by Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August," and had realized what you would have thought most if not all of them would have realized, how the unexpected and the misinterpreted can lead to catastrophe.
But no one knew until the Venona papers were declassified in the early 1990s that that crazy, thuggish mother******, Khrushchev, had smuggled not just strategic nukes but tactical nukes into Cuba. If Kennedy had done the "sensible" thing and ordered the knockover invasion, we would have been at nuclear war.
“Kamala Harris is no different today than she ever was. It’s just that the Machine has reframed her.” —- THANK YOU for this quote! I mentioned the same thing in my podcast because what we’re seeing is the “machine” manipulating reality to where participants are now under the constraints of cognitive dissonance to vote for her: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/how-voting-creates-cognitive-dissonance
From the unorthodox perspective, whether she wins or loses, we must wake up, and fight another day. We’ve learned a lot and survived 4 years under Biden. We’ve grown tremendously. Whether she wins or loses, we must continue the good fight and escape this comfort cage the machine has put us in: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-comfortable-cage-of-our-modern
Donald Trump was a tabloid buffoon and reality show star for years and years. And yet he was refashioned into a serious candidate for the White House. The GOP machine manufactures reality too, and is quite good at it.
Translate leader into German. I've never gone along with facile comparisons of Trump to Hitler, Trump makes Mussolini look like a genius. But "the man is a leader," standing almost alone as justification, raises the comparison.
No, two wrongs make an intractable mess. But Jon F is saying the same thing you just said -- Harris is awful, so is Trump. Its not one is right and the other is wrong.
No he's not, because if that were the case he'd be criticizing Harris instead of dragging DT into it. That's what "whatabout" does -- tries to soften the blow against one side by bringing up the foibles of the other.
Sigh. JonF was responding to a one-dimensional critique of the Democratic offering, by pointing out the other half. He wasn't justifying anyone. "Whatabout" is seldom a legitimate criticism, because in the end, both parties are guilty, and no whatabout or accusation of whatabout changes that.
Imagine an alternate universe where candidate Trump wakes up, realizes he could stop fooling around and instead try to mitigate his character defects and be of genuine service to the country by being the great president he could be, since after all he is 78 and this is his last act on earth.
Agree. You can't blame either the left or the right for trying to make lemonade out of their lemon of a candidate. The main difference is that the left has the benefit of a complicit media.
Exactly! The right does it this way, but the left — the left has the whole media train behind them and I think it’s more so because left policies are more so about mind control, so what better tool to control the population than media: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/democide-and-menticide
The Trump phenomenon is far more interesting. Trump branded himself as a plausible president not WITH the help of the GOP messaging system, but IN SPITE OF IT. And, in spite of the fact that the entire media industrial complex was against him. All political campaigns are about packaging, of course. It is nevertheless a stunning thing that in only two weeks, Kamala has gone from being a joke to being the savior of democracy.
That is his greatest strength. Although I find him entirely inadequate, he did run as an anti-Establishment candidate. Actually, he got the nomination in 2016 by winning about a third of the vote in a crowded primary field, with a mostly winner-take-all approach to assigning delegates. I don't buy into Trumpism because I see him as a minnow in the swamp raging furiously that he isn't as big a fish as his ego tells him he should be. He's mad he hasn't been admitted to the Big Boys Club, no matter how many times he was invited to the Clinton White House. But, he did very effectively make his whining resonated with far more legitimate grievances from The Average Man and Woman.
But you also can't discount Trump's name recognition and the billions of dollars in free press he got in the runup to the 2016 election. Even allegedly hostile outlets had him on constantly for the entertainment value.
Trump greatly benefitted by the circumstances of 2016. Those circumstances are long gone. He cannot run as the "outsider" any more because he owns the damned party now.
To even keep that "outsider" energy going, the only thing he can do is perpetuate the myth that in the party he's still surrounded by traitors, backstabbers, RINOs, Neo-Cons, or whatever other epithets can be tossed about, and then get his MAGA people to purge them through primaries, or (via evil crapweasels like Gaetz) even toppling the House Speaker for alleged treason.
It's all lies now, as competent people who might otherwise be on his side (if compromises were made - something else Trump cannot do) are driven out.
Agreed, but recall that the machine was already in place for 2024 for Biden. His stepping aside and the mantle falling on Harris may have caused it to kick in a little later than expected, but kick in it did. It just took a little longer to ramp up. Once Harris was coronated it happened quickly, since the machinery was ready to go. That's why I'm not particularly surprised by her bump -- I pretty much view everything through the "Shadow Campaign" nowadays.
That was then, this is now. Trump has the full resources of the GOP at his disposal. The whole party with very few exceptions has fallen all over itself to kowtow to him.
Rod, Trump is still Trump, with the same personality. He's not going to change before the election. If he wins, you're still going to have to put up with everything about him you don't like. In addition, nobody knows what left-field stuff he might pull in, whatever strikes him as a situation to elevate his popularity. There's nothing "crunchy" about his "conservatism" nor that of the vast majority of his supporters. I am not convinced that Trump et al in office will actually give us the room you think.
Exactly! When I lived in Missouri for a few years, I had the privilege of getting to know Senator Kit Bond. Kit was of the Republican establishment, and I really liked him very much. He was so anti-Trump that I am pretty sure he was for Hillary back in 2016. His deep aversion for Trump represented that of the old GOP. They were not necessarily wrong, but they were out of touch with the regular American (the common man) who was no longer able to make it. When the average white American felt safe and secure, he or she was pretty magnanimous; they were willing to share their good fortune. However, with what turned out to be the false promises of prosperity that were supposed to come with the information economy and globalization, the working classes lost faith in the system, as they should have. They were abandoned. Trump "hijacked" the GOP by tapping into this great sadness that turned to anger, an antipathy for the elites and the false promises they had offered. Those unfulfilled economic promises brought the working people to ruination in this country. I don't resent Bezos for his ingenious idea that made him one of the richest people in the world. I really don't, but for the millions, indeed, billions of ordinary people, they are left with nothing in this winner take all economy. They are, lost, mad, and they rally to Trump, but, sadly, he is not of them, or really for them; he is using them for his own egotistical satisfaction. J. D. Vance may be genuine. I hope so. What is happening now in America is a tragedy of enormous proportions. The elite, who do not believe in God, or in the inherent dignity and rights of their fellow man, are in control and they would rather the lower classes abort their babies and take strong drugs to cope with their sorry state, even if it means death by overdose. Ours is a ruthless system of social Darwinism. Those with high IQs fight for and find their place, and the rest just die, typically slowly. For the ordinary people with average, or below average IQs, this is hellacious existence that they cannot begin to comprehend, let alone cope with.
Remember that part of the MSM/Democrat machine's power is the ability to skew polls to make their candidates look good and make Republicans loose heart.
I hardly think it credible that Fox is "outgunned." Liberals are convinced that Fox has brainwashed half the American population and that is the only reason Republicans win elections. That too is bubble paranoia, but Fox is outgunned only among those addicted to MSNBC.
It's not outgunned, it has the biggest impact and audience. The rest of the MSM has to compete with each other for the bigger tent, while Fox has an audience that is pretty locked in (the internet is slowly changing this). This gives them much more power over the Republican party than any single MSM entity has over the Democratic party.
Trump is not a serious political thinker but I do think he realized the Republican globalist paradigm had reached the end of the line. Trump offered something different, however inchoate.
But Trump wasn't manufactured by the GOP machine. They did all they could to derail him and have only come on board because they know that he can destroy them, for now.
Trump is as pure of case of prole/people power as we have ever seen in American politics and Trump still keeps the proles at arms distance, Vance notwithstanding. Trump and Vance better get off their a$$es and make and appeal real soon and hard because the proles will take their revenge in their time honored way: indifference, stay at home. That's all it will take to lose.
Hovering in outer darkness hoping for a chance to return... like Russian nobility looking to the day they can return to claim their titles... which never happened of course.
To avoid the risk that he would die in office, and a Democratic governor appoint his successor. The same reason Breyer was pressured to retire from the Supreme Court early in Biden's term, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have retired if she hadn't been so vain about wanting Hillary Clinton to nominate her successor.
I'm hoping they are biding their time until after the Dem convention and then they'll pull out all the stops till November. They may have decided that it's pointless to try to get a message across now during Kamala's honeymoon.
Of course, they haven't been totally quiet. Vance was at the border yesterday and Trump did the outreach to the African American journalists.
I think you have it right, John. But gee, talk about unforced error. Why would he have gone before the black journalists in Chicago with the "she's hasn't really been black until now" crap? In doing it, he squandered a great opportunity for any keen politician, to transform opponents into grudging admirers.
You probably don't remember 1968. But you probably know what a fraught year that was. Edmund Muskie, Hubert Humphrey's pick for Vice President, was booed most nastily in his first appearance before college students. He started inviting hecklers on the podium with him for a brief colloquy. This had a dramatic effect on the public's perception of the Humphrey/Muskie ticket, and I remember the anguish of a lot of Dem ops after the election that if they'd just had another week to ten days, they could have beaten Nixon.
Imagine if Trump, instead of playing wounded little lambie, then questioning Harris' black cred, had said something deflective, such as, "Gee, I can't figure out which side you're on!" then proceeded to deal with all of her charges? Imagine what a difference that might have made. I know, I know, apparently at least some black males didn't think the way Trump responded was self - destructive, but anything that powers The Mainscum Media isn't helpful.
I'm going to venture something which others have probably thought. I think the shooting may have affected Trump far more profoundly than most people think. He isn't immune to PTSD. Whatever, something knocked him off his game badly, which accounts for his Castro - like indulgent acceptance speech in Milwaukee. He had the kind of listlessness which shouldn't be a surprise in someone who less than a week earlier had had a freakish escape from assassination.
Trump is never going to act political: I think the PTSD thing may be true. He looked tired in his convention speech. I think Trump just wants them to talk about him. That’s a win for him regardless of whether it’s positive or negative.
Wrong! The GOP, with Karl Rove and the rest hated Trump! The GOP machine did everything to stop him including Mitt Romney giving a fiery anti-Trump speech in March 2016 to rally the elite GOP to stop Trump. It didn’t work because MAGA became a ground swell of the common man, not party elites. For crying out loud, when Mitch McConnell is booed at a GOP convention and Pence, Bush, Cheney, Mittens Romney, and Paul Ryan were not present, but Hulk Hogan was, you know the GOP machine is dead!
I mean, what would the left fear more, an army of policy wonks, or an army of armed men each as jacked as Hulk Hogan? I think there's a lot of delusion around where some people still think it's the former, or that you could possibly preserve a Benedict Option against a totalitarian state without the latter.
John, if you are here and commenting, you are not an idiot, you are just more tolerant than I am. I just remember when I was a kid growing up in an Irish Catholic family in Massachusetts, it was the Republicans who were dignified and serious. Alas, those days are long gone. I wish you the best and I did not mean to insult you.
Bollocks. They did everything they could to prevent him winning the nom and then spent most of their time undermining him. I’m not some sycophant but I can see what was done because I supported neither party for a very long time.
I think the "GOP machine" tried their best to get Trump to go away. Even after he was elected they undermined him at every turn. The "GOP Machine" did not recast Donald Trump in any meaningful way. To the extent Trump changed it was his own doing.
Jon, I think you should watch the video. The effort of a political party to "refashion" its candidate and put their best foot forward is not at all what Mike Benz is talking about.
First of all, I think more and more that Kackles the Kommissar is going to win, mostly because a majority of Americans (especially Boomers) don’t understand how bad they’re being propagandized by the regime. In addition to that, Trump is mean, says mean things, and the United States of Therapy can’t handle harsh words.
Secondly, I find it fascinating how conservative Americans continue to think that a majority of the country is on their side over most issues. The population has been happy to turn themselves over to Bacchanalian excesses in every aspect of their lives, and the idea that any restraint should be imposed on any impulse is “traumatizing.”
But, anyway, Orange Jesus is going to destroy the institutions. The television told me so.
It doesn't help that the GOP has a long history of being hostile to working people's economic interests, and even now large segments of it remain the party of Romney and your least liked boss.
Almost everyone with strong political opinions thinks that the majority of the country is on their side. Trumpies who insist the 2020 election was stolen, Dems who from Nixon to Trump can't understand how that man won -- nobody I know voted for him. Etc. We live in bubbles of confirmation bias. I have a bit of protection from that, because I have a pale complexion, have high school friends who trend liberal, live on the north side of Milwaukee, spend time in churches that have a traditional Biblical view of marriage and sexuality, filled with people who despise Donald Trump and always vote Dem because they are sincerely afraid of the GOP. So at least I have an idea of how diverse the population really is and how different demographics mix and match what the party leaderships consider indivisible package deals. I have a notion that I actually have a better idea what 70 percent of Americans could get behind as a political platform if it were ever offered to them through the fog of the Two Party System. But my notions have not been tested, so I could be dead wrong. So could we all.
Much of that is true, some of it is twisted or distorted. I just got scraped on the side of my car yesterday by a punk trying to change lanes when he had no business doing so. I'm not immune. I know there are a lot of things to consider. I support sidewalk counselor's rights of free speech, but I do not support immunity from arrest for those who block the doors. Etc. I don't need to waste me time responding point by point.
I have a sense that if all the talking heads, candidates, party machines, were removed from the picture, we could develop a set of policies that about 70 percent of the population could either support, or accept as reasonable.
Yeah, I'm another two culture guy. Was born a Reform Jew, good liberal parents (and not the dummies ungrounded on reality that comprise some of the liberal faction today). Now Christian and conservative. Yet a resident of Seattle and surrounded by liberal folk.
It is great to have been part of more than one subculture because you see that everyone has some points and you are forced to think for yourself.
Sounds familiar. I was raised nothing (well, Unitarian), am now Orthodox Christian, live in a deeply blue state, but in a rural part of it that votes red more often than not, and work for a very woke company, but where the rank and file mostly keep their heads down. Once in a while, a few actually express what they really think about the corporate virtue signaling. So I get to hear all sides from family, friends, neighbors, co-workers.
Well that should give you some perspective- more than me. But I’ve long had the experience of being a kind of rightest in very left wing circles.I’ve been in very mixed political and religious and economic circles most of my life.Its funny sometimes. I’m enough of a dissenter to have been taken at times as left by left and left by right and vice versa. I’ve tried never to be in a bubble.
I couldn't agree with you more. I see it in my parents and their siblings. They are almost totally brainwashed. It drives me crazy how unaware they are.
Yes, I think she can absolutely win. My parents and brother are totally brainwashed and can't see how the MSM is propaganda. My father was a lifelong Republican until Trump. He used to listen to conservative talk radio, Limbaugh, etc. Now he is all about climate change, dangerous CoVID, masks, and seizing everyone's guns.
Same in my family. My mother is all in on the Trump=Hitler stuff, my Dad thinks plastics are the most important issue of our time and the Pride stuff doesn’t register to them at all. My Dad is a Veteran and rails against the “stupid kids who lost their military careers for refusing the vaccine”.
As always, whatever broad characterizations people make about intergenerational conflict, a lot of stuff cuts different ways in all directions. I turned 18 the first year we could vote at that age. The "youth vote" was touted as likely to push George McGovern to victory. Actually, a modest majority of the 18-21 vote went for Nixon. Only a modest majority, but it wasn't "all young people vote like..."
I was speaking to my particular circumstance. My parents, both 80, trust the legacy media. Their news is from Fox if there’s a baseball game on and CNN when they want serious news. That’s just how they are. They see no reason not to trust what they’ve always trusted.
A lot of younger people have said something similar about their parents over the past 15 years or so ... except the parents rely on Fox News and commentators like the late Rush Limbaugh, while the children trend liberal. This stuff is really all over the map.
While Biden was still hanging on post-debate my wife (an African American woman) was coming to the Trump side--or maybe RFK. Unfortunately, now she sees Harris as a "strong minority woman" and plans to vote for her enthusiastically. It's really strained our talk of politics because she won't even listen to any critique of Harris as she sees it as sexist or racist or both. I'm spending more nights on the couch. Darn Democrats.
Is that really true Mr. Downing? Or were you just having some fun? If it's true... That must be incredibly... I don't have a word. I don't think I could do it. Love someone, cook their food, wash their clothes and other things when I know they would have someone president who has done and not done the things she has. That is fascinating to me. From a human perspective. I don't mean to pry but you did put it out there.
It's mostly true. The sleeping on the couch part is exaggerated as it's only been threatened :)
I don't mean to imply we have a shallow relationship. Or that she's some cat lady. My wife isn't mean like some of the unhinged Karens you see on Twitter. She's just a very loyal African American woman. We are very blessed; I am very blessed I found her. Still we come from different cultures and she's very loyal to other African Americans across party e.g., the Obamas, Clarence Thomas, and now Kamala.
Thank you very much for your comment/question. I could talk about this subject endlessly. But most people (even longterm friends) are reluctant to bring it up.
It's too bad those folks she's loyal to, aren't loyal back to her and her race. Thank you for your honesty. That's one of the reasons I love Rod Dreher's Substack is the quality of folks that comment here.
I was an Independent until 2020. Then it changed. Drastically changed.
A good friend of mine who is a Democrat and decided she would definitely not vote for Biden seems like to be ok with Harris. I think many of them feel so relieved that their candidate is no longer and immediate nursing home patient that they are satisfying themselves with Harris
I think you’re forgetting (or may be unaware of) how many Biden voters were red-pilled by Covid and the ongoing gender nonsense. Most people keep quiet in controversial topics but those people have left the Dem plantation. In the circles I run in online I know plenty of former TDS sufferers who are voting for him this time around. The idea that the average person has hopeless TDS and/or stands strong behind the flagrant dismantling of women’s rights via trans ideology does not seem likely.
My guess is that everyone blinded by the propaganda and planning to vote Harris was already blinded and voting, if they had to, for Biden (“ANYONE BUT TRUMP!!”) so she really isn’t gaining people. The polls are a smokescreen. When the smog clears the truer story will emerge and that is that Trump has a very good shot if he can surmount the illegals-voting block, which is currently being created by Biden’s administration giving non-citizens social security cards, drivers licenses, and registering them to vote. That could become a serious factor, IMO. And much harder to combat via voter ID or signature matching.
Re: ) how many Biden voters were red-pilled by Covid
As I recall Covid and the more stringent measures against it happened BEFORE the 2020 election. And if anything Trump's poor performance was part of the reason he lost.
I agree that Covid did sink Trump. I bet he sees it that way too.
COVID allowed:
1. An unprecedented level of cheating via mail in ballots
2. Sanctification of science and guys like Fauci who undermined Trump at every step.
3. A precedent of controlling social media to support the MSM/Democrat narrative. They developed the skills with COVID messaging and deployed them again with Trump (see Hunter Biden's laptop).
There is not one scintilla of evidence of "cheating" beyond a few scattered incidents common in all elections, and those were as apt to be pro-Trump as pro-Biden
Covid showed Trump as an emperorxwith no clothes, unable to respond in a crisis. A capable leader would have used the Pandemic to his advantage. Reagan or Clinton would have taken that pitch and knocked it out of the park.
Jon, there is lots of evidence, including areas where more than 100% of registered voters voted, lost tallies to reconcile ballots with machine registries, etc.
Court cases were never heard because judges denied standing.
Some Trump supporters see the 2020 election as similar to the plot of Hitchcock's "The Lady Vanishes": (Spoiler alert: almost everyone on the train was in on it the whole time). In their minds the media, election officials, and the powers that be all worked together to steal the election from Trump, except for his loyal base represented by Hitchcock's leading lady, Iris, who appears totally hysterical but is the only one who figured out the real truth of what happened. The shorthand term for this is denial: that Trump fairly lost the election does not compute.
I think it's more like "The Birds" but the Democrats are standing at the door saying: "There's no birds out there!" When shown clear evidence of the birds attacking people, the Democrats shout: "There's no evidence of birds attacking people. That's a conspiracy theory. There's not a scintilla of evidence supporting this birds attacking people notion."
The red-pilled Biden voters I know (rightfully) blame Democrats and Biden for the attack on civil liberties represented by lockdowns (which we ALL know were significantly more stringent in Blue-governed states than Red), Biden and woke corporate vaccine mandates, and the flagrant double standard re: what people on the Left are allowed to get away with legally versus what people on the Right are held to account for. To say nothing of the wholesale abandonment of women's rights by the Dems who pander to gender ideology and impose its agenda throughout society to the detriment of females.
Once again, 2020 lockdowns were enacted by governors, and Dem governors FAR more than Rep governors went ALL IN on lockdowns and the alarmist rhetoric that pushed them, and they lasted for significantly longer in Blue states than most Red states. The red-pilled Dems I know are former Dems exactly because the whole party — not just Biden — went off the deep end with their attack on civil liberties and basic biology.
"Attack on civil liberties and basic biology," if there ever was a phrase that encapsulates the modern Left, it is that. Add a contempt for Christianity and any thing else associated with tradition/culture of the West.
I agree. A very important point. Rush Limbaugh used to say to ignore the polls until late October. Earlier than that and they can't be trusted because they are meant to set an agenda not accurately reflect anything.
Don’t be shocked if Harris wins. Going back to 2016 Trump’s personal approvals have never exceeded disapprovals. Few crossovers & registered libs + left independents greater in number than registered gop + right independents. Get out vote & libs win all popular vote back to 1992 save 2004. Due to lib megaphone even superior gop candidate likely polls within margin of error against loser like Harris. Not good. Truth is as society trends atheist libs own election playing field.
Only to instead try to "purify" it by reduction and purge. No sane GOP convention in the past would have allowed anyone as vile as Gaetz to give a speech, but he's a Trump attack dog so gets a place of honor.
Yah, he should have shown up thinking they were going to treat him with respect and treat him fairly. It was all meant to be unicorns and rainbows. But Trump's spoiling for a fight ruined the whole thing.
Yep. I heard that opening lambast. The idea that Trump was the one spoiling for a fight is at best an unbalanced framing of the truth on the ground at the event.
Listen to the question posed to him. Even Megyn Kelly (she who was quite confrontational to Trump during the 2016 election) says that Karen Scott's question was out of line.
I think this piece hits hard....hard enough for me to renew my subscription. I fear that we are going to lose, that in fact we can't win, we have lost already. I'm not sure even a Trump win would be a win in the larger fight. For far too long the conservatives were lazy, they sat back and tried to ignore the more radical parts of the progressive order as being outliers while shaking hands with who they thought were normal liberal neighbors.
Maybe they were for a time, normal liberal neighbors. But something happened, in the way it almost always happens...a critical mass was reached in the idea department of the left, sometime around 2012 or so...and things began to move very quickly to where we are today. When something could be done, when fewer and fewer normal liberal neighbors were showing up to the BBQ, conservatives just shrugged, said it was all just normal college youth running wild. They did not want to see...heck many still don't.
Conservatives thought they had big business, a constitution that had set some normal parameters to protect them and most of the military etc etc. The problem was in a few elite universities and in Hollywood, that had always been weird. Suddenly the monster was on the doorstep, the fires were burning on TV and in many people's neighborhoods and the TV was full of gaslighting propagandist telling us that everything was fine and peaceful. Our Churches, the rock we use to stand on in turbulent times, took up the social crusade against the norm and told us Jesus was a communist....and so our revolutionary experimented ended in a slow boiled Marxist inspired revolution of postmodern hedonism.
Even at this point the right is not doing what it needs to do to win. Too many are flying into conspiracies and too many are too whipped and demoralized to do what needs to be done, to argue to take a stand at work etc. Many have made the Faustian barging and adopted some of the progressive positions, if to just find a bit of peace. Many have fled to the side that is "winning" and still call them "liberal" and so like the exhausted run to ground Indian tribes mentioned in the tweet, one by one we are walking into the progressive reservations and closing the gates behind us, to fight no more...I think we have lost where it counts, in our hearts. Trump is just a man.
What things do you see "ending"? So far the US has an unblemished record of having regular elections. We even did so in the middle of our Civil War when Abraham Lincoln, with near dictatorial powers, feared he might lose. I think it would take something of the magnitude of nuclear war to actually cancel an election.
After the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Courthouse and Cold Harbor, Lincoln expected to lose in 1864. He ended up winning fairly easily. The Billy Yanks who could vote voted for Lincoln overwhelmingly.
Elections getting to the point where it’s an illusion and only going through the motions to make Joe Schmoe think we are still living in a democratic republic.
"I fear that we are going to lose, that in fact we can't win, we have lost already. I'm not sure even a Trump win would be a win in the larger fight."
I think this too. And in a way, I hope Trump loses, and America gets what it voted for - good and hard.
From my perch in the state of Florida, "conservatism" has been, is now and (its proponents believe) will be about doing favors for big business and reaping big campaign contributions in return. Conservatism = "pro business," and they toss social conservatives a bone every now and then. DeSantis bucked this tendency a little bit - a LITTLE bit - but Conservatism Inc. in my state is very much stuck in the '50s model.
For that to change - for a real conservatism to emerge - I think Trump has to lose and maybe lose decisively. I think Kamala/the regime has to live up to every fear we have about it - imposing wokeness from above, stoking inflation, driving us further toward a hot war with Russia and the rest. People must see that leftism has failed, to an extent that even the lapdog media can't cover it up. That may take time but in fact leftism will indeed failed, it's already failing; it's a system designed (to quote Christopher Rufo) to produce loyal mediocrities. And our country's problems won't be solved by mediocrity.
So there needs to be a well-thought out alternative and potential elected leaders that can appeal across current partisan lines. And that alternative cannot be, "More giveaways to big business, with a little more anti-wokeness thrown in." There's got to be real meat on the bones.
The Republican Party on the whole, and many individual "conservatives," aren't grasping this, don't understand that the party as they've known it is a zombie with no future. They fail to see what's happening and hold on for dear life thinking - it's fine. Of course the gravy train can keep rolling! What else is there?
And that's just it - there has to be something else.
' "conservatism" has been, is now and (its proponents believe) will be about doing favors for big business and reaping big campaign contributions in return. Conservatism = "pro business," and they toss social conservatives a bone every now and then.' I agree, and to me the Trump/Vance/Thiel ticket embodies this, just with a more socially polarizing rhetoric.
Trump deserves to lose. So does Harris. So did Biden and Clinton. That's the problem. We're being ordered to make a choice among a diverse pack of losers.
Thank you. And yet nobody on either side is making noise about revamping our election process to offer us more choices that we really would like. I think because we all know that apart from intense pressure from citizens there's no way the "powers that be" are going to be open to change.
Someone recently suggested a group called the Forward party. So far, it is focused on nonpartisan open primary elections with order of preference voting. On anything else, the general sense is, a candidate running in eastern Texas will take different positions on various issues than a candidate from Minneapolis. It could be a major successful reform, but almost certainly requires a constitutional amendment.
MAGA Republicans have done the party a huge amount of damage. They are as far from me as woke liberal people are. The media gives them all the (negative) attention so the public thinks they represent all Republican thinking.
I heard a memorable line the other day--" Conservatives are liberals just driving the speed limit". Implied is the direction is total inversion of our norms.
This 10X10X10...and until they decide to go offroad, or outflank the status quo, and do something meaningful, do you expect the "conservatives" to win a popularity contest between those that are outside of the focus of transactional politics? No. People have shown a consistent tendency to vote for those who promise to give them something in exchange for their vote.
We aren't going to actually lose, but we probably are going to "lose". I told myself in 2022 that I wasn't going to fall for the horserace nonsense and then I did anyway at the very end and was disappointed when the shenanigans happened. I'm determined not to let it happen again. If Trump wins, I want to be surprised by it like I was in 2016, when he succeeded in surprising the dems out of their own complacency.
Truthfully, the reason they swapped out Biden was because they couldn't cheat with him. He was too unpopular and too far behind for them to get away with it. Kamala gives them a chance to get the margin close enough for the shenanigans to make a difference in the swing states and she gives them plausible deniability by saying she had "momentum" and was able to squeak it out at the end.
As much as I hate to admit it, Trump, as much as I personally love him, indeed has a "hard ceiling" and that makes it easier for the dems to keep the margins close and the fraud within reach. That's just the hard truth.
If anybody had the slightest amount of good judgement in this country they'd ask both campaigns what procedures for verifying the vote each would like, and expend the money and effort to implement those. I don't care to go through another round of fighting about the validity of the election and don't think other people do either.
Calm down. We're still in the honeymoon phase with Harris. I said it before: To know Harris is to loathe her. She's not going to have the excuse of Covid to hide in her basement like Biden did in 2020. She's going to be out there, cackling and spouting frankly retarded nonsense that she thinks sounds profound.
The Democrats are still going to have their convention, which will undoubtedly contain as much woke nonsense as the Olympic opening ceremonies while Palestinian supporters riot in the streets outside. It may very well be that what you're seeing now is "Peak Harris," polling wise, and it's all downhill for her from here.
That doesn't mean that Trump and Vance won't step on their wangs a few times this fall. Of course they will and they still have to overcome Fortification for Democracy. But it's not worth worrying about yet.
+1000. Didn't people realize that Harris would likely get a bump after the announcement? As someone wrote yesterday, we're not going to have much of a clear picture until after Labor Day. This doesn't mean that the Machine won't be in full operation, however, so we can't just coast.
The thing all of us have to do, if only to preserve sanity, is to acknowledge that Trump is ineducable. He won in 2016 despite Pussygate, he (LITERALLY!) dodged a bullet, and to his mind, if that's the word, he can say anything he wants. No long-headed guru is going to get him on message. That's done. Prepare to be embarrassed and offended. I thought maybe he had changed when he let Joe destroy himself at the debate, but that's over and done with.
This puts an enormous burden on J.D., because, as stated, he's the one who's going to have to go to substance. And once the election is won, if it' won, he's the one who's going to have to execute, because that's something else Trump can't, or won't do.
Just accept Cheetoh Jesus as the hand we've been dealt.
I hear Cheetoh Jesus performed a miracle on the Frito Lay assembly line…someone fell in the vat of powered cheese and he resurrected him…the legend grows
"The Democrats are still going to have their convention, which will undoubtedly contain as much woke nonsense as the Olympic opening ceremonies while Palestinian supporters riot in the streets outside. It may very well be that what you're seeing now is "Peak Harris," polling wise, and it's all downhill for her from here."
Richard Baris at The People’s Pundit is the hand’s down best pollster to follow as his polls are far more carefully done to discern actual voter sentiment rather than a preferred narrative. And his take is exactly this—it’s manufactured hype that has no legs, and the post-honeymoon reality will provide a much different picture.
I don't know how much of a different picture will be shown. Even senile Biden wasn't doing great but not Trump-landslide bad. I can't imagine that Harris after the convention won't get a bump that hangs around and we will just get another 2016 and 2020 style nailbiter.
They’ve raised a billion. They are not stupid enough to expose her to any hard questions or anything that isn’t strictly scripted. We’ve seen this film before. Republicans are unprepared as usual.
You are correct. This same thing happened in 1988 with Dukakis. He led Bush by 17 points that summer. By election time, Bush won by eight points. Harris does not portray strength and there is enough video of her from years past to fluster her into Dukakis moments. The media is in a tizzy because Trump said Harris was Indian before she was black. That comment is true and causes the left to go nuts. As Vivek Ramaswamy said, “Is she ashamed of her Indian heritage?” The left can’t define what a woman is. Can they define what is Black? Truth provides clarity where deception does not.
Re: he survived an assassination attempt, and with his face bloodied, pumped his fist into the air, and chanted, “Fight! Fight! Fight!”
Theatrical bombast. Show me quiet courage in the face of overwhelming adversity. Heck, give me TR finishing his speech after being shot.
Re: he various parts of the Machine — the Democratic Party, the media, the tech masters, and others — have come together brilliantly to show how easy it is to manufacture reality, and therefore consent.
Huh? This blog has long pumped the idea that Biden is senile. OK, evidence of Biden's decline was on full public display at that debate. This was not some "manufactured" reality. What should party do if its prospective nominee appears to be non compos mentis? Pretty much to a first approximation, what was done. Nothing wrong or sinister about that.
An odd thing I saw pointed out about the Dionysia tableau: there was no booze in it. Has Dionysos joined AA? One would have expected a lot more drunken debauchery at such a revel. heck, Disney's Fantasia cartoon's mythology sequence had more of that! This was a Dionysia put on by Carrie A Nation and Lemonade Lucy.
"Theatrical bombast. Show me quiet courage in the face of overwhelming adversity."
Trump has spent three years fighting a corrupt DOJ trying to, quite literally, throw him in prison. That shows incredible resilience that would have broken weaker men. In fact, the overwhelming majority of men would have caved. Trump didn't, and he hasn't.
But I understand your TDS is particularly acute, so these realities are obscured from your recognition.
You're not wrong. Though it does seem his prosecutions are highly politically motivated, like the creative means Bragg used to make the charges against him a felony.
Agreed, though, Trump fights not because he is a mighty hero but because anyone would.
No, most would not. Most politicians have cowered and caved before a mere fraction of what has come against TRump. The mere whispering of "you are a racist," has them on their knees.
Really? What would you do if you were shot by a bullet? Do you think you would worry about your supporters and ensure that there weren't more injuries as people flee the scene?
And do you believe that all of Trump's supporters (many here) are such bad people, so deplorable, so stupid and lacking in virtue that they deserve the calumnies casually thrown their way?
And would such people be calm in the face of 8 bullets flying?
If there is one thing the DOJ is doing right, it is having the courage to prosecute a former president for blatant and obvious attempts to subvert an election he clearly and legititimately lost.
I'm retired from work as an on-staff temp, and my last job before that was under union contract with a private company no sane person would work for without a union. Nice try. I'm now trying to get by on a modest social security payment, without any pension.
I'm doing my work for free. My garden demands a lot of attention, I've almost lost the rose bushes behind a prolific array of diverse weeds, and I have a chess team to devote myself to. Do you spend all your time in a dark corner muttering about what you imagine the lives of others are like?
Pure bloviating nonsense. Bovine fecal matter on steroids. The DOJ has never charged Trump with those crimes, so you don't even know what you're talking about. All you feel, deep in your heart, is hatred for Orange Man Bad. He haunts your dreams and he occupies the real estate of your mind. I recommend therapy, respectfully.
But I appreciate your spelling of "legitimately": I much prefer legiTITimately.
So far, you are howling at the wind with a string of adjectives, showing all the maturity of a five year old throwing a temper tantrum on a playground. When you have something factual to say, I will endeavor to respond to it.
If only they had booze! At least then we'd have something in common.
Also, and this will come across as very mean, but couldn't they have had actually attractive people in the opening ceremony? It would have been more alluring than the slop we got.
Be as mean as you want. One of the aspects of today's culture with which I am seriously out of accord: the valuation of the grotesque. Sure, we can't all be Adonises and Aphrodites, and that can be overdone. But fat and homely are not attractive! Lesbians always had a thing for the Earth Mother type but at least one used to be able to count on gay guys to care about looking good. Now that the "T" are in charge we're bombarded with phantasmagoric tattoos, crazypants piercings and rolls of fat more normal for assorted marine mammals.
The man stood up from the ground with his ear bleeding from a bullet wound, and had the presence of mind to raise his fist and urge his followers to "fight" -- and you dismiss it as "theatrical bombast"?! I don't even like Trump, but that was impressive. As a couple of people said right after that (I don't think on this newsletter), in the shock of having been shot, or nearly shot, you don't have time to compose yourself; what we saw there was some inner quality of Trump's.
It may have been impressive personally, but it doesn't carry the weight with voters that you seem to assign to it. So many things that The Base of either candidate thinks will be decisive just don't make much difference. Sure, its heroic to those who follow him. To the rest, thank God an assassination didn't succeed, but he'd make an awful president.
About half of your fellow citizens disagree. Among the other half, which carries as much weight but no more, about forty percent don't really approve, but they are more afraid of the Democrats. I can sympathize, but not emulate.
If I believed that half my fellow citizens were on board with such nonsense, I would truly despair and join Rod's frequent theme "We're doomed!" But I happen to know that even among committed Democratic voters, there are huge numbers who don't believe that at all. Do you really credit the people who live in bubbles of their own confirmation bias when they talk AS IF half of our fellow citizens believed that?
It was impressive in the moment, but it also shows that this is the only way Trump knows how to work: by immediate reaction. There's never any follow-through at all with him. It's "Squirrel!" and he's off to the races on something else he hopes to react against.
Brass ones. See Alec Baldwin's speech from Glengarry Glen Ross. That's what managing what's coming is going to take. The big bad wolf is knocking on the door. A few terrorist attacks or a "dirty bomb" incident (which is what the large cities expect and are training for) and Trump isn't going to seem so icky to the effeminate masses.
We've seen Trump's response to crises. He fumbles badly. Or maybe seeks a photo op, which he'll botch. Remember that upside down Bible after sending out the palace guard to clear the way for him to pose in front of that church?
You are easily impressed Rod. Trump had a bare flesh wound, if even that much. I have scars from nastier mishaps, one of which cut all the way to the bone.
The inner quality was indeed there: bombast. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I prefer the stoic virtues-- hence TR continuing his speech after he actually was shot. That's a real man!
There's a difference between a wound, even one to the bone and one that is a few millimeters more to the brain in a life terminating event. Not quite the same. But you are a tough fella for sure!
I imagine that old TR is spinning in his grave, knowing that the likes of JonF311 are using him as an example to criticize Trump's reaction to being shot.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again; because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Please. There's no comparison between Trump and TR. Or even to Reagan's quiet self deprecation when he was shot (and almost killed) You folks are so easily impressed. O tempora, O mores I guess.
If you listen to Pageau's full talk on the theater, he says a couple of times that he's not sure even those who put it on knew what they were doing. Personally I think the lack of booze on display is due to the weird neo-Puritanism of modern culture, where displays of mass drinking are now very very taboo for the upper classes because they're seen as things only stupid poor people do with cheap stuff. Wine is very much seen now among such still as something to be enjoyed, but you just do not debauch with $300 bottles (and who would drink anything less).
Put simply, the lack of wine was a statement that this was purely an upper class affair.
But Dionysus wasn't just about wine and drunkenness - the lack of it is beside the point. It's still a bacchanalia, but with sex as the real "magic" this time.
You're right about modern puritanism among the self-preening avant garde. And there isn't even any sex going on in that tableau. The participants do not exactly inspire even base lust.
That's lack of real lust is also part of the point of the weird spectacle too. The whole stupid show was entirely meant for offense, like an obscene joke. Except that it's like a joke taken way way too far.
But make no mistake, it is both a statement of the upper classes about their own cultural superiority, and demonic insult mocking Christianity. It's just that it's a supremely boorish joke with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer. And even Gallagher did that way better.
What's the matter with loud courage? You ever been shot, Jon? After a years long campaign to destroy you legally, financially, personally? He displayed heroic courage. You may not like his style, but the substance of the thing you try so hard to deny just makes you look petty, small and priggish.
I would highly recommend going over to Rasmussen Reports and checking out their analysis of Kamala's "bounce": they are already seeing signs that it's fading. A temporary effect.
Also, remember: after the Democratic convention in summer of 1988, Dukakis led George Bush by 17 points! He lost by 6 or 7 in November.
It's almost pointless to be worrying about this stuff in August.
Yep, and as I've repeatedly said, no one thought DT even had a remote chance in 2016 until October. I have a friend who predicted a Trump win in September of that year, based on the electoral vote and the swing states, and we all thought he was nuts.
The main thing in 2016 is that Clinton was a few points ahead of Trump among decided voters, with something close to ten percent undecided. The undecided vote swung decisively for Trump, which pulled him just about even. When the popular vote is close, all kinds of things can happen in the electoral college.
OK, but it's not "pointless" to be worried about how the campaign is going. Look at Weirdgate. J.D. made the colossal mistake of doubling down on attacking portions of his electorate, rather than the politicians who foster the policies that encourage such pathologies. And he picked on women. As I've said he could just as well have gone after porn- and drug-addled young men unable to achieve arousal in the presence of a real girl. But all this is issue framing, and not actually message. The border, inflation, trade and crime. Nothing else will win for the GOP. Yes, Kamala was likely to get a bump under any circumstances, and WE ARE MORE THAN TWO WEEKS OUT from the convention. The upside is that the Republicans have that time to get their act together. It's depressing when the top of the ticket is occupied by a human dumpster fire, but there it is.
"Weirdgate" is symptomatic, an utterly artificially generated nothing.
They have nothing of substance of which to attack JD Vance. So this is what they've got. It is only an indictment of the rot of the media. And those who fall for it, an indictment on them, and any number of flaws in character/intellect.
It was silly, and not wrong. I know the kind of women he's talking about. I'm a cat bro, too. These same kind of women are the sorts who have those COEXIST bumper stickers, yet likely wore COVID masks alone in those vehicles and often could be the sort described as a "Karen."
Dude, in politics it doesn't matter that it's true. There are a lot of things hotter than that that I could say that are also true and Dreher would throw me off these boxes for good. Does it move the ball? That's the only question to ask.
Do not underestimate or dismiss it. The "weird" campaign is a gossip attack, which has worked for females utilizing non violent power for centuries. It introduces suspicion. Creates Us v Them bonding. Inspires mob action. Look around. Cancel culture is everywhere, and is a testament to the power of gossip attacks and the social shunning that follows them. Weak opponents can destroy someone with gossip if it's spoken often enough and by the right people. Humanity (especially emotional female humanity) makes decisions (and takes action!) based on gossip.
But don't let it panic you, don't give it credence and never, NEVER, let them see you sweat. The most effective strategy against the gossip/whisper attack is simply carrying on with your life, and demonstrating you do not GAF.
The worst thing you can do is cower and apologize to it. The next worst thing is being seen as panicking or giving credence.
Deny its power by humor, sarcasm and getting on with things. They cannot hurt you.
Worst thing you can do is dance to their tune, letting them call that tune. The bullies in school never controlled me. The mean girls, I ignored and laughed at. The male bullies, ignored until I had to push their faces in. Which I did on more than one occasion. I'm grateful to them for helping teach me how to fight, in both respective arenas.
I don't believe it was a colossal mistake to double down. It doesn't matter what Vance would have said, the MSM were going to find something and try to make him apologize for it. While being able to apologize is a good trait, being forced to is often a sign of profound weakness, and I'm glad he didn't cave.
The point he was making, with perhaps a poor analogy, is that our country is DYING because we aren't reproducing. And that the rewards of career and license dim substantially as on ages, and confronts life alone.
I think that maintaining the country is a battle worth fighting. The demographic trends of low birth rates and unwillingness to marry are grave issues.
Not to mention the inversion of God given male and female roles. (BTW I am a woman marinated in the "feminist" movement but thank goodness a Southerner so I did not fully succumb)
'It didn't happen and they deserved it' is slowly becoming my favorite response to these kinds of leading questions. It's not very constructive but I feel like we're well past constructive argument these days.
I freaking called it. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE. AND DON'T BELIEVE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!
Rod, no offense, but as much as you put forth this bad boy outsider conservative image, there's a part of me that thinks you miss having a seat at that table and you deeply lament that institution failing so completely as it has. Rather than accepting it is just a small part of just where the world is now, spiritually and culturally.
And you continue to give these long dead organizations and organs far more cred than any objective journalistic analysis would warrant.
A President Harris is a frightening possibility. She is untethered from a any realistic conception of America’s founding principles or constitutional restraints. She would, if possible, eliminate the Senate filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, allow millions of illegal — sorry, “undocumented” — migrants to enter the country with a guide path to citizenship, … . Trump is a terribly flawed candidate, but Harris is an existential threat to democracy.
I mostly agree, but Trump transferred money from other accounts to build his silly wall after congress declined to make an appropriation, and Biden boasted "I didn't let the Supreme Court stop me" from unilaterally canceling student loan debt (which meant U.S. taxpayers repay the banks since the loans were guaranteed).
If Miss Harris wins the Presidency, the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are likely to be miniscule. And the Democrats would lose their majorities in the 2026 election. The American political system is designed to be clunky except under unusual circumstances like 1933 or the 1860s.
Yes, our Constitution contains checks and balances that were designed to keep the ship of state from tilting too far in any one direction. A president, however, has enormous opportunities to do serious harm, both short and long term — executive orders, regulatory and antitrust policies, failure to enforce laws, government largess and contracts to favored groups and constituents, selective legal action against groups and individuals who are not favored, foreign policy mistakes and debacles … . No, if this were a different America I wouldn’t worry as much about a possible President Harris, even if Democrats secured narrow majorities in both Houses of Congress. But, unfortunately, this is not that America.
Very true. But the same is true of Trump. In 2016, a retired army officer told me, we've been offered a terrible choice, but I think our democratic institutions are strong enough to restrain Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton is so adept at manipulating the levers of power that if she gets in, there will be no stopping her.
This year, Harris is certainly a Hillary wannabe, but while she has a glib tongue to pander to her base, she is a newbie who does not have Clinton's adeptness at actually getting much done. I haven't decided whether to vote for her out of loathing for Trump, or to skip both because I am so sick of having these repulsive choices thrust on me by the Duopoly.
I literally just wrote this two days ago and on another Substack...
"how does someone go from a crazy low approval rating to this in two short weeks. It doesn't add up. It's the machine at work and Barry is in her ear." Plus a ton of money. A ton. I cannot emphasize enough the fact that "Barry is in her ear".
I will absolutely not be surprised to see her win. Because they will do whatever it takes to keep Trump out of office. It really just shows how terrified they are of losing.
I've also been saying for about 8 months now that regardless of who "wins", the poop will hit the fan. One group is going to be very, very upset. What I cannot predict is just what the conservative/Rep side will do if they lose. I know what the left side will do if Trump wins and the NG better be ready.
At the risk of promoting another book not written by Mr. Dreher on his site, Blaine Pardoe wrote "Blue Dawn". If you want to see what a potential future looks like.
Nonsense. The machine outed itself in 2021. If our old friend Barlaam of Weimerica, an actual leftist, were here, he'd be all over this like white on rice.
So many thoughts, none of them really all that good.
This election will be determined if more men vote for Trump than women vote for Harris. The gender war has come into politics, and will reveal the faultline in America.
A darker thought, what happens if one loses the respect of others to vote? I'm sure its the first step towards dictatorship, but when someone votes not begrudgingly but *enthusiasticly* for the LGBT woke stuff, an internal sense of disgust wells up inside of me.
I'd say bring back the British Monarchy, but King Charles is less than inspiring these days.
Reading that piece from Reason immediately brings to mind Harrison Bergeron. We were warned decades ago, people!
Charles II was actually a pretty good king - he knew how to play politics and balance factions. His brother James II, though, was more like Charles I, and so driven out.
Charles Windsor has some real skills and insights in urban planning. He could do well by his country focusing on that profession. Charles II certainly provided a kind of interregnum where everyone could catch their breath. But little more than that.
I read some years ago that he actively intervened in the administration of the Duchy of Cornwall, one of his hereditary sources of income, which is generally run in his name by faceless bureaucrats. He had noted a lack of coordination in paving roads, placing and maintaining electrical, water, and other utilities, and wanted things done more rationally and with less disruption to daily life. The same article mentioned his loathing of modern architecture, and while I don't wish to see everything baroque, I largely agreed.
I don't think he particularly favors the Baroque. Based on what I've seen, his main concerns seem to be with human-sized spaces, and a neo-classical / regency aesthetic. Very English, beautiful and adorned, but not to the excesses of the late Victorian.
Charles II was, in retrospect, too lazy until too late in his reign (if the goal was to firmly consolidate and institutionalize monarchical authority) - but if James II had not been a Catholic none of that might have mattered, and England might have gone the way of Sweden at that time - i.e., not to become a truly "absolute monarchy" as Denmark did in 1661, but with Parliament granting the king fairly sweeping powers to tax and legislate (although Sweden experienced in 1721 a far more drastic reduction of royal power than occurred in England in 1689 - until a royal coup in Sweden in 1772 reversed all that).
I've often wondered if Charles's behavior was, in part, not exactly laziness so much as "avoiding taking too many decisive actions for fear of consequences." The fate of his father had to have weighed heavily on him, and I've similar behavior in others who have been through hard times through which they've been either powerless or often overridden by others - it's not laziness per se (though it can appear as such to others) so much as pulling back from actual leadership if there are other louder, more forceful, or more passionate personalities present because they're trying to avoid conflict. Hard to judge at this distance, of course.
Charles faced powerful opposition to any attempt to restore royal power to pre-1640 levels, and he knew it. The Popish plot where he was compelled to sign death warrants of men he knew were innocent showed the limits of his power.
"Charles faced powerful opposition to any attempt to restore royal power to pre-1640 levels, and he knew it."
I don't deny it - but if his overriding goal were to secure royal authority and financial independence he could have done much more to secure that goal, both in terms of policy and image in the decade after 1660.
"The Popish plot where he was compelled to sign death warrants of men he knew were innocent showed the limits of his power."
Again, I don't deny it - but his fecklessness (or lack of consistent concern with governance) in the late 1660s and the 1670s played a role in bringing matters to that pass.
The thing about Harris is that her victory would be a disaster for working men and women. All the left cares about anymore is being woke and serving their allies in the corporate boardrooms. The most effective reaction that can happen on the right is a form of socially conservative Marxism. There can’t be anything else that will be an effective answer to what will happen.
Socially conservative Marxism. I almost like the sound of that. My only objection is that I realized some decades back that Karl Marx has been dead for over 150 years, like most humans he got some things right and some things wrong, and basing any political program on how it does or doesn't align with his mostly outdated writings doesn't make sense. But a modest economic socialism to bring down the power of the corporate boardrooms, while restoring a conservative sense of limited cultural norms, I'm all for that. The other thing we disagree about is your faith that Trump will somehow make a positive contribution.
I’m actually back to shaking my head about Trump. It is clear that he has lost his political instincts some time back. A person who had just take a bullet and had the kind of resulting photo op, should have been ten to fifteen points ahead in the polls, especially running against someone like Harris. As for the boardrooms, people are angry, but still are convinced that “muh capitalism” is going to deliver some sort of salvation. Selling a dream of wealth that few will ever be able to achieve, holding onto whatever they have managed to scrape together, etc. I don’t know. It is hard to not be cynical about it all these days.
There is a line in the book "Ragtime" about men who work their fingers to the bone go home at night, not to dream of the cooperative commonwealth, but of becoming rich. A long time younger friend who is certifiably "black" dreams of being able to afford to have a maid. (No reason she shouldn't any more than anyone else.) I think this is human nature -- we always worry first about ourselves and our family and what we can provide for those we love most. So, any program to dethrone the corporate board rooms has to be rooted in "How will this make life better for me?" But its worth remembering that it was Liberal Republicans who ended Reconstruction.
Doesn’t help that the media has pretty much memory holed it. I no longer believe that the mainstream media is a dying institution. They still wield a helluva a lot of power. Alternatives are scattered and costly. I have a ton of subscriptions that I’m going to start culling because I just can’t afford all of them. If people haven’t learned a lesson from Biden in the Basement strategy about Kamala then we deserve what we get.
Understandable! Not the best place to start. The Communist Manifesto is basically polemic.You want to get the hang of it-.read Lesckek Kolakowskis Main Currents of Marxism.If you want to start in Marx , I’d go for Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and German Idelogy. Marx the economist is less interesting in my book
Das Kapital is basically a recitation of detailed statistics housed at the British Imperial Library, and some historians have concluded that they were utterly unreliable, because they were compiled from reports submitted by British public servants, who in the manner of many public servants in many times and places, couldn't be bothered to actually go count, they just made some numbers up that seemed about right and plugged them into their reports.
Marx while not an advocate of polymorphist perversity was not a social conservative. And religion is antithetical to any Marxist conception of the world. Religion is an expression of man’s alienation and is to be overcome. Now you can have a welfare state and a regulated mixed economy. But socialism as a long term prospect is only possible through Leninist means. If as I believe all systems tend towards oligarchy, a system which already concentrates all power in the state is particularly prone to oppression and corruption. Anarchists grasped this but really what do they offer?
Spoken like a true Leninist. There was a time I took that level of despair seriously. The fact that all systems tend toward oligarchy is precisely why Lenin said it wasn't enough to socialize the "commanding heights" of the economy, but all small business (the petit bourgeoisie) had to be eliminated. But that's not sustainable either. I think we need an anti-trust and regulatory framework that exerts more control as an enterprise gets larger, without entirely denying a persevering individual a reasonable return on their years of 90 hour weeks and sacrifice to reinvest in the business.
No, Marx was not a social conservative. I didn't say he was. I said I see merit in a certain level of social norms that are generally honored. Marx's commentary on "community of women" is good sardonic humor, as far as "'he bourgeoisie already practice that, they love to seduce each other's wives.' But otherwise its a maudlin distraction. Anarchism opens the door for a handful of bullies to take over (because who has authority to stop them) which leads to unrestrained dictatorship.
Your first line made me laugh! ( I appreciated it).You’re not wrong but you’re wrong to see this as an expression of despair.Socialism is going to Leninism or it will not be. Thats ok with me . An anti trust framework combined with anti bigness regulations is probably a recipe for for stagnation but it’s not socialism.
Marx disliked the family, and at times seems to be advocating what we would call polyamory. Homosexuality wasn't really on the radar then for sober political consideration.
Actual Marxists (not "Marxists") I've met, such as members of the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party of Great Britain, tend to see sexual debauchery as not so much reprehensible as irrelevant; what one does with one's genitals has no bearing on one's political role.
I, on the other hand, tend to see trad Christian sexual morality as closely linked to egalitarian economics. Monogamy is sexual socialism. The family has collapsed because the boss class decided that forcing women into the workforce was useful for reducing wages and smashing the unions. They support LGBT because gays make ideal corporate warriors, with few nonnegotiable ties, and rootless ruthlessness. They support abortion to make hetero females more like homosexual men. Transgenderism and surrogacy constitute the commodification of even the most intimate aspects of human life.
The Christian Socialists and/or Distributists were right all along.
Very interesting! Very right wing socialist!I don’t agree with the policies implicit here but your onto a series of thoughts I’ve had myself.Many years ago, I was into reading a lot of Marcuse ~ now perhaps weirdly , I’d long since flipped right, I was at a dinner on the Yale campus and talked to a professor from Latvia who was horrified that I was babbling about Marcuse. I said no I get it but ,what Im getting at is Marcuse can be read as a voice detailing the assimilationist nature of capitalism. Useful. Of course structural capitalism turns all that Is solid into air.Schumpeter saw capitalism as “ progressive “‘but knew it undermined
Itself.So absolutely the capitalist class wants to extend economic relations and productivity across the board.,The economization of everything.
The political groups you talk about were Leninist. That’s one spin on Marxism. More specifically, Trotskyite? I maintain that Lenin was correct on socialism but a questionable interpreter of Marxism. On that, Rosa Luxemburg , is probably more sound.
The only groups I've had contact with are the SWP and SPGB. There are lots of other groupuscules knocking about; they tend to be comical more than anything else.
I shared a flat decades ago with a couple who were in the SPGB. That claims to be the purest form of Marxism, founded by Marx himself, rejecting the Russian Revolution from the word go.
The SWP are a bit more active. I knew a few members years ago, and even went to a couple of meetings. They are Trotskyist, but I don't know exactly how they differ from other Trotskyist sects. These are the group to which Peter Hitchens used to belong.
The day Biden picked her for veep, I remarked to a certifiably "black" friend that Harris reminded me of a Beverly Hills society lady stepping out of a tanning salon.
I think it is bizarre that we have not had an authentic black nominee from the Democrats - in the sense of a person who was descended from slaves, had family suffer through the twin injustices of racism and poverty, not born into privilege, etc. For all the hoopla made about Obama, he was not connected to the black experience in this country. That blacks still are loyal to the Democratic Party is equally bizarre. I won’t say that the Republican Party is any sort of haven, but at least the threat of withholding all out support until there is a black candidate with those types of roots, seems like a worthwhile idea to pursue. The falling all over themselves to nominate Harris is a farce, or at least shows that the person whoever is president really has no power to do anything.
Al Sharpton could never win an election in a country where the population is only 13 percent "black." Barack Obama proved he could be a viable candidate after winning the Iowa caucuses. That's when cynical "black" voters realized an articulate "black" candidate could get enough "white" support to win a national election. Before that, at least a third of "black" voters supported Clinton, figuring Obama could never win a national election. There are, of course, many people descended from slaves who could make a broader appeal than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. But, as Obama observed, when he grew older he did experience the everyday post-Jim Crow indignities like cab drivers passing him by. I'm not sure that's such a big deal. His wife pretty much took care of the "he's not black enough" line among Americans of African descent. Harris is a default candidate, and perhaps the 800 pound elephant in the room nobody could remove. Two weeks before Joe accepted the inevitable, Harris was reportedly hurt that everyone was talking about anyone but her to replace Biden. As the veep with an election only a few weeks out, she was able to sit and pout and make herself obvious and start a little snow rolling until it was an avalanche.
Art is a hobby horse. Not at all relevant to salvation. Soteriology. Art can be beautiful or ugly and base vomit. I think any art made after January 1st 1900 is vomit and not art. Prove me wrong. I greatly prefer John Waterhouse or El Bosco from Holland. Heironomous Boche
"If you are a conservative like me, you are finding yourself standing here wondering how on earth Kamala Harris is doing so well against Donald Trump."
As you point out, the machine is at work. Here's a very detailed explanation of how:
https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1758529993280205039
Oh please. She's doing so well because the alternative is Donald Trump. Just as, Donald Trump is doing far better than he deserves because the alternative is Kamala Harris, or indeed, and Democrat of her ilk.
I missed your concerns with the interview I linked.
I have no concern with the interview you linked. If Tucker Carlson said it was raining, I would definitely step outside to check. He's all opinion, and any factual claims he made would have to be cross-checked from sources that I already peruse.
Actually, during the hour-long interview, Tucker hardly ever comments. Though you do make an interesting ad hominem argument, you should direct it at the person actually being interviewed. It would still be a fallacy, but it would be a more appropriate one.
I have this fantasy in which Rod recommends to Tucker Carlson to invite me on his show. He asks me, what is a lefty like you doing accepting my invitation? Won't all your friends cancel you? I don't have many of THOSE kind of friends. But my basic answer would be, there is no such thing as bad publicity. If a million people who adore Tucker Carlson and a million people who spend time on social media trashing Tucker Carlson all here about whatever I have to say or promote, then its good for me. If he invites JD Vance at the same time, I will compliment Vance's book, but I would have nothing to say admiring his political career.
Yes. Trump is fouling up his advantage and will probably not win because of that. Doesn't he have campaign advisors or something?
Donald J. Trump take advice? Who is qualified to give advice to Donald J. Trump?
He values blind loyalty over listening to someone who actually might have good advice.
I'm not sure I agree with that, Martha. He doesn't like disloyal people, though of course he doesn't apply this standard to himself.
I remember something from long ago, something someone who knows Trump well said in an interview. The interviewer was taking the already set - in - stone view of Trump as a general menace, and asked the interview subject something like, "But isn't Trump a terror to work for? Doesn't he constantly interfere with what his subordinates are doing?"
Not at all, said the guy. Trump values expertise, and if he's convinced someone has it in the field he wants it in, Trump will leave the person alone, and will accept the subordinate's view of a matter. It was striking to me, and memorable, because I had that idea, that working for Trump would be somewhat comparable to working for Stalin, of whom that would have been true.
And this does make sense. Trump did not become as successful in New York real estate as he did by thinking that he knew enough to countermand what a subordinate thought was right. ( Obviously, enough mistakes and the person would be gone, but isn't this true of any job? )
He'd better be open to advice, because he's done otherwise.
I don't doubt that, but I think its more because if he doesn't have to be bothered with the details, he's happy to have a paid subordinate doing the hard work of making his money for him. On the other hand, if he's handed an opportunity to drop a missile on an Iranian high level officer in Bagdhad, he's not going to take sober advice on all the pros and cons, he's going to make an impulsive decision and go with his gut.
I've been recommending Brendan Borrell's book, "The First Shots." about the development of the COVID vaccine. Without trying to retype several pages of the book, there were several people in both private industry and government agencies like NIH who thought they could harness mRNA technology to produce a vaccine in record time. They had to do a lot of political maneuvering, including persuading gatekeeper Jared Kushner to arrange access to Trump, but Trump asked, can we really get a vaccine in a year, and assured they could said that's wonderful.
Trump of course had been looking for a magic bullet since the beginning. First he denied COVID would be a significant problem, then he wanted it over and done and out of his way. He didn't have a lot to offer in making it happen, he jumped from one wild idea to another. But presented a workable plan by competent people, he was happy to give them all the funding they needed and clear the way for them.
I said this to someone recently, and if it was you, I apologize for my redundancy:
Inasmuch as the gastrointestinal tract is lined with billions of neurons, and therefore legitimately thought of as an annex of the brain's, going with one's gut is not only not primitive but is a legitimate form of thought. It isn't everyone's, of course, and while I don't doubt that it is primarily Trump's, writing as a gut thinker myself, I would be surprised to learn that when an instinct kicks in, he doesn't gnaw away at it at least a little before making a decision based on it.
Was it gut or was it logic which motivated President Kennedy to overrule every other member of the ExComm sessions, including, his later fibs to the contrary notwithstanding, his brother, Robert, and order not a knockover invasion of Cuba in October, 1962, but a blockade? I think it was informed gut; he'd been deeply impressed by Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August," and had realized what you would have thought most if not all of them would have realized, how the unexpected and the misinterpreted can lead to catastrophe.
But no one knew until the Venona papers were declassified in the early 1990s that that crazy, thuggish mother******, Khrushchev, had smuggled not just strategic nukes but tactical nukes into Cuba. If Kennedy had done the "sensible" thing and ordered the knockover invasion, we would have been at nuclear war.
Let us speak in praise of the wonders of the gut.
“Kamala Harris is no different today than she ever was. It’s just that the Machine has reframed her.” —- THANK YOU for this quote! I mentioned the same thing in my podcast because what we’re seeing is the “machine” manipulating reality to where participants are now under the constraints of cognitive dissonance to vote for her: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/how-voting-creates-cognitive-dissonance
From the unorthodox perspective, whether she wins or loses, we must wake up, and fight another day. We’ve learned a lot and survived 4 years under Biden. We’ve grown tremendously. Whether she wins or loses, we must continue the good fight and escape this comfort cage the machine has put us in: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-comfortable-cage-of-our-modern
Donald Trump was a tabloid buffoon and reality show star for years and years. And yet he was refashioned into a serious candidate for the White House. The GOP machine manufactures reality too, and is quite good at it.
Translate leader into German. I've never gone along with facile comparisons of Trump to Hitler, Trump makes Mussolini look like a genius. But "the man is a leader," standing almost alone as justification, raises the comparison.
Maybe Trump's just the new Lincoln. Or Teddy Rosevelt.
More like William Henry Harrison.
Your references are better than mine :)
Whatabout. Whatabout. Whatabout.
A saying from the olden days, often spoken by my mother -- you may have heard it: "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Yeah he's in rare form this morning.
Yeah you’d think he could at least be glad that a number of Americans imprisoned in Russia were freed.
No, two wrongs make an intractable mess. But Jon F is saying the same thing you just said -- Harris is awful, so is Trump. Its not one is right and the other is wrong.
No he's not, because if that were the case he'd be criticizing Harris instead of dragging DT into it. That's what "whatabout" does -- tries to soften the blow against one side by bringing up the foibles of the other.
Sigh. JonF was responding to a one-dimensional critique of the Democratic offering, by pointing out the other half. He wasn't justifying anyone. "Whatabout" is seldom a legitimate criticism, because in the end, both parties are guilty, and no whatabout or accusation of whatabout changes that.
In case you haven't noticed, Jon has a rather robust history of whataboutism. I'm sticking with my criticism.
Imagine an alternate universe where candidate Trump wakes up, realizes he could stop fooling around and instead try to mitigate his character defects and be of genuine service to the country by being the great president he could be, since after all he is 78 and this is his last act on earth.
And no, that's not gonna happen.
I thought Trump would see the light after he narrowly avoided death, but that only happens in the movies.
3 rights make a left in NJ.
Or any urban grid pattern.
You hit the nail on the head Jon! So many people can see the propaganda when the LEFT does it, but many fail to realize it when the RIGHT does it: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-right-propaganda-is-still-propaganda
Propaganda is still propaganda
Agree. You can't blame either the left or the right for trying to make lemonade out of their lemon of a candidate. The main difference is that the left has the benefit of a complicit media.
Exactly! The right does it this way, but the left — the left has the whole media train behind them and I think it’s more so because left policies are more so about mind control, so what better tool to control the population than media: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/democide-and-menticide
I use the analogy of a bird with two wings: one wing blue and one wing red — but either or, that wing still flys on the path the “Oligarchical Party” wants it to take: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-metaphysical-ritual-of-voting
The right has one too, but the left's is substantially larger and more powerful/influential. MSNBC is default mode, Fox remains an outlier.
The Trump phenomenon is far more interesting. Trump branded himself as a plausible president not WITH the help of the GOP messaging system, but IN SPITE OF IT. And, in spite of the fact that the entire media industrial complex was against him. All political campaigns are about packaging, of course. It is nevertheless a stunning thing that in only two weeks, Kamala has gone from being a joke to being the savior of democracy.
That is his greatest strength. Although I find him entirely inadequate, he did run as an anti-Establishment candidate. Actually, he got the nomination in 2016 by winning about a third of the vote in a crowded primary field, with a mostly winner-take-all approach to assigning delegates. I don't buy into Trumpism because I see him as a minnow in the swamp raging furiously that he isn't as big a fish as his ego tells him he should be. He's mad he hasn't been admitted to the Big Boys Club, no matter how many times he was invited to the Clinton White House. But, he did very effectively make his whining resonated with far more legitimate grievances from The Average Man and Woman.
But you also can't discount Trump's name recognition and the billions of dollars in free press he got in the runup to the 2016 election. Even allegedly hostile outlets had him on constantly for the entertainment value.
Trump greatly benefitted by the circumstances of 2016. Those circumstances are long gone. He cannot run as the "outsider" any more because he owns the damned party now.
To even keep that "outsider" energy going, the only thing he can do is perpetuate the myth that in the party he's still surrounded by traitors, backstabbers, RINOs, Neo-Cons, or whatever other epithets can be tossed about, and then get his MAGA people to purge them through primaries, or (via evil crapweasels like Gaetz) even toppling the House Speaker for alleged treason.
It's all lies now, as competent people who might otherwise be on his side (if compromises were made - something else Trump cannot do) are driven out.
Marketing is key .
Agreed, but recall that the machine was already in place for 2024 for Biden. His stepping aside and the mantle falling on Harris may have caused it to kick in a little later than expected, but kick in it did. It just took a little longer to ramp up. Once Harris was coronated it happened quickly, since the machinery was ready to go. That's why I'm not particularly surprised by her bump -- I pretty much view everything through the "Shadow Campaign" nowadays.
Yes that’s sharp
I've always felt that *many* people who voted for Trump in 2016 (including the primaries) were actually voting for "None Of The Above."
A vote for Trump was the only way they could make that choice.
That was then, this is now. Trump has the full resources of the GOP at his disposal. The whole party with very few exceptions has fallen all over itself to kowtow to him.
Trump doesn't get enough credit for forcefully changing the GOP. Harris didn't change a thing about the Democrat Party.
Rod, Trump is still Trump, with the same personality. He's not going to change before the election. If he wins, you're still going to have to put up with everything about him you don't like. In addition, nobody knows what left-field stuff he might pull in, whatever strikes him as a situation to elevate his popularity. There's nothing "crunchy" about his "conservatism" nor that of the vast majority of his supporters. I am not convinced that Trump et al in office will actually give us the room you think.
Dana
Exactly! When I lived in Missouri for a few years, I had the privilege of getting to know Senator Kit Bond. Kit was of the Republican establishment, and I really liked him very much. He was so anti-Trump that I am pretty sure he was for Hillary back in 2016. His deep aversion for Trump represented that of the old GOP. They were not necessarily wrong, but they were out of touch with the regular American (the common man) who was no longer able to make it. When the average white American felt safe and secure, he or she was pretty magnanimous; they were willing to share their good fortune. However, with what turned out to be the false promises of prosperity that were supposed to come with the information economy and globalization, the working classes lost faith in the system, as they should have. They were abandoned. Trump "hijacked" the GOP by tapping into this great sadness that turned to anger, an antipathy for the elites and the false promises they had offered. Those unfulfilled economic promises brought the working people to ruination in this country. I don't resent Bezos for his ingenious idea that made him one of the richest people in the world. I really don't, but for the millions, indeed, billions of ordinary people, they are left with nothing in this winner take all economy. They are, lost, mad, and they rally to Trump, but, sadly, he is not of them, or really for them; he is using them for his own egotistical satisfaction. J. D. Vance may be genuine. I hope so. What is happening now in America is a tragedy of enormous proportions. The elite, who do not believe in God, or in the inherent dignity and rights of their fellow man, are in control and they would rather the lower classes abort their babies and take strong drugs to cope with their sorry state, even if it means death by overdose. Ours is a ruthless system of social Darwinism. Those with high IQs fight for and find their place, and the rest just die, typically slowly. For the ordinary people with average, or below average IQs, this is hellacious existence that they cannot begin to comprehend, let alone cope with.
Remember that part of the MSM/Democrat machine's power is the ability to skew polls to make their candidates look good and make Republicans loose heart.
Fox News is a substantial part of the Mainstream Media. Anyone who denies that is either blind or addicted to a double standard.
Of course it is, but the rest of the MSM leans the other way. Fox has an impact but it's largely outgunned.
I hardly think it credible that Fox is "outgunned." Liberals are convinced that Fox has brainwashed half the American population and that is the only reason Republicans win elections. That too is bubble paranoia, but Fox is outgunned only among those addicted to MSNBC.
It's not outgunned, it has the biggest impact and audience. The rest of the MSM has to compete with each other for the bigger tent, while Fox has an audience that is pretty locked in (the internet is slowly changing this). This gives them much more power over the Republican party than any single MSM entity has over the Democratic party.
I completely agree.
Trump is not a serious political thinker but I do think he realized the Republican globalist paradigm had reached the end of the line. Trump offered something different, however inchoate.
True. But far too inchoate for me to vote for.
I'd vote for my toaster if it ran as the Republican candidate.
Me too, and it'd be a far better candidate than anything we've got. Dan's Toaster, 2024!
Even a broken toaster, the vast majority of toasters.
My toaster appreciates your vote. Rest assured that we will be asking some very tough questions if the election results don't go in our favor.
I'd vote for it no matter which party it ran under.
But Trump wasn't manufactured by the GOP machine. They did all they could to derail him and have only come on board because they know that he can destroy them, for now.
Trump is as pure of case of prole/people power as we have ever seen in American politics and Trump still keeps the proles at arms distance, Vance notwithstanding. Trump and Vance better get off their a$$es and make and appeal real soon and hard because the proles will take their revenge in their time honored way: indifference, stay at home. That's all it will take to lose.
That's true. But they've all embraced him now. And those who haven't are no longer influential in the GOP machine.
No, they're still there. A lot of them are just waiting for Trump and MAGA to fizzle out.
Hovering in outer darkness hoping for a chance to return... like Russian nobility looking to the day they can return to claim their titles... which never happened of course.
Win or lose, surely this will be his last campaign.
McConnell is still senate leader. Any idea why he decided to retire after November?
To avoid the risk that he would die in office, and a Democratic governor appoint his successor. The same reason Breyer was pressured to retire from the Supreme Court early in Biden's term, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have retired if she hadn't been so vain about wanting Hillary Clinton to nominate her successor.
But he could have stepped down from being leader--like Nancy Pelosi did.
The Trump team has been quiet.
I'm hoping they are biding their time until after the Dem convention and then they'll pull out all the stops till November. They may have decided that it's pointless to try to get a message across now during Kamala's honeymoon.
Of course, they haven't been totally quiet. Vance was at the border yesterday and Trump did the outreach to the African American journalists.
I think you have it right, John. But gee, talk about unforced error. Why would he have gone before the black journalists in Chicago with the "she's hasn't really been black until now" crap? In doing it, he squandered a great opportunity for any keen politician, to transform opponents into grudging admirers.
You probably don't remember 1968. But you probably know what a fraught year that was. Edmund Muskie, Hubert Humphrey's pick for Vice President, was booed most nastily in his first appearance before college students. He started inviting hecklers on the podium with him for a brief colloquy. This had a dramatic effect on the public's perception of the Humphrey/Muskie ticket, and I remember the anguish of a lot of Dem ops after the election that if they'd just had another week to ten days, they could have beaten Nixon.
Imagine if Trump, instead of playing wounded little lambie, then questioning Harris' black cred, had said something deflective, such as, "Gee, I can't figure out which side you're on!" then proceeded to deal with all of her charges? Imagine what a difference that might have made. I know, I know, apparently at least some black males didn't think the way Trump responded was self - destructive, but anything that powers The Mainscum Media isn't helpful.
I'm going to venture something which others have probably thought. I think the shooting may have affected Trump far more profoundly than most people think. He isn't immune to PTSD. Whatever, something knocked him off his game badly, which accounts for his Castro - like indulgent acceptance speech in Milwaukee. He had the kind of listlessness which shouldn't be a surprise in someone who less than a week earlier had had a freakish escape from assassination.
Trump is never going to act political: I think the PTSD thing may be true. He looked tired in his convention speech. I think Trump just wants them to talk about him. That’s a win for him regardless of whether it’s positive or negative.
Wrong! The GOP, with Karl Rove and the rest hated Trump! The GOP machine did everything to stop him including Mitt Romney giving a fiery anti-Trump speech in March 2016 to rally the elite GOP to stop Trump. It didn’t work because MAGA became a ground swell of the common man, not party elites. For crying out loud, when Mitch McConnell is booed at a GOP convention and Pence, Bush, Cheney, Mittens Romney, and Paul Ryan were not present, but Hulk Hogan was, you know the GOP machine is dead!
Yes. Puh-leaze, Hulk Hogan. Is there any better way to signal "We are idiots, please don't take us seriously"?
He's no George Clooney but he has a certain charm...lol.
I so totally agree. It was abysmal enough with Kid somebody and then Hulk Hogan. It was a convention for idiots.
I'm proudly one of those "idiots". I couldn't stop smiling.
I mean, what would the left fear more, an army of policy wonks, or an army of armed men each as jacked as Hulk Hogan? I think there's a lot of delusion around where some people still think it's the former, or that you could possibly preserve a Benedict Option against a totalitarian state without the latter.
John, if you are here and commenting, you are not an idiot, you are just more tolerant than I am. I just remember when I was a kid growing up in an Irish Catholic family in Massachusetts, it was the Republicans who were dignified and serious. Alas, those days are long gone. I wish you the best and I did not mean to insult you.
Entertainment is part of politics now. Has been since Nixon v Kennedy.
X1,000.
Excellent points!
Who can forget Cruz's 2016 convention speech where he didn't even endorse Trump. And all the NeverTrump folks from Goldberg to Kristol.
Bollocks. They did everything they could to prevent him winning the nom and then spent most of their time undermining him. I’m not some sycophant but I can see what was done because I supported neither party for a very long time.
I think the "GOP machine" tried their best to get Trump to go away. Even after he was elected they undermined him at every turn. The "GOP Machine" did not recast Donald Trump in any meaningful way. To the extent Trump changed it was his own doing.
Jon, I think you should watch the video. The effort of a political party to "refashion" its candidate and put their best foot forward is not at all what Mike Benz is talking about.
First of all, I think more and more that Kackles the Kommissar is going to win, mostly because a majority of Americans (especially Boomers) don’t understand how bad they’re being propagandized by the regime. In addition to that, Trump is mean, says mean things, and the United States of Therapy can’t handle harsh words.
Secondly, I find it fascinating how conservative Americans continue to think that a majority of the country is on their side over most issues. The population has been happy to turn themselves over to Bacchanalian excesses in every aspect of their lives, and the idea that any restraint should be imposed on any impulse is “traumatizing.”
But, anyway, Orange Jesus is going to destroy the institutions. The television told me so.
It doesn't help that the GOP has a long history of being hostile to working people's economic interests, and even now large segments of it remain the party of Romney and your least liked boss.
Jon,
During Trump's term working class incomes ROSE more than the top tier. First time income inequality was reduced.
Sorry if that causes cognitive dissonance.
Nope it doesn't cause me that atoll. In fact the trend has strongly continued, especially at the lower rungs of the economy.
Second paragraph is probably the key!
Almost everyone with strong political opinions thinks that the majority of the country is on their side. Trumpies who insist the 2020 election was stolen, Dems who from Nixon to Trump can't understand how that man won -- nobody I know voted for him. Etc. We live in bubbles of confirmation bias. I have a bit of protection from that, because I have a pale complexion, have high school friends who trend liberal, live on the north side of Milwaukee, spend time in churches that have a traditional Biblical view of marriage and sexuality, filled with people who despise Donald Trump and always vote Dem because they are sincerely afraid of the GOP. So at least I have an idea of how diverse the population really is and how different demographics mix and match what the party leaderships consider indivisible package deals. I have a notion that I actually have a better idea what 70 percent of Americans could get behind as a political platform if it were ever offered to them through the fog of the Two Party System. But my notions have not been tested, so I could be dead wrong. So could we all.
Much of that is true, some of it is twisted or distorted. I just got scraped on the side of my car yesterday by a punk trying to change lanes when he had no business doing so. I'm not immune. I know there are a lot of things to consider. I support sidewalk counselor's rights of free speech, but I do not support immunity from arrest for those who block the doors. Etc. I don't need to waste me time responding point by point.
I enjoy your comments, your perspective, Charlie.
I have a sense that if all the talking heads, candidates, party machines, were removed from the picture, we could develop a set of policies that about 70 percent of the population could either support, or accept as reasonable.
I've lived and worked in both bubbles all my life too. Self-delusion is strong.
Yeah, I'm another two culture guy. Was born a Reform Jew, good liberal parents (and not the dummies ungrounded on reality that comprise some of the liberal faction today). Now Christian and conservative. Yet a resident of Seattle and surrounded by liberal folk.
It is great to have been part of more than one subculture because you see that everyone has some points and you are forced to think for yourself.
Sounds familiar. I was raised nothing (well, Unitarian), am now Orthodox Christian, live in a deeply blue state, but in a rural part of it that votes red more often than not, and work for a very woke company, but where the rank and file mostly keep their heads down. Once in a while, a few actually express what they really think about the corporate virtue signaling. So I get to hear all sides from family, friends, neighbors, co-workers.
Well that should give you some perspective- more than me. But I’ve long had the experience of being a kind of rightest in very left wing circles.I’ve been in very mixed political and religious and economic circles most of my life.Its funny sometimes. I’m enough of a dissenter to have been taken at times as left by left and left by right and vice versa. I’ve tried never to be in a bubble.
I couldn't agree with you more. I see it in my parents and their siblings. They are almost totally brainwashed. It drives me crazy how unaware they are.
How could they not be if they listen to MSM?
Corporate media has much to answer for.
Yes, I think she can absolutely win. My parents and brother are totally brainwashed and can't see how the MSM is propaganda. My father was a lifelong Republican until Trump. He used to listen to conservative talk radio, Limbaugh, etc. Now he is all about climate change, dangerous CoVID, masks, and seizing everyone's guns.
Same in my family. My mother is all in on the Trump=Hitler stuff, my Dad thinks plastics are the most important issue of our time and the Pride stuff doesn’t register to them at all. My Dad is a Veteran and rails against the “stupid kids who lost their military careers for refusing the vaccine”.
I learned about the importance of plastics from “The Graduate”.
Plastics are the future, Benjamin.
As always, whatever broad characterizations people make about intergenerational conflict, a lot of stuff cuts different ways in all directions. I turned 18 the first year we could vote at that age. The "youth vote" was touted as likely to push George McGovern to victory. Actually, a modest majority of the 18-21 vote went for Nixon. Only a modest majority, but it wasn't "all young people vote like..."
I was speaking to my particular circumstance. My parents, both 80, trust the legacy media. Their news is from Fox if there’s a baseball game on and CNN when they want serious news. That’s just how they are. They see no reason not to trust what they’ve always trusted.
A lot of younger people have said something similar about their parents over the past 15 years or so ... except the parents rely on Fox News and commentators like the late Rush Limbaugh, while the children trend liberal. This stuff is really all over the map.
While Biden was still hanging on post-debate my wife (an African American woman) was coming to the Trump side--or maybe RFK. Unfortunately, now she sees Harris as a "strong minority woman" and plans to vote for her enthusiastically. It's really strained our talk of politics because she won't even listen to any critique of Harris as she sees it as sexist or racist or both. I'm spending more nights on the couch. Darn Democrats.
Is that really true Mr. Downing? Or were you just having some fun? If it's true... That must be incredibly... I don't have a word. I don't think I could do it. Love someone, cook their food, wash their clothes and other things when I know they would have someone president who has done and not done the things she has. That is fascinating to me. From a human perspective. I don't mean to pry but you did put it out there.
It's mostly true. The sleeping on the couch part is exaggerated as it's only been threatened :)
I don't mean to imply we have a shallow relationship. Or that she's some cat lady. My wife isn't mean like some of the unhinged Karens you see on Twitter. She's just a very loyal African American woman. We are very blessed; I am very blessed I found her. Still we come from different cultures and she's very loyal to other African Americans across party e.g., the Obamas, Clarence Thomas, and now Kamala.
Thank you very much for your comment/question. I could talk about this subject endlessly. But most people (even longterm friends) are reluctant to bring it up.
It's too bad those folks she's loyal to, aren't loyal back to her and her race. Thank you for your honesty. That's one of the reasons I love Rod Dreher's Substack is the quality of folks that comment here.
I was an Independent until 2020. Then it changed. Drastically changed.
A good friend of mine who is a Democrat and decided she would definitely not vote for Biden seems like to be ok with Harris. I think many of them feel so relieved that their candidate is no longer and immediate nursing home patient that they are satisfying themselves with Harris
Such good points especially about the ‘silent majority’...
I think you’re forgetting (or may be unaware of) how many Biden voters were red-pilled by Covid and the ongoing gender nonsense. Most people keep quiet in controversial topics but those people have left the Dem plantation. In the circles I run in online I know plenty of former TDS sufferers who are voting for him this time around. The idea that the average person has hopeless TDS and/or stands strong behind the flagrant dismantling of women’s rights via trans ideology does not seem likely.
My guess is that everyone blinded by the propaganda and planning to vote Harris was already blinded and voting, if they had to, for Biden (“ANYONE BUT TRUMP!!”) so she really isn’t gaining people. The polls are a smokescreen. When the smog clears the truer story will emerge and that is that Trump has a very good shot if he can surmount the illegals-voting block, which is currently being created by Biden’s administration giving non-citizens social security cards, drivers licenses, and registering them to vote. That could become a serious factor, IMO. And much harder to combat via voter ID or signature matching.
Re: ) how many Biden voters were red-pilled by Covid
As I recall Covid and the more stringent measures against it happened BEFORE the 2020 election. And if anything Trump's poor performance was part of the reason he lost.
I agree that Covid did sink Trump. I bet he sees it that way too.
COVID allowed:
1. An unprecedented level of cheating via mail in ballots
2. Sanctification of science and guys like Fauci who undermined Trump at every step.
3. A precedent of controlling social media to support the MSM/Democrat narrative. They developed the skills with COVID messaging and deployed them again with Trump (see Hunter Biden's laptop).
There is not one scintilla of evidence of "cheating" beyond a few scattered incidents common in all elections, and those were as apt to be pro-Trump as pro-Biden
Covid showed Trump as an emperorxwith no clothes, unable to respond in a crisis. A capable leader would have used the Pandemic to his advantage. Reagan or Clinton would have taken that pitch and knocked it out of the park.
Jon, there is lots of evidence, including areas where more than 100% of registered voters voted, lost tallies to reconcile ballots with machine registries, etc.
Court cases were never heard because judges denied standing.
Speculation and hypotheticals are not evidence.
Some Trump supporters see the 2020 election as similar to the plot of Hitchcock's "The Lady Vanishes": (Spoiler alert: almost everyone on the train was in on it the whole time). In their minds the media, election officials, and the powers that be all worked together to steal the election from Trump, except for his loyal base represented by Hitchcock's leading lady, Iris, who appears totally hysterical but is the only one who figured out the real truth of what happened. The shorthand term for this is denial: that Trump fairly lost the election does not compute.
I think it's more like "The Birds" but the Democrats are standing at the door saying: "There's no birds out there!" When shown clear evidence of the birds attacking people, the Democrats shout: "There's no evidence of birds attacking people. That's a conspiracy theory. There's not a scintilla of evidence supporting this birds attacking people notion."
No, it was Biden who enacted vaccine mandates.
And more people died of COVID (or with COVID) during Biden's term.
The vaccine mandates were strick down by the courts. The lockdowns were vastly more disruptive.
The red-pilled Biden voters I know (rightfully) blame Democrats and Biden for the attack on civil liberties represented by lockdowns (which we ALL know were significantly more stringent in Blue-governed states than Red), Biden and woke corporate vaccine mandates, and the flagrant double standard re: what people on the Left are allowed to get away with legally versus what people on the Right are held to account for. To say nothing of the wholesale abandonment of women's rights by the Dems who pander to gender ideology and impose its agenda throughout society to the detriment of females.
Once again, Biden held no office during the 2020 lockdowns.
Once again, 2020 lockdowns were enacted by governors, and Dem governors FAR more than Rep governors went ALL IN on lockdowns and the alarmist rhetoric that pushed them, and they lasted for significantly longer in Blue states than most Red states. The red-pilled Dems I know are former Dems exactly because the whole party — not just Biden — went off the deep end with their attack on civil liberties and basic biology.
"Attack on civil liberties and basic biology," if there ever was a phrase that encapsulates the modern Left, it is that. Add a contempt for Christianity and any thing else associated with tradition/culture of the West.
"The polls are a smokescreen."
I agree. A very important point. Rush Limbaugh used to say to ignore the polls until late October. Earlier than that and they can't be trusted because they are meant to set an agenda not accurately reflect anything.
Don’t be shocked if Harris wins. Going back to 2016 Trump’s personal approvals have never exceeded disapprovals. Few crossovers & registered libs + left independents greater in number than registered gop + right independents. Get out vote & libs win all popular vote back to 1992 save 2004. Due to lib megaphone even superior gop candidate likely polls within margin of error against loser like Harris. Not good. Truth is as society trends atheist libs own election playing field.
Trump has never made any attempt to expand his base.
He doesn't think he has to. He is the only president to launch an investigation of an election he WON, to expose why he was denied a landslide.
It's that absence of discipline. His mind doesn't know how to prioritize. His feelings take priority over legitimate objectives.
I did chuckle when Trump bragged that his 2016 victory was one of the great landslides of American political history. I think he believed it.
Only to instead try to "purify" it by reduction and purge. No sane GOP convention in the past would have allowed anyone as vile as Gaetz to give a speech, but he's a Trump attack dog so gets a place of honor.
They also let that MTG lady in. The horror!
Ah yes, the "Jewish Space Laser" loonie.
He does seem like he is trying to reach out to minorities. Going to that reporter thing the other day, rallies in minority neighborhoods.
Trump went to the gathering of journalists spoiling for a fight.
To one yeah but he went. To the rallies not so much
Yah, he should have shown up thinking they were going to treat him with respect and treat him fairly. It was all meant to be unicorns and rainbows. But Trump's spoiling for a fight ruined the whole thing.
No he was immediately faced with a very hostile question that implied he was a racist. It wasn't meant to be unicorns and rainbows.
Yep. I heard that opening lambast. The idea that Trump was the one spoiling for a fight is at best an unbalanced framing of the truth on the ground at the event.
But he showed. Props to him.
Listen to the question posed to him. Even Megyn Kelly (she who was quite confrontational to Trump during the 2016 election) says that Karen Scott's question was out of line.
But the facts show he's expanded both the hispanic and the black vote.
Really? Why would he attend a (clearly hostile) meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists if he wasn't willing to expand his base?
Do you see Kamala and Biden reaching out to conservative Christians?
Apropos of nothing I always enjoy your user ID.
Thank you. It came from a book but I can’t recall who came up with phrase. It stuck in my mind the moment I read it.
I think this piece hits hard....hard enough for me to renew my subscription. I fear that we are going to lose, that in fact we can't win, we have lost already. I'm not sure even a Trump win would be a win in the larger fight. For far too long the conservatives were lazy, they sat back and tried to ignore the more radical parts of the progressive order as being outliers while shaking hands with who they thought were normal liberal neighbors.
Maybe they were for a time, normal liberal neighbors. But something happened, in the way it almost always happens...a critical mass was reached in the idea department of the left, sometime around 2012 or so...and things began to move very quickly to where we are today. When something could be done, when fewer and fewer normal liberal neighbors were showing up to the BBQ, conservatives just shrugged, said it was all just normal college youth running wild. They did not want to see...heck many still don't.
Conservatives thought they had big business, a constitution that had set some normal parameters to protect them and most of the military etc etc. The problem was in a few elite universities and in Hollywood, that had always been weird. Suddenly the monster was on the doorstep, the fires were burning on TV and in many people's neighborhoods and the TV was full of gaslighting propagandist telling us that everything was fine and peaceful. Our Churches, the rock we use to stand on in turbulent times, took up the social crusade against the norm and told us Jesus was a communist....and so our revolutionary experimented ended in a slow boiled Marxist inspired revolution of postmodern hedonism.
Even at this point the right is not doing what it needs to do to win. Too many are flying into conspiracies and too many are too whipped and demoralized to do what needs to be done, to argue to take a stand at work etc. Many have made the Faustian barging and adopted some of the progressive positions, if to just find a bit of peace. Many have fled to the side that is "winning" and still call them "liberal" and so like the exhausted run to ground Indian tribes mentioned in the tweet, one by one we are walking into the progressive reservations and closing the gates behind us, to fight no more...I think we have lost where it counts, in our hearts. Trump is just a man.
Elections are like trains (and men). Miss one and there's another coming down the track soon enough.
Nah. Sometimes things do end. My consolation is that when things get bad the dems get to own it.
What things do you see "ending"? So far the US has an unblemished record of having regular elections. We even did so in the middle of our Civil War when Abraham Lincoln, with near dictatorial powers, feared he might lose. I think it would take something of the magnitude of nuclear war to actually cancel an election.
East Germany never missed an election.
No, we are at a very tricky historical inflection point here.
We have been at that point all my life, and probably for years before.
After the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Courthouse and Cold Harbor, Lincoln expected to lose in 1864. He ended up winning fairly easily. The Billy Yanks who could vote voted for Lincoln overwhelmingly.
Elections getting to the point where it’s an illusion and only going through the motions to make Joe Schmoe think we are still living in a democratic republic.
Or they will run over you.
"I fear that we are going to lose, that in fact we can't win, we have lost already. I'm not sure even a Trump win would be a win in the larger fight."
I think this too. And in a way, I hope Trump loses, and America gets what it voted for - good and hard.
From my perch in the state of Florida, "conservatism" has been, is now and (its proponents believe) will be about doing favors for big business and reaping big campaign contributions in return. Conservatism = "pro business," and they toss social conservatives a bone every now and then. DeSantis bucked this tendency a little bit - a LITTLE bit - but Conservatism Inc. in my state is very much stuck in the '50s model.
For that to change - for a real conservatism to emerge - I think Trump has to lose and maybe lose decisively. I think Kamala/the regime has to live up to every fear we have about it - imposing wokeness from above, stoking inflation, driving us further toward a hot war with Russia and the rest. People must see that leftism has failed, to an extent that even the lapdog media can't cover it up. That may take time but in fact leftism will indeed failed, it's already failing; it's a system designed (to quote Christopher Rufo) to produce loyal mediocrities. And our country's problems won't be solved by mediocrity.
So there needs to be a well-thought out alternative and potential elected leaders that can appeal across current partisan lines. And that alternative cannot be, "More giveaways to big business, with a little more anti-wokeness thrown in." There's got to be real meat on the bones.
The Republican Party on the whole, and many individual "conservatives," aren't grasping this, don't understand that the party as they've known it is a zombie with no future. They fail to see what's happening and hold on for dear life thinking - it's fine. Of course the gravy train can keep rolling! What else is there?
And that's just it - there has to be something else.
Excellent points.
' "conservatism" has been, is now and (its proponents believe) will be about doing favors for big business and reaping big campaign contributions in return. Conservatism = "pro business," and they toss social conservatives a bone every now and then.' I agree, and to me the Trump/Vance/Thiel ticket embodies this, just with a more socially polarizing rhetoric.
It may well come to this...sadly.
Trump deserves to lose. So does Harris. So did Biden and Clinton. That's the problem. We're being ordered to make a choice among a diverse pack of losers.
Thank you. And yet nobody on either side is making noise about revamping our election process to offer us more choices that we really would like. I think because we all know that apart from intense pressure from citizens there's no way the "powers that be" are going to be open to change.
Someone recently suggested a group called the Forward party. So far, it is focused on nonpartisan open primary elections with order of preference voting. On anything else, the general sense is, a candidate running in eastern Texas will take different positions on various issues than a candidate from Minneapolis. It could be a major successful reform, but almost certainly requires a constitutional amendment.
Will Google that, though chances are it won't gain any traction. Not to be a defeatist.
MAGA Republicans have done the party a huge amount of damage. They are as far from me as woke liberal people are. The media gives them all the (negative) attention so the public thinks they represent all Republican thinking.
Thanks for weighing in Mitch.
I heard a memorable line the other day--" Conservatives are liberals just driving the speed limit". Implied is the direction is total inversion of our norms.
This 10X10X10...and until they decide to go offroad, or outflank the status quo, and do something meaningful, do you expect the "conservatives" to win a popularity contest between those that are outside of the focus of transactional politics? No. People have shown a consistent tendency to vote for those who promise to give them something in exchange for their vote.
Sadly too true.
That said, pocketbook issues are quite persuasive and can penetrate through MSM propaganda.
Fret, fret, good Lord. Do you ever not believe the hype, Rod? Ever?
We aren't going to actually lose, but we probably are going to "lose". I told myself in 2022 that I wasn't going to fall for the horserace nonsense and then I did anyway at the very end and was disappointed when the shenanigans happened. I'm determined not to let it happen again. If Trump wins, I want to be surprised by it like I was in 2016, when he succeeded in surprising the dems out of their own complacency.
Truthfully, the reason they swapped out Biden was because they couldn't cheat with him. He was too unpopular and too far behind for them to get away with it. Kamala gives them a chance to get the margin close enough for the shenanigans to make a difference in the swing states and she gives them plausible deniability by saying she had "momentum" and was able to squeak it out at the end.
As much as I hate to admit it, Trump, as much as I personally love him, indeed has a "hard ceiling" and that makes it easier for the dems to keep the margins close and the fraud within reach. That's just the hard truth.
If anybody had the slightest amount of good judgement in this country they'd ask both campaigns what procedures for verifying the vote each would like, and expend the money and effort to implement those. I don't care to go through another round of fighting about the validity of the election and don't think other people do either.
you must have not gotten the memo.
the DNC and its propaganda wing the MSM have declared all questions of these kind to be (shocking) RACIST.
it wasn't that long ago that Biden called the new Georgia voting laws "Jim Crow 2.0" even though it increased turnout.
anything that might possibly wound a liberal/Democrat is ipso facto racist, possibly fascist. and this goes for the entire the West.
Calm down. We're still in the honeymoon phase with Harris. I said it before: To know Harris is to loathe her. She's not going to have the excuse of Covid to hide in her basement like Biden did in 2020. She's going to be out there, cackling and spouting frankly retarded nonsense that she thinks sounds profound.
The Democrats are still going to have their convention, which will undoubtedly contain as much woke nonsense as the Olympic opening ceremonies while Palestinian supporters riot in the streets outside. It may very well be that what you're seeing now is "Peak Harris," polling wise, and it's all downhill for her from here.
That doesn't mean that Trump and Vance won't step on their wangs a few times this fall. Of course they will and they still have to overcome Fortification for Democracy. But it's not worth worrying about yet.
+1000. Didn't people realize that Harris would likely get a bump after the announcement? As someone wrote yesterday, we're not going to have much of a clear picture until after Labor Day. This doesn't mean that the Machine won't be in full operation, however, so we can't just coast.
The thing all of us have to do, if only to preserve sanity, is to acknowledge that Trump is ineducable. He won in 2016 despite Pussygate, he (LITERALLY!) dodged a bullet, and to his mind, if that's the word, he can say anything he wants. No long-headed guru is going to get him on message. That's done. Prepare to be embarrassed and offended. I thought maybe he had changed when he let Joe destroy himself at the debate, but that's over and done with.
This puts an enormous burden on J.D., because, as stated, he's the one who's going to have to go to substance. And once the election is won, if it' won, he's the one who's going to have to execute, because that's something else Trump can't, or won't do.
Just accept Cheetoh Jesus as the hand we've been dealt.
I hear Cheetoh Jesus performed a miracle on the Frito Lay assembly line…someone fell in the vat of powered cheese and he resurrected him…the legend grows
That's mean. Funny as heck though.
Hey it’s Fun Friday…just trying to lighten things up after some heavy topics this week
https://youtu.be/Kj1zp1LzLCU?si=roVV8MvejzAnPFsF
and that made me think of cute little Eric Cartman audtioning for Cheesy Poofs!
"The Democrats are still going to have their convention, which will undoubtedly contain as much woke nonsense as the Olympic opening ceremonies while Palestinian supporters riot in the streets outside. It may very well be that what you're seeing now is "Peak Harris," polling wise, and it's all downhill for her from here."
I was about to say the same thing.
Richard Baris at The People’s Pundit is the hand’s down best pollster to follow as his polls are far more carefully done to discern actual voter sentiment rather than a preferred narrative. And his take is exactly this—it’s manufactured hype that has no legs, and the post-honeymoon reality will provide a much different picture.
I don't know how much of a different picture will be shown. Even senile Biden wasn't doing great but not Trump-landslide bad. I can't imagine that Harris after the convention won't get a bump that hangs around and we will just get another 2016 and 2020 style nailbiter.
I've been saying all along that we are a narrowly divided country and there will be no run-away landslides.
You are right. And Trump is going to be out there doing the same thing.
They’ve raised a billion. They are not stupid enough to expose her to any hard questions or anything that isn’t strictly scripted. We’ve seen this film before. Republicans are unprepared as usual.
Dukeboy, I hope you are right.
You are correct. This same thing happened in 1988 with Dukakis. He led Bush by 17 points that summer. By election time, Bush won by eight points. Harris does not portray strength and there is enough video of her from years past to fluster her into Dukakis moments. The media is in a tizzy because Trump said Harris was Indian before she was black. That comment is true and causes the left to go nuts. As Vivek Ramaswamy said, “Is she ashamed of her Indian heritage?” The left can’t define what a woman is. Can they define what is Black? Truth provides clarity where deception does not.
One can hope.
I’m not sure there is enough time between now and November for those who love her to learn enough to loathe her, but I hope you’re right!
Re: he survived an assassination attempt, and with his face bloodied, pumped his fist into the air, and chanted, “Fight! Fight! Fight!”
Theatrical bombast. Show me quiet courage in the face of overwhelming adversity. Heck, give me TR finishing his speech after being shot.
Re: he various parts of the Machine — the Democratic Party, the media, the tech masters, and others — have come together brilliantly to show how easy it is to manufacture reality, and therefore consent.
Huh? This blog has long pumped the idea that Biden is senile. OK, evidence of Biden's decline was on full public display at that debate. This was not some "manufactured" reality. What should party do if its prospective nominee appears to be non compos mentis? Pretty much to a first approximation, what was done. Nothing wrong or sinister about that.
An odd thing I saw pointed out about the Dionysia tableau: there was no booze in it. Has Dionysos joined AA? One would have expected a lot more drunken debauchery at such a revel. heck, Disney's Fantasia cartoon's mythology sequence had more of that! This was a Dionysia put on by Carrie A Nation and Lemonade Lucy.
"Theatrical bombast. Show me quiet courage in the face of overwhelming adversity."
Trump has spent three years fighting a corrupt DOJ trying to, quite literally, throw him in prison. That shows incredible resilience that would have broken weaker men. In fact, the overwhelming majority of men would have caved. Trump didn't, and he hasn't.
But I understand your TDS is particularly acute, so these realities are obscured from your recognition.
Trump is the author of his own troubles, no different from a mobster fighting charges.
Trump is a "mobster." Got it.
I hope you have a great weekend.
Denial is not evidence.
Neither is an accusation. IF there were actual substance to the charges, given the array of resources to find them, they would have been found.
Best they can do are all these incompetent clown shows that are going down in flames.
Lord, make my enemies foolish.
Well, there are trials to sort that out.
You're not wrong. Though it does seem his prosecutions are highly politically motivated, like the creative means Bragg used to make the charges against him a felony.
Agreed, though, Trump fights not because he is a mighty hero but because anyone would.
No, most would not. Most politicians have cowered and caved before a mere fraction of what has come against TRump. The mere whispering of "you are a racist," has them on their knees.
Maybe those cretins could share a small efficiency apartment with Trump for twenty years or so.
Would need lots of those. Trump has no need. For he does not cower so. And can afford better.
Really? What would you do if you were shot by a bullet? Do you think you would worry about your supporters and ensure that there weren't more injuries as people flee the scene?
And do you believe that all of Trump's supporters (many here) are such bad people, so deplorable, so stupid and lacking in virtue that they deserve the calumnies casually thrown their way?
And would such people be calm in the face of 8 bullets flying?
If there is one thing the DOJ is doing right, it is having the courage to prosecute a former president for blatant and obvious attempts to subvert an election he clearly and legititimately lost.
I'm retired from work as an on-staff temp, and my last job before that was under union contract with a private company no sane person would work for without a union. Nice try. I'm now trying to get by on a modest social security payment, without any pension.
I'm doing my work for free. My garden demands a lot of attention, I've almost lost the rose bushes behind a prolific array of diverse weeds, and I have a chess team to devote myself to. Do you spend all your time in a dark corner muttering about what you imagine the lives of others are like?
Pure bloviating nonsense. Bovine fecal matter on steroids. The DOJ has never charged Trump with those crimes, so you don't even know what you're talking about. All you feel, deep in your heart, is hatred for Orange Man Bad. He haunts your dreams and he occupies the real estate of your mind. I recommend therapy, respectfully.
But I appreciate your spelling of "legitimately": I much prefer legiTITimately.
Have a great weekend.
So far, you are howling at the wind with a string of adjectives, showing all the maturity of a five year old throwing a temper tantrum on a playground. When you have something factual to say, I will endeavor to respond to it.
Because you just brought a discredited pile of crap and then try a dignified pose when someone called you on it.
I am overwhelmed by the studious rational way you marshal documented facts and evidence to sustain a sober analysis. /sarc
If only they had booze! At least then we'd have something in common.
Also, and this will come across as very mean, but couldn't they have had actually attractive people in the opening ceremony? It would have been more alluring than the slop we got.
Be as mean as you want. One of the aspects of today's culture with which I am seriously out of accord: the valuation of the grotesque. Sure, we can't all be Adonises and Aphrodites, and that can be overdone. But fat and homely are not attractive! Lesbians always had a thing for the Earth Mother type but at least one used to be able to count on gay guys to care about looking good. Now that the "T" are in charge we're bombarded with phantasmagoric tattoos, crazypants piercings and rolls of fat more normal for assorted marine mammals.
~~OK, evidence of Biden's decline was on full public display at that debate. This was not some "manufactured" reality.~~~
LOL. The manufactured reality was that Joe was compos mentis up till then.
The man stood up from the ground with his ear bleeding from a bullet wound, and had the presence of mind to raise his fist and urge his followers to "fight" -- and you dismiss it as "theatrical bombast"?! I don't even like Trump, but that was impressive. As a couple of people said right after that (I don't think on this newsletter), in the shock of having been shot, or nearly shot, you don't have time to compose yourself; what we saw there was some inner quality of Trump's.
Rod you know how Jon is about things he doesn't want to see.
It may have been impressive personally, but it doesn't carry the weight with voters that you seem to assign to it. So many things that The Base of either candidate thinks will be decisive just don't make much difference. Sure, its heroic to those who follow him. To the rest, thank God an assassination didn't succeed, but he'd make an awful president.
We've had four years. He was far from "awful."
About half of your fellow citizens disagree. Among the other half, which carries as much weight but no more, about forty percent don't really approve, but they are more afraid of the Democrats. I can sympathize, but not emulate.
Half my fellow citizens currently think men can become women. So, so much for that.
If I believed that half my fellow citizens were on board with such nonsense, I would truly despair and join Rod's frequent theme "We're doomed!" But I happen to know that even among committed Democratic voters, there are huge numbers who don't believe that at all. Do you really credit the people who live in bubbles of their own confirmation bias when they talk AS IF half of our fellow citizens believed that?
It was impressive in the moment, but it also shows that this is the only way Trump knows how to work: by immediate reaction. There's never any follow-through at all with him. It's "Squirrel!" and he's off to the races on something else he hopes to react against.
This 100%.
Brass ones. See Alec Baldwin's speech from Glengarry Glen Ross. That's what managing what's coming is going to take. The big bad wolf is knocking on the door. A few terrorist attacks or a "dirty bomb" incident (which is what the large cities expect and are training for) and Trump isn't going to seem so icky to the effeminate masses.
We've seen Trump's response to crises. He fumbles badly. Or maybe seeks a photo op, which he'll botch. Remember that upside down Bible after sending out the palace guard to clear the way for him to pose in front of that church?
You are easily impressed Rod. Trump had a bare flesh wound, if even that much. I have scars from nastier mishaps, one of which cut all the way to the bone.
The inner quality was indeed there: bombast. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I prefer the stoic virtues-- hence TR continuing his speech after he actually was shot. That's a real man!
There's a difference between a wound, even one to the bone and one that is a few millimeters more to the brain in a life terminating event. Not quite the same. But you are a tough fella for sure!
I imagine that old TR is spinning in his grave, knowing that the likes of JonF311 are using him as an example to criticize Trump's reaction to being shot.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again; because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Please. There's no comparison between Trump and TR. Or even to Reagan's quiet self deprecation when he was shot (and almost killed) You folks are so easily impressed. O tempora, O mores I guess.
If you listen to Pageau's full talk on the theater, he says a couple of times that he's not sure even those who put it on knew what they were doing. Personally I think the lack of booze on display is due to the weird neo-Puritanism of modern culture, where displays of mass drinking are now very very taboo for the upper classes because they're seen as things only stupid poor people do with cheap stuff. Wine is very much seen now among such still as something to be enjoyed, but you just do not debauch with $300 bottles (and who would drink anything less).
Put simply, the lack of wine was a statement that this was purely an upper class affair.
But Dionysus wasn't just about wine and drunkenness - the lack of it is beside the point. It's still a bacchanalia, but with sex as the real "magic" this time.
You're right about modern puritanism among the self-preening avant garde. And there isn't even any sex going on in that tableau. The participants do not exactly inspire even base lust.
That's lack of real lust is also part of the point of the weird spectacle too. The whole stupid show was entirely meant for offense, like an obscene joke. Except that it's like a joke taken way way too far.
But make no mistake, it is both a statement of the upper classes about their own cultural superiority, and demonic insult mocking Christianity. It's just that it's a supremely boorish joke with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer. And even Gallagher did that way better.
I hear the WHO is putting forth the idea that the healthy amount of alcohol to consume is none.
Many belong to the No Fun League.
Hide the Communion wine!
What's the matter with loud courage? You ever been shot, Jon? After a years long campaign to destroy you legally, financially, personally? He displayed heroic courage. You may not like his style, but the substance of the thing you try so hard to deny just makes you look petty, small and priggish.
I would highly recommend going over to Rasmussen Reports and checking out their analysis of Kamala's "bounce": they are already seeing signs that it's fading. A temporary effect.
Also, remember: after the Democratic convention in summer of 1988, Dukakis led George Bush by 17 points! He lost by 6 or 7 in November.
It's almost pointless to be worrying about this stuff in August.
Yep, and as I've repeatedly said, no one thought DT even had a remote chance in 2016 until October. I have a friend who predicted a Trump win in September of that year, based on the electoral vote and the swing states, and we all thought he was nuts.
I did, and took a lot of grief for saying so in Rod's comments section back on TAC.
The main thing in 2016 is that Clinton was a few points ahead of Trump among decided voters, with something close to ten percent undecided. The undecided vote swung decisively for Trump, which pulled him just about even. When the popular vote is close, all kinds of things can happen in the electoral college.
OK, but it's not "pointless" to be worried about how the campaign is going. Look at Weirdgate. J.D. made the colossal mistake of doubling down on attacking portions of his electorate, rather than the politicians who foster the policies that encourage such pathologies. And he picked on women. As I've said he could just as well have gone after porn- and drug-addled young men unable to achieve arousal in the presence of a real girl. But all this is issue framing, and not actually message. The border, inflation, trade and crime. Nothing else will win for the GOP. Yes, Kamala was likely to get a bump under any circumstances, and WE ARE MORE THAN TWO WEEKS OUT from the convention. The upside is that the Republicans have that time to get their act together. It's depressing when the top of the ticket is occupied by a human dumpster fire, but there it is.
"Weirdgate" is symptomatic, an utterly artificially generated nothing.
They have nothing of substance of which to attack JD Vance. So this is what they've got. It is only an indictment of the rot of the media. And those who fall for it, an indictment on them, and any number of flaws in character/intellect.
It was on unforced error on J.D.'s part. But he can recover from it, already has.
It was silly, and not wrong. I know the kind of women he's talking about. I'm a cat bro, too. These same kind of women are the sorts who have those COEXIST bumper stickers, yet likely wore COVID masks alone in those vehicles and often could be the sort described as a "Karen."
Dude, in politics it doesn't matter that it's true. There are a lot of things hotter than that that I could say that are also true and Dreher would throw me off these boxes for good. Does it move the ball? That's the only question to ask.
Truth is always a firmer foundation and bullshit eventually outs itself.
And the bumper sticker is always on a beat up Prius...
Do not underestimate or dismiss it. The "weird" campaign is a gossip attack, which has worked for females utilizing non violent power for centuries. It introduces suspicion. Creates Us v Them bonding. Inspires mob action. Look around. Cancel culture is everywhere, and is a testament to the power of gossip attacks and the social shunning that follows them. Weak opponents can destroy someone with gossip if it's spoken often enough and by the right people. Humanity (especially emotional female humanity) makes decisions (and takes action!) based on gossip.
But don't let it panic you, don't give it credence and never, NEVER, let them see you sweat. The most effective strategy against the gossip/whisper attack is simply carrying on with your life, and demonstrating you do not GAF.
The worst thing you can do is cower and apologize to it. The next worst thing is being seen as panicking or giving credence.
Deny its power by humor, sarcasm and getting on with things. They cannot hurt you.
Worst thing you can do is dance to their tune, letting them call that tune. The bullies in school never controlled me. The mean girls, I ignored and laughed at. The male bullies, ignored until I had to push their faces in. Which I did on more than one occasion. I'm grateful to them for helping teach me how to fight, in both respective arenas.
Agreed. But not everyone has that sort of fortitude. Or clarity of mind.
I don't believe it was a colossal mistake to double down. It doesn't matter what Vance would have said, the MSM were going to find something and try to make him apologize for it. While being able to apologize is a good trait, being forced to is often a sign of profound weakness, and I'm glad he didn't cave.
How about just shutting up?
The point he was making, with perhaps a poor analogy, is that our country is DYING because we aren't reproducing. And that the rewards of career and license dim substantially as on ages, and confronts life alone.
I think that maintaining the country is a battle worth fighting. The demographic trends of low birth rates and unwillingness to marry are grave issues.
Not to mention the inversion of God given male and female roles. (BTW I am a woman marinated in the "feminist" movement but thank goodness a Southerner so I did not fully succumb)
No election is going to fix this, but if we lose this one it's going to get a lot worse fast. So let's win it, ok?
Totally agree!
It has been proven that apologizing by the Right is the way to be Run Out of Town.
I could only run for political office on the "So What Party".
"Mr Parker is it true that you have done or said this horrible this or that?!?!?"
"Yeah, So What!"
'It didn't happen and they deserved it' is slowly becoming my favorite response to these kinds of leading questions. It's not very constructive but I feel like we're well past constructive argument these days.
Inflation is the winning issue! "Are you better off . . ."
I freaking called it. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE. AND DON'T BELIEVE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!
Rod, no offense, but as much as you put forth this bad boy outsider conservative image, there's a part of me that thinks you miss having a seat at that table and you deeply lament that institution failing so completely as it has. Rather than accepting it is just a small part of just where the world is now, spiritually and culturally.
And you continue to give these long dead organizations and organs far more cred than any objective journalistic analysis would warrant.
A President Harris is a frightening possibility. She is untethered from a any realistic conception of America’s founding principles or constitutional restraints. She would, if possible, eliminate the Senate filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, allow millions of illegal — sorry, “undocumented” — migrants to enter the country with a guide path to citizenship, … . Trump is a terribly flawed candidate, but Harris is an existential threat to democracy.
Meh. Presidents are not dictators. The administration proposes-- and Congress (and the courts) disposes.
I mostly agree, but Trump transferred money from other accounts to build his silly wall after congress declined to make an appropriation, and Biden boasted "I didn't let the Supreme Court stop me" from unilaterally canceling student loan debt (which meant U.S. taxpayers repay the banks since the loans were guaranteed).
That country once existed. We sre currently rule by executive orders issued every four years on January 20.
And the Supreme Court has been slapping the more out-there (constitutionally) ones down-- as it should.
And how did the Supreme Courts ruling on student loans work out?
Last I checked they struck down the initial attampt, and now have struck down a second attempt.
And loan forgiveness continues.
The next president is going to nominate 2, maybe 3 justices.
If we're talking a one term president probably 1-2 justices.
If Miss Harris wins the Presidency, the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are likely to be miniscule. And the Democrats would lose their majorities in the 2026 election. The American political system is designed to be clunky except under unusual circumstances like 1933 or the 1860s.
Yes, our Constitution contains checks and balances that were designed to keep the ship of state from tilting too far in any one direction. A president, however, has enormous opportunities to do serious harm, both short and long term — executive orders, regulatory and antitrust policies, failure to enforce laws, government largess and contracts to favored groups and constituents, selective legal action against groups and individuals who are not favored, foreign policy mistakes and debacles … . No, if this were a different America I wouldn’t worry as much about a possible President Harris, even if Democrats secured narrow majorities in both Houses of Congress. But, unfortunately, this is not that America.
One hopes!
Very true. But the same is true of Trump. In 2016, a retired army officer told me, we've been offered a terrible choice, but I think our democratic institutions are strong enough to restrain Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton is so adept at manipulating the levers of power that if she gets in, there will be no stopping her.
This year, Harris is certainly a Hillary wannabe, but while she has a glib tongue to pander to her base, she is a newbie who does not have Clinton's adeptness at actually getting much done. I haven't decided whether to vote for her out of loathing for Trump, or to skip both because I am so sick of having these repulsive choices thrust on me by the Duopoly.
I literally just wrote this two days ago and on another Substack...
"how does someone go from a crazy low approval rating to this in two short weeks. It doesn't add up. It's the machine at work and Barry is in her ear." Plus a ton of money. A ton. I cannot emphasize enough the fact that "Barry is in her ear".
I will absolutely not be surprised to see her win. Because they will do whatever it takes to keep Trump out of office. It really just shows how terrified they are of losing.
I've also been saying for about 8 months now that regardless of who "wins", the poop will hit the fan. One group is going to be very, very upset. What I cannot predict is just what the conservative/Rep side will do if they lose. I know what the left side will do if Trump wins and the NG better be ready.
At the risk of promoting another book not written by Mr. Dreher on his site, Blaine Pardoe wrote "Blue Dawn". If you want to see what a potential future looks like.
If she wins, it will be because Trump discredited himself in his usual manner. If Trump wins, it will be the same in reverse. No machine necessary.
Nonsense. The machine outed itself in 2021. If our old friend Barlaam of Weimerica, an actual leftist, were here, he'd be all over this like white on rice.
What of the events of 2021 leads you to that conclusion?
The February 2021 Time essay on the Shadow Campaign.
So many thoughts, none of them really all that good.
This election will be determined if more men vote for Trump than women vote for Harris. The gender war has come into politics, and will reveal the faultline in America.
A darker thought, what happens if one loses the respect of others to vote? I'm sure its the first step towards dictatorship, but when someone votes not begrudgingly but *enthusiasticly* for the LGBT woke stuff, an internal sense of disgust wells up inside of me.
I'd say bring back the British Monarchy, but King Charles is less than inspiring these days.
Reading that piece from Reason immediately brings to mind Harrison Bergeron. We were warned decades ago, people!
Britain has never done well under kings named Charles. And there is always the hazard that a king would have a woke son.
Charles II was actually a pretty good king - he knew how to play politics and balance factions. His brother James II, though, was more like Charles I, and so driven out.
Charles Windsor has some real skills and insights in urban planning. He could do well by his country focusing on that profession. Charles II certainly provided a kind of interregnum where everyone could catch their breath. But little more than that.
I can appreciate the current Charles for his deep seated loathing of modern architecture and how it dehumanizes.
I read some years ago that he actively intervened in the administration of the Duchy of Cornwall, one of his hereditary sources of income, which is generally run in his name by faceless bureaucrats. He had noted a lack of coordination in paving roads, placing and maintaining electrical, water, and other utilities, and wanted things done more rationally and with less disruption to daily life. The same article mentioned his loathing of modern architecture, and while I don't wish to see everything baroque, I largely agreed.
I don't think he particularly favors the Baroque. Based on what I've seen, his main concerns seem to be with human-sized spaces, and a neo-classical / regency aesthetic. Very English, beautiful and adorned, but not to the excesses of the late Victorian.
Charles II was, in retrospect, too lazy until too late in his reign (if the goal was to firmly consolidate and institutionalize monarchical authority) - but if James II had not been a Catholic none of that might have mattered, and England might have gone the way of Sweden at that time - i.e., not to become a truly "absolute monarchy" as Denmark did in 1661, but with Parliament granting the king fairly sweeping powers to tax and legislate (although Sweden experienced in 1721 a far more drastic reduction of royal power than occurred in England in 1689 - until a royal coup in Sweden in 1772 reversed all that).
I've often wondered if Charles's behavior was, in part, not exactly laziness so much as "avoiding taking too many decisive actions for fear of consequences." The fate of his father had to have weighed heavily on him, and I've similar behavior in others who have been through hard times through which they've been either powerless or often overridden by others - it's not laziness per se (though it can appear as such to others) so much as pulling back from actual leadership if there are other louder, more forceful, or more passionate personalities present because they're trying to avoid conflict. Hard to judge at this distance, of course.
Interesting thought; it corresponds nicely with Charles's alleged statement that he didn't "want to go on my travels again."
Charles faced powerful opposition to any attempt to restore royal power to pre-1640 levels, and he knew it. The Popish plot where he was compelled to sign death warrants of men he knew were innocent showed the limits of his power.
"Charles faced powerful opposition to any attempt to restore royal power to pre-1640 levels, and he knew it."
I don't deny it - but if his overriding goal were to secure royal authority and financial independence he could have done much more to secure that goal, both in terms of policy and image in the decade after 1660.
"The Popish plot where he was compelled to sign death warrants of men he knew were innocent showed the limits of his power."
Again, I don't deny it - but his fecklessness (or lack of consistent concern with governance) in the late 1660s and the 1670s played a role in bringing matters to that pass.
No I’d give some points to Charles 2
The thing about Harris is that her victory would be a disaster for working men and women. All the left cares about anymore is being woke and serving their allies in the corporate boardrooms. The most effective reaction that can happen on the right is a form of socially conservative Marxism. There can’t be anything else that will be an effective answer to what will happen.
Socially conservative Marxism. I almost like the sound of that. My only objection is that I realized some decades back that Karl Marx has been dead for over 150 years, like most humans he got some things right and some things wrong, and basing any political program on how it does or doesn't align with his mostly outdated writings doesn't make sense. But a modest economic socialism to bring down the power of the corporate boardrooms, while restoring a conservative sense of limited cultural norms, I'm all for that. The other thing we disagree about is your faith that Trump will somehow make a positive contribution.
I’m actually back to shaking my head about Trump. It is clear that he has lost his political instincts some time back. A person who had just take a bullet and had the kind of resulting photo op, should have been ten to fifteen points ahead in the polls, especially running against someone like Harris. As for the boardrooms, people are angry, but still are convinced that “muh capitalism” is going to deliver some sort of salvation. Selling a dream of wealth that few will ever be able to achieve, holding onto whatever they have managed to scrape together, etc. I don’t know. It is hard to not be cynical about it all these days.
There is a line in the book "Ragtime" about men who work their fingers to the bone go home at night, not to dream of the cooperative commonwealth, but of becoming rich. A long time younger friend who is certifiably "black" dreams of being able to afford to have a maid. (No reason she shouldn't any more than anyone else.) I think this is human nature -- we always worry first about ourselves and our family and what we can provide for those we love most. So, any program to dethrone the corporate board rooms has to be rooted in "How will this make life better for me?" But its worth remembering that it was Liberal Republicans who ended Reconstruction.
Doesn’t help that the media has pretty much memory holed it. I no longer believe that the mainstream media is a dying institution. They still wield a helluva a lot of power. Alternatives are scattered and costly. I have a ton of subscriptions that I’m going to start culling because I just can’t afford all of them. If people haven’t learned a lesson from Biden in the Basement strategy about Kamala then we deserve what we get.
I can't afford to read all my subscriptions.
I tried to read Das Kapital once and my head slammed hard onto the desk. The Manifesto is still stirring but I think that it was written Engels.
No man had a bettet friend than Engels.
Understandable! Not the best place to start. The Communist Manifesto is basically polemic.You want to get the hang of it-.read Lesckek Kolakowskis Main Currents of Marxism.If you want to start in Marx , I’d go for Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and German Idelogy. Marx the economist is less interesting in my book
Thanks for the suggestions.
Das Kapital is basically a recitation of detailed statistics housed at the British Imperial Library, and some historians have concluded that they were utterly unreliable, because they were compiled from reports submitted by British public servants, who in the manner of many public servants in many times and places, couldn't be bothered to actually go count, they just made some numbers up that seemed about right and plugged them into their reports.
871?
Marx while not an advocate of polymorphist perversity was not a social conservative. And religion is antithetical to any Marxist conception of the world. Religion is an expression of man’s alienation and is to be overcome. Now you can have a welfare state and a regulated mixed economy. But socialism as a long term prospect is only possible through Leninist means. If as I believe all systems tend towards oligarchy, a system which already concentrates all power in the state is particularly prone to oppression and corruption. Anarchists grasped this but really what do they offer?
Spoken like a true Leninist. There was a time I took that level of despair seriously. The fact that all systems tend toward oligarchy is precisely why Lenin said it wasn't enough to socialize the "commanding heights" of the economy, but all small business (the petit bourgeoisie) had to be eliminated. But that's not sustainable either. I think we need an anti-trust and regulatory framework that exerts more control as an enterprise gets larger, without entirely denying a persevering individual a reasonable return on their years of 90 hour weeks and sacrifice to reinvest in the business.
No, Marx was not a social conservative. I didn't say he was. I said I see merit in a certain level of social norms that are generally honored. Marx's commentary on "community of women" is good sardonic humor, as far as "'he bourgeoisie already practice that, they love to seduce each other's wives.' But otherwise its a maudlin distraction. Anarchism opens the door for a handful of bullies to take over (because who has authority to stop them) which leads to unrestrained dictatorship.
Your first line made me laugh! ( I appreciated it).You’re not wrong but you’re wrong to see this as an expression of despair.Socialism is going to Leninism or it will not be. Thats ok with me . An anti trust framework combined with anti bigness regulations is probably a recipe for for stagnation but it’s not socialism.
Marx disliked the family, and at times seems to be advocating what we would call polyamory. Homosexuality wasn't really on the radar then for sober political consideration.
Actual Marxists (not "Marxists") I've met, such as members of the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party of Great Britain, tend to see sexual debauchery as not so much reprehensible as irrelevant; what one does with one's genitals has no bearing on one's political role.
I, on the other hand, tend to see trad Christian sexual morality as closely linked to egalitarian economics. Monogamy is sexual socialism. The family has collapsed because the boss class decided that forcing women into the workforce was useful for reducing wages and smashing the unions. They support LGBT because gays make ideal corporate warriors, with few nonnegotiable ties, and rootless ruthlessness. They support abortion to make hetero females more like homosexual men. Transgenderism and surrogacy constitute the commodification of even the most intimate aspects of human life.
The Christian Socialists and/or Distributists were right all along.
Very interesting! Very right wing socialist!I don’t agree with the policies implicit here but your onto a series of thoughts I’ve had myself.Many years ago, I was into reading a lot of Marcuse ~ now perhaps weirdly , I’d long since flipped right, I was at a dinner on the Yale campus and talked to a professor from Latvia who was horrified that I was babbling about Marcuse. I said no I get it but ,what Im getting at is Marcuse can be read as a voice detailing the assimilationist nature of capitalism. Useful. Of course structural capitalism turns all that Is solid into air.Schumpeter saw capitalism as “ progressive “‘but knew it undermined
Itself.So absolutely the capitalist class wants to extend economic relations and productivity across the board.,The economization of everything.
The political groups you talk about were Leninist. That’s one spin on Marxism. More specifically, Trotskyite? I maintain that Lenin was correct on socialism but a questionable interpreter of Marxism. On that, Rosa Luxemburg , is probably more sound.
The only groups I've had contact with are the SWP and SPGB. There are lots of other groupuscules knocking about; they tend to be comical more than anything else.
I shared a flat decades ago with a couple who were in the SPGB. That claims to be the purest form of Marxism, founded by Marx himself, rejecting the Russian Revolution from the word go.
The SWP are a bit more active. I knew a few members years ago, and even went to a couple of meetings. They are Trotskyist, but I don't know exactly how they differ from other Trotskyist sects. These are the group to which Peter Hitchens used to belong.
Also, people need to forget the racial stuff and start labeling her “the Hyena-ess”
The day Biden picked her for veep, I remarked to a certifiably "black" friend that Harris reminded me of a Beverly Hills society lady stepping out of a tanning salon.
I think it is bizarre that we have not had an authentic black nominee from the Democrats - in the sense of a person who was descended from slaves, had family suffer through the twin injustices of racism and poverty, not born into privilege, etc. For all the hoopla made about Obama, he was not connected to the black experience in this country. That blacks still are loyal to the Democratic Party is equally bizarre. I won’t say that the Republican Party is any sort of haven, but at least the threat of withholding all out support until there is a black candidate with those types of roots, seems like a worthwhile idea to pursue. The falling all over themselves to nominate Harris is a farce, or at least shows that the person whoever is president really has no power to do anything.
Al Sharpton could never win an election in a country where the population is only 13 percent "black." Barack Obama proved he could be a viable candidate after winning the Iowa caucuses. That's when cynical "black" voters realized an articulate "black" candidate could get enough "white" support to win a national election. Before that, at least a third of "black" voters supported Clinton, figuring Obama could never win a national election. There are, of course, many people descended from slaves who could make a broader appeal than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. But, as Obama observed, when he grew older he did experience the everyday post-Jim Crow indignities like cab drivers passing him by. I'm not sure that's such a big deal. His wife pretty much took care of the "he's not black enough" line among Americans of African descent. Harris is a default candidate, and perhaps the 800 pound elephant in the room nobody could remove. Two weeks before Joe accepted the inevitable, Harris was reportedly hurt that everyone was talking about anyone but her to replace Biden. As the veep with an election only a few weeks out, she was able to sit and pout and make herself obvious and start a little snow rolling until it was an avalanche.