My man Hanson has too much class to be so blunt. Here is part of what he has to say in a very astute article from which you can infer my title:
In sum, the NeverTrump lament seems to be that whatever good Trump has done is more than outweighed by his “character is destiny” flaws. Neil Gorsuch and scores of conservative circuit court judges; Nikki Haley at the United Nations, James Mattis at Defense, H.R. McMaster at the National Security Council, Mike Pompeo at the CIA, and Rex Tillerson at the State Department, all restoring deterrence; rollbacks of Obama-era executive orders; green-lighting pipeline construction and increased fossil fuel production; protections of Second Amendment rights; restoring national borders; and genuine efforts to reform Obamacare and the tax code—all of that for them is not worth the spectacle of Trump on the national stage.
A Note to VDH
Dear Professor Hanson,
When I see you on Tucker Carlson you look all beat to hell. You're working too hard. Please take care of yourself. Get plenty of rest, exercise, and eat well. Write less. We need you for decades to come.
Your loyal reader,
BV
UPDATE (5:50 AM)
Mark Anderson writes,
Buongiorno, Bill,
Hanson worked with me on my Classics M.A. thesis, which I wrote under the supervision of Robert Drews, a well known historian of the Bronze Age whose work Hanson admires. My article "Socrates as Hoplite" is a distillation of that work. It is also, by the way, relevant to the relation between philosophy, ethics, and self-defense (even aggression). In any case, I share your dismay about Hanson's appearance (and speaking style/tone, and slovenly oversized suits) on Tucker Carlson (one of the very few serious, knowledgeable, and intellectually honest journalist-commentators on TV). He (Hanson) really does seem beat. But I suspect that's just his style.
Buona giornata,
Mark
Mark Anderson
Chair, Department of Philosophy
Director of Classics
Belmont University
Nashville, TN 37212
Ciao Marco,
I share your high opinion of Tucker Carlson. But I wish he would stop inviting lefties. He probably thinks he needs to do this to be "fair and balanced," but what typically happens is that Carlson asks some reasonable question of the leftist guest, which the latter evades in order let loose with his reliably incoherent canned spiel, about, say, all those thousands of people roaming around without photo ID who are 'disenfranchised' — sneer quotes! — by reasonable ID requirements at polling places. Tucker tries without success to bring the knucklehead back to the topic, voices are raised, they talk over each other, and I surf away to a Seinfeld re-run. These shouting matches are totally unproductive. Besides, they elevate my blood pressure. But when I return from Seinfeld to hear the brilliant and consummately witty analysis of Mark Steyn, or the less brilliant, but solid, contribution of my favorite gun-totin' lesbian, the charming Tammy Bruce, then it is all worthwhile and the old B.P. returns to 'within range.'
Of course, there are people who like to watch unproductive shouting matches. They like to see people fight. So it may well be that ratings would decline if my suggestion were followed.
Tucker needs to realize that the age of productive dialog with political opponents is over in American politics. Destructive leftists don't need talk, they need defeat. Let's hope it can be achieved politically without resort to, God forbid, the 2A solution. But as every patriot knows, the 2A ain't about hunting.
Tante belle cose,
Guglielmo