Parlano molto ma fanno poco.
They talk a lot but do little.
Category: Politics
David Gelernter on Trump
Via Power Line (emphasis added):
I remain absolutely a supporter and a sympathizer of Trump. And you know, no president checks every box. I think his virtues far outweigh his faults. I do wish he would take the office and the history of the office more seriously than he does . . .
Just the fact of getting elected was an extraordinary accomplishment. I mean, you could say it was the most culturally democratic moment in the history of the world. Never before has a great power spurned everything the elite — the intellectual and the social elite — knows, left and right, about who should be running the country. Never before has a great power said to hell with that. The dignity of the country is important and has a lot to do with the power of the country, but this is an emergency and we’re going to make use of the best candidate who’s out there. And the implications are enormous. The left believes that, since it refuses to report on the right, the right doesn’t really exist, that it’s just a bunch of uncollected morons with no serious thought.
We all know this. We’ve reached a point where the left’s blindness is aiding the collapse of the intellectual structure built up since the rise of Marxism . . . The left is too arrogant, too complacent, too self-satisfied to notice it or do anything about it — I hope.
This is indeed an emergency and I would go so far as to say that the so-called conservatives who refused to support Trump displayed a morally censurable degree of willful stupidity. And they are paying the price for it. The 'stock' of Bill Kristol and George Will et al. has plummeted.
Dirty Hillary
Hoist by her own Russian petard.
The more we know about her, the better Trump looks by comparison.
Those of us who rolled the dice and voted for him have been vindicated in spades.
Which Side Are You On?
It is an appropriate question to ask in politics, though not in philosophy. Politics is warfare. If you call yourself conservative and don't support Trump, then you are helping the enemy. Which side are you on?
In philosophy we strive for objectivity. We take our time; we consider all points of view. We show respect for our interlocutors. We are civil. But one cannot be objective in a fight for one's life and way of life especially if one's way of life includes free speech, open inquiry, and resistance to the Left's totalitarian politicization and ideologization of everything, including pure mathematics! (More on this later.) One has to secure, with blood and iron if need be, the space of objective inquiry against the ideologues who, at the present time, are chiefly leftists and Islamists, and who wittingly or unwittingly, work together.
You don't like the vulgar Trump? Tough shit. He's all we've got. Face reality and its limitations. Don't let the best become the enemy of the good. The milque-toast McCains haven't done jack and won't do jack, except talk and obstruct. David Horowitz:
The movement galvanized by Trump can stop the progressive juggernaut and change the American future, but only if it emulates the strategy of the campaign: Be on the offense; take no prisoners; stay on the attack. To stop the Democrats and their societal transformation, Republicans must adhere to a strategy that begins with a punch in the mouth. That punch must pack an emotional wallop large enough to throw them off balance and neutralize their assaults. It must be framed as a moral indictment that stigmatizes them in the way their attacks stigmatize Republicans. It must expose them for their hypocrisy. It must hold them accountable for the divisions they sow and the suffering they cause. (Big Agenda, Humanix, 2017, p. 142)
Trump alone, an outsider who doesn't need a job, has the civil courage and is in a position to deliver the needed punches. That's why we like him. That's why we overlook his flaws. He punches back. And for other reasons given here.
Pap and Smear
'Pap and smear' is part of the explanation why Hillary lost. If you listen to her speak you soon realize that she has nothing concrete to offer. It is all empty rhetoric, or pap. But she really sealed her fate when she smeared as 'deplorables' the decent Americans who do not subscribe to her (well-hidden) agenda.
Pap and smear.
It is becoming increasingly clear how unfit for the presidency she is. Her complicity in the Uranium One scandal for starters.
Now there is a real Russia story.
Ten Political-Economic Theses
Here are ten theses to which I subscribe in the critical way of the philosopher, not the dogmatic way of the ideologue.
1. There is nothing wrong with money. It is absolutely not the root of all evil. The most we can say is that the inordinate desire for money is at the root of some evils. I develop this theme in Radix Omnium Malorum.
2. There is nothing wrong with making money or having money. There is for example nothing wrong with making a profit from buying, refurbishing, paying propery taxes on, and then selling a house.
3. There is nothing wrong with material (socio-economic) inequality as such. For example, there is nothing wrong with Bill Gates' having a vastly higher net worth than your humble correspondent. And there is nothing wrong with the latter's having a considerably higher net worth than some of his acquaintances. (When they were out pursuing wine, women, and song, he was engaging in virtuous, forward-looking activities thereby benefiting not only himself but also people who come in contact with him.) Of course, when I say that there is nothing wrong with material inequality as such, I am assuming that the inequalities have not come about through force or fraud.
4. Equality of outcome or result is not to be confused with equality of opportunity or formal equality in general, including equality under the law. It is an egregious fallacy of liberals and leftists to infer a denial of equality of opportunity — via 'racism' or 'sexism' or whatever — from the premise that a certain group has failed to achieve equality of outcome. There will never be equality of outcome due to the deep differences between individuals and groups. We must do what we can to ensure equality of opportunity and then let the chips fall where they may. This is consistent with support for government-run programs to help the truly needy who are in dire straits through no fault of their own.
6. Private property is the foundation of individual liberty. Socialism and communism spell the death of individual liberty. The more socialism, the less liberty. "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen." (D. Prager)
7. The individual is the locus of value, not any collectivity, whether family, tribe, race, nation, or State. We do not exist for the State; the State exists for us as individuals.
8. Property rights, contra certain libertarians, are not absolute: there are conditions under which an 'eminent domain' State seizure (with appropriate compensation) of property can be justified. This proposition tempers the individualism of the preceding one.
9. Governments can and do imprison and murder. No corporation does. Liberals and leftists and 'progressives' have a naive faith in the benevolence of government, a faith that is belied by that facts of history: Communist governments in the 20th century murdered over 100 million people. (Source: Black Book of Communism.) Libs and lefties and progs are well-advised to adopt a more balanced view, tranfering some of their skepticism about corporations — which is in part justified — to Big Government, especially the omni-intrusive and omni-competent (omni-incompetent?)sort of governments they champion.
10. Our social and political troubles are rooted in our moral malaise, in particular, in inordinate and disordered desire. It is a pernicious illusion of the Left to suppose that our troubles have an economic origin solely and can be alleviated by socialist schemes of redistribution of wealth.
Never-Trumpers are a Disgustingly Impractical Bunch of Pseudo-Conservative Quislings
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
Pence’s Departure a Stunt?
While Trump and Corker took potshots at each other, Vice President Mike Pence engaged in an intentionally polarizing stunt by showing up at an Indianapolis Colts football game only to depart in a huff when players from the San Francisco 49ers (predictably) knelt in protest during the national anthem. It was an utterly gratuitous effort to sow race-based dissension and animosity in the country — the diametric opposite of the kind of behavior we normally label "presidential."
Polarizing? We are already polarized. There is no need for any polarizing. VP Pence was merely taking a stand at one of the poles, the pole of patriotism and decency and respect, and protesting the antipodean ingratitude and disrespect of the louts who protest an imaginary 'systemic racism.'
Intentionally polarizing? How does Linker know what Pence's intentions were?
Stunt? Pence was courageously pushing back against destructive leftist scum.
Predictably? So the louts lack free will and must be expected to engage in bad behavior?
Gratuitous? Not at all. It was a warranted response to the loutish behavior of know-nothings.
Effort to sow race-based dissension? Again, how does Linker know what Pence's intentions were? And again, the dissension already exists. There's no need for any sowing.
Race-based? What does race have to do with this? Pence was standing up against unpatriotic behavior at a NATIONAL Football League event.
Unpresidential? Not at all. Pence courageously took a patriotic stand. He did his job. Had he not done what he did he would have been unpresidential.
As for Trump, it is eminently presidential of him to call for the elimination of NFL subsidies.
It looks like we have a bit of a disagreement here.
An Identity-Political Paradox
Leftists hold that borders and walls are 'racist' and 'hateful' and 'fascist' and that the nation state is an illegitimate construct. They bristle at talk of national identity and national sovereignty. Is it not then paradoxical for these same leftists to embrace identity politics at the sub-national level?
And if walls are 'racist' and 'hateful' then so is Obama's Wall:
Trump’s Best Line in the U. N. Speech
A great line—because it spoke a great truth—was this: “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.” Mr. Trump then paused and looked at the audience. It struck some as a “please clap” moment. It struck me as a stare-down: I’m saying something a lot of you need to hear. You’re not going to like it, and I’m going to watch you not like it.
How's Socialism Doing in Venezuela? (A short video)
Trump Eight Months In
He is doing pretty well, according to Hugh Hewitt. Surprisingly well, I would add, if you consider the formidable factions arrayed against him: the Democrat Party; the liberal media; knuckleheaded Never-Trumpers; Deep State operatives; Ryan, McConnell, McCain and the rest of the milque-toast, go-along-to-get-along, appease-the-Left careerists among the Republicans.
Sympathy for Hillary
To be competitive and indeed successful in this world often demands a level of self-assurance and inner certainty that is incompatible with acknowledgment of the sober truth about oneself. This is especially the case in the upper reaches of the political game. So perhaps we should forgive Hillary her pathetic, self-serving book, What Happened. She is a leftist for whom the political is everything. How can one expect her, at the end of her career, to enter into the equanimity that permits a balanced view of things? She is no philosopher. Ever the activist, she is incapable of calming down sufficiently to see things in perspective.
The human predicament has its tragic sides. One is that success is too often predicated upon inordinate self-confidence and blindness to faults.
Trump Derangement Syndrome
Charles blows a gasket.
Trump is Flawed but Hillary Would Have Been Far Worse
Here:
Shall we rue his election, as “Never Trumpers” continue to do? Well, first of all — He’s what we’ve got for the next 41 or 89 months. Had we gotten Hillary instead, we would not have encountered fewer lies from the Oval Office, nor from whatever new bathroom she would have selected to store her next-generation stealth computer server. In a world where Benghazi was caused by a YouTube video that almost no one saw — and which no one conceivably viewed through its painfully not-soon-enough conclusion — and in which a Secretary of State had exchanged tens of thousands of emails regarding her yoga classes and daughter’s wedding dress, one need not fantasize to grasp how much public lying would have emanated from a new Clinton West Wing, Oval Office, and from under the President’s desk had we been Hillaried.
Hillary would have assured the Obama Revolution a prospective permanence, endangering the future of the Republic without slowing the rise of the seas or healing the planet. Would Michelle Obama by now be the ninth Supreme Court Justice casting tie-breaking votes? Or Barack? Or a kindred soul? If so, before we mourn an imperiled Second Amendment, what would have become of the First Amendment? In a world in which the politically deranged and morally challenged Southern Poverty Law Center can defame the most decent of Christian religious-freedom advocates, groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, as “Hate Groups,” what would have been left of religious freedom under a Hillary? And what of the embattled First Amendment right to speak one’s mind freely in an environment where there is no inducement to violence, no imminent lawless action, but a plethora of campus intolerance and university schemes aimed at taxing speech into silence by imposing exorbitant “security fees” and moving conservative groups and scholars to off-site inaccessible venues and to obscure dates when students are otherwise engaged?
Trump Haters, Supporters, Neither, and Both
Another brilliant column by VDH. I am tempted to quote, but it's all good.