Category: Politics

Morning in America!

Hats off to all the patriots who did their civic duty.  But this is no time to gloat over the defeat  of our enemies. They will not give up or give in. For these totalitarian dogs, the political is everything.  They do not suffer, as we do, from The Conservative Disadvantage.

The war is just starting and the national sanitation project will take at least a generation to accomplish.  To give you a taste of what we are up against, here is David Frum writing in The Atlantic this morning:

Donald Trump has won, and will become president for the second time. Those who voted for him will now celebrate their victory. The rest of us need to prepare to live in a different America: a country where millions of our fellow citizens voted for a president who knowingly promotes hatred and division; who lies—blatantly, shamelessly—every time he appears in public; who plotted to overturn an election in 2020 and, had he not won, was planning to try again in 2024.

Above all, we must learn to live in an America where an overwhelming number of our fellow citizens have chosen a president who holds the most fundamental values and traditions of our democracy, our Constitution, even our military in contempt. Over the past decade, opinion polls showed Americans’ faith in their institutions waning. But no opinion poll could make this shift in values any clearer than this vote. As a result of this election, the United States will become a different kind of country.

In a post from January of this year, Dueling Articles, I arrange a confrontation between Frum and Steve Cortes. The comment thread is a very good one, featuring contributions by the most distinguished among the MavPhil commentariat.

World leaders congratulate Trump.

UPDATE 3:42 PM

Leftist incomprehension:

Jonathan Chait, Americans Didn’t Embrace Trump, They Rejected the Biden-Harris Administration

But Lanny Davis, remember him? displays some self-awareness:

The Morning After: Lessons to Learn — and not to Learn

Terrorism and Anti-Semitism

Two more reasons to vote for Trump.  Ask yourself two simple questions.

Will the likelihood of terrorist events in the homeland be greater under Trump or under Harris with her open-border policy? Will there be more anti-semitic acts under Trump or under Harris with her casual and tolerant attitude toward crime?  The questions answer themselves, and in the affirmative, obviously. Now I can't expect a leftist to care about the second question. But even a leftist will care about the first unless she is completely out of her mind.

The case for Trump, all things considered, is overwhelmingly strong. There  is no case for Harris.  Her 'case' is merely a pile of anti-Trump lies and distortions.  She is a brazen liar, as is now perfectly evident, as well as being unfit for high office in other respects. 

You have a legal right to your opinion. But you have a moral obligation to do your best to form correct opinions.*  This obligation leftists fail to fulfill. So I hereby exercise my legal right to free speech by condemning them morally.

Bear in mind that these swine are working to eliminate said legal right.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’

Time to "turn the page." Time for "hope and change." This may well be our last chance to save our republic. But whatever the outcome of the election, the "battle outside raging" (Biblical Bob again) will rage on. So get ready.

_____________

*Note that I did not say that one has a moral obligation to form correct opinions. I said that one has a moral obligation to do one's best to form correct opinions. This is because one cannot be morally obliged to do something one is unable to do. 'Ought' implies 'can.'  Ultra posse nemo obligatur. 

Talk-jock Dennis Prager has said that one has a moral obligation to be happy. That is false as it stands, and for the reason I gave. 

Ten Reasons not to Vote Democrat

Originally posted 5 November 2012. Slightly redacted. Things are far worse now.

………………………………..

The Dems are the left-wing party in the U. S. Almost all Dems nowadays are leftists.  It's not 1960 any more and you geezers out there with your sentimental attachment to the 'Democrat' label need to wise up. 

1. Leftists lack common sense. As witness their lunatic stand on photo ID at polling places.  I have written several posts on this topic.  Here is one.

2. Leftists play the race card every chance they get.  There is plenty of evidence in my Race and Leftism categories.

3. Leftists, also known as 'liberals,' are anti-liberty.  As witness Obamacare's  individual mandate, to give just one example.

4. Leftists have a casual attitude toward crime.  See Britain and the Barbarians and other posts in the Crime and Punishment Category.  They oppose capital punishment even though this is exactly what justice demands in certain cases.  With their unhealthy and immoderate love of underdogs, leftists champion criminals while ignoring the concerns of decent citizens, even when the criminals are responsible for their 'sub-canine' status. Conservatives stand for the rights of the accused, due process, and equality before the law. Leftists distort and subvert these high principles. 

5. Leftists smear their opponents and then issue hypocritical calls for 'civility.'  What passes for argument among them is the hurling of SIXHRB epithets: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, bigoted. (acronym via Dennis Prager)  For example, if you oppose illegal immigration then you are a xenophobe; if you carefully argue against Obamacare then you a racist; if you give reasons why marriage is between a man a woman you are dismissed as a bigot.  If you oppose the slaughter of innocent human beings which is abortion you are waging war against women and interfering with their 'health care' and 'reproductive rights.'   If you point out the very real threat of radical Islam, then you are dismissed as an  'Islamophobe' with a mental illness.  And then there are the inevitable Hitler comparisons and the repeatedly thrown F-bomb, 'fascist.'  'White supremacist' and 'white nationalist' are other terms of abuse hurled scurrilously and without definition.

6. Leftists are weak on national defense and naïve about foreign policy. 

7. Leftists are fiscally irresponsible.  Unlike his predecessor, Obama made no attempt to put the existing entitlements on a sound fiscal basis.  Instead, he started up a new one!

8. Leftist are anti-religion. 

9. Leftists have  no proper appreciation for the Second Amendment.*

10. Liberals have no proper appreciation of the Tenth Amendment and the notion of federalism.

Addendum:  Tony H. writes to say that I forgot one:

11. Liberals are economic illiterates.
True.  Of course, I wasn't trying to give a complete list of reasons to oppose Obama and the whole leftist gang.  There are a lot more reasons than ten.  How about this one:

12. Liberals are linguistic hijackers.  They routinely distort the English language for their ideological purposes.  This is actually worse than lying.  To lie successfully one must use language properly, in accordance with the going conventions.  Misuse of language  is a subversion of the rules of the communicative game.  There are examples in my Language Matters category.

One particularly egregious example is the use of 'voter suppression' to refer to common-sense demands for proper ID procedures at polling places.  This shows that the scumbags of the Left will do anything to win. "The end justifies the means." Right out of the commie playbook.

For even more reasons, see The Constructive Curmudgeon who has worked himself into a fine, and justified, lather over Obama's abominations.  

_________________

*In 2012 one might still say that if leftists showed as much respect for the Second Amendment as they do for the First, gun ownership would be mandatory.  But now in 2024 things are far worse, as I said at the top. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and the rest of their scrofulous globalist-totalitarian ilk are gunning for the First Amendment too, as you must know if you have been paying attention. 

Vote Third Party, Waste Your Vote

This is a re-post from 6 November 2012. Since then, I have found no reason to alter my position. Perhaps you can supply me with one.  

……………………..

Did you perchance vote for Gary Johnson for president? Then you wasted your vote on an unelectable candidate and helped Barack Obama's re-election.

The truth of a view does not depend on its popularity.  But the political implementation of a view does depend on the electability of the candidate or candidates who represent it.  If politics were merely theoretical, merely an exercise in determining how a well-ordered state should be structured, then implementation would not matter at all.  But politics is practical, not theoretical: it aims at action that implements the view deemed best.  Someone who votes for an unelectable candidate demonstrates by so doing that he does not understand the nature of politics.

Even if Johnson is electable in the sense of (i) satisfying the formal requirements for being president, and (ii) being worthy of the office, he is not electable in the specific sense here in play, namely, possessing a practical chance of winning.

When one votes for any unelectable candidate one merely squanders one's vote.  If you are a libertarian, then your views are closer to those of Romney than to those of Obama.  By voting for the unelectable Johnson, you help someone win whose views are diametrically opposed to your own instead of helping one whose views are partially consonant with your own.  Now that is stupid, is it not?  It shows a lack of practical sense.

If you won't vote for an candidate that does not perfectly represent your views, then either

A. you are a utopian who fails to understand that politics is about action, not theory, in the world as it is, as opposed to some merely imagined world; or

B. you falsely think there is no difference between the major party candidates.

The same reasoning applies to those who vote for Jill Stein.  You are wasting your vote on an unelectable candidate.  You are making a statement all right, but nobody cares and it won't matter.  But I hope you lefties do vote for her: you will be helping Obama lose.

Addendum 10/28/2024.  As you may have noticed, Jill Stein is back! And so once again I hope you lefties do vote for her: you will be helping Harris lose.  

Ten Reasons to Vote Republican

By Peter Kalis.  This list, reproduced here verbatim, receives the plenary MavPhil endorsement. I will only add that the first item in the order of listing is also the first in the order of importance.

1. I believe a nation that doesn’t take its borders seriously doesn’t take itself seriously.

2. I believe in a Reaganesque approach to foreign policy. That is, peace through strength.

3. I believe in an independent Supreme Court whose decisions are grounded in the Constitution and statutes it is asked to apply. From the ascension of Earl Warren as Chief Justice in the mid-1950s and for a half century thereafter, the Court acted as a super legislature and handed down a continuous thread of left-leaning decisions with little or no foundation in the Constitution. In response, Republican leaders did not seek to pack the Court or impose term limits on its Justices, as Democrat leaders routinely do now.

4. I believe that merit, not immutable characteristics like skin color or gender, should drive personnel and admission decisions and the distribution of governmental largesse.

5. I believe that biological males, however they might identify, do not belong in girls’ and women’s sports or in their locker rooms or restrooms.

6.I believe that excessive government spending results in burdensome taxes, mountains of debt, bureaucratic bloat and inflation.

7. I believe that overregulation imperils innovation.

8. I believe that many institutions of higher learning have dangerously replaced an emphasis on critical thinking with ideological conformity.

9. I believe that toleration of anti-semitism on American campuses and elsewhere is a stain on American history and that aggressive support of Israel against its enemies is in our national interest and is justified by an informed view of the history of the Middle East and the Jewish people.

10. I believe in a growth economy and that the “secular stagnation” heralded by the Obama Administration undercuts opportunity for all Americans.

Long live the Republic! Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. This an excellent time to be investing in precious metals in the broad sense of  the term.  Au sits at $2738/oz at the moment. But Pb has come down in price. Stock up. Catacomb Joe reminds us of the old Boy Scout motto: "Be prepared."  

Red World, Blue World, and the Orange Man

David Brooks, Confessions of a Republican Exile:

In Red World, people tend to take a biblical view of the human person: We are gloriously endowed and made in the image of God—and we are deeply broken, sinful, and egotistical. [. . .] You belong to God; to your family; and to the town, nation, and civilization you call home. Your ultimate authority in life is outside the self—in God, or in the wisdom contained within our shared social and moral order.

In Blue World, by contrast, people are more likely to believe that far from being broken sinners, each of us has something beautiful and pure at our core. As the philosopher Charles Taylor put it in The Ethics of Authenticity, “Our moral salvation comes from recovering authentic moral contact with ourselves.” In this culture you want to self-actualize, listen to your own truth, be true to who you are. The ultimate authority is inside you.

Brooks sees good in both worlds, and does a fair job of characterizing the differences between them, but nowadays he finds himself "rooting for the Democrats about 70 percent of the time." But why the tilt toward the Blue?

You guessed it: the Orange Man.  Brooks speaks of "Donald Trump’s desecration of the Republican Party."  Desecration? But surely no political party in a non-theocratic system such as ours is sacred. You can't desecrate what is not sacred. But let that pass. There is far worse to come.

We are told that Blue World "has a greater commitment to the truth." Really? "This may sound weird," Brooks admits, but it is worse than weird; it is incoherent. One cannot both support the Blue commitment to "your own truth" and invoke the truth. If there is the truth, it cannot vary from person to person. What can so vary is only one's personal attitude to the truth, whether by way of acceptance, rejection, doubt, etc.  The truth is invariant across personal attitudes.  Truth cannot be owned. There is no such thing as my truth or your truth, any more than there is my reality and your reality.  Claudine Gay take note. This is an elementary point. Philosophy 101. Brooks needs to think harder. But then what can you expect from a journalist who writes for The Atlantic?

But not only is Brooks embracing incoherence, he is also maintaining something manifestly false.  If there is anything that best characterizes the current Blue World  in action it is the thorough-going mendacity of the members of the Biden-Harris administration from Biden on down. Do I need to give examples? It is enough to name names: Biden, Harris, Granholm, Mayorkas, and the list goes on.  In Mayorkas, the Director of Homeland Security, the mendacity takes an Orwellian turn into the subversion of language: "The border is secure, as we define 'secure."  His very title is an Orwellianism: he is actively promoting, as is the whole Biden-Harris administration, homeland insecurity.

The truth is that truth is not a leftist value. Leftists will sometimes speak the truth, of course, but only if it serves their agenda. Otherwise they lie.  What animates them is not the Will to Truth, but the Will to Power.  

Brooks again:

But today the Republican relationship to truth and knowledge has gone to hell. MAGA is a fever swamp of lies, conspiracy theories, and scorn for expertise. The Blue World, in contrast, is a place more amenable to disagreement, debate, and the energetic pursuit of truth. 

I hate to be so disagreeable, but that is just preposterous.

Could Brooks define 'lie'?  Does he understand the distinction between a lie and an exaggeration? Has he given any thought to the difference between a lie and a counterfactual conditional? After winning in 2016, Trump famously boasted, 

Had it not been for all the illegal votes, I would have won the popular vote as well as the electoral college vote.

Leftists, who compile long lists of Trump's supposed lies, had among their number some who counted the above — an accurate paraphrase of what Trump said, not an exact quotation — as a lie.

But it is obviously not a lie. The worst you could call it is an unlikely, self-serving speculation.  He did not assert something he knew to be false, he asserted something he did not know to be true and could not know to be true. For there was no underlying fact of the matter about which he could have even tried to deceive his audience.  Counterfactual conditionals are about merely possible states of affairs.  That is why they are called counterfactual.

Has Brooks ever thought hard about what a conspiracy theory is? 

The Blues are "more amenable to disagreement, debate, and the energetic pursuit of truth"?  How's that for a brazen lie what with their de-platforming and cancellation of their opponents  not to mention the recent assaults on the First Amendment by John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

Kamala

I voted already. The mail-in ballot arrived on the 10th; I mailed it on the 11th.  And I voted right. Did you? I also put my money where my mouth is by making a campaign contribution. Did you?

Question: when one votes early by mail is one endorsing mass mail-in voting? I know my answer. What's yours?

Bear in mind that a vote for Kamala is a vote for her puppet masters. She is a fraud, a phony, and a red herring. A vote for Trump will be a vote for a man, his own man, not a puppet. More importantly, it is a vote for policies which he has honestly stated.   In stark contrast, Kamala is a stealth ideologue. She has not come clean, and cannot: she must deceive the easily-deceived electorate to have a chance of winning. 

UPDATE (10/14) 

Polls Against Kamal the Phony

I call leftist journalists, 'journos.' It is a term of disapprobation, to put it mildly. Here J. D. Vance blows a journo clean out of the water. And he does it personably and civilly without Trumpian exaggeration or unnecessary vitriol.

Journalists these days, whatever their political affiliation, are on a pretty low level, competing with lawyers for the public's distrust. "Journalism is dead," as Bill O'Reilly used to say. But let's be fair and acknowledge the courage and commitment of journalists on both sides of the political divide who risk their lives to report on the unfolding horrors of our fallen world.  I am thinking in particular of Trey Yingst. But some lefties are courageous as well and deserve our respect.

As for who deserves respect, does James Carville deserve any? Here is his latest outburst.

Policies Trump Personalities

I'm with Kevin Sorbo. You say character matters? I agree! Trump's beats Kamala's. 

"That moment when someone says, "I can't believe you would vote for Trump.”

"I simply reply, “I'm not voting for Trump.”

"I'm voting for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

"I'm voting for the Second Amendment and my right to defend my life and my family.

"I'm voting for the next Supreme Court Justice(s) to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"I’m voting for the continued growth of my retirement and reducing inflation.

"I’m voting for a return of our troops from foreign countries and the end to America’s involvement in foreign conflicts.

"I'm voting for the Electoral College and for the Republic in which we live.

"I'm voting for the Police to be respected once again and to ensure Law & Order. I am tired of all the criminals having a revolving door and being put back in the street.

"I’m voting for the continued appointment of Federal Judges who respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"I’m voting for keeping our jobs to remain in America and not be outsourced all over the world – to China, Mexico and other foreign countries. I want USA made.

"I’m voting for secure borders and have legal immigration. I can’t believe we have actually have flown 380,000 illegal immigrants into our country. I am voting for doing away with all of the freebies given to all of the illegals and not looking after the needs of the American citizens.

"I'm voting for the Military & the Veterans who fought for this Country to give the American people their freedoms.

"I'm voting for the unborn babies that have a right to live.

"I’m voting for peace progress in the Middle East.

"I’m voting to fight against human/child trafficking.

"I'm voting for Freedom of Religion.

"I'm voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored. I am voting for the return of teaching math, history, and science instead of indoctrination of our children and pronouns.

"I'm not just voting for one person, I'm voting for the future of my Country.

"I'm voting for my children and my grandchildren to ensure their freedoms and their future."

The 2020 Theft Saved the Country

The argument of this article goes through even if the 2020 election was not stolen from Trump. Biden's reversal of Trump's good works has exposed the thoroughly depredatory nature of our political enemies and has galvanized Trump and his supporters. The Orange Man has learned a lot in the interim.  First-rate ass-kickers have joined his team, Elon Musk and J. D. Vance to mention but two. His four-year sabbatical has done him good.  Compare Vance to Pence to get a sense of what I mean.

I find it hard to avoid schadenfreude when I think of the pain of leftists, whether full-on Dementocrats or RINO-cratic fellow travelers.   So, to rub it in: if you depredatory chucklephucks hadn't opposed Trump with your vicious lies and dirty tricks, you would be done with him in four months. 

Some say that Trump is 'divisive.' Here is my 26 August 2017 rebuttal:

To say of Trump or anyone that he is divisive is to say that he promotes  division. But there is no need to promote it these days since we already have plenty of it. We are a deeply and perhaps irreparably divided nation.  So it is not right to say that Trump is divisive: he is standing on one side of an already existing divide.

Trump did not create the divide between those who stand for the rule of law and oppose sanctuary cities, porous borders, illegal immigration and irresponsibly lax legal immigration policies.  What he did is take up these issues fearlessly, something his milque-toast colleagues could not bring themselves to do.  

And he has met with some success: illegal immigration is down some 50%. 

So-called 'liberals' and their RINO pals call him a bigot, a racist, a xenophobe. That they engage in this slander shows that the nation is bitterly divided over fundamental questions. It also shows what kind of people our political enemies are. 

Too often journalistic word-slingers shoot first and ask questions never. Wouldn't it be nice if they thought before their lemming-like and knee-jerk deployment of such adjectives as 'divisive'?

Language matters.

We are in deep trouble as a country, and as a consequence, the world is as well.  The fight for civilization is only just beginning.

 

 

Repost from Election Day, 2016: Catholics Must Support Trump

This is an unredacted repost from 8 November 2016.  My opinion of Trump is higher now than it was then.  But the piece is basically on the right track and I stand by it. I threw the dice for Trump and the sequel showed that I was right to do so.  I was vindicated in my prediction that he would appoint conservative justices to SCOTUS.  That was and is a big deal. 

…………………..

It is astonishing that there are Catholics who vote Democrat, when the Dems are the abortion party, and lately and increasingly a threat to religious liberty to boot.  How then could any practicing Catholic vote for Hillary or support Hillary by voting for neither Hillary nor Trump?

So here's my final appeal on Election Day.  It consists of a repost from August, substantially redacted, and an addendum in which I reproduce a recent bit of text  from George Weigel.

………………….

Could a Catholic Support Trump?

Via Burgess-Jackson, I came to this piece by Robert P. George and George Weigel, An Appeal to Our Fellow Catholics (7 March 2016).  Appended to it is a list of distinguished signatories.   Excerpt:

Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be president of the United States. His campaign has already driven our politics down to new levels of vulgarity. His appeals to racial and ethnic fears and prejudice are offensive to any genuinely Catholic sensibility. He promised to order U.S. military personnel to torture terrorist suspects and to kill terrorists’ families — actions condemned by the Church and policies that would bring shame upon our country. And there is nothing in his campaign or his previous record that gives us grounds for confidence that he genuinely shares our commitments to the right to life, to religious freedom and the rights of conscience, to rebuilding the marriage culture, or to subsidiarity and the principle of limited constitutional government.          

I will respond to these points seriatim.    

A. It is true that Trump is unfit to be president, but so is Hillary.  But that is the choice we face now that Trump has secured the Republican nomination.  In the politics of the real world, as opposed to the politics of utopia, it will be either Trump or Hillary: not both and not neither.  Are they equally unfit for the presidency? Arguably yes at the level of character.  But at the level of policy no clear-thinking conservative or Catholic could possibly do anything to aid Hillary, whether by voting for her or by not voting for Trump.  Consider just abortion and religious liberty and ask yourself which candidate is more likely to forward an agenda favorable to Catholics.

B.  Yes, Trump has taken vulgarity in politics to new depths.  Unlike milquetoast conservatives, however, he knows how to fight back against political enemies. He doesn't apologize and he doesn't wilt in the face of leftist lies and abuse.   He realizes that in post-consensus politics there is little or no place for civility.  There is no advantage in being civil to the viciously uncivil.  He realizes that the Alinskyite tactics the uncivil Left has been using for decades have to be turned against them.  To paraphrase Barack Obama, he understands that one needs to bring a gun to a gun fight.

C. The third sentence above, the one about appeals to racial fears,  is something one would expect from a race-baiting leftist, not from a conservative.  Besides, it borders on slander, something I should think a Catholic would want to avoid.  

You slander Trump and his supporters when you ignore his and their entirely legitimate concern for the rule of law and for national sovereignty and suggest that what motivates him and them is bigotry and fear.  Trump and Trump alone among the candidates has had the courage to face the Islamist threat to our country and to call for the vetting of Muslim immigrants. That is just common sense.   The milquetoast conservatives are so fearful of being branded xenophobes, 'Islamophobes,' and racists and so desirous of being liked and accepted in respectable Establishment circles, that they will not speak out against the threat. 

If they had, and if they had been courageous conservatives on other issues, there would be no need for Trump, he would have gained no traction, and his manifest negatives would have sunk him.  Trump's traction is a direct result of conservative inaction.  The milquetoasts and bow-tie boys need to look in the mirror and own up to their complicity in having created Trump the politician.  But of course they will not do that; they will waste their energy attacking Trump, the only hope we have, in violation of Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment.  What a sorry bunch of self-serving pussy-wussies!  They yap and scribble, but when it comes time to act and show civil courage, they wilt.  They need to peer into a mirror; they will then know what a quisling looks like.

Reagan11CommdmtWeb

D. I concede that Trump's remarks about torture ought to worry a Catholic. But you should also realize that Trump's strategy is to shoot his mouth off like a rude, New York working stiff in order to energize his base, to intimidate his enemies, and to draw free media attention to himself.  Then in prepared speeches he 'walks back' his unguarded comments and adds the necessary qualifications. It is a brilliant strategy, and it has worked.

Trump understands that politics is a practical struggle.  It takes place in the street, in a broad sense of the  term, not in the seminar room.  We intellectuals cringe at Trump's absurd exaggerations, but Trump knows that Joe Sixpack and the blue-collared guys who do the real work of the world have contempt for 'pointy-headed intellekshuls' and he knows that the way to reach them is by speaking their language.

E. It is true that Trump's previous record supplies a reason to doubt whether Trump really shares Catholic commitments.  But is it not possible that he has 'evolved'?  You say the 'evolution' is merely opportunistic? That may well be.  But how much does it matter what his motives are if he helps with the conservative agenda?  It is obvious that his own ego and its enhancement is the cynosure of all his striving.  He is out for himself, first, and a patriot, second.  But Hillary is also out for herself, first, and she is manifestly not a patriot but a destructive hate-America leftist who will work to advance Obama's "fundamental transformation of America."  (No one who loves his country seeks a fundamental transformation of it.)

We KNOW what Hillary and her ilk and entourage will do.  We KNOW she will be  inimical "to the right to life, to religious freedom and the rights of conscience, to rebuilding the marriage culture, or to subsidiarity and the principle of limited constitutional government." Now I grant you that Trump is unreliable, mercurial, flaky, and other bad things to boot.  But it is a very good bet that some of what he and his entourage will do will advance the conservative agenda.  Trump is espousing the Right ideas, and it is they that count.  Can't stand him as a person?  Vote for him as a vehicle of the Right ideas!

So I say: if you are a conservative or a Catholic and you do not vote for Trump, you are a damned fool!  Look in the mirror and see the quisling who is worried about his status in 'respectable society.'

Companion post: Social Justice or Subsidiarity?

Here is what George Weigel has to say in NRO today:

The most obvious con is the Trumpian one. Over the past year, the Republican party was captured by a narcissistic buccaneer who repudiated most of what conservatism and the Republican party have stood for over the past half-century, cast venomous aspersions on Republican leaders and those manifestly more qualified than he is for president, insulted our fellow citizens, demeaned women and minorities, played footsy with the Russian dictator Putin, threw NATO under the bus, displayed a dismal ignorance of both the Constitution and the grave matters at stake in current public-policy debates — and in general behaved like a vulgar, sinister bore. In doing all this, Trump the con artist confirmed in the eyes of a partisan mainstream media every one of its false conceptions of what modern conservatism stands for and is prepared to do when entrusted with the tasks of governance.

This outburst does not merit reply beyond what I have said above and elsewhere; Weigel the man needs to seek help for a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

But one last shot:  as for the Constitution, we KNOW that Hillary will shred it; Trump, however, has promised to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court, and he has provided a list.  How can anyone's head be so far up his nether hole as not to understand this?

The nation is at a tipping point.  Do your bit to save it.

Just over the Transom from Malcolm Pollack

Hi Bill,
 
My neighbor didn't call me a Trumper to my face, but mentioned (back in April) to my wife that he had the impression that I was one. (I felt obliged to unpack the assertion in a post.)
 
The Cape has a lot of Dems, but most of the working people out here are what Zman calls "dirt people" (i.e., those who encounter actually existing reality in their work), and they are . . . well, Trumpers. They are also well-armed.
 
[. . .]
 
The post to which Malcolm links, from April,  is up to his usual high standard and is one you ought to read.  I agree with it in its entirety. As the political temperature rises, its relevance does as well. 

22 Claims in Trump-Harris Debate Fact-Checked

Here

………………………..

So are the Haitians who are enriching the culture of Springfield, Ohio, chowing down on cats and dogs and ducks? The deplorables of Springfield need to understand that diversity is our strength and that people have a right to live anywhere the global elites send them and the right to do whatever they want when they get there.  Ohio is fly-over country. People who live there are rubes and know-nothings.  The people who live there are poor white trash who need all the cultural enrichment they can get.  They need to understand that automotive diversity is as important as every other kind. Running red lights and stop signs is an alternative automotive lifestyle. It is racist and xenophobic to be judgmental. Anyone who makes moral judgments is judgmental, by definition!

More cat-memes, all in good Alinskyite fun. Think of it this way. Truth is not a leftist value.  So in our war against them we ought to honor their value system by using it against them.