Update from the Sunland
No.877
22.10.18 – 28.10.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
This particular article seems to be quite relevant and illuminating in these troubled times of rampant tribalism.
“The Real Reason They Hate Trump – He’s the average American in exaggerated form—blunt, simple, willing to fight, mistrustful of intellectuals.”
by David Gelernter
Wall Street Journal
Published: Oct. 21, 2018; 3:01 p.m. ET
Gelernter lost me when he boldly stated, “[T]he left’s only issue is ‘We hate Trump.’ This is an instructive hatred, because what the left hates about Donald Trump is precisely what it hates about America.” He went on to conclude, “Those who voted for Mr. Trump, and will vote for his candidates this November, worry about the nation, not its image.”
My early adult years were spent in service of We, the People, in uniform under arms as a Marine. One of many axioms we were taught and was deeply engrained in us was: a good-looking Marine is a good-fighting Marine. The phrase connotes pride in the uniform and the history we represent. As a consequence, I did not like the ugly-American syndrome 50 years ago; I like it even less today. It is a very bad image. Image matters, as it is often how others relate to you because it may be all that they have to assess your character.
Gelernter uses the word hate a lot. Not that it matters to anyone, but for the public record, I DO NOT HATE the man; he is what he is and what he has always been. He is the consummate ugly-American. So, if he represents that portion of We, the People, who espouse, embrace and practice the ugly-American syndrome, then, yes, I do find that element of American culture disgusting, reprehensible and contemptible.
Gelernter boldly bandies about the term “left-wing intellectuals” to describe those who “hate” the BIC. I am neither “left wing” nor an “intellectual.” I see myself as a student of history, a person who cares about words and how they are used, an independent, moderate with no political affiliation (no tribe), and a proud American citizen who cares deeply for this Grand Republic and what it stands for.
Since I have continuously professed my interest in learning what American citizens see in the BIC, I genuinely appreciate Gelernter’s attempt to explain why some folks hate the BIC, and by implication, why others love the Bully-in-Chief. Respectfully, Gelernter did not answer the title claim from my perspective.
Before all of the BIC supporters in this audience and out there in cyberspace jump on me, I am NOT generalizing. I am NOT ascribing traits to ALL who support the BIC. I only ask, before you vilify me more than has already been done, please look, take a very close look, at those who speak for the BIC, hold up hate signs, plaster hate messages on their van windows, gleefully chant hate at the BIC’s political rallies with the BIC encouraging them, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. What he is doing to this Grand Republic is NOT good. The ends do NOT justify the means.
Damn! I will sure be glad and enormously grateful when this freakin’ silly season concludes. I have subscribed to a number of conservative and liberal newsletters to keep track of the political rhetoric from both ends of the spectrum. This particular silly season has marked a monumental change. I have been inundated with two to three times my normal traffic of Republican political drivel. Every single day including weekends I have been flooded with pleas for my vote, money and advocacy. What is worse, the Republicans are bombarding me with campaign garbage for candidates I am not eligible to vote for or against. Two more weeks . . . and I want this nonsense to stop. Republicans are not winning friends or positively influencing people.
A friend, former brother-in-arms, and regular contributor asked what was going to happen when the “caravan” reached our southern border? To which I replied:
In accordance with the law, they will be interviewed for the purpose of their visit. If they are seeking asylum, their application will be taken and adjudicated. Most will be turned back. Some will attempt to enter illegally; those who are captured will be charged, evaluated by a judge, and most likely deported. The sad reality is, they are seeking better lives; even cleaning toilets is better than what they have in their native land, but we cannot absorb all those people who are economically distressed. It is sad but reality. We cannot take them all.
The immensely more serious issue that overshadowed the BIC’s scary caravan invasion nonsense was the more than a dozen, improvised explosive devices sent through the postal system by a man who was arrested in short order near Miami, Florida. The BIC was upset by the “bomb stuff” upsetting his political momentum for the upcoming mid-term election. The citizens who were targeted by these IED mail bombs were:
-- President Barack Obama
-- Vice President Joe Biden
-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
-- Attorney General Eric Holder
-- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
-- Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan
-- Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey
-- Senator Kamala Harris of California
-- Representative Maxine Waters of California
-- Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida
-- Robert De Niro
-- George Soros
-- Tom Steyer
-- Cable News Network (CNN)
The one fact that is common to all of these targets is they are and have been critical of the BIC; many are Democratic Party leaders; all of them have felt the BIC’s wrathful rantings at them specifically. Of course, the BIC accepts no responsibility or culpability for the incitement of the bomber who is a radical advocate and supporter of the BIC. What does the BIC think is going to happen when he publicly declares the mainstream media are “enemies of the people”? The Press is NOT the enemy; they are us. The Democrats are not boogeymen; they are us. This was NOT a false-flag operation. This was a disturbed citizen with radical right-wing notions filling his mind, who thought he was carrying out the BIC’s agenda. The BIC talks admirably about needing all citizens to unify; however, what he fails to add is: “as long as you conform to my dicta.”
The Commerce Department reported the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—the value of all goods and services produced in the country and a measure of economic performance—rose at a seasonally and inflation-adjusted annual rate of 3.5% in 3Q2018. According to the report, stronger consumer spending fueled the economic growth, offsetting weak business investment and a drop in U.S. exports. While the economic growth and employment levels are positive signs, I remain seriously concerned that the USG is overheating the economy and inflation concerns will raise interest rates. I would rather see modest growth, low inflation and low interest rates.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, families and friends of those who lost their lives at the hands of yet another right-wing, radical, anti-Semite and the four police officers wounded while trying to stop the shooter and protect worshippers at the Tree of Life Or L’Simcha Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The kind of hatred that would lead a man to do something like this is NOT a flash in the pan; it was not a spontaneous event. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment; however, it is also a very good clue to potential behavior. His hatred has evolved over a very long time, probably since he was taught to hate as a child. Many citizens from family to acquaintances and strangers observed this man’s hatred. He should have been stopped before he could injure anyone.
We, the People, as citizens of this Grand Republic, must care more about our communities. The police cannot do it all; they need our help. Our legislators must do more to pass laws to intercede with citizens who present this type of hatred or mental illness—for their protection and the protection of society; they need our help.
Comments and contributions from Update no.876:
“Dear Corrupt Centrist..well you said it young sir.”
Comment to the Blog:
“I'm with Hillary (when she's right, she's right) on the Monica issue. We cannot have utter mathematical proof of what happened, but we almost never do of anything. From what I found from multiple sound sources at the time, she went to a great deal of effort to get into his presence. Most interns only see the President at group welcoming and departure ceremonies, but she found ways to spend personal time with him and private time at that. Were she the least bit uncomfortable with him, she could have avoided him. Their affair was consensual and then some on her part. Abuse of power isn't unusual for Bill Clinton, but do we count this specific relationship as abuse when the ‘victim’ went to great effort to make it happen? I think we're back to our ‘moral projectionist’ discussion. His use of Paula Jones and some of his other sexual episodes were different, but the one with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power that I can see.
“The Wall Street Journal writer used ‘procure’ and ‘entitle’ for legal and grammatical correctness, very appropriate to formal definitions. As a very literal language-oriented person, I find that the better definition.
“What about Trump's announcement that we're leaving a nuclear arms treaty? That's far more important.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: Monica. We shall respectfully disagree. To me, the difference in power is so great that informed consent is not possible . . . like teacher-student, priest-parishioner, doctor-patient, lawyer-client, et cetera, IMHO.
Re: definitions. Again, we shall respectfully disagree. Abuse of power is not some transactional event.
Re: the BIC’s withdrawal from nuclear arms treaty(ies). Yes, a worthy topic; however, like so many crises induced by the BIC, he offers us only a paucity of any substance to know what he’s talking about. There are half dozen nuclear arms treaties between the U.S. and Russia (Soviet Union) since 1969. It is unclear exactly which treaty he is unilaterally negating or whether it is all of them. Like the petulant, juvenile, schoolyard bully, when he does not like a call or situation, he takes the ball and bat, and storms off the field. President Kennedy called out Soviet transgressions and presented photographic evidence to We, the People, and the World to expose Soviet conduct. The BIC has done nothing of the sort, not even remotely close. We cannot trust the BIC to tell us the truth about anything, so we cannot believe a word he says; this instance is no different . . . caravan hordes attacking our border, nuclear weapons, all the same to him.
. . . along with follow-up comments:
“The nuclear treaty in question is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF treaty), signed in 1987 by Reagan and Gorbachev, per multiple reliable sources. The treaty was a major feature of the end of the Cold War and continues to be important. The Trump camp claims Russia is violating the treaty and gives sources for that information including a Nuclear Posture Review that apparently make it a legitimate issue for discussion.
Of course, Trump is having an extreme reaction to learning this news, some of which dates back to 2014. He also mentioned China (not part of the treaty) in something of a threatening manner. Trump, of course, makes a personal issue of all this. He's quoted more than once as saying, ‘I am terminating the treaty . . .’ I’ll note that John Bolton is conducting talks in Moscow this week, so this could possibly be an insane negotiation tactic on Trump’s part.
“A Russian Deputy Foreign Minister warned that this could lead to a ‘military-technical retaliation’ and a Chinese spokesperson advised the United States to ‘think thrice before acting’ among other statements.
. . . my follow-up comment:
Ah yes, you are quite correct; I missed that little detail—INF Treaty signed in ’87 and ratified overwhelmingly (93-5) by the Senate on 20.May.1988. I still believe withdrawing from the treaty is the wrong way to approach treaty violations. Too late now. We’ll see how this turns out. Bolton has long advocated for this action.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I dismiss the article you discuss based on the sentence “the left . . . hates America.” No large group of Americans hates America, even the more radical groups. We disagree, often vehemently, on what’s good or going wrong about America and how to make it better, but we don’t hate America. That premise renders the article unworthy of public attention, including here.
I also subscribe to political and other newsletters, as well as the New York Times online and other legitimate news sources. I have begun to delete most of the campaign communications without opening them and have stopped around a dozen assorted email lists. I still spend a good bit of time on news sources, but not as much and less focused on anything partisan and/or political. (Important events happen that have not yet been politicized.)
At this time, the immigrant caravan is strictly a distraction from whatever politicians are concocting.
The New York Times this morning has a discussion of Trump’s role in the mass violence we have experienced. To be clear, he has not caused people to be mentally unstable. That happens worldwide and always has. Nor do his policy positions cause these incidents. (We could debate the firearms question again later.) What he must be held responsible for is his tone, his wording, and his use of concepts that offer potentially violent deranged people a set of targets, a hopelessness about peaceful change, and implied permission to attack people, all coming from the highest official source in the land. I have noted that Trump has learned to make appropriate statements in the immediate aftermath of large incidents. That means nothing while the bulk of his public comments contradict the sane moments.
All economic booms come to an end, and this one is overdue. The Fed et al. are ignoring that. I expect Trump’s tariffs and general pugnacity will aggravate the “correction”.
Calvin,
The left-hates-America article induced the same reaction in me. I was not so quick to dismiss it, since I see the implication in his words. Hate is a very strong word, and I surmise the word was chosen for specific reasons. Further, the claim that the BIC is just an exaggerated form of the average American is actually what instigated my fingers to tinkle away on the keyboard. I will concede that he is a grotesquely exaggerated form, but of a very small, vociferous minority, not the majority, and the flow he has created has sucked in loyal partisans and those who subscribe to the end-justifies-the-means segment of our society. The BIC does not represent the majority of this Grand Republic. He does not even represent the majority of citizens who voted in 2016. Through all of this turmoil created, stoked and fueled by the BIC does reflect a serious undercurrent that has existed for decades in this country, and he has allowed and encouraged that element to percolate into full, celebrated view in the public domain.
I would unsubscribe to whatever source(s) generates or enables these damnable Republican campaign messages, but they have cleverly disguised that source(s). Like you, I pay considerable attention to the sources of all material I receive. The subject material at issue here generally gets deleted outright . . . but it is still a nuisance; and, I hope these damnable political spam messages end next week. This has been a particularly tiring silly season.
You are precisely correct in full . . . the “caravan” is a nasty distraction intend to stoke the fears of a minority. Immigration reform remains the national priority it has been for decades. Unfortunately, the BIC is so bloody single-mindedly focus on his damnable “wall” that he has stifled the several bipartisan efforts to even go part way.
I agree. The BIC’s contribution to the violence has been his consistent, persistent, and relentless words for weeks, months and years, not what he says in the aftermath, although the aftermath of Charlottesville was an exception. It is that history of incitement that is the real issue. He has vilified an entire group of people for political purposes not based upon fact . . . as the BIC has publicly acknowledged.
I tend to agree with your assessment about economic booms, and especially regarding the BIC’s potential contribution to the timing and severity of the correction. I still retain hope that the means the BIC has chosen will yield the necessary results with respect to trade equality and practices, although I still do not think the end will justify the means; but, he is POTUS; he has the authority; you and I do not.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment