Unless potential readers haven’t noticed, I tend to try to focus on political ideologies, political maneuvering, political expedience, domestic balance of power, and geopolitical balance of power.
The political climate presently seems to revolve around Trump’s tweets…
In a two-part tweet, Trump said he “heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore).” He then went on to hit Brzezinski: “how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came … to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”
The messages, some of the most graphic and personal since Trump became president, were condemned by Republicans who are struggling to push Trump’s legislative agenda forward while the White House is consumed by the Russia probes and self-inflicted dramas.
“Obviously, I don’t see that as an appropriate comment,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Thursday during his weekly press conference, adding, “Look, what we’re trying to do around here is improve the tone, the civility of the debate, and this obviously doesn’t help do that.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went further, tweeting, “Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America.”
Graham later told POLITICO that Trump’s insult was “highly inappropriate” regardless of any impact it might have on distracting from the GOP agenda. Asked if the president should apologize, Graham said, “I would, if I were” Trump.
But the messages take on a new tenor now that Trump is in the Oval Office, and is trying to pull off big legislative lifts — including an Obamacare repeal bill and tax reform package — that require message discipline.
(Bold emphasis mine)
First, it is simply and clearly morally wrong to attack another person like this. I’m tired of hearing people say things like, “This is not normal[“]… We have to get past the idea that another person’s bad acts somehow justify “our” side’s misconduct. Morality is not so situational.
Second, it’s not classist or elitist to make this moral argument. It’s no justification to argue that Trump simply speaks the way “real Americans” do, or that he’s brought into public the language that “everyone knows” people use behind closed doors.
Third, even if your ethics are entirely situational and tribal, Trump’s tweets are still destructive. Attacking Mika like this doesn’t silence her or anyone at MSNBC. It doesn’t move the ball downfield on repealing Obamacare. It does, however, make more people dislike Donald Trump. It’s a misuse and abuse of the bully pulpit, all the more galling because it comes at a time when the positive parts of his agenda truly do need public champions.
Fourth, please stop with the ridiculous lie that this is the only way to beat the Left. Stop with any argument that this kind of pettiness is somehow preferable to the alleged weakness of other Republicans. There are thousands of GOP office-holders who’ve won their races (including by margins that dwarf Trump’s, even in the toughest districts and states) without resorting to Trump-like behavior. In fact, at the state level many of these same honorable and moral people are currently busy enacting reforms that the national GOP can only dream about.
A conservative can fight for tax reform, celebrate military victories over ISIS in Mosul, and applaud Trump’s judicial appointments while also condemning Trump’s vile tweets and criticizing his impulsiveness and lack of discipline. A good conservative can even step back and take a longer view, resolving to fight for the cultural values that tribalism degrades.
(Bold emphasis mine)
The president’s tweets threaten not just decorum, but the GOP agenda.
Time and time again, Trump’s loose lips — or thumbs — have threatened to sink his administration’s credibility and his party’s agenda.
By virtue of his bad habit of taking transient positions on the fly, even if the Senate bill actually does pass — and thus radically reforms Medicaid, which would be a positive development for a conservative agenda — Republicans are almost guaranteed to be saddled with accusations that their president has lied as baldly as did President Obama with “if you like your doctor, you can keep him,” and did President Clinton when he vowed, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Trump ran an entire campaign against entitlement reform.
Trump has no interest whatsoever in adapting to the decorum required by his office.
(Bold emphasis mine)
1. Deserving of often limited praise or commendation: The student made a creditable effort on the essay.2. Worthy of belief: a creditable story.3. Deserving of commercial credit; creditworthy: a creditable customer.4. Capable of being assigned.
creditability nounAppearance of truth or authenticity:
(Bold emphasis mine)
Of course, the puritanical schoolmarms of the political press went absolutely bonkers over Mr. Trump’s broadside of their fellow travelers. They scolded him that his Twitter missives were beneath the office of the president.
Really, you mean like molesting an intern in the Oval Office? “Presidential” like that?
MSNBC — the afterthought cable channel that airs “Morning Joe” — responded on Twitter: “It’s a sad day for America when the president spends his time bullying, lying and spewing petty personal attacks instead of doing his job.”
But the funny thing about it is that nobody actually disproved anything that Mr. Trump alleged. Just like Russia and obstruction of justice and everything else, there is not one single shred of evidence that Mr. Trump is not 100 percent in the right.
So, wait a minute? The proof that Mr. Trump is lying about Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough slumming around Mar-a-Lago around New Year’s Eve is that — well — Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough were slumming around Mar-a-Lago around New Year’s Eve?
Trump’s tweets distract from his agenda, cause chaos among his staff, and harden attitudes among Democrats and winnable voters.
Far worse, from my perspective, is that they helped get Trump the nomination. I know Joe Scarborough hates this argument and he can point to all sorts of criticisms he made during the primaries. But the simple fact remains that in the early days of the primary season, Morning Joe was one of Trump’s greatest media assets, normalizing his candidacy and the outrageously outsized coverage it got (as I wrote often in early 2016). They came to their senses eventually, and some Trump defenders would argue, with some merit, that they’ve overcompensated in the other direction.
None of this changes the fact that Trump’s tweet is indefensible, particularly once you deny any authority to the schoolyard logic used to justify so much of Trump’s behavior. Every single time Trump does one of these things, the same juvenile horsesh*t gets trotted out: He’s a counter-puncher! He hits back twice as hard! They started it!
A new Fox poll says that 71 percent of Americans think the tweeting hurts his agenda. I’m amazed that number is so low. If you think his tweeting is brilliant and strategic, you’re arguing that it’s all part of his plan to annoy seven out of ten Americans with his tweets.
… virtually every Republican member of Congress who understand that Trump’s tweets distract from his agenda, cause chaos among his staff, make it harder for Republicans to embrace him, and harden attitudes among Democrats and winnable voters.
And, if your response is “He needs to go over the heads of the liberal media!” bear in mind that a) the liberal media loves his tweets and b) he’s the president of the United States and has no end of ways to get his message out.
Conservatives for most of my life argued that character matters. That went by the wayside for many people in 2016.
Conservatives should condemn the bad behavior. But we shouldn’t fall into the liberal trap of saying that because Trump isn’t a gentleman, we should therefore abandon a conservative agenda. Being ungentlemanly is not an impeachable offense. At the same time, however, we should not follow the path of his worst enablers who insist that his bad behavior is admirable or that the bad behavior of others is a justification for his. That’s Alinsky-envying bunk.
Henry’s second argument is that the GOP needs to let go of the myth of Reagan the “Reaganite.” By Reaganite, he means the caricature of a libertarian obsessed with cutting taxes to the point where we can just pay for a minimalist state.
(Bold emphasis mine)
Recently, we saw the tragic result of over two decades of increasingly heated political debate in this country when a gunman opened fire on a group of congressmen practicing for the annual congressional baseball game; a game which is one of the last vestiges of a more genteel and bipartisan time in Washington.
Both Republicans and Democrats must work to overcome this culture of political nihilism if we are to have any hope of addressing the very serious problems confronting our nation.
The violent events of the last year are the inevitable outcome of this sort of political “discourse,” and they will only increase in frequency and volatility if we continue on our current course.
It is one thing to say our opponents have made mistakes or aren’t well informed, it is quite another to accuse them of actively seeking to destroy the country. To accept that point of view is to agree that the things that divide us, as a country, are truly greater than the things that bring us together.
We Republicans like to point to the free market, to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” and invoke the efficiency of business as a model for a well-run government.
What I am suggesting is that, if we are going to save the republic, it is time to dial down the rhetoric and dial up the trust, rebuilding the rapport needed for us to address the many challenges facing our country. President Kennedy once reminded us that, “Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We breathe the same air. We cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
To paraphrase President Reagan, the bottom line is this: You and I still have a rendezvous with destiny, and only together through trust and compromise can we, the last best hope for humanity on earth, begin an era of renewal for all Americans.
(Bold emphasis mine)
That has frustrated some GOP lawmakers, who say it’s a sign of the White House’s inability to drive a consistent policy message and drive the president’s agenda.
“I think we could all do a better job at coordinating our message,” Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) told The Hill.
“If we want to sell it to the American people, we should [communicate] what we’re doing this week, whether it’s energy, whether it’s infrastructure, whether it’s helping tech expand in the country, by explaining what it is we’re trying to get accomplished with our goals and the laws that are being made.”
(Bold emphasis mine)
CNN anchor Jake Tapper pushed back on President Trump’s Twitter habits on Saturday, arguing that the president uses the platform more for maintaining his personal feuds with the media than for advancing his policy goals.
A Democratic congressman has proposed convening a special committee of psychiatrists and other doctors whose job would be to determine if President Donald Trump is fit to serve in the Oval Office.
But the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment does allow for a majority of the president’s cabinet, or ‘such other body as Congress may by law provide,’ to decide if an Oval Office occupant is unable to carry out his duties – and then to put it to a full congressional vote.
Vice President Mike Pence would also have to agree, which could slow down the process – or speed it up if he wanted the levers of power for himself.
Raskin’s bill would allow the four Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to each choose a psychiatrist and another doctor. Then each party would add a former statesman – like a retired president or vice president.
The final group of 10 would meet and choose an 11th member, who would become the committee’s chairman.
Carl Bernstein is calling on journalists to commit to a “different kind of reporting” in response to a “malignant presidency” unlike any the country has seen before.
Republicans are growing concerned that the staffs of Donald Trump and Mike Pence are starting to feud, the latest trouble to hit a White House that has spentmonths battling crisis after crisis.
They worry that any rift could be delaying decisions, distracting aides from their alreadystalled legislative agenda and could lead to more infighting and leaks, problems that have plagued the White House since Inauguration Day.
Republicans say it’s only natural that some of the president’s aides are reconsidering who they can trust as the White House continues to reel from an undisciplined president and multiple inquiries into whether Trump associates joined Russia in meddling in the presidential election.
At the same time, Republicans say, some of the vice president’s aides say they are frustrated over Trump’s many self-inflicted wounds, some of which the conventional and even-keeled Pence is forced to try to explain away as he looks to smooth over hurt feelings with members of even his own party.
Trump continues to give Pence a significant role that has him at the president’s side every day as he assists with some of the biggest foreign and domestic policies, including health care, tax reform and other issues on Capitol Hill, where the vice president served in House leadership and was known for getting things done. In recent days, he has been meeting with individual senators about a proposed Senate health care overhaul.
(Bold emphasis mine)
… Trump was a guaranteed loser, I thought. In the Virginia presidential primary, I even voted for him, hoping to hasten the party’s demise.
… The Republican Party isn’t undergoing some sort of reckoning over what it believes; his branch of the Republican Party has taken control.
… And yet as surprising as this all has been, it’s also the natural outgrowth of 30 years of Republican pandering to the lowest common denominator in American politics. Trump is what happens when a political party abandons ideas, demonizes intellectuals
In the 1970s, the conservative movement became receptive to moderate conservatives, called “neoconservatives,” such as Irving Kristol (father of Bill, the prominent anti-Trump conservative)…
President George W. Bush didn’t realize he was supposed to just be a passive bill-signing machine; he kept insisting that Republicans enact his priorities…
Conservative magazines like National Review, which once boasted world-class intellectuals such as James Burnham and Russell Kirk among its columnists, jumped on the bandwagon, dumbing itself down to appeal to the common man, who is deemed to be the font of all wisdom.
With hindsight, it’s no surprise that the glorification of anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism that has been rampant on the right at least since the election of Barack Obama would give rise to someone like Trump.
These are small steps, and promising—you have to start somewhere, after all—but what conservative intellectuals really need for a full-blown revival is a crushing Republican defeat—Goldwater plus Watergate rolled into one. A defeat so massive there can be no doubt about the message it sends that Trumpian populism and anti-intellectualism are no path to conservative policy success.
In the meantime, there are hopeful signs that the long-dormant moderate wing of the GOP is coming alive again. In Kansas, Trumpian Governor Sam Brownback was recently rebuked when a Republican-controlled Legislature overrode his veto to raise taxes after the cuts previously enacted by Brownback proved disastrous to the state’s finances.
The implementation of long-term, successful policy change cannot be short-circuited, it must be built on a solid foundation of thinking, analysis and research by smart, well-educated people. Listening to the common man rant about things he knows nothing about is a dead-end that leads to Trump and failure because there is no “there” there, just mindless rhetoric and frustration.
… But the preconditions are falling into place for a political transformation between 2018 and 2020 that could result in the type of defeat that I think is necessary for my old party and the conservative movement to rebuild themselves from the ground up.
Ideally, I’d like to see an intellectual revival on the right such as we saw after the Goldwater defeat and the Watergate debacle. Freed from the stultifying strictures and kowtowing to know-nothing Trumpian populists—perhaps building on new outlets and institutions that celebrate intellectual rigor and reject shallow sound bites—a few conservative thinkers can plow a path toward sane, responsible conservative governance, just as people like Irving Kristol and Jack Kemp did during the Carter years. (Some conservative thinkers, such as the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, speculate that Mitt Romney may emerge as the leader of a sane, modern, technocratic wing of an intellectually revitalized GOP.) If a leader doesn’t emerge, moderate Republicans—many of whomdid not and will not support Trump—could be lost to the Democratic Party for good.
(Bold emphasis mine)
adj1. of or relating to the intellect, as opposed to the emotions2. appealing to or characteristic of people with a developed intellect: intellectual literature.3. expressing or enjoying mental activity
n4. a person who enjoys mental activity and has highly developed tastes in art, literature, etc5. a person who uses or works with his intellect6. a highly intelligent personˌintelˌlectuˈality, ˌintelˈlectualness nˌintelˈlectually adv
n1. development and exercise of the intellect2. the placing of excessive value on the intellect, esp with disregard for the emotions
3. (Philosophy) philosophya. the doctrine that reason is the ultimate criterion of knowledgeb. the doctrine that deliberate action is consequent on a process of conscious or subconscious reasoning
There’s also WordPress reader featured posts among the issues that apparently revolve around Tweeter usages.
Trump’s remarks were certainly inappropriate but they were in response to an equally inappropriate salvo coming from the Left. Not to mention, many of these people are in similar positions to Trump. They may not be President of the United States but as actors, actresses, public figures, and entertainers, they have certain standards of professionalism and are expected to find the fine line between inappropriately hilarious and grossly crude.
Furthermore, their comments and remarks were far worse than the ones Trump made. Trump’s comments about Mika’s face lift may have been demeaning to her looks but remember, she previously was mocking his hand size. And calling someone a psycho isn’t the same as saying they should be killed or staging a mock execution of them. The intolerant Left apparently has no stomach for intolerance against their own, but no problem with attacks on Trump and his family. They cry foul when Trump makes a remark that could be construed in even the slightest misogynistic way, yet look the other way when people make inappropriate, crude, or mocking comments about Melania Trump, Ivanka Trump, and the female members of his administration like Sarah Huckabee-Sanders or Kellyanne Conway.
But the real tragedy is that Donald Trump’s failure will take down a few genuinely good ideas associated with the administration…
But as with so many other things in the Trump administration, a potentially worthy idea was ruined in the execution…
When Donald Trump’s administration reaches its merciful end – barring some kind of foreign policy calamity or self-inflicted political self destruction – we may end up most regretting not those few things which the president actually manages to get done, but the handful of once-promising ideas which fell by the wayside because the administration either couldn’t do them or implemented them in an incompetent way.
Compassionate conservatism barely won David Cameron a majority government in 2015, even against the hapless Ed Miliband. Rebooting the flawed concept, especially against Jeremy Corbyn’s turbo-charged ultra-compassionate socialism, means fighting the Left on their own terms and is doomed to failure
Despite its complete and utter failure to deliver a solid electoral victory for the conservatives, or to meaningfully detoxify the Conservative Party’s “nasty party” image, the woolly, nebulous and thoroughly unhelpful concept of “compassionate conservatism” refuses to die.
They would have the rest of us believe that conservatives face inevitable defeat unless the Tories compete with Labour to be the loudest cheerleaders of the bloated public sector.
(Bold emphasis mine and underlined in lieu of already having been in bold)
Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, Brexit… People want meaning in their lives and a purpose in their politics that dry, centrist managerialism cannot hope to provide
But more such populist disruptions are almost inevitable until the political class realises that people want more from their politics than a ruling class of bland, superficial technocrats who promise nothing more than the smooth administration of the status quo. Jeremy Corbyn, for all of his faults, at least promises a radical reordering of society – one made all the more appealing by the fact that the Conservatives long ago ceased to make a bold, unapologetic case for free markets, individual freedom and a less suffocating state.
Where is the small-C conservative version of the politician who dares to proclaim an unrepentantly neo-Thatcherite worldview, instead of pretending (a la Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and May) that “austerity” and fiscal restraint are a sad necessity brought about by recession rather than an innately good thing in and of themselves?
(Bold emphasis mine and underlined in lieu of already having been in bold)
Note sub Tories for Republicans, and it should help.
Tweeter usage is largely a factoid. Factoids are irrelevant facts:
– Popular Vote is determined by the total number of votes accumulated by each of the 50 Nation-States (51 counting Puerto Rico) that forms the economic-political union of the Constitutional Republic of the United States.
– Party Affiliation. People who identify as a member of the Democratic Party or Republican Party does not mean that their political ideology is not parallel, opposed, or intertwined.
Frankly, I was under the impression that journalism was meant to report the relevant facts not factoids as it examined and reported Policy actions through policy structures and catalysts and how it impacted the viewing area. Is intellectuals, pundits, journalists, and etc equally as much as an egomaniac as Trump?
The other night, I participated in a panel on Henry Olsen’s new book, The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue-Collar Conservatism (it will be on C-SPAN’s Book TV at some point)…
… When I was a larval wonk at AEI some 25 years ago, Josh Muravchik gave a talk on neoconservatism. The room was full of Reagan-administration alumni. I asked Josh for a definition of neoconservatism and his reply was uncharacteristically unpersuasive. But in the process of answering, he asserted that Reagan was fundamentally a foreign-policy president, elected to win the Cold War. He simply brought social conservatives and economic conservatives along for the ride as part of his coalition.
My friend, the late Michael Novak, one of the great Catholic intellectuals and social conservatives of the 20th century, objected. No, no, he said. Reagan was a social conservative who brought the hawks and the economics guys along for the ride. This was too much for Irwin Stelzer, a brilliant economist and Reagan official. He insisted that Reagan’s was fundamentally a free-market, pro-growth candidacy and presidency and that he brought in the foreign-policy and cultural conservatives with him. It turned into quite an intellectual melee and, much like when Jerry Seinfeld cleared out the restaurant by bringing up abortion, I’m proud to say I started it.
(Bold emphasis and underlined focus)
At the expense of nothing is funny having to explain it, what Jonah Johnson is stating in the exact same article editor’s note his newsletter, the author is making a nuanced reference in delightful memory of paramount to Trump’s tweeting. To put it into prospective, the difference between Seinfield and Family Guy is Seinfield’s jokes were much more nuanced.
nu•ance (ˈnu ɑns, ˈnyu-, nuˈɑns, nyu-)
n.1. a subtle difference or distinction, as in meaning.2. a slight variation in color or tone.
Translation, the entire affair centers on rules for thee but not for me.
Rules for thee but not for me is where rules apply to one individual or side and not the other. What this means is, Progressive Republicans encompassing Bush Republicanism, Neocons, and Social Conservative proponents (Pence, J Bush, Kasich, Rubio, McConnell, McCain, Ryan, and etc including one Ted Cruz) are seeking to re-image themselves such as the Autopsy Report of the Republican Party after the 2012 election cycle. This is where the concepts as ‘moderate conservative’ and ‘compassionate conservative’ comes from. What it actually means is accepting Progressive policy structures and catalysts through public relations promoting Progressive policies in a conservative narrative. In other words, you’re actually voting for candidates who pose a difference without distinction merely over the superficiality of party affiliation.
The general idea behind ‘moderate conservative’ and ‘compassionate conservative’ is centrally about submitting and obedience to rules for thee but not for me that in turn relays upon how effective the regime in power conducts public relations promotions of its policy structures and catalysts that centrally demands ‘take my word for it’ because of their alleged credibility, positions of authority, and otherwise ‘expertise’.
From where I sit which isn’t possessing a Twitter account, it would seem that either Twitter doesn’t offer an ignore “iggy” or block user feature, or both the media, intellectuals, and etc including Trump simply refuse to use it. If it does, it would seem media pundits, intellectuals, and etc may want to use it…