brendanloy - Tumblr blog

brendanloy · 7 years ago

Text

America is probably doomed

With our long national Kava-nightmare almost over in one sense (and just beginning in another sense), I suppose I might as well go ahead and share (an expanded version of) the extremely depressing big-picture thoughts on the state of the nation that I typed up last Friday morning (before Flake flipped), almost posted on Facebook, then decided against posting and instead just e-mailed to my dad -- because I needed to unburden my soul by sharing my rant with someone, but I wasn't in a fit emotional state to share it publicly (and thus deal with reading people's responses). But now I am, I think.

I'm posting this because I sort of want to lay down a marker, I guess, and timestamp this prediction for posterity, however much I hope I'm wrong. But seriously, listen up: if you're already feeling depressed about politics, and you're searching for comfort or optimism or motivation or a call to action, DO NOT READ THE REST OF THIS POST. I mean it. I have nothing to offer you but hopelessness about where things are headed. No pithy jokes, no Aragorn speeches, no memes of Mitt Romney riding a horse. I got nothin'. Sorry.

(Well, okay. There's one LOTR-themed joke about Lindsey Graham. But that's it!)

Anyway, here goes:

National politics is broken beyond repair, for at least a generation or two, and quite possibly forever. The American Experiment had a good run, but it has failed.

It’s clear now that the rot is much deeper than Trump, and removing or defeating him won’t fix it. Nor will a Democratic rout in November fix it (though we should still certainly vote for that). Republican politicians and opinion leaders, from partisan nihilists like McConnell to vile grievance-mongers like Trump to craven enablers like Ryan to the shameless propagandists at Fox News, are WAAAAAAAY more to blame than Democratic politicians -- and yet there are much deeper forces at work than politicians' (or political parties') terrible decisions. Technological, cultural, economic, media, you name it. Those bigger forces have amplified the politicians' terrible decisions, and vice versa, to the point that we've now gone beyond the Republicans' power to undo the damage they've done, in any realistic scenario.

Nor can the Democrats undo it, though they're our best hope to forestall things a little. But mostly I think this is a runaway train now. In 2016, I believed that a few well-placed acts of principle could pull us back from the brink. I don't believe that now, and I've begun to doubt that it was true even then. Which, in a way, makes the twists and turns of 2016 slightly less agonizing in retrospect: if Trump is merely a catalyst, speeding up an inevitability instead of fundamentally changing the course of history, then stupid bullshit like Rubio imploding in New Hampshire, or Kasich not dropping out, or Romney not running third party, or Hillary's pneumonia/deplorables weekend, or the Comey letter, feel less tragically world-historical, and more like footnotes to America's decline. So that's...uh...comforting? I guess??

Anyway, if 2016 shattered my previous worldview (it did), I guess this is the extremely depressing new worldview that I think I'm settling into: for a huge variety of interconnected reasons, America's national politics has stumbled into a perfect shitstorm, and the cavalry ain't coming. The problems have become structural and fundamental, as well as cultural and moral, and at some level even spiritual, for lack of a better term. The cancer has metastasized into the very marrow of our civic life, and there is no cure.

Maybe, decades from now, my daughters' generation can fix things somehow. But I fear the clusterfuck will keep spiraling downward so badly that the Republic as we know it will be well & truly doomed before the current generation of leaders relinquishes power.

I'm not going to lay out a point-by-point case here, setting forth all the reasons and examples of exactly what I mean and why I've reached this conclusion. If you think I'm being hyperbolic and ridiclous, that's fine. But I don't think so. I have a long history (pre-Trump) of usually being very skeptical of sweeping pessimistic conclusions like this -- because everything is cyclical, every generation always thinks doom is nigh, and recency bias is a helluva drug -- but even despite those priors, I can no longer persuade myself that American democracy is in anything other than an existential crisis. The system is broken at its core, in countless ways, and its brokenness corrupts nearly everyone who participates in it. They're corrupted to differing degrees and in different ways, to be sure -- so, like, Lindsey Graham has outpaced Ben Sasse in the race to the bottom, for instance -- but even the principled people are corrupted and worn down by it eventually, and/or they give up because there's simply no place for them anymore.

Now, I know what you're thinking: OMG, both-sides-ism! Yes, what I just described is mostly happening on the GOP side right now. But just you watch. When the Democrats take power, they'll respond to the GOP's misdeeds in ways that will feel justified and right and necessary, maybe even to me, but will ultimately make things worse -- if only because of the counter-reaction, and the counter-counter-reaction, and so on. Plus, even if the Dems try their very best not to be consumed by bad ideas that sound good to an angry mob, they will have to throw a few bones to their increasingly furious base, or face electoral doom. Mind you, the base is furious for good reason -- but even righteous fury eventually starts feeding on itself. And throwing bones to an angry base (while still mostly governing like statesmen) is how it started for GOP, too. Just you wait. It won't end well for us either, and we'll only look good in comparison to them.

Besides, soon after the Dems' brief post-Trump ascendancy, the Republicans will re-take power, and back & forth, back & forth. Which, in this climate, means that it'll continue downhill. Polarization will get worse. Demonization will get worse. Tribalism will get worse. Defending the indefensible will become more & more commonplace. Fear and anger will get more intense, on both sides.

There is no moderating or unifying force in the culture anymore that's powerful enough to stop, or even meaningfully slow, this civic descent. Indeed, national culture and national politics are merging, which is terrible for both. Everything is becoming political -- and because politics is awful right now, everything is becoming increasingly awful. Every horrible human impulse now has a political sponsor (mostly on the Right, for now, but hold the Left's beer). Conversely, every salutary thought or feeling or belief, no matter how obviously correct, is one national controversy away from instantly becoming virulently opposed by half the country.

At a very big-picture level, I think the ultimate problem is that various aspects of modernity amplify our baser impulses, and suppress our better ones, in ways that our lizard brain just can't contend with. This leads to weirdly discordant effects: on an individual level, Americans mostly get along fine (albeit while also gradually self-sorting into tribal bubbles), which is why I have some hope for state and local politics. If we're going to actually "MAGA," that's where it will start...slowly. But at a national level, and at a broad cultural level, the divisiveness and discord have become fully self-sustaining. They barely even need to be stoked anymore. They basically stoke themselves -- or else they incessantly demand that anyone within earshot stoke them, until someone inevitably accedes. Possibly even someone who was once a man of Rohan, like Lindsey Gríma.

I’m not sure what the end point of all this will look like. It may well be that economic/market forces -- assuming they don't also merge with politics, the way cultural forces are -- will prevent the most extreme outcomes (i.e., the ones involving widespread violence) from coming to pass. But even the market lacks the power to restore anything approaching governability or sane politics. Perhaps America will hit bottom, but that "bottom" will be essentially a mostly nonviolent failed state (at the national level).

In terms of the basic functionality of the Republic, though, I see no way out -- especially once you consider the notion of our already-broken politics handling, among other things, the social upheaval that will accompany the coming boom in high-level automation and artificial intelligence. Eek.

The best counterargument to all this is generic mild optimism bolstered by a vague nod to history: we've muddled through before, so we'll probably muddle through again. And perhaps so. But that's incredibly nonspecific, and the truth is, I can’t picture a plausible path back to healthy democracy. Whereas I can easily imagine and describe various specific, plausible paths where things keep getting worse and worse.

I suspect that, in ten years, we’ll probably remember 2018 as the halcyon days when things weren’t quite so bad, just like we now think of 2008 (the year that gave us Sarah Palin, for chrissakes!), never mind 1998 (when the cast of "Rent" was despairing about how awful it was to be "living in America at the end of the millennium"). Ten years after that, we’ll say the same about how great 2028 was, and so on. And this won't just be dumb nostalgia; we'll be entirely correct. Things are very bad, and they’ll get much worse. On this one specific point, Derb was right when he wrote in 2002: "We are living in a golden age. The past was pretty awful; the future will be far worse. Enjoy!"

I increasingly fear that the question now isn’t how to repair the damage or restore normalcy, but whether everyday life in America can remain tenable under a permanently (or at least generationally) broken federal government. I have no idea, but I think we’re going to find out. Or our kids are.

I’m probably overreacting, and feeling more hopeless than I should... but on the other hand, over the past 2-3 years, the moments when I’ve felt a profound pessimistic clarity are the moments when I’ve made the best predictions. Hopefully this is an exception, but I doubt it. #DOOM

0 notes

brendanloy · 7 years ago

Text

SNARKNADO 2018!

First of all: if you haven’t joined already, enter my 14th annual Oscar Pool! (Password: eternalglory)

It's free to enter. The prize is ETERNAL GLORY! The deadline is 6:30 PM Mountain Time today (Sunday).

Secondly: this is where you’ll find Becky’s & my annual Live-Blog / Live-Chat / Live-Snark, a.k.a. SNARKNADO 2018, starting tonight at ~6:00 PM MST. We'll mock the Oscars together, and also reveal live results of the Oscar Pool.

The chat will appear below. TO OPEN THE CHAT IN A SEPARATE WINDOW, CLICK HERE.

Anyone can view the chat, but to participate, you’ll need to log in with Facebook or Twitter. (Don't worry, it won't automatically tweet out your comments or anything.) The Cover It Live window will have a login option once the chat starts.

UPDATE: Facebook login seems to be broken, so you have to log in via Twitter. Ugh.

Another way to participate in the live-chat: if you post a tweet on Twitter with the hashtag #LRTOscars, it will automatically appear in the chat.

Happy snarking! And good luck in the pool, vying for #EternalGlory!

0 notes

brendanloy · 7 years ago

Text

14th annual Oscar Pool!

It's that time of year again... and I've procrastinated until the last minute again... but the 14th annual Living Room Times Oscar Pool is finally online and ready for your predictions!

The password is eternalglory -- because, of course, this is your one chance to earn official, Living Room Times-certified ETERNAL GLORY in 2018.

The deadline to enter the pool is Sunday at 6:30 PM Mountain Time (8:30 Eastern, 5:30 Pacific), when the Oscars get underway.

If you entered my Oscar Pool in 2016 or 2017, you'll be prompted to sign in to the pool website using the same username and password. (Don't worry, there's an forgot username/password page if you need it.)

The pool is, of course, free to enter. There’s no monetary prize – just a shot at bragging rights and, as mentioned earlier, ETERNAL GLORY!

The pool scoring system is the same as in prior years: 12 points for Best Picture, 9 apiece for the directing and lead acting categories, 6 each for the supporting acting categories, 4 each for the screenplay categories, 2 each for documentary feature, animated feature, foreign film, cinematography and original score, and 1 per award for everything else.

Anyway, get in the pool!!! (Once more with feeling: the password is eternalglory.)

Also, you’ll want to come back here for SNARKNADO 2018, a.k.a. Becky’s and my annual Live-Blog / Live-Chat / Live-Snark, during which we’ll mock the show and discuss the live Oscar Pool results. The Snarknado will start at (or around) 6:00 PM Mountain Time Sunday. Bookmark this Tumblr and check back then!

0 notes

brendanloy · 7 years ago

Photo

I made a Schrödinger’s Win Probability Chart for the Super Bowl, from Sunday night through Tuesday morning, showing who I thought probably won, based on hints I received & hunches I had while playing Last Man.

P.S. To clarify/explain a few points:

• This @SylvanRansom tweet, RT'd Sunday night by trusted #lastman-safe account @findthelastman (practically my sole source of information about the outside world for ~36 hours), struck me as something that a person was less likely to say if the Patriots had won. I mean, practically everybody expected the Patriots to win. So why would someone brag, "I knew they'd win" about a New England victory? Whereas, if you were one of the few who had predicted an Eagles win, that would be something to crow about.

• @ErictBBC's redacted tweet included the statement, "I had no idea just how many freaking [team] fans work here. Holy crap." Initially, that seemed to imply an Eagles win; after all, wouldn't you already know if a bunch of your co-workers are Patriots fans? But then came the "meta-hunch" that, if the Eagles had won, @findthelastman would deem the tweet unsafe for that very reason, whereas if the Patriots had won, the issue might not occur to him. I described part of this swirling thought process in the moment as "#lastman madness."

• I tweeted earlier about my co-worker's "that's a first" joke, and about my wife's "American thing" joke. Both jokes were ostensibly neutral and could apply to either outcome -- but they both struck me as slightly more likely to occur to someone if the Eagles had won.

• Conversely, my co-worker's decision to tell the office Patriots superfan about #lastman, and urge him not to talk to me about the Super Bowl, struck me as potentially implying that the Patriots had won. Why would a Pats fan want to seek out a conversation with me about a game that his team had lost? (In retrospect, this unintentional head-fake was helpful in counteracting some of the Eagles-leaning hints that I had picked up, thereby preventing me from even approaching Rule 4 territory.)

• The "DM about Pennsylvania" was a comment by @dgmcdowell about the Pennsylvania redistricting controversy that, while (again) ostensibly not giving anything away, seems to me like something he'd be marginally more likely to think of saying if the Eagles had won.

1 note · View note

brendanloy · 8 years ago

Text

SNARKNADO! Oscars Live-Chat 2017

First of all, if you haven’t already, join my 13th annual Oscar Pool! (Password: eternalglory) The deadline is 6:30 PM Mountain Time Sunday.

Second, this is where you’ll find Becky’s & my annual Live-Blog / Live-Chat / Live-Snark, a.k.a. SNARKNADO 2017, starting Sunday night at ~6:00 PM MST. We'll mock the Oscars together, reveal live results of the Oscar Pool, despair over the state of the nation, and so forth. The chat window will appear below.

TO OPEN THE CHAT IN A SEPARATE WINDOW, CLICK HERE.

Live Blog SNARKNADO 2017: The Loys' Oscars Live-Chat

Anyone can view the chat, but to participate, you’ll need to log in with Facebook, Twitter or Open ID. (The Cover It Live window below will have a login option once the chat starts.)

Don't worry, it won't automatically tweet out your comments or anything.

Another way to participate in the live-chat: if you post a tweet on Twitter with the hashtag #LRTOscars, it will automatically appear in the chat.

Happy snarking! And good luck in the pool, vying for #EternalGlory!

1 note · View note

brendanloy · 8 years ago

Text

Lucky 13th annual Oscar Pool!

It's that time of year again!

[You mean it's almost time for March Madness? -ed.]

Well, yes, that too. But I don't do a pool for that anymore. I do, however, still do an Oscar Pool -- your one & only chance to earn official, Living Room Times-certified ETERNAL GLORY* in 2017!

*LEGAL DISCLAIMER: "Eternal" nature of "glory" is not guaranteed if President Trump plunges us into a nuclear holocaust or turns America into an authoritarian hellscape in which my Internet presence is deleted & I am sent to a Siberian work camp for being insufficiently loyal to Dear Leader Trump and Lord Emperor Putin.

*cough* Anyway...

The Oscars are Sunday (i.e., the day after tomorrow), so it's time to GET IN THE POOL!!! Specifically: the 13th annual Living Room Times Oscar Pool!!! (Password: eternalglory)

If you entered my Oscar Pool last year, you'll be prompted to sign in using the same username and password. (Don't worry, there's an I forgot my username and/or password page.)

As always, the pool is free to enter, and there’s no monetary prize – just a shot at bragging rights and...well, you know.

The deadline to enter the pool is Sunday at 6:30 PM Mountain Time (8:30 Eastern, 5:30 Pacific). Because, like, that's when the Oscars start, and stuff.

Speaking of which, you’ll want to come back here for SNARKNADO 2017, a.k.a. Becky’s and my annual Live-Blog / Live-Chat / Live-Snark, during which we’ll mock the show mercilessly and discuss the live Oscar Pool results... and probably make fun of dumb political speeches, while simultaneously despairing over the state of the nation, and wondering if there'll even be an America, Pippin, by the time the 2018 Oscars roll around. So yeah, umm, it'll be fun!!

The Snarknado will start at (or around) 6:00 PM Mountain Time Sunday. Bookmark this Tumblr and check back then!

Okay, anyway, back to the pool. As in prior years, the scoring system is 12 points for Best Picture, 9 apiece for the directing and lead acting categories, 6 each for the supporting acting categories, 4 each for the screenplay categories, 2 each for documentary feature, animated feature, foreign film, cinematography and original score, and 1 per award for everything else.

As always, contestants are urged to enter using their full name, a Twitter handle, or some other readily recognizable partial name or nickname/pseudonym. (After all, what’s the point of “bragging rights” – never mind “eternal glory” – if we don’t know who you are?) However, if you work in the execuutive branch of the federal government, you are encouraged to conceal your true identity, and instead use a nickname that mocks Donald Trump's tiny hands and/or penis.

Anyway, get in the pool!!! (Once more with feeling: the password is eternalglory.)

0 notes

brendanloy · 9 years ago

Text

The Mount Rushmore of Cowardice

I tried to back away from politics away, after tweeting a bunch of stuff like this yesterday:

A heartfelt message to those "values voters" who've complained for years about the vulgarity of our culture, but now back Trump: FUCK. YOU.

— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) October 10, 2016

Also this and this and this. And this:

Can we stop calling it "paralysis"? They're not fucking paralyzed. They're actively choosing repugnant evil because they're fucking cowards. https://t.co/PivAT6sXTa

— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) October 10, 2016

And this and this and this. And/but, also this and this:

Worst possible debate for GOP leaders. Trump did nothing to win election, but also didn't offer easy out.

— Adam Davidson (@adamdavidson) October 10, 2016

I agree with this, and I'm a Dem, so I guess I should be happy (??), but I'm incredibly depressed. I wanted @GOP to belatedly save its soul. https://t.co/Vy10IBdXFN

— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) October 10, 2016

Point is, I was (again) very sad and very angry last night, and feeling compelled to use extreme rhetoric in a way that's out of character and makes me feel uncomfortable. Anyway, I decided that a mental health break was in order.

But, first, before I could step away, it turns out I had more to get off my chest -- and even directly telling Paul Ryan that he's a disgrace to the country wasn't sufficient. Nor was writing on Facebook: "The song that best encapsulates my feelings about the 2016 presidential election is Stan Rogers's Barrett's Privateers. 'GOD DAMN THEM ALL!' Flaming sh*tpile Donald Trump and his vile minions and cowardly enablers have actually made me, huge political junkie that I am, *hate politics* this year (and maybe beyond??). Now I'm a broken man on a Denver couch..."

Instead, shortly after that post, I ended up proceeding to draft a magnum opus of a Facebook comment on a friend's share of a Politico article about Ryan's non-unendorsement. Having gone to all that trouble, I suppose I should share it here as well.

So, here goes. From the "tell 'em how you really feel" files...

* * * * *

Big picture, I guess I'm happy that the media narrative coming out of Ryan's conference call is "Ryan effectively abandons Trump," because that narrative hurts Trump. But, God dammit, it's way too kind to Ryan, who belongs alongside Joe McCarthy's enablers and the pre-Lincoln slavery compromisers on the Mount Rushmore of America's most cowardly goddamn "leaders" ever.

Unlike some ignorant Trump supporters to whom "forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do" arguably applies, Ryan knows *precisely* what Trump is. For that reason, he considered withholding his endorsement (and perhaps backing another candidate) back in May, but then -- in a historically consequential display of transparent, shameless, feckless, immoral, unpatriotic careerism unmatched in my lifetime -- sold his soul to the American Mussolini and his merry band of alt-right goons and thugs, and decided to tepidly support him, while continuing to routinely condemn his actions and statements. Now, having been handed by fate a golden opportunity to correct his moral error (and having been given political cover to do so by the belated conversions to the #NeverTrump cause by dozens of his compatriots, e.g. Cory Gardner, who, while also shamefully late in their disavowals of Trump, at least showed a *shred* of belated moral courage, unlike Ryan and the rest of the party's putative "leaders"), this profile in cowardice says he "won't defend" and "won't campaign with" Trump, but will continue to nominally support him ... which is essentially the same goddamn thing he's been doing since May!!!

I keep seeing references to the Republicans' "state of paralysis" regarding Trump, but I wholly reject that framing. Paul Ryan and his ilk aren't "paralyzed"; they are affirmatively CHOOSING NOT TO ACT, which is itself an action, in this case a monstrous one. This is the titular "leader" of the (non-Trump wing of the) Republican Party, who, instead of being a FUCKING LEADER EXERCISING SOME FUCKING "LEADERSHIP," is pulling a Denethor and essentially telling his fellow Republicans to, politically speaking, "go now and die in what way seems best to you." It's every man for himself, in other words, with zero moral leadership from their "leader" on the clearest moral question imaginable, i.e., whether to support this wannabe tyrant & flaming shitpile of a human being for President of the United States.

I used to disagree with Paul Ryan on policy but respect him as a human being, and as a relatively sane and sensible human being -- an "adult in the room" trying to tame the crazies in his caucus. No more. Twice now, he has been uniquely positioned to show leadership in a way that would fundamentally change the narrative around the election, and twice he has failed. I will never forgive Ryan for this, and, assuming there isn't an extremely compelling reason to care about the 2020 Democratic presidential race, I pledge right now to temporarily switch my party registration in order to vote (whatever our ideological differences) in the primaries for Ben Sasse or John Kasich or Larry Hogan or Justin Amash or, heaven help me, Mike Lee, or whichever #NeverTrump Republican emerges as the primary alternative to the Ryan/Rubio/Pence wing of the party, the accommodationist #VichyGOP that has abandoned not just conservative principles, but basic principles of liberal democracy itself, in hopes of walking a political tightrope, saving their careers, and then trying after the election to paper things over, put the alt-right genie back into the bottle, and emerge with a WSJ-approved, Chamber of Commerce-endorsed savior who can unite the clans and lead a restored coalition of earnest tax-cutters, "values voters," GamerGate misogynists and Pepe the Frog bigots to victory in 2020. No, no, no. Fuck no. NO. NOOOOOOOOO.

In conclusion, speaking as someone who has always prided himself, in past political debates, on being civil & moderate and tone, engaging in honest & open discourse with conservatives (including those with whom I *strongly* disagree, like opponents of gay rights), avoiding extreme rhetoric and analogical hyperbole (no "Bush=Hitler" here), and refraining from moral judgments based on political disagreements...

FUCK. PAUL. RYAN. FOREVER.

Fuck him and all of his kind, the immoral accommodationist Vichy assholes who have enabled Trump at the expense of America, the nation they profess to love.

Based on his decision today, I can only conclude that Paul Ryan would’ve tepidly endorsed Hitler in 1930, in hopes he'd help Ryan pass his #ABetterWeimar legislative agenda. But he wouldn’t have campaigned with him, so it’s cool.

#NeverRyan #NeverMcConnell #NeverPence #NeverRubio #NeverPriebus #NeverGOP

/rant

0 notes

brendanloy · 9 years ago

Text

Another dire NWS bulletin

BULLETIN -- IMMEDIATE BROADCAST

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK HAS ISSUED A

* COMPLACENCY WARNING FOR... VIRGINIA... COLORADO... MINNESOTA... WISCONSIN... NEW HAMPSHIRE...

* PEPE THE FROG WARNING FOR... PENNSYLVANIA... MICHIGAN... OHIO... IOWA... NORTH CAROLINA... AND THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF MAINE...

* #FEELTHEJOHNSON WARNING FOR... NEW MEXICO...

* TACO BOWL WARNING FOR... NEVADA... ARIZONA...

* HANGING CHAD WARNING FOR... FLORIDA...

* UNTIL TUESDAY NOVEMBER 8 2016

SITUATION OVERVIEW...

HURRICANE DONALD IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, LIKELY TO CAUSE DEVASTATING IMPACTS THAT MAY RENDER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNINHABITABLE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS...

A DIRECT HIT BY HURRICANE DONALD WOULD CAUSE WIDESPREAD CATASTROPHIC IMPACTS INCLUDING NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT, MAINSTREAMING OF BIGOTRY AND MISOGYNY, ENCOURAGEMENT OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE, DEGRADATION OF THE RULE OF LAW, RECESSION, FINANCIAL PANIC, POSSIBLE LOSS OF GLOBAL RESERVE CURRENCY STATUS, CONSTITUTIONAL CRISES, SEVERE DAMAGE TO LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, POSSIBLE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND NUCLEAR WAR.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

PREPARATIONS TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD BE RUSHED TO COMPLETION.

0 notes

brendanloy · 9 years ago

Photo

I've been trying to pull myself out of my recent paroxysm of electoral despair, and, remembering Gandalf's wise words to Frodo ("...all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"), turn my attention to doing my part to stop Trump. Ergo, the girls & I will be volunteering for Hillary Clinton this weekend.

But first, I need to get something off my chest.

I wrote the following rant in a Facebook comment this morning, and having finished it, I decided it needs its own Tumblr post. Warning: salty language ahead!

* * * * *

Can I just say, as I look at that ugly map ... whatever the ultimate outcome, even if HRC ekes out a 3-point win or whatever, it's just so goddamn depressing to look at the electoral map and see how much of it is the standard shade of red, even though Donald Freakin' Trump is the nominee. His normalization is so overwhelmingly, despair-inducingly gross.

Nothing in American politics in my lifetime has been as depressing and disillusioning as the conscious, deliberate decision by the "leadership" of the GOP to acquiesce to Trump (and the <40% of the GOP primary electorate that supported him when the race was competitive). In doing so, they have chosen to signal "Trump's our guy" to average Republican voters, who -- just like average Democratic voters -- pay minimal attention, and simply vote with their "tribe." Even given the poor decisions made by the Republican primary voters, it did NOT have to be this way. There were other paths the party's "leaders" could have taken, whether endorsing Gary Johnson, reluctantly backing Clinton for the good of the country (as George H.W. Bush and a few others have done), or putting forward a plausible independent conservative candidate, back in May or June when that was still possible. Quite honestly, with HRC being so unpopular, and Trump being so electorally self-destructive, I genuinely think a decent high-profile conservative third-party candidate like a Romney or a Ryan could plausibly have won. And anyway, win or lose, promoting and supporting such an effort would have been honorable, patriotic, and the right thing to do.

But the GOP "leadership" rejected the principled alternatives, out of cowardice and careerism, and decided instead to normalize this objectively vile, monstrous, unhinged, bigoted, wannabe war criminal and (at best) petty tyrant ... this proudly ignorant, thoughtlessly authoritarian, transparently unfit ignoramus ... this deranged narcissist with terrifyingly fascistic instincts.

Now, thanks to that abject failure (or rather abdication) of leadership, even honest and thoughtful conservative voters face this awful choice of Trump vs. someone they loathe plus a guaranteed liberal Supreme Court. IMHO there's still a clear moral choice that such voters must make -- gotta vote Hillary, even if they'll oppose her vigorously for the next four years, just as I would be forced to vote for even someone I find loathsome like Ted Cruz if he was the only viable alternative to a hypothetical "Dem Trump" (i.e., if the Dems ever nominated an equally dangerous demagogue) -- but, Jesus, these voters have been put a terrible, terrible spot by their party's "leaders."

In sum, fuck Paul Ryan, Reince Priebus, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, etc. (to say nothing of enthusiastic Trumpkins-who-know-better like Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, etc.), and the rest of these cynical careerist assholes, forever and ever and ever. They have sold their souls to a strongman for the sake of their precious goddamn careers, notwithstanding that doing so means grievously endangering the country they profess to love. They are a disgrace to themselves, their party, and their nation. I will never forgive the "leaders" and influencers who, faced with the clearest moral choice imaginable, utterly failed to stand up to a transparently unfit and dangerous demagogue, and indeed decided to rally their "team" behind this monster.

As I wrote to Paul Ryan last night, in a series of tweets responding to his tweet honoring the statesmanship of the late Shimon Peres: "You praise statesmanship, yet you support an unhinged narcissistic ignoramus with fascistic instincts for POTUS. Your careerism has corrupted your conservatism, compromised your patriotism, and conquered your very soul. Shame on you, sir. President Trump would pursue plunder, torture & murder of noncombatants. War crimes all. How dare you invoke 'statesmanship.' You could have single-handedly altered the course of history by calling Trump a fascist & refusing to endorse. But no. Coward. I hope you go to bed, every night for the rest of your life, knowing you own this. You surrendered the GOP to a fascist. You."

4 notes · View notes

brendanloy · 9 years ago

Text

Why Trump must lose

I'm going to start collecting some links to pieces that explain why Donald Trump is an existential threat to America and the world, and thus why Hillary Clinton -- love her or loathe her -- is vasty preferable and must be elected on November 8.

• CATO scholar Timothy Sandefur, a strongly anti-Hillary libertarian, explains why Trump is an American Mussolini.

• Weekly Standard's Jay Cost: Trump is too "erratic" to be trusted with the presidency's crucial "non-ideological" tasks.

• An excellent Reddit compilation of responses to "Tell me why Trump is a fascist."

• Washington Post editorial: Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy.

• Reason: Trump’s RNC Speech Was a Terrifying Display of Nightmarish Authoritarianism.

• Another excellent compilation, from Slate, of reasons Trump is unfit for the presidency.

• Blogger Paul Richardson: Think really, really hard before voting for a 3rd party candidate.

• Neoconservative columnist Robert Kagan: This is how fascism comes to America.

• Andrew Sullivan: America has never been more ripe for tyranny.

• My response to "But the Supreme Court!"

• My original #NeverTrump post, from February.

0 notes

brendanloy · 9 years ago

Photo

Last Friday, I attended the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, armed with a press pass, thus making me a member of the hated elite media for the day, with a front-row seat (okay, actually, back row) for a Donald Trump speech.

It was, let us just say, an experience.

This was my first time seeing Trump in person—and one of the few times I've heard him speak uninterrupted for any length of time. I don't watch much cable news, and my blood pressure literally spikes when I listen to him too much. But, even so, it seemed worth attending #WCS16 to try and get a better understanding of Trump and Trumpism. (Plus, I got some sweet, sweet retweets out of it. Trump = clicks, amiright, Fourth Estate?!?)

Anyway, I wrote up a column / blog post on my observations, which I submitted to a conservative publication that had expressed some interest in potentially publishing it. But, in the end, they elected not to do so—perhaps not too surprisingly, given how anti-Trump my take was. So, with no hard feelings on that score, I've decided to go ahead and publish it here.

* * * * *

The Amazing Incoherence Of Donald Trump

As attendees at last Friday’s Western Conservative Summit in Denver eagerly awaited the arrival of headline speaker Donald Trump—whose “Trump Train” was running nearly an hour late—they were treated to various stalling tactics, including a few extra speeches, some lovely a capella music, and a video by Dennis Prager about the Ten Commandments, played on the big screen in the Mile High Ballroom. The video may have been intended mostly to kill time, but it provided an unintentionally poignant warmup to Trump.

Prager warns in the video that, in the absence of universal moral laws, “it's all too easy . . . to rationalize that the wrong you’re doing isn’t really wrong.” According to Prager, faith in God and adherence to His laws is the only path to solid, well-grounded truths about right and wrong, which flawed human beings need in order to resist being “swayed by . . . a demagogue.”

A half-hour later, Trump, a man who imposes religious tests on would-be immigrants and ethnic tests on federal judges, was standing at the podium, declaring that “the evangelicals have been so amazing to me.” He told the audience that Jerry Falwell, Jr.’s endorsement “had such a huge impact” (although he also said endorsements “have never been that important to me”), and recalled his warm reception at Liberty University (or “Liberty College,” as he called it). “The evangelicals have been great,” reiterated the thrice-married serial liar, misogynist, bigot, conspiracy theorist, and presumptive GOP nominee, who last year pledged to order U.S. soldiers to murder the family members of terrorists.

Perhaps faith in God, and adherence to His laws, is less of a shield against demagoguery than Prager thought.

I suppose, at this point, I should introduce myself to this site's readers, and state my biases in the interest of full disclosure. Hi, I’m Brendan, and I’m a center-left moderate. (“Hi, Brendan.”) It has been nine days since I last voted for a Democrat. (Colorado had state and local primary elections last Tuesday.)

Yet while I may be a card-carrying Dem, I have sometimes been called a “DINO,” and occasionally the “Joe Lieberman of Twitter,” meaning I’m the token Democrat who a lot of Republicans and conservatives seem to think is an okay guy. (Don't believe me; believe my Twitter friends at, e.g., National Review and RedState.) I agree with conservatives on a number of issues; I have a great deal of respect for my many principled conservative friends (with whom I stand in #NeverTrump solidarity, on principle); and I genuinely believe that conservatives have an important and necessary voice, even on issues where I disagree with them. Without a strong conservative movement, the excesses on “my” side would hold too much sway.

(That includes, by the way, excessive political correctness run amok, in particular the tendency to excessively brand conservatives as “racists” merely for holding views which are outside the left-of-center cultural zeitgeist, but which are not necessarily bigoted on their face. Broadly speaking, I agree with conservatives about that. So when I call Donald Trump a bigot, it’s not because I routinely call conservatives bigots. I don’t. I only use the term “bigot” to describe people who actually engage in outright bigotry. Like Trump.)

In addition to being fairly centrist, I also try to be open-minded and objective, or at least fair, such that I can set aside my personal feelings about a political leader in order to assess and analyze their appeal. I certainly don’t claim to be perfect in this regard, but I think I do a reasonably good job of it. What’s more, I like to see political figures of all stripes, in person. This allows me to hear them out, draw my own conclusions about them, and try to understand them and their appeal. Thus, I have been to events featuring everyone from Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Jesse Jackson, Martin O'Malley and Al Gore, to Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ron and Rand Paul, John Kasich, Glenn Beck, and the late Antonin Scalia, among many others. And for the most part, even when I strongly disagree with someone, I come away from these events understanding them better, and often finding at least something to admire or appreciate.

For instance, in 2008, I absolutely couldn’t stand Palin, or what I felt she represented about American politics. Yet when I went to her election eve campaign rally in Colorado Springs, I found her to be charismatic, compelling and charming as a speaker. To be clear, I still would never, ever support her—but I could understand, at some level, why many conservatives did. Another example: although I am an ardent supporter of gay marriage and other liberal social causes, I found in 2012 that I was genuinely moved by the way Rick Santorum speaks about his faith (as I told him afterward when I shook his hand), and I was also impressed by his skills as a retail politician. In 2014, I greatly enjoyed and admired the intellectual vigor of Justice Scalia’s address to a conference I attended, even where I disagreed with him. In 2015, when I heard Rand Paul’s stump speech (which was really more like a TED Talk on the Bill of Rights), I came away impressed, and feeling that this was a Republican who I could potentially vote for.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I don’t automatically reject or condemn a Republican or a conservative when I listen to them talk. Nor am I a liberal concern-troll. I try my best to listen with an open mind, and I think I usually succeed.

And yet. Donald J. Trump. Yeesh. What have you done, Republicans? Why have you chosen this man?!

I came away from last Friday’s event at the Colorado Convention Center feeling utterly baffled by Trump’s appeal, even moreso than when I walked in. Often, my reaction to a politician I dislike on substance, such as a Palin or a Santorum, is something like: “Okay, not for me, but I get it." I understand the appeal, even if I fervently disagree. Not with Trump, though. For the life of me, I do not understand how this person was able to amass so much support that he will almost certainly be a major-party nominee for President of the United States of America.

Trump was off-teleprompter in Denver, so his speech followed his natural off-the-cuff speaking style. In other words, it was a rambling mess. As best as I can tell, he seemed to be relying on a short list of topics, which he would periodically consult to remind himself of what he still needed to discuss—but that was the extent of the speech’s structure. He would meander from topic to topic, sometimes appearing to distract himself with his own words, somewhat like a dog who has spotted a squirrel. It was genuinely quite bizarre, like watching one’s affable but mildly racist uncle, perhaps slightly drunk, hold forth about various topics, struggling to maintain a coherent thread throughout his rolling barside rant.

For instance, at one point Trump was talking about the Supreme Court, recalling how he had gotten recommendations on possible picks from the Federalist Society, which he described as the “gold standard” for conservative jurisprudence. So far, so good. But then suddenly he was reminded, by his own improvised use of the phrase “gold standard,” of a comment Hillary Clinton once made about the Trans Pacific Partnership, and so he abruptly wandered off into a several-minute digression about the TPP and trade. Eventually he returned to discussing the Supreme Court—which he cast in apocalyptic terms, asserting that if multiple vacancies are filled by the next president, those seats on the Court will be the difference between America staying free or “becoming Venezuela"—but he only stayed focused on the Court briefly before veering off again, this time into one of his countless asides about how many votes he got, how many states he won, and how well he is doing in the polls. (He is not doing well in the polls.)

What I find so baffling about Trump is how he has managed overcome numerous manifest political disadvantages—ideological, political, moral—despite being, frankly, so fundamentally unskilled. It may be sacrilege to called him “unskilled,” given that he’s come this far and done so well in the primaries, but it’s the truth. Like lipstick on a pig, Trump’s electoral successes cannot mask the fundamental fact that he is not very good at this. (And also that he’s a pig.)

His speech in Denver began, fittingly, with a factually dishonest condemnation of Colorado’s caucus/convention process, about which Trump professed a false memory of having seen “polls” showing him winning the “vote” in Colorado, only to learn that “all of a sudden” there would not be a vote. Allow me to set the record straight. There was a vote. On March 1, in a legitimate, time-tested process of indirect democracy that has been regularly used by the Colorado GOP in many prior elections (and was agreed upon for this year's election in the summer of 2015), thousands of voters gathered at GOP precinct caucuses across the state to elect delegates to county and congressional district conventions. The candidates for precinct delegate had every opportunity to declare their allegiance to a presidential contender, so that each voter at the caucus would know whether they were voting for a Trump delegate, a Cruz delegate, a Rubio delegate, a Carson delegate, or what-have-you. Based on what I’ve heard from my Republican friends who voted in the caucuses, it seems that this generally occurred. Through this process, Colorado voters knowingly chose county/district delegates who were, by large majorities, anti-Trump. The county delegates, in turn, elected anti-Trump delegates to the state convention, who, along with the district delegates, elected anti-Trump delegates (which, by the final stage of the process in April, meant Cruz delegates) to the national convention. This traditional multi-stage process is admittedly indirect and convoluted, but it was known in advance, it was fully in keeping with the longstanding rules and norms of the traditional caucus-convention system, and it was most definitely not some sort of last-minute response to "polls" showing Trump ahead. Moreover, in the final analysis, the system reflected the evident will of Colorado’s GOP voters (in those precinct caucuses on Super Tuesday), a substantial majority of whom, as it turns out, were anti-Trump. Those are the facts of the situation.

Facts be damned, though, Trump circled back to this issue repeatedly throughout his speech, at one point drawing audible groans and a few jeers from the otherwise friendly audience when he declared, falsely: “As soon as they saw how well I did in the polls, they went to a delegate system where they appoint the delegates.” Not a single word in that sentence is true.

Still, it doesn’t confuse me that the Republican Party is set to nominate a liar. So is the Democratic Party, many readers are thinking, and fair enough. Many politicians lie. I would argue (strongly) that Trump is manifestly more shameless than most, routinely contradicting himself and telling an endless stream of blatant lies about objectively verifiable facts without even plausible deniability. But still, if you want to argue that his dishonesty, as opposed to other politicians' dishonesty, is a quantitative rather than qualitative difference -- i.e., merely a matter of degree -- I'll grant that point, at least for the sake of argument. So, no, Trump's dishonesty isn't what baffles me about him. My bafflement relates more to the Party of Lincoln's blithe acceptance of fascistic demagoguery—and also, the fact that this man, this potential President of the United States seven months hence, is manifestly psychologically damaged, yet most GOP voters and "leaders" are apparently okay with that.

To be specific about what I mean by "psychologically damaged": the Republican Party is set to nominate someone who is so transparently narcissistic, so utterly captive to his raging ego, that he endlessly obsesses over every slight, real or perceived, and seems actually unable to move past something like the controversy over Colorado’s delegate allocation (which has no relevance going forward, barring a miraculous Hail Mary on the convention floor in Cleveland by the almost certainly outmanned #FreeTheDelegates movement). It makes no political sense for Trump to keep bringing up this topic—just as it made no political sense for him to keep doubling- and tripling-down on his racist attacks against Judge Curiel, or for him to keep discussing up Saddam Hussein and the Star of David during a week when he should have been laser-focused on Hillary Clinton's (genuinely troubling) e-mail misdeeds. But when Trump is sufficiently piqued, when his ego is sufficiently upset, he appears to literally lack the capacity to stop himself.

Moreover, much like his bigotry, his transparent phoniness, and his conman hucksterism, Trump’s uncontrolled narcissism and inability to let it go is hardly subtle. In the context of this presidential campaign, those traits have been in plain sight at least since the Megyn Kelly brouhaha last August. Why, then, did GOP voters choose such an emotionally imbalanced, psychologically unfit person to be their nominee—particularly when he has so many other deficiencies as well, from his “yuge” ideological apostasies (which utterly horrify my principled conservative friends) to his frighteningly fascistic tendencies about everything from restrictions on the First Amendment to the open encouragement of political violence?

Normally, the answer to such a question would be "charisma." It would hardly be a unique circumstance in human history if a charismatic demagogue were to rise to power. And I thought perhaps I would discover by attending WCS that Trump, in person, has a powerful charisma that I had missed on TV. But no! Trump isn’t especially charismatic! On the contrary, he is rambling and meandering, repetitive and unpersuasive, boorish and blatantly ignorant! Hence why I left the Convention Center feeling more baffled than ever about Trump’s appeal.

Admittedly, there were a couple of moments in Trump’s speech when he displayed flashes of a charming sense of humor—namely, when he mocked the claim that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were just talking about “grandchildren and golf” during their recent airport chat, and when he teased John Kerry over his bicycle accident. His riffs on those topics were not shrill or strident, but genuinely funny. Yet those moments were the exception. For the most part, Trump was neither charming nor particularly compelling as a speaker.

Moreover, consistent with what we’ve seen all campaign long, he showed no ability whatsoever to pivot from his humorous asides and scathing attacks into serious discussion of policy. There was never a hint of substance beneath the slogans and the stumbles. Outside of a few reasonably well-delivered canned lines, and those two moments of charming humor, the best adjective to describe Trump’s speech might be “bumbling.” As for the best word to describe my impression of Trump himself, based solely on what I saw last Friday, I vacillate between “ignoramus,” “loon” and “oaf.”

You might think that I would feel comforted by what I observed last Friday regarding Trump’s baffling lack of skill, since it means he will probably lose in November. After all, I'm a Democrat who would never vote for Donald Trump in a million years. (Nor, incidentally, would I ever vote for a Democratic mirror-image of Trump, i.e., a left-wing fascistic demagogue who poses a threat to liberal democracy in the way that I believe Trump does. I would sooner vote for the grating, loathsome Ted Cruz than for such a person.) So I should be happy about anything that suggests Trump's a likely loser, right? But no. I don't feel comforted. Instead, I feel disconcerted and troubled.

If an unqualified, bumbling oaf who is transparently a pathological liar, bigot and idiot -- but who speaks the language of a fascistic demagogue -- can successfully complete a hostile takeover of a major American political party without being particularly skilled at demagoguery, what could a skilled demagogue accomplish? If a politician with the personal charisma of, say, Marco Rubio or Cory Gardner or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama decided to go down the dark demagogic path Trump that has trod, with the same utter shamelessness he’s shown, such a person most likely would not be languishing around 40 percent in the polls, as Trump currently is. Instead, such a person might well be winning, especially against an opponent as weak as Hillary Clinton. And that is a frightening thought.

If the only things stopping Donald Trump from becoming President of the United States are his own manifest personal flaws—rather than a principled rejection of what he represents—then I fear we may have deeper problems as a nation than just deciding between two unpalatable candidates this year.

* * * * *

Christian conservatives and left-wing anarchists, protesting the same thing. And people say Trump's not a uniter! pic.twitter.com/i94n25OPsf

— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) July 1, 2016

Bally watching Trump. #WCS16 pic.twitter.com/Imc2wdRMzC

— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) July 1, 2016

#WCS16 pic.twitter.com/EXNktXFj3e

— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) July 1, 2016

Bally asked me to state that this photo is NOT an endorsement, and he is NOT interested in being Trump's VP. #WCS16 pic.twitter.com/7xXIS2drQp

— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) July 1, 2016

0 notes

brendanloy · 9 years ago

Text

Defying Tyranny

An imagined conversation between Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse, set to a tune you may be familiar with...

SASSE: Marco! Why couldn't you have just stayed quiet for once Instead of spouting off to Tapper?

I hope you're happy! I hope you're happy now I hope you're happy how you Hurt your cause forever

RUBIO: Oh, your tweets are so clever! I hope you're happy I hope you're happy, too

SASSE: I hope you're proud how you Would grovel in submission To feed your own ambition

BOTH: So though I can't imagine how I hope you're happy right now

SASSE: Marco, listen to me Just say you're sorry!

You can still be with Bill Kristol Fight the madman you abhor You can still lead the #NeverTrumpers

RUBIO: I know. But I don't want it - No - I can't want it Anymore

SASSE: Something has changed within me Something is not the same I'm through with playing by the rules Of this two-party game

Too late for second-guessing Too late to follow like sheep It's time to trust the voters Close my eyes and leap!

It's time to try Defying tyranny I think I'll try Defying tyranny And you can't pull me down!

RUBIO: Can't I make you understand? You're having delusions of grandeur!

SASSE: I'm through accepting limits 'cause Priebus says they're so Third parties rarely win But till I try, I'll never know!

Too long we've been afraid of Losing "unity" that's lost Well, if it's Trump That comes at much too high a cost!

I'd sooner buy Defying tyranny Kiss me goodbye I'm defying tyranny And you can't pull me down!

Marco, come with me. Think of what we could do -- together.

Unlimited... Together we're unlimited Together we'll be the greatest team There's ever been... Marco Markets free and random

RUBIO: If we work in tandem

RUBIO & SASSE: There's no state we cannot win Just you and I Defying tyranny With you and I Defying tyranny

SASSE: They'll never bring us down!

Well? Are you coming?

RUBIO: I hope you're happy Now that you're choosing this

SASSE: You too I hope it brings you bliss

RUBIO: I really hope you get it And you don't live to regret it

RUBIO AND SASSE: I hope you're happy in the end I hope you're happy, my friend

SASSE: So if you care to find me Look to the western states! As Walmart shoppers told me: "Everyone needs choices they don't hate!"

And if I'm flying solo At least I'm flying free To those who'd ground me From the damned #GOPe:

Tell them how I am Defying tyranny I'm flying high Defying tyranny And soon I'll match Trump in renown!

And nobody in Trumpkinland No stubby-fingered tyrant's hand Is ever gonna bring me down!

RUBIO: I hope you're happy!

TRUMPKINS: Look at him, he's wicked! Get him!

SASSE: ... Bring me down!

GOP ESTABLISHMENT: Hillary is wicked!

SASSE: Aaaah-aaah-aaah!

TRUMPKINS & ESTABLISHMENT: So we've got to bring him down!

0 notes

brendanloy · 9 years ago

Text

#NeverTrump

I'm a Democrat. Sure, I'm a centrist whose idiosycratic ideology doesn't fit neatly into either party's box -- and I have many principled conservative friends, whose views I respect greatly -- but I'm still solidly a Democrat. I have voted Democratic in every presidential election since I turned 18, and I'm highly likely to do so again this year.

I also believe that Marco Rubio is, by far, the most likely of the Republican candidates to win the general election. And I will, to reiterate, almost certainly vote against him in November.

Yet, last week, I made a $50 donation to Rubio -- the largest donation I've ever made to a political campaign -- and I've been trying to persuade my Democratic and liberal friends to do the same. (I've succeeded with several of them.)

Why?

Because Donald Trump must not become President of the United States -- and indeed, must not even come close. Allowing him to become the nominee of a major party is far too dangerous a risk to take.

I believe Marco Rubio is the only remaining realistic hope to prevent Trump from becoming a major-party nominee for President of the United States, and I feel there is a moral imperative to resist Trump‬. Now. Today. So I'm with Rubio.

No electability calculation is worth the risk of my girls growing up under a fascist prez. #DemsForRubio #NeverTrump pic.twitter.com/jeesSLhxPi

— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) February 28, 2016

This unprecedented moment in American history transcends normal politics. This isn't some typical us-versus-them debate about this or that policy. Don't get me wrong: those debates are important. But this is much more important, because this is about the very character of our nation. This is about whether we will let this vile, vulgar hatemonger become a legitimized political leader. And don't give me this nonsense about how "the other Republicans are just as bad." If you honestly think that, you aren't paying attention, and you're part of the problem. Take off your partisan blinders and wake up to what's going on here. Donald Trump openly spouts bigotry and misogyny (without even the decency of using a dog whistle!), gleefully advocates unquestioned war crimes (that would make Dick Cheney blush), threatens and intimidates anyone who criticizes him (Constitution be damned!), proposes banning entire religious groups in an indiscriminate fashion, caters directly to white nationalists, and generally presents himself as a wannabe authoritarian strongman who would "make America great again" through brute, quasi-fascistic force.

Trump isn't a joke. He's a menace. And he must be stopped.

Imagine, God forbid, there's a major terrorist attack, or series of them, under President Donald Trump. Does anyone want to argue that internment of Muslim-Americans would be off the table as a policy solution? He's on record as saying Japanese internment was maybe not such a bad idea. And he has proposed the previously unimaginable step of barring all Muslim immigrants. I'm not predicting Muslim internment would happen, but it's conceivable under Trump, is it not? So again I say to fellow Democrats and liberals: wake up. Horrible outcomes that would be unimaginable under other Republicans are entirely imaginable under President Trump. This guy isn't just another bad Republican. He's way, way worse.

And to principled conservatives who opppose the Trumpian menace, I say: while we may disagree in eight months, today I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you, and with Marco Rubio. We must fight Trump, and we must defeat him.

I will help you bear this burden, @charlescwcooke (and all GOPers who #ResistTrump), as long as it is yours to bear. https://t.co/SScSgG1roN

— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) February 26, 2016

Among the many sane, principled conservatives I know, everyone is repulsed by Trump, but there is a difference of opinion on what to do if he's the nominee. Some say they'll never EVER vote for him, no matter what, even if it helps Hillary win. (A few even say they'll vote for Hillary to stop him.) Others, by contrast, are noncommittal, or say they'd hold their nose and vote for him over Hillary, because they loathe the Dem policy agenda so much. Or, as Hugh Hewitt tweeted: "You must support whomever is the GOP nominee because of SCOTUS. Period. Full stop." This is essentially the mirror-image argument of the liberal view that we should "root" for Trump to win the nomination because he's less electable: Yes, Trump is terrible, but stopping him isn't as important as making sure that OUR TEAM WINS.

Well, I believe the Republicans who say "no Trump, no way, no how" have the better of that internal argument, even accepting arguendo their worldview that Hillary is terrible and they hate the idea of her becoming president. I believe it is the correct approach to say: "You know what? Normal politics matters, and I want my team to win, because I think my team is superior to the other team in deeply important ways. But even so, some things transcend normal politics. The moral imperative of opposing Trump at all costs is one of those things. We will not be led down the 'lesser of two evils' rabbit hole into supporting someone who is literally proposing and articulating straightforward, honest-to-goodness evil."

If I'm going to ask Republicans to put aside their ideological beliefs in favor of the common good of opposing Trump no matter what, I think it's fair to also ask Democrats to do the same. And in our case, that means opposing Trump now, in the primaries, even though a Rubio nomination increases the chances of a Republican presidency. Because if Trump isn't so abhorrent that we break out of the normal "my team vs. your team" mentality, is there any point at which we would? And if so, what is that point? What would it take for you to set aside partisan politics (even though partisan politics are really important!) and prioritize doing everything in your power to oppose a monster?

I'm not, of course, suggesting that Trump = Hitler, but just purely as a thought experiment, if it were Rubio vs. Hitler, would you "root" for Hitler because he's less electable? Surely not, but then where, on the vast expanse between Trump and Hitler, do you draw the line? Personally, I draw the line on the other side of someone who spouts open bigotry, supports barring all members of a particular religion from the country, thinks Japanese internment camps were maybe not such a bad idea, promotes not just waterboarding but more severe forms of torture, thinks we should kill innocent family members of terrorists, wants to "open up" libel laws to intimidate and silence media critics, and on and on.

If you can explain -- based on sound logic and facts, not mere assertion that "Rubio's just as bad" (no, he's manifestly not! PAY ATTENTION!) -- why I'm wrong to draw the line at Trump, and if you can articulate where, between Trump and Hitler, you would draw the line, then fine. Agree to disagree. But you must at least think about this question, or you aren't doing your job as an informed citizen, and you're ignoring the unprecedentedly menacing aspects of Trump as a presidential candidate.

This is a war for the GOP's soul, yes, but also for America's soul. This *is* our fight. So let's roll. #ResistTrump pic.twitter.com/GJcl4VoQgA

— Mile High Brendan (@MileHighBrendan) February 26, 2016

Faced with the dire threat of Trump, keeping the presidency in Democratic hands is the secondary goal for the time being. Yes, fellow Democrats, our policy goals are important, and so is the Supreme Court, and so is avoiding a return to Bush-era foreign policy. I agree with all that. But this is a unique circumstance. America has never had a proto-fascist hatemongering demagogue like Trump as president, and it must never have one. America survived Reagan and two Bushes, and it would survive Rubio. But there is no telling what our nation would look like on the other end of a Trump presidency. So while I will stand with you in the fall, fighting for the Democratic policy platform (and I will, very likely, ultimately make a larger than $50 donation to the Democratic nominee), that is not today's fight. The primary goal today is to stop Trump.

We must not be lulled into the false notion that a Trump nomination would be good for Democrats. First of all, even if Trump loses in November, he will do tremendous damage to our polity in the process. Indeed, he has already done so, moving the Overton window of numerous policy debates such that stances which would have been unimaginable to utter in mainstream political discourse a few short months ago -- e.g., ban all Muslims, kill terrorists' families, etc. -- are no longer seen as fringe views. They are now part of the conversation. Imagine how much more damage he can do in eight months with the megaphone of a national campaign, and a party apparatus behind him. Even if he loses the general election, a Trump nomination would mean that our politics will be changed for at least a generation, and mini-Trumps will pop up in future years' primaries -- in both parties -- seeking to re-create his demagogic formula. The only way to prevent this is to make sure that he is repudiated now. Not in Novmeber. Now.

Secondly, a Trump-Christie ticket, if that's where this is going, would be formidable. Yes, Hillary would probably beat them, but it's by no means a certainty. They would shed many traditional Republican voters, and struggle with typical swing voters, but they would also attract a lot of people who don't usually vote, from Perot voters (and the children of Perot voters) to white nationalists to, like it or not, some of Bernie's voters who aren't attracted so much by his liberalism as by his articulation of being fed up with the process and feeling that the game is rigged. (I personally know people whose top two candidates are Sanders and Trump. This is a real thing.) So Trump ain't going down to a Goldwater-level landslide defeat, no matter how much we might wish it to be so. He'll be broadly within striking distance. And then what if there's a terror attack or an economic shock in the fall? What if Hillary runs an awful campaign, or has a big new scandal? In this day and age, any major-party nominee can potentially win, given the right circumstances -- and a Trump-Christie ticket would scramble the map and the demographics in ways that are difficult to predict. No, no, no. Trump must be stopped immediately.

(Even if you think my analysis above is wrong, ask yourself: how confident are you? 90% confident? 95%? Is even a 5 percent chance of a hatemongering proto-fascist authoritarian demagogue bully who disobeys every norm of decency becoming President of the United States acceptable to you? It sure as hell ain't acceptable to me. To me, it's the political equivalent of a 5 percent chance of an asteroid hitting the Earth in a few years. I think/hope that, if faced with a go or no-go choice when the odds were 5%, we'd take action to divert such an asteroid, just to be sure. Same deal here. The time to act against the Trumpmageddon is now.)

I therefore urge my fellow Democrats and independents to consider doing what I've done -- donate to Marco Rubio -- or, if your conscience won't allow that (which I respect), then consider another avenue of active resistance to Trump winning the GOP nomination, whether that's donating to an anti-Trump SuperPAC (such as Our Principles PAC or the Stop Trump PAC), or calling your Republican friends and respectfully urging them to vote Rubio (especially important: if they're moderates, urge them NOT to vote Kasich, even if they like him better, because unlike Rubio, Kasich has no realistic path to defeat Trump, and the overriding priority is that Trump must be defeated), or doing whatever else you can. That includes, if you live in an open-primary state, foregoing the Democratic primary to vote for Rubio in the Republican primary instead.

#NeverTrump.

P.S. Quoth Peter Beinart:

In deciding how much to appeal to the public’s most hateful and bloodthirsty desires, most politicians exercise a measure of restraint born in part from a respect for legal norms and individual rights. Trump calls this restraint “political correctness” and flaunts his disdain.

I doubt Trump is the first post-9/11 presidential candidate to realize he could rouse a majority of Americans—or at least a majority of Republicans—by calling for the murder of terrorists’ family members and by giving a full-throated endorsement of torture. But the others stopped short. Other Republican presidential candidates have demonized Muslims, but none ever called for banning every single Muslim from entering the country. Other prominent Republicans subtly questioned President Obama’s Americanism. Trump denied he was born in the United States.

The difference is shame. It’s vaguely possible to imagine another Republican candidate launching the canard about Muslims celebrating 9/11. But only Trump—despite a thousand fact checks proving him wrong—would double down on the claim. Other Republicans have played on the right’s hatred of the mainstream press. But only Trump calls for changing libel laws to make it harder for journalists to write critical stories about him. And only Trump openly threatens the donors who fund efforts to defeat his campaign.

It’s no coincidence that Trump has praised Vladimir Putin. Although Trump probably couldn’t get away with everything the Russian leader has done, a Trump presidency could move the United States in the direction of what Fareed Zakaria calls “illiberal democracy.” Americans would still elect their presidents, but those presidents, once chosen, would face fewer restraints on their power and be free to more severely curtail the rights of targeted groups. Many of those restraints, after all, are a matter of convention. We can’t know how robust they are until someone challenges them. Trump will challenge them in ways Rubio will not.

Also:

Once Trump is nominated, America will have crossed a line.

A man who does not respect constitutional limits and who preys upon vulnerable minorities will lead one of the two major parties. The consequences, though hard to measure, could be profound. A few days ago in Iowa, fans at a high-school basketball game chanted, “Trump,” at the opposing team, which comprised Latino, African American, and Native American players. They wielded the name of the man who could become president as a racial slur. Protesters at Trump’s rallies have been beaten. Last year, in Boston, two men beat a Hispanic man with a metal pipe while yelling, “Trump was right.” Just imagine what might happen if were Trump nominated or, God forbid, elected. In myriad ways, America would become an uglier, scarier place. ... A Trump nomination would represent a leap into a terrifying political unknown.

Yes.

0 notes

brendanloy · 9 years ago

Text

I won my Oscar Pool!

It was a boring Oscars and a subsued Snarknado (with Vicki Lopez unable to make it, and Becky going to bed early because of an early hospital rotation tomorrow), but the 12th annual Oscar Pool had an unprecendented* ending: I won!

ETERNAL GLORY, BABY!!! :)

*I totally forgot that I tied for the win in 2014. Still, it's "unprecedented" that I was the sole winner...

It all started with an upset for Best Supporting Actor.

Mark Rylance upset over Sylvester Stallone gives #LRTOscars #OscarPool lead to ... me!! pic.twitter.com/22UrhYE0rB