Danielle Pletka want you to know she doesn’t like Trump. She has no interesting in defending Trump. But she may be “forced” to vote for him because the Democrats haven’t done enough to convince her that they aren’t crazy socialists. Crazy socialists who nominated -checks notes- Joe Biden. Danielle Pletka is practicing Chickenshit Conservatism; a bad faith tactic for turning an indefensible position into an unquestionable status quo.
I fear that former vice president Joe Biden would be a figurehead president, incapable of focus or leadership, who would run a teleprompter presidency with the words drafted by his party’s hard-left ideologues.
Buttiegieg made a fantastic point in July of 2019 when he said “The GOP will call us crazy socialists no matter what our policies are”. With that in mind, let’s look at what Barry Goldwater said about Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Either we stick with the steady, responsible and proved leadership of President Ford, or we gamble on an untried, unsure challenger committed to a program of state‐controlled socialism.
Jimmy Carter passed the largest industry deregulations to date. The Motor Carrier Act that deregulated trucking. The Airline Deregulation Act. The 1978 Homebrew Act is seen as the start of craft brewing in the US. All of this was before the Regan revolution.
This is why it is safe to ignore just about anything a Republican says. It’s been the same fucking script for the past 50 years.
If you are having trouble understanding how conservatives could be simultaneously running on law and order while also promoting and hyping vigilantism you are not alone. While this seems like a contradiction, one in a seemingly endless list of contradictions, it isn’t. If you see a contradiction here, you are just making an incorrect assumption on what the purpose of law and order is to conservatives.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Why would Kyle drive 20 miles to a place where he doesn’t live with a firearm he does not legally own to walk into a crowd and start pointing that firearm at the people? This is a 17 year old who by all accounts, was a supporter of the police. Surely he much have known it was illegal for a 17 year old to own a gun. He much have known he actions would be seen as premeditated and not self defense. None of those actions makes sense unless you consider “Blue Lives Matters” as nothing more than an elaborate backwash of pseudo-philosophy to cover the one fact of conservatism. There are people like Kyle, that the law protects but doesn’t bind; and there are people, unlike Kyle, that the law binds but does not protect. And Kyle is there to bind the protestors to the law that doesn’t protect them.
Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey
When you look at the image of Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey standing there, holding firearms incorrectly; think about how they think they are part of the group the law protects, but does not bind and how they are pointing those firearms at people the law binds but will not protect.
BLM is perfectly echoing anti-conservatism, the idea that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
In just this past year Trump has attempted to block John Bolton’s book, Mary Trump’s book and Michael Cohen’s book. I don’t think I hear a single peep from the cancel culture scolds on any of those. Did we all miss it? Realizing that Trump is only the president and he simply can not do the harm that some dirty hippie on social media might be able to do by saying the magic phrase “cancel” might explain why no one was concerned. What would the reasonable explanation why none of the army of right wing scolds called out Trump out for attempting to cancel three authors in just one year? What could that reason be?
Looking back, the lack of principled stand for free speech in this case has just embolden Trump to embrace cancel culture to even bigger extremes.
“The media will be barred from the Republican national convention where Donald Trump is set to be renominated as presidential candidate later this month, a spokeswoman said on Saturday, citing coronavirus restrictions.”
Here we have Trump and the Republican party attempting to cancel the whole of the media.
Trump on Monday set September 15 as the deadline for TikTok to find a US buyer, failing which he said he will shut down the app in the country. In an unusual declaration, Trump also said any deal would have to include a “substantial amount of money” coming to the US Treasury.
This is the rare Cancel-culture hat trick, combining censorship, direct interference in the market with a socialist spin, demanding the government get a cut.
The lack of comment from the free speech right on Trump’s cancel culture makes no sense until you consider the possibility they only have interest in free speech when there is an opportunity to take a condescending tone towards liberals.
This is an instance of what I call the Three’s Company Defense. If you aren’t familiar with the show Three’s Company, let me give you a quick synopsis: It was a 1970s sitcom where every episode revolved around some misunderstanding; often suggestively sexual in nature, that existed largely as a vehicle to put Don Knott’s supernatural facial reactions on your TV.
Let me now propose that any time someone is defending the Tucker’s show from charges of racist dog whistles or claims there are no racist undertones, or suggests that this is all a hoax, just a big ol’ misunderstanding, that is the Three’s Company defense. These are all coincidences. They aren’t racist, it was just Janet about to sew a button on Jack’s pants. That should not be considered credible, knowing that many prominent racists are fans and the head writer was outed for making racist comments