<< News Scan | Main | News Scan >>


Counterproductive Intolerance

| 11 Comments
Barbara Smith describes a sudden change in her attitude in this article in the WSJ.

At best, I had been a lukewarm and silent Trump supporter, a Goldwater-Reagan-George W. Bush girl who had decided to attend the ball mostly for the opportunity to wear a fancy dress. But when my heels hit the sidewalk that second time, I committed: I would now back President Trump.
What happened to cause this change?  Earlier that evening:

The night was chilly, and I moved swiftly, my ball gown billowing and swaying with each step. As I passed an apartment building, someone started yelling--really yelling--out an open window: "Go back to where you came from!" And then I found myself covered in raw egg.
And I love this line:

I froze. Emily Post is silent on the proper way for a lady in a ball gown to respond to an aerial assault. I had to wing it.
And here is her rationale:

I don't expect to agree with all of his administration's policies or even the rhetoric that Mr. Trump employs to make his case. But being assaulted based on an assumption that I supported him had a way of breaking through my reservations.

I choose to stand with the ridiculed, the insulted, the belittled. I stand with those who voted for something new and different and a little scary. I stand with people who are tarred as bigots and misogynists--or even egged--simply because of their views on taxes, health-care reform or government entitlements.
I haven't been egged, but I have received my share of false accusations.  The folks on the intolerant left who are wailing and gnashing their teeth over the election of Donald Trump really need to take a good, hard look in the mirror and recognize their own degree of responsibility for it.  Mr. Trump's willingness to say Politically Incorrect things was a large part of his appeal to a lot of people who are just plain sick of the garbage being constantly thrown at them.

Like Ms. Smith, I don't expect to agree with all of the policies of this Administration, and I still do not approve of some of what we see coming out of the White House, descending to the level of petty squabbling that I think is beneath the dignity of the office.  But he is making solid appointments to head the government departments, and I expect to see equally solid appointments to the courts.  That is more important than outrageous tweets.

11 Comments

I have been astonished and taken aback by the condescending viciousness of the media's treatment of Trump.

As many here know, I had not a few doubts about his deportment and language, but, in part because of the unhinged and vitriolic attacks on him by what used to be an at least slightly neutral press, I found it easy to vote for him in the end. I have since become delighted I did.

Just having Attorney General Sessions and the return of legal sobriety is a breath of fresh air that this country really, really needed.

Hoping to stay on point and also to focus on crime and consequences, I am eager to hear what you all think about Prez Trump's apparent belief that millions of people voted illegally this past November. Given this claim:

1. Do you think voter fraud must be a top priority for incoming AG Sessions?

2. If this claim is suspect, is it fair for the media and others to assail Prez Trump for sowing doubt about the legitimacy of our elections?

That is not an issue I wish to get into.

1. No. And it won't be.

2. Yes. Not only fair, but the required act of a free press to call a lie a lie and Trump a liar.

As Kent alludes to (and I suspect even Trump supporters would admit to in private), even a sick, narcissistic, vulgarian can be lucid enough to make "solid appointments" if he is steered in the right direction.

P.S. He won't last 4 years. And Pence (and many others in the GOP) know it (and like it).

Bill, is Donald Trump an unpredictable, theatrical demagogue with little respect for the truth? If he is, how can you feel delighted having voted for him?

Regarding #2 a couple things:

(1) Al Gore pushed INS to give people citizenship so they could vote in the upcoming 1996 election. Did the free press have an obligation there? And doesn't activity like that, and doesn't Dems' utter hostility to seemingly commonsense requirements to have voters present IDs engender natural hesitance to sign off on the integrity of our elections?

(2) Check out litigation in Minnesota about Al Franken's election, an election which, by the by, gave us Obamacare.

None of this defends Trump. The 3 million illegals voting is a lie (or worse, he's delusional). But with respect to our elections, there is plenty of reason to suspect that our electoral process is not perfect and that the imperfections may have consequences. But the vitriol is reserved for Trump.

You are welcome to beat on the press all you want for past transgressions, federalist, but Kent's post was mainly focused on the "wailing and gnashing [of] teeth over the election of Donald Trump" and Bill followed by stating that the "return of legal sobriety is a breath of fresh air that this country really, really needed."

Against that backdrop, I was eager to hear what Kent and Bill have to say about what Trump is now saying/alleging about massive voting crimes committed in Nov. Specifically, I want to know if Kent feels it proper to be "wailing and gnashing" about this claim and also whether Bill thinks this is a kind of "legal sobriety."

I think lots of complaints about media and liberal biases are quite fair (and I see all sorts of biases from within the ivory tower). But the assertion by the current President that many millions voted illegally in 2016 seems beyond the pale, and I remain eager to hear the views of Kent and Bill on this front, especially now that Trump is seemingly going to order a "major investigation" of voter fraud.

My "wailing and gnashing" comment referred to those who are extremely upset over the election result itself. The principal point of my post is the role that the intolerance of the Politically Correct played in arousing the justified anger that was a large part of the reason for this result.

I simply refuse to get dragged into discussions that have little or nothing to do with the topic of the original post. I do not have time.

Fair enough, Kent, but isn't voter fraud a very important crime to be talking about, especially if it occurs millions of times in a major election?

I wouldn't bother Professor Berman. Defending President Trump's recent conduct, or "delight" at having voted for him in light of it, is a daunting task.

This thread is not even remotely on the topic of the post, so I will close it at this time.

Monthly Archives