McCarthyism 2.0

Trump, for whatever reason, is in the thrall of Putin. Maybe it's fear of komprimat. Maybe it's hope of financial gain. Maybe he has Freudian daddy issues that attracts him to tough-as-nails autocrats and their approval. Maybe it's a narcissism as great as the world stage in which the future lies in world rule by a triumvirate of Russia, China, and the US that only HE has the vision to see and only HE has the unique personality to bring about. Maybe it's all of that. Whatever it is, it has caused him and his circle - since before the election and continuing to this day - to seek out back-channel communications with the Russian government designed to keep the American intelligence community in the dark, as if THEY were the threat America faces. And what his wing-nut supporters (which I define as ANYONE who is following Trump closely and STILL supports what he's doing) must believe - and which Trump would surely approve - is that there is a conspiracy against America's best interests by warmongering Obama / Clinton operatives in the highest echelons of the intelligence community and US State Department of the deep state shadow government.

Clan Eisenhower

Clan Eisenhower

Essential Trust and Commitment to Truth, Justice, and the American Way
(With apologies to Superman)

Essential Trust

* We trust that our lives and all aspects of our lives matter.
* They matter unconditionally.
* And they matter despite the intimidations, temptations, and final aggressions of death.

Essential American Citizenship

Truth is the only ink between what we read, hear, or say and the real world and we have the most serious of ethical obligations to hold all statements of fact by ourselves and others to the standards of publically available reason and evidence.

Justice means that people get what they deserve for what they do, tempered by such mercy as is compatible with a fair and safe society, without respect to who they are.

The American Way means that individuals, through their contributions to society, can improve their situations even if their aspirations are very different from the situations they inherited at birth.

#ClanEisenhower

WTF, Talotta!!?

Peter HIckey sayeth: “"Sorry, Bill Bekkenhuis, but I get a chuckle whenever I hear that something like this happens. It's the people exercising their right to petition for redress of grievances, y'know. And it's great to see these sociopaths held to account for their anti-social behavior."

Odd you should mention that as last night I WAS THE TARGET. :-)

Last night I met two conservative friends for dinner at a Chinese all-you-can-eat buffet. As I am sometimes astoundingly unaware of what’s going on around me, I count on my two friends’ accounts on what led up to this.

We were sitting at a table and I was dodging every attempt by either of them to engage me in a political discussion.

Behind me, across the aisle, two men were engaging in a conversation in how lousy Donald Trump was for America. Apparently the conversation, at least on the part of one of the men (think long-haired, aging hippy :-) ) got relatively loud and salty in his language. And I don’t mean “hell” and “damn” level saltiness, but saltiness dealing with body parts in inappropriate places and sexual techniques most Americans would find distressing. I hope.

A casually dressed guy sitting behind THEM (that is TWO tables away on the other side of the aisle behind me) signed his check and, as he passed the two men, asked them to be a bit more discrete with their language in a public place. He said nothing about Trump.

The long-haired hippy-type FREAKED. He started shouting at this guy, cluster F-bombing him, telling him to mind his own effing business, and that he’s probably a dick (or some other euphemism for the reproductive organs) who VOTED for Trump.

At this point I became woke. :-)

While all the surrounding diners, including myself and the hapless server, tried to act like nothing was going on it seemed like a situation that could easily escalate to police being called or even a brawl.

All I could think was, “Wow, read the book on Facebook. This must be the live-action movie.”

At this point, one of my two companions, Mike Talotta, engaged the infuriated tribal warrior - addressing him in a quiet, friendly, way and encouraged him to just enjoy his meal and his conversation with his friend.

Yes. THAT MIke Talotta. (Took me awhile but I finally ruled out body double. :-)

It’s a wonder my neck didn’t break as I whipsawed my head 180 degrees: I must be part owl.

As it is, the infuriated one would have none of it and turned his wrath on us.

“Assholes, you probably ALL voted for Trump because you hated Hillary!”

Seeing my opening I said, “I know how you feel. I feel the same way. I voted for Hillary AND CAMPAIGNED for her. And I’M A REPUBLICAN.”

Whether that mollified him or if he just had extreme cognitive incongruence he calmed down just a bit and said, “Well, at least you made the right decision,” and returned to his still loud, still obscene conversation with his friend. (And believe me, none of us said a word about it. :-) )

Leaving the restaurant, having managed to avoid any discussion of politics (besides the one that could have gotten us beat up, arrested, killed, etc.) , I said, “Talotta, I want to kick your effing ass! WHY IN HELL can’t you do WHAT YOU JUST DID on Facebook?”

My other conservative friend, not on Facebook, said, “Oh, does he escalate ugly situations on Facebook?”

“Escalate!! He EFFING STARTS THEM.”

But I have his number now.

I don’t know WHY the hell he does what he does on Facebook, but IN THAT MOMENT he reflexively intervened early in the situation (possibly due to his several jobs as a server and bartender) and tried to de-escalate it.

TRIBAL (Posted on Facebook)

Since we're all tribal now, while I won't de-friend anyone, I am going to determine which of us are in the same or similar tribes.

One characteristic of my tribe is the acceptance of multiple sources of truth (science, journalism, math, law, medicine, etc.), the sources determine truthful assertions through reason and evidence, and one does due diligence when one makes a factual assertion or evaluates one.

Another is that while there are multiple sources of truth that can be true in different ways (pluralism), there are some assertions of fact that DO NOT correspond to the world we all live in (realism).

I don't know who else recognizes it but we are a LONG, LONG, way from liberal vs. conservative. The issue is sanity / insanity, responsible speech and wing-nuttery and conspiracism.

And it will doom us and ALL liberal democratic governments - which, as anyone who has done any study of history knows, is a brief exception to the rule of autocracy in one form or another.

Because when discussion becomes meaningless regarding the way the world is, the only mechanism for government is brute force.

WHO IS WITH ME ON THIS?

(Never mind. I can tell from your posts.)

Choose This Day: A Meditation on Joshua 24:15

15 Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:15 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

I am a metaphysical pluralist who is also a realist. That means that while I believe there can be more than one right answer regarding this admonition to choose, there are some answers that are just plain wrong. (See Truth in Context: An Essay on Pluralism and Objectivity by Michael P. Lynch.)

Given today's secularism, where the gods of various movements and factions and groups and causes remain implicit within the groups with which we identify, we show in whom or in what we trust.

And I believe Trumpism is the worship of a god that feeds off fear and human sacrifice. Beyond that (if there is any need to go beyond that), it represents the worst themes in American history: America's shadow self.

So, are Trump's supporters (as well as Trump himself) most representative of conservative, liberal, or radical right-wing groups in our American history?

A literate child would answer this correctly ten out of ten times.

Their ensorcelled elders will get it wrong about eight out of ten times. 

(Of the two who get it right, one will be a white nationalist and the other will be a neo-Nazi who will both be grateful that a President of the United States has finally come out and explicitly said what they've been dog-whistling for the last four decades and who has encouraged them to come out of their dark, fearful, and hateful shadows at last.)

Conservatism in the United States

American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values,[1] moral absolutism,[2] free markets and free trade,[3][4] anti-communism,[4][5] individualism,[4] advocacy of American exceptionalism,[6] and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism.[7]

Liberty, economic freedom, social conservatism, and promotion of Judaeo-Christian[1] ideals are core beliefs, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, limiting the size and scope of government in the economy, and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur. American conservatives consider individual liberty, within the bounds of conformity to American values, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice.[8][9]

Liberalism in the United States

Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on what many see as the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion for all belief systems, and the separation of church and state, right to due process, and equality under the law are widely accepted as a common foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought.[citation needed]

Modern liberalism in the United States includes issues such as same-sex marriage, reproductive and other women's rights, voting rights for all adult citizens, civil rights, environmentalism, and government protection of freedom from want.[1] National social services such as: equal education opportunities; access to health care; and transportation infrastructure are intended to meet the responsibility to "promote the general welfare" of all citizens. Some American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, fiscal conservatives, or libertarians, support fundamental liberal ideals but disagree with modern liberal thought, holding that economic freedom is more important than equality, and that providing for the general welfare exceeds the legitimate role of government.[2]

Radical Right (United States)

Especially historically in United States politics, the radical right is a political preference that leans towards extreme conservatism and anti-socialism.[1] The term was first used by social scientists in the 1950s regarding small groups such as the John Birch Society in the United States and since then it has been applied to similar groups worldwide.[2]

The term "radical" was applied to the groups because they sought to make fundamental (hence "radical") changes within institutions and remove from political life persons and institutions that threatened their values or economic interests.[3] They were called "right-wing" primarily because of their opposition to socialism, communism, marxism, anarchism, social democracy, progressivism and liberalism and their ultraconservative or reactionary tendencies which limited new access to power and status.[4] "

*   *   *

Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg argued that the radical right in the U.S. and right-wing populism in Europe were the same phenomenon that existed throughout the Western world. They identified the core attributes as contained in extremism, behaviour and beliefs. As extremists, they see no moral ambiguity and demonize the enemy, sometimes connecting them to conspiracy theories such as the New World Order. Most politicians are seen as traitors or cowards. Given this worldview, there is a tendency to use methods outside democratic norms, although this is not always the case. The main core belief is inequality, which often takes the form of opposition to immigration or racism. They do not see this new Right as having any connection with the historic Right, which had been concerned with protecting the status quo.[29] They also see the cooperation of the American and European forms, and their mutual influence on each other, as evidence of their existence as a single phenomenon.[30]

Daniel Bell argues that the ideology of the radical right is "its readiness to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties, to condone Communist methods in the fighting of Communism".[31] Historian Richard Hofstader agrees that communist-style methods are often emulated: "The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through 'front' groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy". He also quotes Barry Goldwater: "I would suggest that we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not".[32]