Good article…wish I’d penned it.
February 15, 2016
Code Trump: The Gallop Leftward Continues
By C. Edmund Wright
Donald Trump is now officially the Code Pink Republican. Or maybe he’s the Daily Kos or Huffington Post Republican. How about the Debbie Wasserman Schultz Republican? I think that fits. Heck, we all saw it and we all heard it. Trump went full left loon on George W. Bush and 9/11, sounding like the most impassioned truther from the left. Did Maxine Waters do his debate prep?
Trump snarked childishly that Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11. Apparently Mr. Trump is not intellectually very curious about history. If he were, he would know that 9/11 was dreamed up, contemplated, financed, planned, and practiced on Bill Clinton’s watch. This planning and practicing continued during the days of the hanging chads in Florida.
This is not to defend George W. Bush and his neocon nation-building fantasies and his capitulation to unions regarding the TSA and so on. I’ve been critical of Bush and Karl Rove since 2001 on these and many other issues.
But the truth matters.
And the truth is that the single biggest failure by the American intelligence community was foisted onto the CIA and the FBI by Clinton appointee Jamie Gorelick with her infamous “wall of separation” between the two agencies. They had their hands tied behind their backs — thanks to a Clinton appointee.
Seriously Donald, is a cheap shot at lowly Jeb worth the worst kind of leftist revisionist history that will no doubt harm the Republican nominee in the fall? Apparently it is. This was simply shameful, not to mention contextually not true.
But? Will it matter to his botlike followers? It should, but it probably won’t. If it bothers you, you are not a bot. If it doesn’t, you are. Period. This was a devastating and unforgivable mistake. It was a colossal screwup. Why? Because this kind of thing is guaranteeing a Democrat win in 2016 however — something millions are not situationally aware enough to understand. More on that later.
First, let’s remember that for a long time Trump has been the Chuck Schumer Republican — and the Nancy Pelosi Republican — two titles he again gladly claimed just recently. He is also the ‘blame business for ObamaCare’ Republican and let us not forget that he is still apparently the Planned Parenthood Republican.
Because they do good work, you know.
Those two realities alone should shame and embarrass anyone who has been on Team Trump — but Trump nation is a universe seemingly immune to reality and reason when they point to the conclusion that maybe the Donald is not a good choice.
And the ObamaCare absurdities that the long time universal care advocate is holding onto are frightening — if one would but consider the ramifications. Alas, ramifications are understood only in the context of reality and logic. Oh well.
And the signs are everywhere, though to listen to most talk radio hosts, one would think none of this is happening. If Red State or National Review accurately quotes Trump, the problem is Red State and National Review — not Trump. Hell, how can he lose? How can you argue with that?
In Iowa, Trump was the pro ethanol “outsider” Republican, an atrocity futher magnified by Governor Terry Branstad and his crony lobbyist son — who were harassing the lone candidate bold enough to stand up against the corn scam all across Iowa. Anybody but Cruz, they whined.
If Trump were the alpha male his drones claim, he’d put that corn product in his jet and see if it would even generate thrust. He says it’s “terrific” after all.
Trump then called any Republican against the corn scam “in the pocket of big oil.” Talk about another Daily Kos talking point. Do you like ethanol subsidies? Are you in big oil’s pocket. I wish I were. I just happen to like net positive energy that is not propped up by lobbyists and green energy wackos and despicable cronies.
Oh, and let’s not forget — speaking of Iowa — that late in the Iowa campaign Trump was the “Scalia is a racist” Republican. Nice touch, Donald, in light of Scalia’s untimely passing. Sorry to remind you.
Meanwhile, Trump has long been the Bernie Sanders Republican, agreeing with the avowed Socialist nut case in his final appeals across New Hampshire on almost everything. It was such a joke that many independent voters were trying to decide between Sanders and Trump.
And to top it off, he came out recently and doubled down on being the crony capitalist Republican — a title he’s held for a long time — by reiterating his support for confiscatory eminent domain even for private projects. Donald has never met a winner or loser he wasn’t happy for government to pick.
And all of this is fine with his adoring fans. This is problematic, because we are not a nation who should ever adore our politicians in this way. It’s unhealthy, it’s un-American and it’s profoundly nonconservative. More to my first point, however, is the fact that this will guarantee a Democrat win in November.
If we cede that Bush was at fault for 9/11 — and Trump just absolutely proclaimed it — we cannot win. If we cede that it was Bush, and not Fannie and Freddie and not the EPA and not Chris Dodds and Barney Frank (and Jamie Gorelick) at fault, then we cannot win. Trump did this a few months ago, stating categorically that “I don’t think the Democrats would have done that.”
Uh… earth to Donald — it was the Democrats who did that. How did this escape this supposedly macro-economically gifted mind? Maybe — just maybe — being born wealthy and then running rent-controlled apartments and strip clubs and reality TV shows and beauty pageants and casinos is not quite the same as understanding the entire economy and how it works. If being rich were proof of having the right prescriptions for the macro economy, then George Soros and the Michael Bloomberg are far more qualified to be president than Trump. From where I sit, they both started out much poorer than Trump, have not declared four bankruptcies, and are now much richer than Trump.
I only say this because A: Trump supporters point to his wealth as proof of his economic genius without any circumspection and B: he did just say some ridiculously idiotic things about the macro economy. He said it. Not me. Him! He was wrong, and being rich doesn’t change the fact that he was and is totally wrong about this.
No Republican can win the White House if Bush, or any other Republican, or Republicanism or conservatism, is blamed for 9/11 and for 2008. Not gonna happen. If Trump continues down this road, this is the danger. This is why the Karl Rove/Bush strategy of never contesting anything from the bully pulpit for eight years still haunts us today. Now Donald is doubling down on it.
To take the 9/11 truther stance simply to score a few cheap points against Jeb is petty and vindictive and childish — not to mention inaccurate and infinitely damaging. Barack Obama ran against George Bush twice — practically ignoring John McCain and Mitt Romney. He won, as a Democrat.
If Trump wants to run against W, perhaps he should do it as a Democrat. Trump-Sheehan 2016. Or as his sophomoric fans would say, GO TRUMP!!!!!!!!
Edmund Wright is a contributor to American Thinker, Newsmax TV, Breitbart, Talk Radio Network — and author of the Amazon bestselling election book WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again.
I see it’s been some time since I posted an entry on this here website. People ask me about the politics of the day and I have to say I don’t really care. I’ve become a bit jaded. I believe we have a wholly ignorant electorate and it does not matter which liar gets into the White House next. This albatross called government is passed the point of no return in any rational sense that I can think of and therefore I think we are destined to ride it out and see how deep we go down the rabbit hole before things and people get desperate. I know this is a morose outlook but I don’t believe it to be too far from the truth as I see it today. That’s all for now.
This certainly seems plausible…unfortunately.
December 2, 2012
The Psychopathology of the Liberal Mind
By Damon Isherwood
The ever-increasing culture of entitlement was correctly identified by Mitt Romney as a leading factor in the Democrats’ victory. However, running in parallel is another culture on the rise — one far less well-identified, which bodes ominously not only for the GOP’s future prospects, but, more importantly, for the democratic process itself.
If the culture of entitlement is illustrated by 47% of the population believing they have a right to live off the country’s teat, then what could be termed a “culture of pseudo-idealism” is the mindset that gets its self-worth from assisting them to do that.
Pseudo-idealism is a term coined by the Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith to describe apparently charitable behavior that on scrutiny is revealed as selfish, because the giver is engaging in it only so that he or she can feel good about him- or herself. It is a characteristic commonly found among the left, and it constitutes what the author Geoffrey Wheatcroft recognized as the left’s inherent dishonesty.
The problem for Republicans is that pseudo-idealism becomes a more and more attractive option the more dysfunctional a society becomes. By contrast, a healthy, pioneering country, where the family unit still instils strong values, will far more readily produce sound, self-reliant adults with little or no need to escape themselves by taking up feel-good causes. However, as these values are eroded and society and the family unit begin to break down, it is inevitable that new generations will carry greater emotional scars than previous generations. What this means is that recent generations will have an increased motivation to find escape from their condition through deluding themselves that they are genuinely compassionate by taking up some moral high ground-simulating cause.
The clear and present danger is that this sort of dysfunction is skyrocketing. The psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg was reported as saying that “Generation Y is being ravaged by depression, anxiety disorders and stress disorders.” Statistics are readily available that show that all of the attributes identified by Carr-Gregg have gone off the graph over the last 20-30 years.
In one of the few analyses of its kind, Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. identifies this dysfunctional psychology that lies behind liberalism. He writes in The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness that liberalism is “rooted in fears of separation, abandonment loss or abuse — the residual effects of early attachment gone wrong.”
Those suffering from this particular psychosis, then, naturally enough, become preoccupied with seeking relief, in particular through pseudo-idealism or “celebrating” victimhood. Rossiter says, “What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice.”
Griffith, while presenting an explanation for the human condition which he claims reconciles the differences between left- and right-wing politics at a fundamental biological level, is even more explicit in drawing the connection between dysfunction (what he terms “upset”) and this culture of pseudo-idealism. He says, “With the levels of upset in the world becoming extreme, relief-hunting became a huge industry, to the extent that we became, as sociologist Frank Furedi recognized, ‘a society that celebrates victimhood rather than heroism.'”
Answering the idea that pseudo-idealists are just trying to make a better world, Griffith says bluntly, “What rubbish — it’s a selfish attempt to gain relief from the agony of the human condition!”
As signaled at the beginning of this article, should this trend toward pseudo-idealism continue, there is a real danger that there will be a corruption of the democratic process as a viable mechanism for making sound decisions about what is best for society. Griffith points out: “The whole democratic process that our society depended on for there to be effective progress was being destroyed by mad desperados, by a group of people who were misusing democracy for their own selfish need to make themselves feel good, rather than for what democracy was designed for — a tool to decide what was right or wrong in any particular course of action.”
The predictable response by liberals to this charge is that without their social agenda, there would be no compassion at all for the marginalized. To be fair, there is a point where most of us will agree that conservative attitudes can go too far “right.” Wheatcroft identified this potential when he said, “The great twin political problems of the age are the brutality of the right, and the dishonesty of the left.” However, it is part of the dishonesty of the left that it exaggerates this potential for brutality.
Altruism, when it is required, is a mark of a healthy, responsible society, and it is not alien to the conservative mindset — but real compassion has none of the degenerate morbidity that characterizes the liberal’s. As Rossiter attests, the compassionate instinct is a natural one: “When not lost in the torment and dysfunction of mental disorder or discouraged by the oppressive hand of government, charitable service to others feels inherently gratifying and even fulfilling, not burden-some, to the mature adult. This altruistic pole of human nature, a rational expression of a biologically determined nurturing instinct, is one of the pillars of social order.”
It is critically important to understand this profound difference between genuine and pseudo-idealism, and it is critically important to understand that more and more people will flock to pseudo-idealistic causes simply because they cannot withstand the temptation of the relief that it brings them. The challenge is to understand this impulse well enough to resist it; otherwise, its carriers will lead us down a path from which we won’t recover — all the while, in sickly sweet tones, claiming the moral high ground.
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
The result has been more than 1 million students dropping out of the program and more than $1 billion in food waste. The situation has gotten so bad for some school districts, officials have opted to forgo federal lunch funding to salvage their cafeteria programs by feeding students foods they’ll actually buy and eat.