There are some signs that the solid Republican support that has enabled Trump to behave like a petulant tyrant is cracking after the appalling sights that we have witnessed in the past week or so following the murder of George Floyd. While we should welcome these defections, we should not start praising the defectors since these people were all Republicans and thus part of creating the rotten party that enabled Trump to become its leader. That is a stain that they cannot erase.
Alaska’s Republican senator Lisa Murkowski is publicly expressing her doubts about Trump. Mitt Romney and George W. Bush have reportedly said that they will not support Trump’s re-election. Bush has, however, denied reports published in the New York Times about his decision based on what some of his associates have told the media, though he has not said what he will do. His brother Jeb Bush has also not said what he will do, but both brothers and their parents said they did not vote for Trump in 2016. It is not clear if they would vote for Biden. Colin Powell has also said that he will vote for Biden, saying that Trump lies all the time, unlike of course Powell who only lies some of the time, like when he wanted to persuade the American public and the UN Security Council that Iraq should be invaded.
Conservative columnist George Will broke his lifelong association with the Republican party in 2016 when Trump became the party’s nominee but now he goes further and says that the Republican party has become enablers of Trump’s awful behavior and needs to be completely cleansed. He says that the party has to be repudiated at all levels by losing elections across the board, including losing their senate majority.
In life’s unforgiving arithmetic, we are the sum of our choices. Congressional Republicans have made theirs for more than 1,200 days. We cannot know all the measures necessary to restore the nation’s domestic health and international standing, but we know the first step: Senate Republicans must be routed, as condign punishment for their Vichyite collaboration, leaving the Republican remnant to wonder: Was it sensible to sacrifice dignity, such as it ever was, and to shed principles, if convictions so easily jettisoned could be dignified as principles, for … what? Praying people should pray, and all others should hope: May I never crave anything as much as these people crave membership in the world’s most risible deliberative body.
Even some members of the white evangelical community, who are among the strongest and most loyal supporters of Trump, were appalled over Trump’s photo op in front of the church and waving the Bible as a prop, after first violently clearing the area of peaceful protestors. But don’t expect too much from this crowd. They are good at wringing their hands but will likely go back to supporting Trump.
Then we have former Trump defense secretary Jim Mattis and former Trump chief of staff John Kelly, both former military officers, condemning Trump’s behavior. Other former military leaders have joined in the criticisms. Currently active military of course cannot publicly criticize Trump but reports are emerging that they are concerned that his desire to use troops to suppress dissent risks tarnishing the military’s reputation with the public. They must feel that while the public is on board with the US military committing war crimes abroad, they may balk at having them committed domestically.
Trump is probably smarting over the fact that he has been shown to be so weak and ineffectual. The protestors are ignoring him and the curfews and the calls for them to be crushed. Governors are ignoring him. The military and even his defense secretary Mark Esper are opposing his call to use military forces against the protestors.
In the midst of all this, there are reports that Trump is planning to give a speech to the nation on race and national unity. He does not give a damn about either of course but is probably trying to shore up his support, especially since the polls show him dropping further behind Joe Biden. That is what he really cares about, so expect a campaign-style speech full of lies and smears and braggadocio, his specialty.
Right on. Romney et al make me puke. The only thing on their ‘minds’ is saving their own ‘asses’, (Said parts being interchangeable with this lot)
‘.
“the fact that he has been shown to be so weak and ineffectual”
This is for me as a Dutchman a reason to hope Donald the Clown will win. I strongly doubt that Biden will be weak and ineffectual. He has nothing that speaks for him, so I expect him to do a lot more harm.
The whole ship is made entirely out of rat.
mnb0, Biden’s environmental plans go farther than Sanders’ in 2016.
Also, as a woman and parent to an LGBTQ person, I find you and people of your position detestable.
When I wrote above that Trump has been shown to be weak and ineffectual, it should have been clear that it was in the context of his response to the protests. In so many other areas he has done immense harm and will do even more if re-elected. He must go.
@mnb0,
There are still thousands of children still locked up in cages who will never be reunited with their parents. There are, as of today, 113,000 people dead from a pandemic that was egregiously mismanaged, and still more than a million Americans could die because of poor leadership.
Your take is extraordinarily short-sighted, to think that this demonstrable harm that Trump is responsible for wouldn’t outweigh whatever damage Biden would do.
Biden is awful in so many ways, but he’s not a genocidal cartoon villain. Trump is.
I cannot recommend Anne Applebaum’s Why Do Republican Leaders Continue to Enable Trump? highly enough.
hyphenman, a powerful piece indeed… but.
But it contains this assertion:
I can assure you, most sincerely, that I do not now, nor have ever had that inclination.
If anything, the contrary.
And I doubt I’m unique.
So, after that bullshit claim, I took everything else with a lump of salt.
We get it, JM: you’re a special snowflake, not like the conformist normies. Another way you differ from normal people is your inability to parse generalisations. Good for you.
You most evidently do not get it. Ostensibly, anyway.
Point being, it’s a false statement; it follows that whatever is predicated on that false statement is therefore unsound. For example, any claim that because “we all” do X, anyone who doesn’t do X is going against their nature is unsound.
What part of “I doubt I’m unique” was unclear for you?
For goodness’ sake — I explicitly made claimed that I am not special!
Ever heard the expression “march to (the beat of) a different drum”?
They too are not special — what they are is non-conformists. Like me, like them, like many.
Also, where in an essay there is a palpably false claim that I am in a position to assess as such, the credibility of its other claims becomes suspect. For me, at least.
—
Ahem. “Most of us” is a generalisation, “We all” is not.
It is you who supposedly can’t make that distinction.
(Why do you think logic distinguishes between the universal quantifier (∀x) and the existential quantifier (∃x)?)
—
“Good for you.”
Shame on you.
PS in case you imagine the writer was unaware of the distinction, I quote from the piece a bit further on: “Most of us register soldiers as loyal patriots”.
(See what I mean?)
John @8: Do you live your life according to any standards, rules and laws that were established before our planet was graced with your presence? Or have you (or perhaps you think you have?) carefully constructed your own standards, rules and laws, without regard for established norms?
Conformity is a matter of degree and context. You seem to treat it as a binary property solely for the purpose of manufacturing a distinction; one which, unsurprisingly, distinguishes you from the herd.
And the term “non-conformist” is usually used with specific (usually political or religious) standards in mind.
That we all have an urge to conform to some degree, in some contexts, is utterly uncontroversial.
Rob, you’re just like those religious people who tell me I have a god-shaped hole in my heart, because we all do. Or the people who imagine everybody needs to find out about their biological parents.
Right. I cut my toenails and my fingernails, so I’m a conformist.
But non-conformists perforce must overcome their urge to conform to do so, right?
Conformity is that, but the urge to conform is either an urge or it is not.
Seem to, eh? It could not possibly be that I’m providing a counterexample to a supposedly universal claim.
But fine, for you, if someone asserted “we all have blue eyes” and I responded that I myself don’t and therefore that is a false claim, it could only be so that I can distinguish myself from the herd, not to establish the basis upon which I make that determination.
Of course, but because those are either sensible or practical or convenient or punishable if not followed, not due to some special urge to conform.
(It’s OK, I’m used to being disbelieved — the urge to the fundamental attribution error is strong with most people)
John @13:
Ah, the complexity of being human, which you so often seem to (pretend to?) ignore (see “degree and context”). Sometimes, there simply is no urge to conform to a specific norm. For example, someone born into a family of ardent Liverpool FC supporters might have no interest in the club, or in soccer, or sport in general. Sometimes, one perceives inconsistencies/flaws in a standard which effectively eliminate the urge to conform (why I became an atheist before I knew the word). Sometimes, there is an active urge to not conform to certain standards (“What are you rebelling against” “What have you got?”).
If you see an unaccompanied child, unknown to you, wandering towards a busy road, do you ignore it? Do you perhaps act only because it might be punishable not to? Or do you feel an urge to ensure its safety?
Conformity, without qualification, is neither good nor bad. It’s why we are a “successful” species. It’s why we have laws and societies. It’s why we have politics. It’s why we haven’t done enough to combat climate change. It’s why we have science. And without an urge to agree on some things, we would have none of those things, for good or ill.