Better policies and worse behavior, notes National Review's Jim Geraghty.  "The 2016 presidential race between Clinton and Trump is now followed by a different kind of race: one between Trump’s decisions and his behavior. His policies should make the country better, if not universally recognized as “great again.” But his temperament, lack of impulse control, and tendency to blurt out the first thought that pops into his mind will embarrass the country, generating needless controversies and an endless series of distractions from any good news."  Betsy Newmark concurs.
In the balance I like more rather than less of the policies he's enunciated since he became president. I like or am fine with most of his nominees. I am excited about his possible Supreme Court nominations. His behavior often appalls me. But we don't live in the world of the ideal so I have to judge against what the alternative might have been. Sure, I would have preferred a Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz in the Oval Office right now, but that wasn't my choice. Compared to Hillary Clinton and the policies she would have been pushing now and the nominations she would have wanted, I'm heaving a big sigh of relief. That doesn't mean that I won't keep criticizing when Trump's behavior appalls.
Perhaps, though, the president's transgressive behavior is stiffening the spines of his voters.  That appears to be what American Thinker's Russ Vaughn is seeing.
One of the most frequent criticisms conservatives voice regarding liberals is the dripping condescension with which they deign to engage their opponents in political discourse.  It's like a directional speech defect – liberals don't talk to, but rather talk down when speaking to conservatives, and if you possibly miss the scornful contempt in their word and tone, it's usually accompanied by a visible backup cue, a knowing little smile of superiority that's there to make it perfectly clear, bubba, that you are one dumb, misinformed, knuckle-dragging primitive.  That derisive smile is always there when they are listening, usually moving from side-to-side as the head is being shaken slightly to convey the sneering certainty that you're just simply never going to get this, bumpkin.  It's beyond your flag-worshiping, gun-loving, Bible-thumping flyover yokel comprehension.
That is, until Tucker Carlson has one of the Smug on, and wipes the smirk off zir face.

Sarah Hoyt is also about the punching back at the Smug.
The problem with this is not that the cold war has gone hot.  It hasn’t.  I think instinctively that’s what the left fears.  They’ve been doing all this stuff to keep us down with the understanding there were few of us and most very old, and now a preference cascade has revealed we were just lying to them.  They’re afraid we’re going to, at the very least, do to them what they’ve been doing to us.  And they might be right on that.  But of course they can’t say that.  They can’t say “I’m afraid I won’t get job perks for mouthing the right opinions” or “I’m afraid that my job won’t promote me because of my aggressive SJW blackmail.”  Instead, they have to exaggerate their fears into extermination camps and women losing their right to vote, and other insanity that everyone (probably in their hearts of hearts even they) knows is insanity.

Hence the insurgence of the pussy hatters.  (BTW they’re calling it three million — rolls eyes — yeah, there MIGHT have been three million all over the country, many of them elderly women who don’t seem to be quite sure what they were protesting or why, or old progressives recreating sixty eight out of sheer nostalgia, but that’s counting the not-women not-march on not-Washington (since it had to take all self identified women, it was more of a stroll, and most of them never went near DC) )  They think if they make a big display of force, we’ll be scared to do to them as they’ve been doing onto us.

They don’t realize it’s having the other effect.  Because they are protesting, essentially, against election results, they have NO moral high ground.  People watching can only think they’ve lost their minds.
Well, the one thing the preening virtue-signallers can't stand is to be laughed at, which is precisely why they must be laughed at.
What the heck are they protesting, with their symbolic genitalia hats, anyway? All they can do is make themselves sound crazy by associating themselves with the crazy.

In other words, the people calling them the Trump 2020 dancers are more right than not.

Also, btw, three million?  In a country of three hundred million, where we probably have fifty million aging hippies who long to recreate sixty eight?  And countless vile prog teachers who dragged their classes to this thing?  Three million?  We laugh at your puny numbers, your vile smugness, your crazy assumption of moral rightness.  And the vast majority who won’t answer polls or play your games anymore, laughs with us.

The fury of the left is the fury of someone playing by the rules, who has done everything that has ever worked before and yet finds themselves getting the opposite results of what they wanted.  It often happens in societal change.

We are now, actually, and openly in a situation of Civil Cold War.  The right has its own power to punish those who offend them, and who thought they were insulated by taking the command positions in the culture (often by skulduggery and by paying more attention to politics than competency, which is why every field the left takes over gets cacked.)  Are you going to boycott us?  We’ll counter boycott and take you down.  Or worse, we’ll buycott.  Remember Chick Fil A?  It should have been a warning sign to the left.  But it wasn’t.
The virtue-signallers thought that they, and only they, could play by the rules of "We're Offended" and "That's Not Funny."  But as Kurt Schlichter notes, it's up to Normal Americans to support the better policies, and to call out the Worse Behavior of the Trump protesters.
You can bet that any time three or more lunatics in their naughty bit hats gather together there’ll be a CNN Breaking News Alert on America’s overwhelming rejection of President Trump. But there are things we can do to complicate their plan to make America ungovernable – remember, their goal is to tire America out with constant crises such that normals give up on self-government and cede power to Team Nasty.

One is to keep the pressure on the GOP to perform. At the end of the day, President Trump succeeds if he keeps his promises to kill our enemies, build a wall, deep six O-care and, most of all, get the economy going for everyone, not just hipsters and tech titans. There are fewer GOP squishes than there were, but Hatch, McCain and Little Lord Lindsey aren’t facing election for awhile so we can expect antics. Keep the pressure on, because we keep power only if the GOP keeps its promises.
And -- consistent with Sarah Hoyt's point, go to war as if it's a cultural cold war.
Do we enjoy having a hyper-politicized culture? No, but we’ll enjoy having a hyper-politicized culture run by these man-hating, sharia-tolerating, abortion-loving, non-trash picking up bunch of pinko libfascists even less. Yeah, boycotts and stuff are unseemly – so what? No more unilateral disarmament. They need to learn there is a price for political posturing that insults and disrespects us – and that price must be pain. It’s the only way they will learn.
And perhaps Mr Trump, in his tweets and public statements, is baiting the freakazoids into freaking out.  That appears to be the sentiments of this Ace of Spades post.
I literally don't care what Donald Trump does because nothing he can do is worse than what they've already done.

Donald Trump isn't the bully; he only insults and abuses people in power who have attacked him. They're the fucking bullies. The left, with their smears, their witch hunts, their slanders, their insults, their riots, their violence, and their weaponizing of the federal bureaucracy.

There aren't any rules anymore because the left only applies them one way. And in doing so, they've left what once was a civil compact between the two parties in smoldering ruins.

I have no personal investment in Donald Trump. He is a tool to punish the left and roll back their ill-gotten gains, no more and no less. If he succeeds even partially in those two things, then I'll consider his election a win.

Further, I no longer have any investment in any particular political values, save one: The rules created by the left will be applied to the left as equally and punitively as they have applied them to the right. And when they beg for mercy, I'll begin to reconsider. Or maybe not.
What have I been saying, all along, about the danger of deconstructing institutions?  Did the smart people who transgressed the rules really think that the people whose instincts were to play by the rules would always do so, even after accumulating evidence that doing so wasn't working out so well?

No comments: