The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Source:
Lincoln Times-News
URL Source: http://www.lincolntimesnews.com/201 ... 17/trump-derangement-syndrome/
Published: Oct 17, 2016
Author: DAVID BOAZ
Post Date: 2016-10-17 12:36:53 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 7889
Comments: 31
Back in 2003, the psychiatrist and columnist Charles Krauthammer declared a new psychiatric syndrome, “Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency – nay – the very existence of George W. Bush.” He had a point. But derangement can be generated by support as well as opposition for a political figure. What do we say about conservatives – people who believe, variously, in limited government, free markets, Judeo-Christian values, and the importance of character in public life – who have been forced to utter absurdities in defense of Donald Trump? It’s one thing to say that Hillary Clinton and her Supreme Court justices and her 4,000 bureaucrats are on net worse than Trump and whatever menagerie he brings to the White House. But when free-market conservatives find themselves enthusiastically defending the most protectionist presidential candidate since Pat Buchanan, or Christian conservatives are forced to say that personal character isn’t really a big issue for them, I fear that derangement has set in. Take just a few examples in the past few days. In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal Karl Rove writes that Trump needs “a Republican House to pass his agenda.” But his agenda is trade war, deportation, and banning adherents of the Muslim faith from entering the United States. Is that an agenda a Republican House would pass? Say it ain’t so, Karl (or Paul). Also in Thursday’s Journal the Christian author Eric Metaxas writes that “God will not hold us guiltless” if we fail to vote for Trump. Metaxas oddly cites Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a Christian who also had to make a difficult moral choice: He joined a plot to kill Hitler. Is that really something Metaxas thinks God would consider wrong? As for voting for Trump despite his moral flaws, Metaxas tells us that God will ask “What did you do to the least of these?” I wonder where that leads: Perhaps “the least of these” are the Mexican and Chinese workers whose jobs Trump wants to destroy, the Hispanic immigrants he wants to deport, separating them from their U.S.-born children, the low-income Americans who will find it harder to afford T-shirts, sneakers, and smartphones, or the refugees fleeing war and devastation whom he would bar from the United States on the basis of their faith. And then there’s Ben Carson, who delivered himself of these thoughts at a college in Missouri: “Ben Carson urged a conservative audience to be strong in their faith and stand by their beliefs in the face of ‘ever-growing government.’ “Tyranny will reign otherwise, ‘and there will be mass killings once again,’ Carson told a crowd Friday. ‘The peace that we experience now will be a memory only. This is the nation that stands between peace and utter chaos.’ “Asked at a press conference how he thought such a grim future might come about, Carson referenced ‘the whole gay marriage issue.’ “’Why must they change it?’ Carson said, referring to efforts to recognize civil unions as equal to traditional marriage. ‘I believe the reason is, if you can change the word of God in one area, then you can change it in every area. It’s the camel’s nose under the tent, and it will just be an avalanche of one thing after the other.’” Maybe that’s not exactly Trump Derangement, just general derangement. But Carson was the second former opponent to endorse Trump, and he’s become an enthusiastic surrogate. Finally, I note the comments of Rush Limbaugh this week. Limbaugh is often funny and sometimes has real insights lurking in his monologues. But the attempt to defend both conservatism and Trump for three hours a day seems to be getting to him. In particular, a guy who soared to the top of the talk radio business by attacking Bill Clinton and his “bimbo eruptions” now finds himself compelled to defend confessions of sexual assault. He fell into the abyss Wednesday with this meditation: “You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.” This is just sad. A conservative, a defender of traditional moral values, denouncing the idea that consent is required for sexual activity. This is what rank partisanship, red team/blue team mentality, and a failure to recognize when your party has taken a wrong turn leads to. None of this should be construed as an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I’ve been denouncing her statism since the 1990s. But I hope, for the sake of my conservative friends, that the Wall Street Journal was wrong when it wrote early in the Clinton years, “the personal virtue known as self-restraint was devalued. In the process, certain rules that for a long time had governed behavior also became devalued,” and thus there were going to be a lot of casualties. Because a lot of conservatives seem to be hurtling over the guardrails and defining deviancy down in their determination to justify anything – anything – the Republican nominee for president says or does. David Boaz is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#2. To: Willie Green, fake libertarians, Onion tears libertarians (#0)
(Edited)
A Glenn Beck authoritarian neocon, FAKE libertarian! Any a$$hole can claim to be a libertarian. Bill Weld, the Mitt Romney clone is now pretending to be a libertarian, and running in the Libertarian Party for the VP position on the Gary Johnson ticket. He's a stinking REPUBLICAN hate America globalist big government progressive, like Mittens and Trump!
Many of them post here... hate on everything but (D)'s... and love drugs, hate war, protect fags and never posts negative about welfare. Sound familiar?
I have to say I've read Ayn Rand, does that make me a libertarian? but in the words of that great libertarian, Abraham Lincoln " I never said I believed black and white would be equal socially" and his words have proved prophetic
Only you can decide what makes, or will make, you a libertarian. As to the second sentence in your post, let’s review what Abraham Lincoln said in a speech at Columbus, Ohio, on 9/16/1859: Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been somewhat embarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to my speech; but I have been relieved from that embarrassment by an introduction which the Ohio Statesman newspaper gave me this morning. In this paper I have read an article, in which, among other statements, I find the following: In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I have found that it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted. I therefore purpose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is a misrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so; and you will bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very ‘memorable’ debate with Judge Douglas, last year, to which this newspaper refers. In the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself had, at the town of Ottawa, I used the language which I will now read. Having been previously reading an extract, I continued as follows: There, my friends, you have briefly what I have, upon former occasions, said upon the subject […] http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/pre-civil- war/1859-1860/speech-columbus-ohio-september-16-1859/.
You posted: “I have to say I've read Ayn Rand, does that make me a libertarian?“
#23. To: Gatlin (#19)
what if I said to you that I agree with him does that make me racist. If you take his words at face value Abe was racist, yet he fought against an even more racist ideology, but he had the view that everyone should be free, isn't that what libertarian means?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestexecutive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement
#4. To: hondo68 (#2)
(Edited)
Any a$$hole can claim to be a libertarian.
#8. To: GrandIsland (#4)
#9. To: Gatlin (#8)
(Edited)
#13. To: paraclete (#9)
I have to say I've read Ayn Rand, does that make me a libertarian? but in the words of that great libertarian, Abraham Lincoln " I never said I believed black and white would be equal socially" and his words have proved prophetic
I cannot fail to remember that I appear for the first time before an audience in this now great State–an audience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, and Chase, and Wade, and many other renowned men; and remembering this, I feel that it will be well for you, as for me, that you should not raise your expectations to that standard to which you would have been justified in raising them had one of these distinguished men appeared before you. You would perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as a consequence of your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, therefore, you will commence with very moderate expectations; and perhaps, if you will give me your attention, I shall be able to interest you to a moderate degree.
Having read this by Abraham Lincoln, does that make you a racist?
In debating with Senator Douglas during the memorable contest of last fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and attempted to defend that vile conception against the little Giant.
I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the purpose of making three comments upon it. The first I have already announced – it furnishes me an introductory topic; the second is to show that the gentleman is mistaken; thirdly, to give him an opportunity to correct it. (A voice – ‘That he won’t do.’) Now gentlemen, I don’t want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgement will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to contrary , but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to these as the white man. I agree with judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects – certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
Upon a subsequent occasion, when the reason for making a statement like this recurred, I said: While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. White I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position, the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman or child, who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of frequently as to be satisfied of its correctness – and that is the case of Judge Douglas’ old friend Col Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes, if there were no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of the State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.
#19. To: paraclete (#13)
I replied by posting the text from a speech by Abraham Lincoln for you to read.
I then asked you a very simple and understandable question which I will repeat.
“Having read this by Abraham Lincoln, does that make you a racist?”
Well….does it?
Replies to Comment # 19. “Having read this by Abraham Lincoln, does that make you a racist?” Well….does it?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]