Friday, March 4, 2016

"And when you gaze long into an abyss...

by Keith

the abyss also gazes into you."

Who is Rod Dreher describing here?

__  Donald Trump

__  Rod Dreher

__  Both


Bookmark and Share

Posted by Keith at 3/04/2016 08:00:00 AM

Labels: , , ,

19 comments:

  1. pikkumattiMarch 4, 2016 at 10:44 AM

    Obviously both. But while Trump is a threat to the Republic, Dreher is sinking further into irrelevance.

    If it hasn't already, it will become increasingly difficult for Dreher to maintain interest in his BenOp when he repeatedly tells the reader that he's holding back the really good stuff for the forthcoming book (coming next year! (assuming there's a publisher)). It doesn't help that everything he posts has thrice the number words needed to make the point (such as it is). I guess that's why he keeps going back to the Trump well.

    But even on a Trump piece, Dreher is weak. That post Keith cites is a prime example: Dreher posts the picture of Trump-as-Mussolini, but the piece says not one thing that backs up the point. Even though the case that Trump is a fascist is so easy to make.

    P.S. #NeverTrump

    P.P.S. The combox at Breitbart on any Trump article these days, especially those critical of Trump, provides an unvarnished view of the Trumpkins. It is all about the Person of Trump, and us vs. them. Germany 1932, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  2. PauliMarch 4, 2016 at 11:08 AM

    Obviously I'm against Trunmp (I'm conservative!), but the points Dreher makes against him are hilarious. It always Crunchy Conservatism all over again (and again and again) when he started complaining about the establishment GOP and how they were not concerned enough about the environment and organic food.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PauliMarch 4, 2016 at 11:18 AM

    Here are my thoughts on #nevertrump:

    1) I'm sympathetic. I've never been sympathetic to Trump supporters and have always found them incoherent long before Trump tacitly supported white supremacists and basically told everyone "Don't worry--I have a big dick."

    2) But I don't say #NeverTrump because I will vote for him over Hillary. My justification is Dennis Prager's; he uses the Hebrew aphorism: "What is certain is certain." Hillary will certainly be bad, Trump might do some good things, even if accidentally.

    3) Regardless, I see #NeverTrump as worth something during the primaries. It will disappear from the GOP vocabulary if Trump gets nominated, but it might help those who would defeat him. This is all about strategy, which is why I'm going to steel my nerve and vote for Kasich on the 15th to help him clobber Trump in the Buckeye primary. I'd rather vote for Rubio, but oh, well. A Rubio/Kasich ticket doesn't bother me that much. Nor does a Cruz/Kasich or Cruz/Rubio. Not at this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pikkumattiMarch 4, 2016 at 12:05 PM

      I'm with you on #1 and #3. I tend to favor Rubio over Cruz, but I voted Cruz last Tuesday to help him win TX. The differences between Cruz and Rubio are insignificant as compared with the need to defeat Trump. (Kasich is far more of a stretch IMO, but the same applies.)

      On #2, I understand your point, but let's say reasonable minds may differ. I won't vote for him. Trump vs. Clinton is the Spanish Civil War to me.

      Delete
    2. PauliMarch 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM

      Understood. Also I have warmed up to Cruz a bit. I think he is tops in the intellectual department, and he easily won last night's debate. I've had problems with his campaign at points, but they are mosquito bites compared to the cancer of Trump.

      Delete
    3. PauliMarch 4, 2016 at 12:22 PM

      To use your analogy, I probably would have sided with the falangists, but only because international communism is worse. I'm not a purist; you can hate the process yet still be a part of it.

      Delete
    4. pikkumattiMarch 4, 2016 at 3:50 PM

      For those so inclined, you can sign the petition here:

      #NeverTrump.com

      Delete
    5. TomMarch 5, 2016 at 7:54 AM

      Pretending I know what I'm talking about, I don't see how a Republican wins the presidency this year if Trump is still a viable candidate on April Fool's Day. He won't win a general election -- if even among those who hate the thought of a Hillary presidency the most he's not a sure thing, what chance is there undecideds and independents show up at the polls for him in enough numbers -- and not enough Trumpkins will vote (R) if they feel the nomination was stolen from their Great Man, which they will, because that's kind of the whole plan being worked in view of the public right now (well, maybe "wrested from" rather than "stolen from," but that's an indistinguishable distinction to someone who thinks Trump is the answer).

      Delete
  4. KeithMarch 4, 2016 at 7:13 PM

    The index of Dreher's Homer Simpsonesque cluelessness is his utter inability to perceive that he has been performing as a socon outrage porn version Trump since his NY Post days.

    Incidentally, Pauli, you may be interested to know that Reagan's Secretary of the Navy voices sentiments uncanily similar to yours:

    "I would not vote for Hillary Clinton,” Webb said on MSBNC's "Morning Joe."

    When asked whether he'd vote for Trump, Webb said he wasn't closed to the idea. “I'm not sure yet. I don't know who I'm going to vote for,” he said.

    He said Clinton would simply continue President Barack Obama’s policies, but that with Trump, things would change — but he's not convinced it would be for the better.

    “If you're voting for Donald Trump, you may get something very good or very bad,” Webb said. “If you're voting for Hillary Clinton, you're going to be getting the same thing.”

    There's little doubt that John Kasich is running away the most qualified of the candidates, but for some reason he has chosen this cycle to run as something between Mr. Rogers in Chief and National Egg Salad Sandwich.

    Which leaves Trump, Cruz and Rubio.

    Cruz will never be able to get the crossover votes Trump has already received from all cohorts, but Rubio has now inexplicably turned into an oddly Trumpish Mini-Me insult gigglebox at the behest of his handlers while a huge block of conservatives detest him.

    In the final analysis, this is what living through changing history looks like: the Republican Party rending its own flesh as it transitions into its new form.

    The only thing that can prevent Hillary at this point - not that a Trump coalition couldn't beat her, but rather that too many will simply not chance it - is a strong multi-count recommendation from Comey delivered as an equally strong multi-count indictment by Loretta Lynch. Oddly, this last, saving grace seems now to be the most realizable path to victory.

    But, absent that, brace yourselves for 8 years of Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pikkumattiMarch 6, 2016 at 10:54 AM

      ...the Republican Party rending its own flesh as it transitions into its new form.

      I don't think it's the response to Trump that is "rending", it is Trumpism itself that's doing it. If Trump turns out to be the nominee, the Republican Party will be dead, as its brand will then stand for nothing. IOW, if the Republican Party isn't pro-life, for free trade, and for limited government, it has no meaning. A conservative alternative will then necessarily form -- whether it is successful will depend on many factors.

      I still have faith* that if the American people presented with the choice of limited government vs. welfare state, they will choose limited government. Either Cruz or Rubio can successfully state the case, IMO, and could gain those crossover voters.

      *For now, anyway. Another decade of the Obama welfare state, however, and my faith in the populace will be lost.

      Delete
    2. KeithMarch 6, 2016 at 7:13 PM

      I don't think I specified which if any faction is doing the rending, but the notion that it began or at least manifested itself with the Trump campaign is certainly an interesting one.

      I think Peggy Noonan, whose "The Republican Party is Shattering" keeps playing peekaboo with the WSJ firewall, has the best two lines about this phenomenon:

      "Party leaders and thinkers should take note: "It's easier for a base to hire or develop a flashy new establishment than it is for an establishment to find itself a new base."

      and

      "We had a low-information elite."

      Anyone here have to feed kids and try to put them through college by hanging sheet rock, making motel beds, processing chicken? Nope? Me neither. My stock portfolio has done exceptionally well from the fruits of globalism, free trade, low cost labor "insourcing", etc., averaging the prior wages for blacks in, say, Albertville, AL with those in Michoacan, for example, or getting our programmers to train their replacements from Bangalore in exchange for getting any severance at all. Particularly when we can then in turn simply shift the losses American citizens incur to the federal government in the form of EITC, SSDI, etc. Everyone appears to win.

      Works for me, even with the current market volatility. But it sounds like not everyone is still finding the old time religion as sustaining.

      Some of the truest words I ever hear spoken were something to the effect that, "the people who succeed aren't those who can sell, but rather those who do sell, and, although I have no doubts the traditional Republican brand can still be sold, to whomever, the incontrovertible fact is that it increasingly isn't being sold. Wonderful as we are told it is, the doggies and kitties just aren't scarfing down the kibble any more. Do we need new Americans who will?

      If it were, there simply wouldn't be a Trump (if it weren't real, the notion of a Trump campaign would be patently absurd on its face): there'd be a mighty battle between Jeb and Cruz and maybe Rubio.

      Bottom line: Trump is hardly a cause, he's a symptom, something that's finally erupted out of something long brewing.

      Delete
  5. DianeMarch 4, 2016 at 9:00 PM

    I am still hoping against hope that Rubio will drop out and join with Cruz as potential running mate. Cruzio 2016!

    ReplyDelete
  6. UnknownMarch 5, 2016 at 9:28 AM

    Diane,

    I doubt Cruz would pick Rubio as his running mate. Many Cruz supporters view Rubio as a sell out to the establishment. I believe Cruz would lose many of them if he chooses Rubio.

    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DianeMarch 5, 2016 at 1:26 PM

      You're probably right. Sigh. OTOH a Cruzio ticket would lock up the all-important Cuban-American vote. ;)

      Delete
    2. pikkumattiMarch 6, 2016 at 10:58 AM

      I disagree, Anthony. If it came down to the choice between Rubio and Trump, I think the Cruz supporters would accept Rubio as VP (and the Rubio people would gladly join Cruz).

      OTOH, I'd agree with your point if the proposed ticket is Rubio-Cruz.

      Delete
  7. UnknownMarch 5, 2016 at 11:30 PM

    I cant support Kasich because one of his main supporters is Penn. Governor Tom Ridge. Tom Ridge is the man who eliminated all the Abortion Regulations for his state and allowed Kermit Gosnell to tear through Philadelphia.

    ReplyDelete
  8. DianeMarch 6, 2016 at 5:41 PM

    Pik, from your keyboard to God's ear. I personally would love a Cruzio ticket. But then, I'm not rabidly anti-all-immigration, so maybe I'm in a teeny minority.

    ReplyDelete
  9. KeithMarch 6, 2016 at 8:02 PM

    Let's recall that this post was actually originally about how Rod Dreher is Donald Trump to the core, just in a different arena.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)