Someone once defined a liberal as someone who does not know how to take up his own side in an argument. By that definition, Trump is certainly no liberal. He only knows how to take up his own side in an argument and, depending on the day, it could be various sides of the same argument.
But if conservatism is characterized by a thought-through set of bedrock principles that emphasize personal responsibility and limited government, Trump isn’t really that either. His views on tariffs, making conservatives unhappy, and his views on deregulation, making them very happy, cannot be easily placed in the same box.
So what is he? My friend Peter Hitchens recently called him an oaf, but that doesn’t really capture the full gaudiness of what we have here. I do understand the oaf line-of-argument, and I get why someone would say that, but over the last year Trump has been getting far too much of what he wanted for that to be the result of some Forrest Gump-like luck.
Some people have noticed that Trump is not stupid, and that after the dust settles from his latest outrage, he is usually sitting in the chair he asked for, and the people who think he’s an idiot are not sitting in the chairs they asked for, and so how come is that? The diehard fans who notice this have taken to attributing multi-level layers of genius to him, saying that he is way ahead of everybody, playing 4-D chess. But I don’t think that’s it either.
The world is currently run by fools who aren’t oafs. The ruling elites, all of them, have been playing 4-D chess for fifty years, or, failing that, pretending to play 4-D chess. The pretensions to intellectual sophistication are so thick that you could cut that ego-fog up and use it all for cinder blocks. So here they are, playing 4-D chess, and along comes Donald Trump, the populist, playing checkers.
My brain actually read this line as “after the dust settles from his latest orange,” as in, his latest skin treatment explaining his bizarre coloration. Not kidding.
Sophistication doesn’t equal intelligence and vice versa.
Pardon my French, but I think the Trump vs. establishment phenomenon is a pretty simple meme:
“You can’t bullshit a bullshitter.”
When one considers that socialism is the political equivalent of crop circles, it remains a wonder that socialism still has true believers. Hence Trump will always have a ready supply of breeder or drone rubes to expose.????
IMO, Trump doesn’t have any real moral center. He isn’t bound by even the limited morals of the current morass of corrupt politicians. Trump doesn’t even pretend to consistency. For example, he recently said, and I am paraphrasing, “Why would I say that China is devaluing their money when they are working with us on North Korea?” The truth of the matter is irrelevant.
He is a true utilitarian. Whatever gets his desired result is the correct choice.
Correct. And this fact, taken by itself, would put him square in the progressive camp.
Umm, looking at presidents and congressional leaders, I’m having a hard time seeing how you can ascribe a political bias to that one. Looks common on both sides of the aisle.
You might claim that the “true conservatives” that we don’t get to see on top maintain ideological purity. But then again, the “true progressives” say the same.
There are some conservatives who are inconsistent/utilitarian, but basically no consistent progressives. I’d call it a defining characteristic of progressivism. See this post from Wilson:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/lefts-gift-greybeard-paleo-conservatives.html
And my comment on that post:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/lefts-gift-greybeard-paleo-conservatives.html#comment-3140348463
Doug gave several examples of progressive inconsistencies. I don’t know of a single progressive who has called out his side for any of these.
It is the lack of consistency that frightens me. If North Korea offered to rename itself “The Democratic People’s Republic of Donald Trump” while South Korea refused to tear down ancient temples for golf courses, I believe he would turn on a dime.
I wouldn’t go that far! My one consolation is that Trump wants to have the legacy of being a great president. So my hope is that he tries to reach that goal by actually leaving the world in a better place and helping the country.
I will hope that too, and then I will put myself on a hyperbole reduction diet.
But I almost never get this riled up, and it feels strangely invigorating.
It’s been pointed out that Trump has a long history of criticizing the imbalanced relationship the US and South Korea have; he’s said a lot of things about how they’re getting the better end of a lot of deals (US military protection, manufacturing offshored to there, etc). Don’t be surprised if he has some hard words for them in the near future.
It’s called “negotiation”; Trump starts with an initial position that’s unfavourable to Chinese interests, but is willing to give it up in exchange for something else he wants. Is this wise? Let’s wait a couple months and see how the North Korea situation plays out.
“Negotiation” doesn’t give someone the ability to deceive at will. Trump didn’t say, “Since China has decided to help us with NK, I’m not going to push so hard about their monetary devaluation as part of our deal.” He, instead, said that they were devaluating their money and that he was going to do something about it to saying that they were not devaluing their money. So which is it? Has he gotten new insight or has he just switched his position due to it’s utilitarian nature? I would guess the latter.
Why do you believe this? Deception is a cornerstone of warfare (and thus diplomacy).
Deception is a cornerstone when the goal is to destroy or defeat, not when the goal is to reach a commonly agreed upon agreement. You deceive the enemy while fighting them, but you don’t deceive the enemy while negotiating with them (unless you are interested in stabbing them in the back).
There’s also the fact that Trump isn’t deceiving those he’s negotiation with. He’s deceiving the people who he needs to answer to.
“Deception is a cornerstone when the goal is to destroy or defeat….”
That IS the goal! Could we stop with this idea that the goal is to find common ground with the enemy? That is not true in warfare, it is not true in diplomacy,and it is not true in negotiation. The goal is to represent one’s own interests.
Especially with adversaries like NK.
So our goal is to stab China in the back after making an agreement with them?
J’, consider being “as shrewd as a snake, and as innocent as a dove”.
Jesus was!????
He totally played darkness!
Shrewd as a snake, and as innocent as a dove. I’m not sure if going around lying to everyone for personal gain is being innocent and blameless.
J’, I was talking about you, not the Clintons!????
John wrote:
As an advocate for the Divine Right of kings, ashv doesn’t hold that leaders like Trump should be answerable or accountable to anyone or anything but God alone for their actions.
At least ashv thinks Trump is accountable to God. I doubt that Trump thinks that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8RVwzlg1ks
Why is starting from a position of strength bad? I recommend you read the story of how Trump came to own Mar-A-Lago, and at what price.
Are you purposefully trying to change the semantics of the conversation? Why are you now calling it a “position of strength?” Are “positions of strength” inherently wrong? No, of course not. The question is how you gained that position of strength. In this case, it’s by deceiving and negotiating in bad faith.
What has Trump done “in bad faith”?
He went and got himself elected.
Good one!
He’s dealt with the American people in bad faith.
Be specific.
He told the country that China was a currency manipulator and that he would do something about it, and has now said that they are not a currency manipulator. Nothing with China has changed. Trump has simply dealt with the people in bad faith.
He said “we will see what happens”.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/853583417916755968
I think that’s a good idea too and would encourage you to reserve your judgement a little while longer.
Trump told the WSJ, “They’re [China] not currency manipulators,” and that the US will not be labeling them as such.
That’s a lot more than “we will see what happens.”
Why do you trust the WSJ more than Trump?
… Trump said it. Are you saying they totally fabricated the quote?
So what if he did? He was talking to the WSJ. Why do you trust them?
How does this have anything to do with trusting the WSJ? Trump promised to label them currency manipulators and now he’s doing a full 180 degree turn and saying that they are not currency manipulators.
Which is a good example of why I trust the WSJ, or just about anyone or anything else, more than I do Trump.
What do you mean when you talk about trust?
I mean they lie constantly, and I don’t expect the truth from them, or for Trump to tell them the truth.
Apparently we both have the same expectation of Trump.
You mean “build the wall, deport them all”? Pity his success gets so little attention.
It’s not that Trump is really such a good liar, it’s just that there are so many easy marks in this country. Do you think they’ll ever notice?
How is this different from the past century of American politics?
Most of the other liars were better at it. Their stories were plausible to a normal person, pending closer examination. On the other hand Trump’s whoppers are laughable at first glance to all but the most gullible. Then too, for better or worse enough politicians of the past century really did have intent and capability.
For a long time, the D.C. establishment has awarded the title of “smart” to people who 1) attended Harvard, Yale, Cornell, or Princeton, 2) made pretty good grades, 3) knew some unusual words and used them correctly in sentences, and 4) held exclusively left-wing views.
Trump does not fit this mold; ergo, he cannot possibly be smart.
Yet, as you say, there he sits, canny, shrewd, and winning.
Quick Quiz:
Who was it?:
one of the smartest ever (could probably handle 5D chess)
but is known for the biggest of all tactical war blunder
one of the smoothest / most sophisticated around
but is quoted for his crudest / crassest / ugliest statements
Trump’s tweets are increasingly sounding like “I will set my throne above the stars of God” and “I will be like the Most High.” Trump is the instrument of God’s judgment to bring destruction to an apostate nation and an apostate Christian church, which sold its birthright for the pottage of political power (and what poor quality pottage it will turn out to be.) Trump was elected to destroy a nation that has turned its back on God, and the evangelical leadership that decided temporal power was more important than anything else. Judgment is coming; the signs are all around… Read more »
When will we be moving the capital to Samaria?????
I wish we would stop proclaiming Trump to be God’s judgement upon a nation and I especially wish we would stop declaring God’s judgment to be all about destruction. That seems rather disrespectful of God who has obviously showered blessings upon this nation for a few hundred years. We remind me of people following Moses,wandering around murmering and bemoaning,when God has clearly provided for our needs and blessed us greatly. I think Exodus 17 applies here, especially 17:12, where Aaron and Hur know to provide a rock for Moses to sit on and to hold his hands up when his… Read more »
And when the blessings of God fail to lead us to repentance, what next?
See yesterday’s post:
“Pleasant blessings and hard ones.”
Well, Jesus Christ is already seated in victory at the right hand of the Father and every knee shall bow. Failure is not even an option, because the war has already been won.
How miserable we make ourselves in the meantime I suppose, is still up for grabs……
Oh, I’m far from miserable. I go to heaven no matter what. Doesn’t change the fact that when someone as evil as Trump takes the reins of power, there’s a reason, and that reason has to do with judgment more often than not.
“I go to heaven no matter what..”
Well, as long as you have yours, than I guess you can just rest up there and look down upon the evilness of Trump and his evil minions who actually support him and better yet, actually support the idea that God put him into office, not to curse us, but to bless us.
God raises up kings and removes kings, so yes, God put him into office. As he put into office Pharaoh, Caligula, Nero, Stalin, Hitler and Mao. And God will ultimately work all things out for his glory and our blessing.
None of which changes that only the deepest and most profound theological illiteracy could describe Mr. Trump as anything other than evil and his evangelical supporters as anything other than apostate.
“None of which changes that only the deepest and most profound theological illiteracy…”
I’ve never been overly impressed by those claiming theological literacy. So called “theological literacy” burnt hundreds of people at the stake and sent my Lord and Savior to the cross.
Are you telling us that theological illiteracy is a good thing? If so, that might explain your support for Trump.
When “theological literacy” become an idol to hide our own arrogance and insecurity behind, than yes, theological illiteracy and a childlike faith is far superior.
We’re supposed to pray for our leaders. If you don’t like them, pray all the harder.
All right, how did Moses pray for Pharaoh?
We here in America, living in a free country where we are actually granted the ability to chose our own leaders are not slaves living under a pharaoh. But Moses did pray for Pharaoh, he interceded each and every time.
What he did not do is declare we are cursed, God hates us,and pharaoh is our judgment.
But God raised up Pharaoh for judgment, just as he raised up Donald Trump for judgment. And I did not say we are cursed and God hates us. I said judgment is coming.
I’m thinking judgment is always coming, repentance is always needed,availing ourselves of Christ is always necessary. These things would be just as true if we had elected a leader more to some people’s liking.
You must be a blast at church potluck dinners.
I don’t always talk about politics, but when I do, I call them as I see them.
Obadiah served Ahab, and protected Elijah at the same time.
Was Obadiah an apostate?
Obadiah didn’t help Ahab achieve power, and that’s the crucial difference. It’s one thing to serve an ungodly king whom God has placed in power; it’s another thing entirely to assist evil in taking power in the first place, especially if the hope of political power is your motivation. A generation ago, it would have been unthinkable that someone like Mr. Trump could be elected, with or without evangelical support. That we have fallen so far that not only has he achieved power, but he did so with the help of Christians who ought to know better, is what suggests… Read more »
“A generation ago, it would have been unthinkable that someone like Mr. Trump could be elected…”
Says who? Which of our leaders in US history did not also come from the larger pool of totally depraved mankind?
We’, more importantly, God Himself lost an election in ancient Israel, which is why Israel had kings in the first place.
Here is a better thought experiment, who did God favor, Jehu or Jezebel?
Who did 4 out of 5 dogs prefer for dinner?????
Oh, and there is no “crucial difference ” about Obadiah’s service to Ahab. Ob’ was where the Lord wanted him to be, same as Daniel, Mordecai or Esther.
As between Ahab and Athaliah, or as between Jehu or Jezebel, I don’t see that God’s people would have had anything to choose between and the better choice would have been to stay home and trust God for the outcome. “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.” Yes, evil would have taken the throne, but I would have had the satisfaction of knowing I didn’t vote for it. If you voted for Trump, you won’t have that satisfaction.
We’, In the great words of Homer Simpson:
“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!” ????
So, are you saying all the real godly people voted for HRC? ????
Absolutely not. She has too much innocent blood on her hands. I think the godly choice would have been to either stay home and trust God for the results, or vote for someone else.
No. But it was ungodly people who handed him the nomination.
Dude, chill out. Trump is a sinner. He is not the second coming of Hitler, Caligula, Ramses II, or Sauron, for the matter of that. Just because someone doesn’t share your political predilections is no cause to start hurling anathemas like thunderbolts – keep your powder dry for when it’s actually needed.
The issue is not that he’s a fallen, sinful human being; if that were the standard, no one could be president. The issue is that he brags about being a sinner. He glories in it. Not only does he not try to hide it, he wears it as a badge of honor. So again, a line has been crossed. Even Nixon pretended to be honest until it became impossible. What must the God of Truth think of an administration that revels in “alternative facts”, or the God who commands that we take care of the poor think of someone who… Read more »
Trump’s sinfulness is not exceptional. He happens to have a different set of sins: oafish self-regard instead of calm, sophisticated pride or self-righteous war-mongering. But given where the other options have taken us in recent generations, I am at a loss to see why you think Trump is any worse.
I disagree. I think Trump’s sinfulness is qualitatively different from anything we’ve seen before. We’ll find out soon enough which of us is right.
I agree it is a different quality – a different sort of sin. I find it, frankly, astonishing that you think he is much worse than a guy like Obama or LBJ.
I’m not sure which specific sins of LBJ and Obama you’re thinking of, but again, the line that’s been crossed is that earlier presidents tried to hide their sinfulness. They recognized sins are things to be embarrassed and ashamed of, not something you proudly wear as a badge of honor. If you have two adulterers, and one of them publicly pretends to be a good husband while quietly and discreetly sneaking around, while the other proudly posts every one of his conquests on twitter and facebook, the first one is at least acknowledging that adultery is wrong and not something… Read more »
“…..the line that’s been crossed is that earlier presidents tried to hide their sinfulness.”
LOL! Well, as long as God is fooled by our ability to keep up appearances! Lord, I am a good person, I have hidden all my sin among the social niceties….
I am thinking of the sins (in Obama’s case) of aggressively supporting the abortion and homosexual agendas, of abusing his authority over the executive branch to pervert justice (in the case of the IRS or any number of other scandals), all while delicately maintaining a facade of calm professionalism. If you slip up and violate your principles, yes, have the decency to be embarrassed. But if your so-called principles are merely a show for the rubes whom you hold in total contempt, then have the decency to be an honest enemy, not a snake in the grass. I agree that… Read more »
Really? Most of the Presidents in my lifetime seemed quite pleased with much of the wickedness they enacted.
I do too. Leaders in the past have been hypocritical. Insofar as their hypocrisy showed they had a basic awareness that there are moral laws and principles, they were miles ahead of Trump. I don’t think he sets out to violate moral standards. I don’t think he is aware that such things exist. He strikes me as morally color blind and ethically tone deaf. He has lunatic levels of personal vanity, a nasty urge to avenge petty slights, and a child’s delight in the display of irresponsible power. We knew every part of that, and we didn’t care as long… Read more »
Jilly, you are not being objective here. It is a good thing that North Korea should be dissuaded from mass murder, no? It is beneficial to law and justice that illegal immigration and terrorism be reduced, don’t you think? These are wise and moral exercises of governmental authority; they don’t suggest megalomania to me. I think, if you can get past the chocolate cake and look at the bigger picture, you’ll find it rather less bleak.
Yes to your first two. They can be wise and moral choices. But did you actually watch the chocolate cake video? And could you make it to the end without noticing the resemblances to some gilded toad of a Roman emperor finding equal delight in raining down death and his dinner?
Any comparison between an American politician and a Roman emperor is pretty overblown, in my view. The emperors were literally, not figuratively, bloodthirsty – part of a society that indulged in ritual slaughter for entertainment. I can’t take that comparison seriously.
I am also not impressed by the accusation that Trump said something that came out poorly. Actions speak louder than words; to judge by actions, he’s doing fine. If I want pretty language I’ll read Shelley.
Do you recall the times Ronald Reagan talked about ordering military action? Did you ever get the idea that he was gleeful? Or did you get a sense that, while military action is sometimes necessary, it is also fundamentally serious and not to be talked of while extolling the virtues of cake? Either Trump has no idea what constitutes dignified behavior, or he has no ability to distinguish between the serious and the utterly trivial. “I gave the go-ahead for dropping an atom bomb on China last night–or Japan or whatever. I was wearing my new blue pajamas and they… Read more »
In the first place, Reagan was famous for cracking jokes about the beginning of world war III – “we begin bombing Moscow in five minutes” In the second, I have already agreed that Trump’s demeanor is not my favorite aspect of his personality. I get it – he’s declasse’. Fine. But – and I refuse to be distracted from this central fact – he is doing great stuff. Gorsuch is a solid justice. Trump appears to be carving down illegal immigration by sheer force of will, ATM. One presumes he will cease using the IRS as a political weapon against… Read more »
Uberti’s points are well made on the political plane, as far as they go. Uberti continues to focus on the socio-economic policy metric. However, that is not the only metric, and certainly not the one that God uses with respect to His blessing or obstruction. We are told that God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble. The slogan of Making America Great Again (without repentance) is a reflection of national hubris, not national humility. What this means is that we aren’t going to maneuver God into giving us His blessing by offering him our attempt at socio-economic… Read more »
Other than our lack of agreement on definitions, what’s wrong with “Make America Good Again”?
jillybean wrote: Other than our lack of agreement on definitions, what’s wrong with “Make America Good Again”? Unfortunately, in the current cultural climate, the virtue of such a slogan hinges entirely on the standard that is being appealed to for the definition of goodness. If the standard of goodness is “that which is pleasing and obedient to God”, then I would be on board with “Make America Good Again”. But this standard of goodness still necessitates humility and repentance from us. There’s no getting around that. Christ the King, Ruler of the nations, is going to “Make America Humble Again”,… Read more »
Jilly! When you joined up with team USA, I’m pretty sure we made it to “good”! ; – )
I want both, actually, but I only expect POTUS to help with the latter objective. Nor do I think that increased humility and righteousness, however desirable for other reasons, will necessarily correlate with God’s blessing on our physical political community. The situation is more complicated by far.
Uberti wrote: Nor do I think that increased humility and righteousness, however desirable for other reasons, will necessarily correlate with God’s blessing on our physical political community. The situation is more complicated by far. We may have come to the focal point of our difference here. Has Uberti discovered some other way to God’s blessing besides humility and righteousness? Or does Uberti suppose that God simply doesn’t bless nations and “physical political communities”, as such, so why bother? These are not rhetorical questions. Scripture has quite a bit to say on this very point. I suspect Uberti knows this, but… Read more »
God blesses the church because of the humility and righteousness of Christ. This is chiefly seen at the Last Judgment. Likewise, he blesses us for our individual righteousness, as mediated through Christ’s work. This may or may not be reflected in our temporal circumstances – many saints have starved to death, and many wicked men die content and full of days. Israel is blessed or cursed as a nation because Israel stands allegorically for the chosen people for whom Christ died. The proper analogue to Israel is not the United States, but the Church. Expecting the United States to flourish… Read more »
Uberti wrote: God blesses the church because of the humility and righteousness of Christ. This is chiefly seen at the Last Judgment. Likewise, he blesses us for our individual righteousness, as mediated through Christ’s work. Uberti seems to have answered my question by taking the firm position that God blesses the Church and individuals only, and not nations, as such. Of course this position runs directly afoul of some very key passages of Scripture, which I assumed that Uberti would have called to mind when seeing my question. In God’s covenant promise to Abraham we read: In your seed all… Read more »
If you distinguish between God’s blessing and national prosperity, then what does God’s blessing on a nation mean? I had imagined that you meant blessings along the lines he promised Israel – bountiful harvests, many children, victory over enemies, that sort of thing. Do you have a different category of benefits in view? I would answer your ending question in the negative, but that is because, on my account, the blessings of faith are largely to be enjoyed when Christ returns, not here and now – or, if they are enjoyed in the here and now, they are not to… Read more »
“I don’t think he sets out to violate moral standards. I don’t think he is aware that such things exist. He strikes me as morally color blind and ethically tone deaf. He has lunatic levels of personal vanity, a nasty urge to avenge petty slights, and a child’s delight in the display of irresponsible power.”
I stand by my comparison of Trump with Zaphod Beeblebrox.
More than a president who championed abortion, sodomy and trans-everything whenever he had a chance?
Well, Trump championed all that before he decided to run as a Republican, so in his case add hypocrisy to that list, and I wouldn’t even trust Trump to stay anti-abortion and anti-gay given how he’s flipped on just about everything else. But yes, even if Trump had core beliefs that included being anti-abortion and anti-gay, we are still left with the issue of him taking great pride in his sinfulness, which is a new thing in the civil magistrate. I don’t think *which specific sins* he or Obama or any other president are guilty of, so much as their… Read more »
“Well, Trump championed all that before he decided to run as a Republican”
So he illuminated his buildings with rainbow colors after the Obergfell decision? He never went above and beyond like the last president did. And just because O was more passive-aggressive, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t brazenly sinful in supporting sodomy and abortion, bending over backwards for Muslims, etc.
Did you miss Trump’s speech at the GOP national convention in which he said he would be the most pro-gay president in US history, and held up a banner that said gays for Trump?
There is much the Obama administration did that I consider indefensible, but again, the new wrinkle is Trump’s glorying in his greed, his adulteries, his using eminent domain to dispossess widows, his non-payment of his workers. And those go to personal character, not policy disagreements.
I think he is moronic outside his line of business, I think he has never had a moral principle in his life, I think his ego is uncheckable, and I think he will lead us into a serious war. The fact that he is as vulgar as a banana republic dictator, that education seems to have had no noticeable effect, that he has horrible personal manners, and that he can’t string sentences together without sounding felony stupid is unpleasant–but that’s not what worries me.
More serious than Libya or the Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam? You must admit the bar for improvement is set pretty darn low.
Also, given that his opponent was running on a platform of aggression toward a major nuclear power… how is this even a serious question?
Leave all that aside. Do you see Trump as a man of fixed (and good) principles? Do you think that adherence to an ethical code (and I don’t mean an ethical code based on rewarding friends and punishing enemies) has characterized his dealings? Do you see him as someone not likely to be influenced by pettiness, vanity, and malice? Would you trust him with your daughters and with your bank accounts? Then why are you defending him? I get that the election is over. I understand that by the grace of God he might, if it suits him, do the… Read more »
I wouldn’t trust any politician with my daughters – nor any stranger, for that matter. So that’s not a useful comparison. I agree that Trump is vain and egotistical. I think he is a loudmouth and a braggart, and I think he is rather rude. He is also, obviously, very smart – one can hardly deny his political genius – and very stubborn. For reasons best known to himself, he appears to have placed that stubborn self-regard and skill at the disposal of our nation, and seems to be on the way to doing a fair amount of good. As… Read more »
LOL! Felony stupid, vulgar, unpleasant, lacking manners…
I do not know why I find that so funny, Jilly, but I think it has something to do with the fact that I would never be welcome into your world. Ironically, I really do think I would be welcomed into Trump’s world, in fact, he’d probably give me a job.
You would be welcome, ME, I promise you. I think (amateur guess here) that some of your sympathy for Trump comes from your sympathy for the underdog, and I think this is a very nice quality. The problem is that I don’t see him as an underdog.
I think you have to worry about a person who remembers the kind of cake he was eating when he ordered the missile strike but not the name of the nation he ordered it against. It was a disgusting speech–it was the BEST chocolate cake, and we have the BEST missiles. I can’t think of any other president who would have been so vile and gross.
“Alternative facts” did it for me. I believe that all governments lie, and they probably have to, at least sometimes. But “alternative facts” suggests that there’s no such thing as truth.
jillybean wrote:
The progressive media is all about “alternative facts” whenever a man wants to force others to refer to him with feminine pronouns. But somehow the media mistakenly thought they should be entitled to outrage when Trump hijacked their deconstruction of truth. It’s a bit late for that.
Trump is making them eat crow pie made using their own recipe. I’m sure it tastes rotten, but the progressives have long since abandoned any ground for objection.
Okay, okay. Having offered one or two mealy-mouthed opinions, I will wait for a fresh grievance before I let you know what I really think of Trump when I’m being candid!
Hopefully so. This is why I voted for him.
I thought ashv voted for Trump as an attempt to get under my skin? Perhaps the destruction of the nation is just an added bonus?
I think getting under your skin was the added bounus.
The nation? Which one? (Hint: it’s the one that’s got Harvard and Yale)
Perhaps you’re hoping you won’t happen to be standing where judgment hits first? The people who hadn’t been worshiping idols got carted off to Babylon along with those who had.
When you say “an apostate nation”, which one are you talking about? America has many nations, despite all being subjects of the USA government.
That depends on how you define nation. How do you define nation?
Ashv is very coy about the specifics of his personal multi-national view of the U.S. I suspect he sees the old Confederate states as a conquered “nation”. It appears to be a way of sidestepping identification with the sins of the U.S. as a whole, which might require repentance and confession. It’s much simpler to be able to say that some other conquering regime is responsible for this mess, and wash one’s own hands of it. This is the opposite of what Daniel did while in Babylonian captivity, owning backslidden Israel’s sins, to confess and repent and intercede, even though… Read more »
Well, unless and until he responds to my question about how he is defining nation, I can’t really answer his question about which apostate nation I’m talking about. If we mean two different things, then the conversation will be meaningless, which is why I need to know we’re on the same page first.
“Very coy”? I’ve always been quite explicit: there’s at minimum the four founding American nations as described in Fischer’s book Albion’s Seed; other people looking into the topic have come up with slightly different divisions at various times, such as Garreau’s Nine Nations of North America. One could reasonably claim Black Americans are a nation unto themselves as well. I’m willing to consider various ideas about where the lines would be drawn today, but what isn’t reasonable is claiming GOVERNMENT = COUNTRY = NATION and thinking no further. I don’t doubt the need for corporate repentance, but until one can… Read more »
I was discussing America as multi-national empire over the dinner table this past Easter Sunday with my family. I think Moldbug (and others) is right about how USG, in order to function (as it is, i.e. a multi-national empire) has to work to suppress the rise of distinct cultures and encourage a cultural homogeneity. Such action may be difficult on a small scale (a Benedict Option community doesn’t happen by accident and without immeasurable effort and sacrifice on behalf of its members), but on the larger scale — like with the US, which includes 330,000,000 spread over 3,800,000 square miles… Read more »
Homogeneity is necessary because conflict, to one level or another, is inevitable if multiple distinct cultures are confined together in close quarters — and are NOT subjecting themselves to obedience to the lordship of Christ.
And there have been various points at which there may have been reasonable hope that Americans would assimilate into a single culture, but it seems like that was always a result of external pressure. But if two groups of settlers from the same island don’t completely assimilate after 400 years together, there’s little hope for it happening anywhere, I think.
Being somewhat ignorant of the make up of the US, who are these 2 groups and from which island?
The Massachusetts and Virginia colonies (of course, from Britain).
Massachusetts and Virginia haven’t assimilated because they are geographically separated by several hundred miles, but if you took a thousand Bostonians and transplanted them to Richmond (or vice versa), in no time at all they would be barely distinguishable from the natives.
This is the “magic dirt” theory of society, much like saying that spending time in a garage will make you a car.
All right, if you took a thousand Bostonians an transplanted them to Richmond, or vice versa, what differences between them and the natives would you expect there to be in, say, ten years?
Ancestry, language, history, culture. This was Atlanta rather than Richmond, but: http://www.angelfire.com/ga/the7thbridge/gryanks.html
I used to enjoy reading Lewis Grizzard. He was entertaining, wasn’t he?
This article fails to show a difference in ancestry (northerners and southerners originated in the same place), language (both speak English), history (both share American history; there are some differences in regional history). And I doubt the cultural differences are that great either. This is just someone grousing about having to share the neighborhood with new neighbors that he’s taken a disliking to.
And I can tell you, having lived in both Boston and three major Southern cities, that there is often ill will toward people from different neighborhoods in the same city. Are those different neighborhoods different nations too?
Northerners and Southerners came from different places in England, for different reasons, from different groups of people. If you can’t close your eyes and tell the difference between a Bostonian and a Virginian by accent and word choice, then you’re probably deaf.
Quite likely. Ethnic neighbourhoods are a pretty common feature of large cities.
I can tell the difference in accent and word choice for the first generation, but the kids usually adopt the accent and word choices of the place they grew up. That’s certainly true in my family; the ones raised in Kansas talk one way and the ones raised in Washington or California talk another.
And I’m not talking about different ethnic neighborhoods. I’m talking about Boston Irish from one neighborhood who barely speak to Boston Irish from another neighborhood. But that’s clannishness, not nationality.
That’s an excellent example. Clearly moving from Ireland to Boston didn’t make them stop being clannish. Do you think that’d change if they moved somewhere else? :)
I don’t think a clan is the same as a nation.
No, but propensity to clannishness is a national characteristic. (Compare Danes to Moroccans, for example.)
Propensity toward sinful behavior is a human characteristic. What must God think when people who are made in his image are treated as different by those who claim to love God?
ashv wrote: I don’t doubt the need for corporate repentance, but until one can accurately identify who your people are, you’re not going to know how to pray for them. I certainly don’t see any reason to believe Daniel joined in corporate repentance with the Babylonians for their imperialist aims or desecration of the Temple. Ashv has tried this line of argument before. He neglects to notice that Daniel was a captive of Babylon, and did not share in the king’s table in order to maintain a distinct identity. The point at which one partakes of the king’s table, and… Read more »
Ashv actually makes a good point in the sense of asking, “who are your people?”
In some places, “American” means, marxist, socialist, anti capitalists, who really want America to fall.
ME wrote: Ashv actually makes a good point in the sense of asking, “who are your people?” No question that covenant identity is a very important thing to know. One’s identity is wrapped up in knowing who one’s family is, who one’s spouse is, and who one’s nation is. These things are generally marked out in very objective ways, and formalized, and witnessed, for the good benefit of all. But it’s highly disingenuous for someone who voted for Trump to run around saying “not my President” when it comes time for repentance. To be a citizen of a nation is… Read more »
This is… unsound. Daniel certainly enjoyed the benefits of the Babylonian government, like education, civil order, housing, and food. He worked for the Babylonian government. He rejected food from the king’s table for ritual purity reasons, and thus as you said, maintaining his distinct Jewish identity. But he still ate Babylonian vegetables! Political subjection to the empire, and benefiting from it, don’t directly change national identity. Similarly, Paul was a member of the Jewish nation, while a citizen of the Roman empire. He didn’t renounce his Jewishness to benefit from citizenship.
Who are your people, katecho?
Simply announcing that something is unsound is not the same as actually showing it. Notice that ashv does not address my question about how he can credibly partake of benefits and privileges of citizenship and still claim “not my nation” when the question of repentance comes up. Ashv is reasoning and behaving just like the progressives who say, “not my president”, regarding Trump, while continuing to enjoy all the benefits and privileges of citizenship. ashv wrote: Daniel certainly enjoyed the benefits of the Babylonian government, like education, civil order, housing, and food. He worked for the Babylonian government. He rejected… Read more »
Daniel was not a Babylonian. Paul was not a Roman.
Do you disagree?
(Who are your people, katecho?)
ashv wrote: Daniel was not a Babylonian. This is probably why I never said Daniel was a Babylonian. I said he was a captive, who maintained his distinct identity, refusing the privilege of Nebuchadnezzar’s table, and later declining Belshazzar’s offer of power and rule. Daniel served as a captive of Babylon. ashv wrote: Paul was not a Roman. Do you disagree? Yes, I disagree. According to Acts 22:28, Paul was a Roman citizen, from birth no less. Paul did not decline the privileges of this Roman identity, and he often appealed to his Roman rights when his accusers wanted to… Read more »
I have multiple relationships with different groups of people. My people include my mother’s family, my father’s family, my local church family, the people of my neighborhood, my city, my state, and the people of my nation, my relationship with the universal people of God in history, and my relationship with all mankind as a people created in God’s image. I have various degrees of responsibility and accountability within those relationships. While he may be in denial, ashv has similar relationships and responsibilities and accountabilities. Oh man. And you accuse me of being coy! Anyway, to answer your question directly:… Read more »
ashv wrote: Anyway, to answer your question directly: CITIZENSHIP IS NOT NATIONALITY. My nation (white Southerners) … We’ve already established that ashv sees everything through race colored spectacles, but in spite of his bold protest, nationality remains a synonym for citizenship. Outside the walls of the ethno-nationalist camp, nationality is broadly defined as, “the status of belonging to a particular nation”, i.e. citizenship. Ashv can cover his own eyes to this reality, but it doesn’t cover ours. Notice that even ashv’s attempt to construe his nationality along racial lines fails him, because it’s insufficient to distinguish him from those nasty… Read more »
You didn’t even read what I wrote. To accommodate your poor reading comprehension I will start by answering your distracting question: Yes, Trump is my president, just as Darius was Daniel’s king and Caesar was Jesus’ and Paul’s king. Looks like we’re going to have to play the definition game. As I said a few days ago: A nation is an extended family. Hence, the nation of Israel, of Edom, of Moab, etc. A group of people with common culture, history, language, and ancestry. There are several distinct groups within the USA. And, just now: My nation (white Southerners) has… Read more »
Would you say that Daniel had to repent for Babylon’s sins? Why or why not?
Uberti wrote: Would you say that Daniel had to repent for Babylon’s sins? Why or why not? I’ve explained the principle in conversation with ashv multiple times. Daniel was a captive, who maintained his distinct identity, refusing the privilege of Nebuchadnezzar’s table, and later declining Belshazzar’s offer of power and rule. Daniel served as a captive of Babylon. On the other hand, Paul did not decline the privileges of this Roman identity, and he often appealed to his Roman rights when his accusers wanted to avoid due process. So someone, even a Paul or a Daniel, can’t take up and… Read more »
I know you and ashv have had many conversations; I didn’t recall that exchange.
So you would say that Paul, as a Roman citizen, is party to the Roman sins of polytheism and savagery (and persecution of the church) and all the rest? Is he culpable in a meaningful way, or is there some way in which he can accept the gospel advantages that have been forced on him by an accident of birth without also condoning his own murder?
A nation is an extended family. Hence, the nation of Israel, of Edom, of Moab, etc. A group of people with common culture, language, and ancestry. There are several distinct groups within the USA.
That was a poor definition of nation a thousand years ago already, but given as much inter marriage as there has been in the meantime, it’s a perfectly lousy definition now. Sorry to tell you this, but purebreds are few and far between.
If it’s such a poor definition then surely you can provide a better one.
Anyhow, there hasn’t been as much intermarriage as you might think. Your thinking on this seems pretty fuzzy, what does it mean for a family to be “purebred”?
Ancestry plays a role, but isn’t the entire story.
A nation is a group of people who owe allegiance to a national government, and whether you like it or not, the Civil War is an historical reality.
LOL. So Daniel was a Babylonian and Jesus was a Roman.
They all shared common ancestors.
And another thing. If you believe the Bible to be inerrant, then we are all descended from Adam and Eve, which means everyone on the planet has common ancestry. If you believe in evolution, then everyone on the planet is still of common ancestry. Either way, your common ancestry prong is meaningless.
If you believe the Bible, Abraham got a wife for Isaac from among his own people, rather than the Canaanites.
Was he making a meaningless distinction?
Israel was a special circumstance because Messiah came from that specific lineage. Show me something similar from the New Testament.
I was talking about Abraham, not Israel. God didn’t tell Abraham or Isaac not to marry a Canaanite.
Anyway, yes Israel was special – a special nation. There are plenty of other nations in the Bible; God told Rebecca that two nations were in her womb; Jacob and Esau were the fathers of the Israelites and the Edomites. We also are told the stories of fathers of other nations; the Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, and so forth.
What do you see in the New Testament that would change that?
That when the Gospel was given to the Gentiles, the Old Testament concept of nationhood became an anachronism. That, plus as a practical matter, what worked in a bronze age agrarian society won’t work in a global economy. We no longer have clan/nations for the same reason we no longer have outhouses or plows pulled by mules: They served a purpose at one time, but times have changed.
Presumably you feel this way about families, too.
Of course not. The New Testament has many passages confirming the Old Testament’s establishment of the family. I know of nothing in the New Testament that ratifies clan/nations as you understand the concept.
“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.”
Keep reading. It goes on to say that the reason he did this was to draw all to himself, for we are all his offspring. Doesn’t sound like a huge endorsement of nationalism to me.
You’re moving the goalposts. I never said anything about nationalism.
If you don’t believe in nationalism, then nations are superfluous, no? Other than for utilitarian governance purposes?
I never said anything one way or the other. You’re the one trying to claim that nations aren’t real. Why is that?
Nations are real in the same sense that any other social construct is real. The question is what usefulness or relevance they are.
I’m glad we had this little talk.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NIV&quicksearch=all+nations&begin=47&end=73
Or even better, https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NIV&quicksearch=nations&begin=47&end=73
That Scripture recognizes the existence of something is not the same thing as saying it is cast in stone for all times. Every one of the 19 passages cited acknowledges the reality that nations exist. None of them says they mean the same thing for all time or that we can’t re-evaluate their usefulness.
And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, “Great and amazing are your deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your ways, O King of the nations! Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.” -Rev 15:3-4 A part of the glory of the Gospel of Christ’s Kingship and reign is that it’s over ALL the distinct nations as distinct nations. It’s not necessary for one… Read more »
I don’t think it’s possible to stop being Cherokee or Maasai or Inuit or Welsh since those are regional ancestral descriptions. Alabama is a social construct that exists because there’s agreement to act as if it does.
But the question is: Of what relevance to anything of importance is it that someone is Cherokee or Maasai or Inuit or Welsh? Does it make them better people? Does it make them more likely to glorify God? You could categorize people by what they have for breakfast, with the same relevance as where their ancestors came from.
Yeah, Alabama doesn’t function to the same degree, but when Alabamian is put beside Oregonian or Montanan, it’s still there.
Who’s talking about making “them better people” or supremacy in whatever form? You’re the one dragging that in.
You could categorize people by what they have for breakfast, with the same relevance as where their ancestors came from.
Geez…. what a horribly white conservative tone-deaf thing to say. It’s funny how no other culture besides white conservative idealists think or talk like that.
The problem with nationalism is that it can’t be trusted. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, a person who places a heavy emphasis on nationhood is also a racist or worst, and there’s ample historical precedent for what that can do. I don’t know you, so you may be the one exception, but nationalism’s track record can’t be trusted. So the safer course is to steer clear of it.
Oh man, you must be new around here.
Since you seem intent on rehashing the entire last year of discussion here:
There’s no such sin as racism.
Also, where do you get this idea that the New Testament has to “ratify” anything in the Old?
Because otherwise Christianity would merely be a sect of Judaism.
I’m in the middle of a work related rush but I’ll respond to the rest of your posts later today.
“They served a purpose at one time, but times have changed.”
I caution you against casually tossing aside tradition, the things that make us human, our biology. Clannishness, also known as tribalism,is an important essence of who we are. We are actually not a global people,in the sense that our brains can only care about and relate to a small group, a tribe so to speak.
Jesus Christ is actually the Lion of the tribe of Judah, so King of the whole world yes, but also recognizing the existence of those tribal allegiances.
I don’t toss aside all tradition; just those that have outlived their usefulness. I Peter has something to say about that. Of course, it’s not always clear as crystal which traditions have and have not outlived their usefulness, but that’s not a reason to not do the hard work of analysis.
Have families been abolished, too? I am sympathetic to the argument that nation and tribe are less important than the Church community. But that doesn’t make that non-existent. What would that even mean? What is Italy, then? Russia? Are those just names on a map?
Russia and Italy are social constructs; if their populations disappeared tomorrow the land would still be there and others would move there and become the new Russians or Italians (assuming the old names were kept for some reason). England exists because someone decided to call it that, and not because it has inherent existence of its own. And when you think about the massive damage nationalism has done over the years — there was that little scuffle called World War II — why would you want to hold on to it if you don’t have to? For purposes of governance… Read more »
So when Italians move abroad, they stop being Italians? Is that really your idea? Wherefore the Little Italies that sprang up everywhere they moved to? That’s like arguing that I stopped being my father’s son when I got married. Of course it is true in some very limited sense. But to behave as if that makes families illusory would be absurd. My point is that nations are a fact, like mountains. You may believe that they are evil, or unhelpful, and I invite you to make that argument. I paraphrase Chesterton “A brave man fights error wherever he may find… Read more »
That depends on how broadly or narrowly you define Italian. I’ve got some Dutch blood in me but I have to go back 500 years to find it; am I Dutch? I don’t think so, but if you follow the “one drop rule” then yes. What about Italians who have been living in the US for ten generations; is there a point at which they’re just Americans? Oh, and how much blood from other nationalities gets mixed in before the definition changes? One of the practical problems with nations as they are argued here is that when you start asking… Read more »
And suppose that ashv’s bloodline was similar to my own: Anglo and Norman. Suppose our roots were traced to a collection of Devon villages. Suppose his ancestors came here 300 years ago, while my parents were immigrants or first generation Canadians. How can that shared genetic ancestry–assuming it existed–have any significance compared to the differences in our subsequent environments and cultures? I don’t underestimate the power of shared culture–which often goes beyond racial lines. When I chat with a Jamaican, a Ugandan, or Hong Kong resident my own age, there is instant recognition of a shared past. Maypole dancing on… Read more »
This is like saying clouds aren’t real because nobody can agree on where their edges are.
Nations aren’t purely determined by genetics, just like families aren’t. But that doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant.
But because of these questions, to a certain extent your nation is a matter of self-identification more than objective measuring stick. But again, how is it even relevant? If you tell me that you’re French or German or Irish or Chinese, what exactly does that get you? It certainly doesn’t tell me anything about your character or your ethics or your religious views or your politics. What exactly does it tell me that makes any real difference?
Not definitively, but it can certainly give you a very good guess.
Only if you make decisions about people based on stereotypes that may or may not be accurate for any given individual.
Of course I do. Everyone does. Most stereotypes are true, and are a perfectly reasonable basis to make certain decisions about people you don’t know.
And when people make stereotypes about Southerners — that they’re stupid, ignorant poor white trash — would you agree that such stereotypes are true and a perfectly reasonable basis to make decisions about people you don’t know? Or is it only people of groups you don’t belong to that should be stereotyped?
Plenty of us are. Stereotypes don’t just come from nowhere.
But plenty of you aren’t, too, and that’s the problem. And it’s grossly unfair to the ones who don’t fit the stereotype, which may or may not be a significant chunk of the population. Plus there’s confirmation bias; when you see someone who fits the stereotype it’s confirmed in your mind; when you see someone who doesn’t you tend to discount or not notice it.
And?
Life ain’t fair.
Fairness is only half the issue. The other half is not making judgments that have a good chance of being wrong, and using accurate information to form conclusions. Also, see Matthew 7:1 and 2.
Either way you have a chance to be wrong. Better to pick the one where the cost of being wrong is smaller.
That would probably vary case by case, but I very much doubt there’s empirical data showing that your cost of being wrong is less if you stereotype than if you don’t. Frankly, that sounds like more confirmation bias to me. Don’t forget that there are collective social costs to stereotyping too, in addition to the costs you as an individual may bear.
The better course, I think, is to exercise appropriate caution with people you don’t know, not because of their nationality but because you don’t know them.
Ha! There was a man hitch hiking not long ago, looked like he just crawled out of the woods, carrying a machete. He could be a very nice man for all I know, but I totally stereotyped him and drove on by.
Life ain’t fair, but it’s even more nutty to insist that people ignore common sense,over ride everything they have learned,and focus on whether or not they are being fair.
Suppose I tell you that I’m Bantu. (I’m not, but suppose I were.) Other than the fact that my ancestors were born in a certain section of Africa, what exactly would that tell you about me?
That you’re much more likely to enjoy singing “Kill The Boer” than Boers do.
The Italians will cling to their fellow Italians when they come to a strange new land. I suspect, however, that the children born here will see themselves as Americans, even if they love parts of their Italian heritage. Three or four generations later you will have kids who don’t consider themselves Italian in any meaningful sense. My home city had a vibrant Italian culture centered in one neighborhood. But, as people became lawyers and engineers, they moved their families into upscale neighborhoods where no one had public celebrations of ethnicity. After a while,parents give up on making their kids learn… Read more »
Are they joining a new nation? Or is their “nationhood” just dissolved?
Sure, that’s how new nations are formed. But the fact that over many generations it is possible to dilute a cultural identity does not mean that cultural identities are not real. I don’t think anyone here is a strict genetic determinist. The point is, that Italians are a certain way, and that heredity and how a group of them behave together (culture) both play a role. If you switched the populations of Rome and Berlin, would you expect those cities to look the same after fifty years?
I think climate plays a big role. It is very difficult to be uptight living in a land of endless sunshine, watching the naughty winds tickling the azure ocean, seeing the interplay of shadows on green and golden hills. I went from being a Type A to a Type B after a mere few months of this.
There’s probably some sense in that – if it feels like vacation, one eventually will act like one is on vacation. But then I would want to know how the discipline and drive of the ancient Romans came about? Global warming since the urbe was condita?
Good climate certainly plays a role, although it’s not the only factor. The Scandanavian countries get a lot of play for being the happiest people on the global happiness scale and yet if you dig a bit deeper, they also have the highest anti-depressant use in the world. It’s all very subjective, too. No offense to Jilly, but I was born down in the land of perpetual sunshine. Some of the most neurotic, uptight people on the planet live there. My husband actually now believes sunshine cause neurosis. People do assimilate culturally and I think a great deal of that… Read more »
Canada also does well on the global happiness scale, and it isn’t known for its sunny climate. So there are undoubtedly other factors. If I had been born here, I would probably have taken the climate for granted. But all those years living in the frozen north have given me a never-ending appreciation for sunny days! I do miss the seasons and I have trouble with anything over 95. So what I propose is a year round 75 except for two weeks at Christmas (down to 50 so people can wear their Christmas sweaters) and two weeks in July (up… Read more »
“What is Italy, then?”, you ask. I have seldom been handled such a glorious opportunity to be an annoying know-it-all.
“Italy is a geographical expression.” von Metternich at the Concert of Vienna.
Hasn’t been enough intermarriage to dispute your claim? My own family was too interbred to be a pure national origin a good 100 years ago on every side. And that’s just the family, much less talking a whole community.
OK? There’s a difference between “anecdote” and “data”. Of course there are places and times that intermarriage rates are high. That’s a big part of how new ethnic and national groups get formed.
And America is not one of those places?
Are there really meaningful British-background-only communities left in America? How many people?
Of course there are. My father’s family is of English descent, for example, going back at least five generations. There’s significantly less European admixture in Appalachia and the deep South than in the Midwest. Numbers are hard because most people of English ancestry in America report their ethnicity as “American” more often than people of, say, German background.
Wait….your father’s, but not your mother’s? Meaning that even ashv is the product of nation-mixing? lol And my dad grew up in West Virginia, but his family was of mixed German and Swedish descent on both sides. My mother’s side, which including British descent ancestors in the US at least 70-80 years before independence if not earlier, is even more mixed. The number of Appalachians/Southerners that don’t have German, Irish, French, Native American, or some other non-English ancestry at all can’t be that high. And that’s still just talking families, not even communities. And even then, you’ve still been reduced… Read more »
My mother is, as best I can tell, 1/4 German, as is my wife. The nationality of politicians doesn’t have a lot to do with intermarriage these days. Anyway, this is why I say nations are like extended families. They’re not strictly bounded by ancestry, there’s always people marrying in and leaving. And even shared ancestry isn’t enough; by 1776 plenty of the American colonists clearly felt themselves to be Americans and not English. My point is not that intermarriage hasn’t happened in America, just that it’s not been uniform and that contributes to the distinction between American nationalities. (Our… Read more »
Do you reject the possibility of a propositional nation? I came here because I married an American, but if I had wanted to come for another reason, it would have been admiration for the sentiments of the DOI and the constitution, the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty, and the chance to sing “America the Beautiful.” My ancestry on some lines has been traced back centuries–and, no, there is nothing illustrious about it. Why should this ancestry matter to me compared with bonds based on shared values and ideas?
Right. “Propositional nation” is a sort of four-sided triangle. No such thing. It’s rare for people to leave much of their culture behind when they move somewhere new, and if enough of them move there, they don’t have to leave any of it behind. Hence Chinatown, Germantown, Little Havana, etc.
To put it another way: No amount of devotion to the poetry of (Sephardic Jew) Emma Lazarus, American patriotic songs, or the principles of American government will make you contemptuous of Justin Trudeau’s fabulous hair.
Sephardic Jews have better food than Ashkenazis. Just so you know. More couscous and less disgusting stuff like chopped liver. And they don’t have to name their kids for dead people. Many women around the world stare in mute admiration at Justin’s hair. If he were from the antipodes, I would like it just as much. But you are right about Little Armenia and so on. Ethnic enclaves are everywhere here. On the other hand, there are supposed to be close to a million Canadians living in Southern California, and I have no actual desire to meet any of them.… Read more »
Trump is quite intelligent, but is extremely self-centered, impulsive, and appears uninterested in anything that doesn’t bring himself quick gratification. The lack of intellectual curiosity and rough mannerisms, combined with the impulsivity, make him look like an oaf despite the strong intelligence. The extreme self-centeredness and impulsiveness makes him look unlike a conservative or liberal. He pursues his own self-interest regardless of ideology. The whole package, combined with the lifelong leverage of being wealthy, connected, and always in the spotlight, helps him to get what he wants (deals, seats, women, businesses, elections) but he lacks the knowledge or the discipline… Read more »
The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.
Ecc. 9:11
I rather like Trump. Perhaps I have a certain kind of affection for oafs who play checkers. I’ve always found them to have a moral center I really appreciate, one people cannot always see on the surface. The guy I really worry about uses the right fork and everyone praises his intelligence.
Intelligence is NOT morality, social approval is not evidence of virtue, and appearances can be quite deceiving.
This post begins to expose the blatant oafism that undergirds our society! Oaf lives matter!???? (Even Michael Moore!)
What worries me is that while there can be intelligence without morality, morality without intelligence is useless. If you can’t understand the nature of a moral conflict, you can’t know the moral thing to do. I don’t mind his oafishness if it coexisted with both intelligence and principle. Trump has been in the public eye for a very long time, and has established a record we can all examine. If there is an invisible moral center there, then it really is invisible.
There’s nothing wrong with not knowing what fork to use. But it isn’t proof of automatic virtue.
“What worries me is that while there can be intelligence without morality, morality without intelligence is useless. If you can’t understand the nature of a moral conflict, you can’t know the moral thing to do.” I’m going to disagree. I really believe in objective morality, morality outside of and beyond our own intelligence and ability to understand it. “Lean not into your own understanding.” So in the world we have some people with major cognitive impairments, things like down’s syndrome, who often have a moral awareness that just astounds me. Conversely, there are some mensa members who are real lunkheads,… Read more »
I would agree with most of that. But most of us don’t have to make daily decisions that require you first to understand an issue and then apply moral principles to it. I would not know intuitively the right thing to do about North Korea. There is no moral principle telling me bomb them/ don’t bomb them that operates without my understanding the issues, the arguments, and the consequences. There are foolish Mensans, but they’re usually not foolish in their line of expertise. There are children who have acute moral awareness but we don’t let them anywhere near foreign policy… Read more »
You might be surprised. Greater intelligence means a greater capacity for lying to yourself.
Sure. But, I would like my surgeons, judges, and presidents to be outstandingly intelligent. My point wasn’t that Trump isn’t intelligent although he does not strike me as brilliant outside his niche. My point was that not every Mensan should be presumed to be hopelessly foolish. It’s a stereotype that people use to comfort themselves.
It’s also a stereotype that particularly describes our ruling class. If they had wisdom to match their smarts they wouldn’t have been outmaneuvered by a real estate developer from Queens.
Do you think that this is the real reason for his success among some Americans? Their resentment of highly intelligent elites? I think that the intelligent have a duty to be moral–perhaps an even greater duty because they can cause more harm when they’re not. But I don’t understand why anyone feels a knee-jerk distaste for the very bright, even if they have gone to Harvard. I thought after I had compiled my list above of people I want to be exceptionally intelligent, I would exclude husbands. You never want to go high enough to find the weird factor if… Read more »
Since at least the ’30s (if not before), university, especially the Ivy League, has been the gateway to political power. The result is a ruling class that has its own culture and primary allegiance to itself rather than to its subjects. I don’t think flyover-Americans resent intelligence as such, but they rightly perceive the contempt of these coastal elites and react to it. The knee-jerk distaste for Harvard has nothing to do with ability, but about who that ability is going to be used to benefit. All these charges of Trump being not smart are chiefly about him not sharing… Read more »
This makes sense. But why do the non-elite denizens of the coasts support them? Is that political sympathy with elitist goals or is it feeling elitist by proxy? One of my daughter’s girlfriends is starting at the Harvard School of Government in the fall. I neither identify with nor feel alienated from her.
Like who?
Like me. And my friends.
You’re a foreigner, though, so that doesn’t exactly count.
I don’t understand American elitism rules. I have a friend who clerked for Panetta during Clinton’s first term, and although he didn’t know Clinton well, he had a beer with him in a small group from time to time. He told that while he liked Clinton, he was very different in manner and style from the others. Is this a question of origins cancelling out Yale? I think Los Angeles has three core elites: Hollywood people (who can be secretly despised but not ignored because they have the money), political people, and the very quiet descendants of original land grant… Read more »
I don’t understand American elitism rules. The most important thing to remember about the rules of American elitism, is the only people who admit they exist are the self-proclaimed elite. The rest of us roll our eyes when someone claims to be intellectually, morally, or socially “better” based on where they live, work, or got their degree. (Which are the usual indicators of “eliteness”.) Wealth doesn’t really enter into it, since fortunes are easily gained and easily lost. Each region of the country has its own reasons for pride, and expresses that pride in greater or lesser measure depending on… Read more »
This might be of interest: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20140616184451/http://theden.tv/2013/09/02/the-new-york-times-writes-about-middle-america-like-its-a-foreign-country/
That was interesting. I think it is more likely to be found among East Coasters. Most of my Angeleno friends came here from the Midwest and the Southwest. They can be unbearably proud of themselves sometimes, and vastly overestimate their sensitivity. But they don’t talk about the people back home as if they were of a foreign species.
Which is exceedingly odd when you consider that Trump is a silver-spooned offspring of the New York elite, closely connected to New York political power almost since birth, went to the Ivy League’s elite business school, married foreign European models, remained closely connected to the wealthy business elite and liberal political elite in New York pretty much until he began campaigning, etc. I mean, we’re talking about a guy who starred in soft-core Playboy pornography solely because he represented wealthy New York power. I agree that Trump is actually intelligent, but the reasons he is often viewed as not smart… Read more »
And that’s about lack of self-discipline, aka (in this context) folly, rather than lack of intelligence.
“Do you think that this is the real reason for his success among some Americans? Their resentment of highly intelligent elites?”
Sigh.Jilly, the elites are not highly intelligent. Nor are they moral. In fact, they don’t even have good table manners.
It is their never ending assumption of their own alleged superiority that has caused so much resentment.
This. It is not resentment of their actual intelligence, but resentment of their pose of superiority, that irritates people. Some number of people will confuse the two and resent intelligent people, but you will always have those. That’s not what mostly drives resentment of liberal elites, though.
I think there are two kinds of poses that irritate people. The one that suggests “I am so far above you intellectually that you’re not even real to me” is nasty but it isn’t directly threatening. The awful one says, “I’m really smart and you’re really dumb, and you need me to run your life. Which I will, because I’m fabulously virtuous as well as smart.”
Yes! This, a thousand thousand times. I’m not stupid, but the self-righteousness and mind-boggling folly of the so-called intellectual class makes me want to gag. Whatever thing the smart set supports I find myself repulsed by on a visceral level. It isn’t because they’re smart. It’s because they’re insufferable.
I expect I am politically to the left of you, but I do understand your feeling. In my brain “Well, aren’t you perfect”carries on a childish war for supremacy with “Yeah yeah, and can’t you just shut up already?”
“What worries me is that while there can be intelligence without morality, morality without intelligence is useless. If you can’t understand the nature of a moral conflict, you can’t know the moral thing to do.”
No you can do the moral thing without understanding why. otherwise you’re argueing that morality without intellegence is impossible.
That is probably true for daily life. You can be told Don’t steal, and obey without understanding why. But while you are doing the morally right thing, your morality is based on obedience rather than understanding. But go beyond daily life. Suppose you are asked to judge a dispute between friends. Your moral principles tell you to be honest and impartial. But you still need to have enough intelligence to understand what is being disputed, to evaluate the evidence, and to apply your ethical principles to that particular case. I should probably add that I am using “moral” in two… Read more »
It’s usually better to not use the same word in two different senses in serious discourse if you want you point to be understood. That said, “doing the right thing” still requires one to be able to compare one’s behavior to the moral standard which one has learned by rote. Doing that is a task of which even a 2-year-old-child or a medically-defined moron is capable. Don’t take things that aren’t yours “I want this!” Is it yours? “No…” Do you take things that aren’t yours? “No…” Then what should you do with that? “Don’t take it….” …even if they… Read more »
Very true. But it might not help them apply moral principles to unfamiliar situations. Which is what I want a president to be able to do.
What makes you think that he can’t, or doesn’t?
I think he does not have a core of moral principles, or at least none that I would recognize as moral principles. I exclude, as I said earlier, any kind of morality that says reward your friends, get revenge on your enemies, and give preferential status to those who flatter you most. On the other hand, I include keeping marital vows, paying back loans, keeping promises, sexual self-control, truthfulness, and not taking advantage of people.
The kind of morality you exclude is one of the most basic forms of morality practiced by humanity: I.e. Return good for good and evil for evil.
Why else would the command to “love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you” be such a radical demand?
Very true!
“I should probably add that I am using “moral” in two different senses. One is doing the right thing. The other, and the one I am focused on regarding intelligence, is having an internalized set of moral principles against which we can evaluate each decision we have to make.”
I think there’s a difference here between intelligence and wisdom.
Of all the things that Trump is, I don’t understand how you can see him as moral. The man totally changes his opinion on things at the drop of a dime, has no consistent underlying beliefs, and has no strong connection to any social issues.
I wanted to add from earlier that when I criticize Trump’s manners, it has nothing to do with his mastery of table etiquette. I don’t care about that stuff very much myself. Besides, he probably has very good table manners considering how often he dines out. Sometimes North Americans talk as if manners are for the very rich, not for those of us down in the trenches. But what I mean by good manners doesn’t require money or an elite education. It’s stuff like consideration, making others feel comfortable, not making them feel envious for how how little they have… Read more »
“It’s stuff like consideration, making others feel comfortable, not making them feel envious for how how little they have compared to what you have, not throwing your weight around just because you can, being more courteous to a waiter than a CEO…”
Precisely what Trump has managed to do to engender million of Americans to support him. It is actually not courteous at all to be a waiter and to have your vastly superior, “highly intelligent” liberal overlords call you a racist, a hater, an oppressor, etc,etc.
This is a very Canadian list.
Justin taught me.
Scott Adams calls what Trump does 3D persuasion, or something like that. It’s not intellectual at all but aimed squarely at the reptile brain. And he hits it. Over and over. The fact that it’s not intellectual does not mean it’s not smart.
C. S. Lewis: “They claim to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight” (from “Christian Reflections,” essay/lecture on modern theology??) –Andrew, husband of Wendy
Or as Pastor Wilson has put it, “can’t see the big E on the eye chart”. This comes to mind especially as I’ve been reading a book this week, chosen by a book club at my church, Miroslav Volf’s “Public Faith in Action”. He’s neither willing to condemn same-sex mirage or abortion and thinks that Christians should support “pluralistic” societies. Which leaves the question, why should I think any of your other ideas are any better?
Sounds like they chose it for the guy’s cool name.
On the plus side, cool name. On the minus side, theologian at Yale Divinity.
To comment off topic, I honestly thought of Wilson’s Evangellyfish when I read this: http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2017/04/man_ejected_from_church_on_eas.html#incart_river_home_pop
My parents go to that church. Sheesh.
I’ve tried to triangulate where in AL you live, ashv. I think I’ve narrowed it down to being within 50 miles of me.
Yeah, I thought so. I’m right next to <REDACTED>. Let me know, we’ll get lunch next time you’re over this way. ;-)
He won’t be hard to spot. Nor will anyone mess with him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Sims_(fighter)
I could carry on that charade only over the internets.
Not where I was thinking, but that makes sense.
I could probably guess where you go to church with that bit of information.
Talking about your fellow Americans seeming like an alien species, my daughter came home from New Orleans last night. After Charleston, this was her second Southern city. She said people are very, very polite. And that if someone says hi to you on the street, it is okay to say hi back. And that when a man came on to her rather aggressively, not only did other men stop him but one of them took her out to lunch and showed her around town. I think she is ready to start packing and call the U-Haul.
… Your daughter went to Mardi Gras in New Orleans and her primary impression was that people were polite? Yes, y’all do seem like an alien species.
Well, it was actually Easter Sunday, which might have made a difference. Probably less public drunkenness? She saw a gay Easter parade wending its way through town. Being used to these, she was nevertheless surprised to see gay horses–at least the horses’ hats were. She said she didn’t see a single Confederate flag, and that people she spoke to appeared to have liberal politics. Is New Orleans different that way? But everyone told her crime stories that made her hair stand on end. Not just the usual murder, mayhem, and carjacking. People drew maps for her with red lines indicating… Read more »
Swamp tours are great. I’d rather learn about the swamps and Cajun history than chat with drunk tourists. That said, there certainly is some nice history and things to see in the city…just stay in the safe parts.
Yes, NOLA is pretty liberal. The book A Confederacy of Dunces nailed the city decades ago. It’s a port city, and has more in common with port cities in other countries than it does the South.
It is a closely guarded secret but I am phobic about reptiles. I am a little proud of myself that I didn’t pass this on to my kid. It took a lot of tightly closed eyes and deep breathing!
The thing she liked best was the World War II museum.
Oh, I missed you saying this was just recently. Don’t know where I got Mardi Gras from.
New Orleans is its own world culturally, but politically it’s not unusual — all big cities in the US are politically liberal. And yeah, the red lines are real, and for the obvious reasons.
(My toddler loved the swamp tour when we visited last year. You’re missing out.)
I would rather put my hand into a wood chipper than run the risk of seeing a snake in real life.
Oh you wouldn’t, just alligators.
I’m through there everyday on 280, cursing at the drivers with tag numbers that start with 58. No doubt they hate the bumpkins with 61 tags, but I think I drive it fairly well.
I got a little distracted, but what kind of church serves coffee before the service? Do people take their cups into the sanctuary? Can I join?
Yes, unless you’re crazy and you stalk your crazy ex, who is in turn stalking the pastor and thinks that the usher saves them a seat right behind said pastor
Great! Not just coffee but live entertainment too!
That’s not to say that it’s clumsy. It’s very much a professional production, and there are good people who attend, but in my experience (though not exceedingly large within the walls of one of the *15* campuses) it’s very much geared to consumers.
Efficient. Good production value. Convenient.
I should have added “scalable” to the list.
It’s beyond parody. The place mostly reminds of me an airport lobby.
Airport lobby is very apt: coffee kiosks, bookstore, and arrival and departure lounges!
“Some people have noticed that Trump is not stupid, and that after the
dust settles from his latest outrage, he is usually sitting in the chair
he asked for, and the people who think he’s an idiot are not sitting in the chairs they asked for, and so how come is that?”
When? Other than winning the election, when has this actually happened recently? His presidency has mostly been a string of embarrassments and failures. The whole thing is already looking much less significant than it did only 6 months ago, like a fluke rather than a sea change.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/18/first-protected-dreamer-deported-under-trump/100583274/
https://twitter.com/FoxBusiness/status/852658936918323200
https://www.recode.net/2017/4/17/15334662/trump-h1b-visa-immigration-order
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/china-buys-more-u.s.-coal-sends-north-korea-packing/article/2620041
http://i.imgur.com/PTtzdTw.jpg
Sorry, what were you trying to say, exactly?
Addendum: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/21/trump-plays-budget-hardball-congress-build-border-wall/