Our Best Work From a Truly Ugly Week in America

Riots and looting and vigilantism have us all on edge.

By
321

Back when protests first sprang up in response to George Floyd’s death, I was actually a little optimistic. Let me explain. Even as riots and looting took place in Minneapolis and other large cities, peaceful demonstrations and marches were taking place in small towns and quiet suburbs all over the country. 

My hometown (Alliance, Ohio) was featured in national news stories for its successful protest. Our oldest son attended a Black Lives Matter rally and march in our suburb, and we live in a county where Donald Trump got 68 percent of the vote in 2016. Not only was it peaceful, the chief of police gave a heartfelt speech to the crowd, and thanked the organizers for helping increase his awareness. More people than I can count shared Dave Chappelle’s 8:46 special. Occasionally, a fruitful and respectful conversation broke out on social media. It seemed like there was a glimmer of hope not only that we could make some headway on racism in America but that maybe people weren’t quite as divided as we thought.

So much for all of that. Activists took advantage of sympathetic mayors in big cities, giving us the CHAZ/CHOP in Seattle (where protesters made demands about “defunding the police” behind blockades protected by armed civilians) and more than two months of nightly violence in Portland. As mayors became nervous about deploying police to maintain the peace, violent crime has increased.

The events of the past week were like a spark hitting the embers of a dying fire. The police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, prompted a whole new round of protests, though news of such happenings being peaceful are sparse. Instead, we’ve seen protesters badgering diners at restaurants. We’ve seen looters destroy businesses owned by immigrants and minorities. And, worst of all, a teenager armed with a long rifle allegedly shot three people and killed two in Kenosha.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
321
By
Comments (321)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Evan Donovan

    I appreciated your honesty in this post. It has been a hard week to watch, as many have been recently.

    I wish more people could say simply we love our country and the people in it, and we want things to get better. Those should not be controversial sentiments, even if Americans disagree profoundly on how to achieve that.

    The worst problem we have now is that extreme partisanship is causing us to lose sight of others' humanity, and impute to people the worst possible motives simply because of their political allegiance. In the end, this is causing literal violence. The RNC is putting fuel on the fire of the us vs. them mentality, and, while Biden has condemned riots and looting, there are people in his party who are justifying them.

    I don't think Trump knows how to contain the madness he has unleashed by questioning the legitimacy of the election, any more than he knows how deadly it has been to boost COVID-19 conspiracy theories. And, as a consensus candidate, Biden doesn't have the strength to bring the radical elements of his party back in line.

    I wasn't alive back in '68, but from what I read about it, this year feels worse.

    Collapse
  2. Jordin Wang

    Can we call the “White Silence is Violence” protestors accosting White diners in DC what they are—struggle sessions?
    Even for a person who takes concepts such as intersectionality and structural racism to heart, this does nothing to convince people of the part, unconscious or not, that we all play in the racism that pervades our society. I see none of the compassion and willingness for dialogue that strikes my fire as a young person becoming politically conscious. It is bullying, without eyes or ears. I expect better from people who are truly committed towards changing the mindsets and barriers that people of color have faced in this country.
    Milton Friedman said the most dangerous people are those that believe in the absolute justice of their cause. I hope the people that abused these strangers would reflect on more constructive ways of expressing their anger.

    Collapse
    1. Scroop Moth

      8,000 progressives wrote the WashPost to denounce the misbehavior of these clowns. The harassers were obnoxious but fortunately a target said she wasn’t frightened. Still, major backfire.

      Please note that most BLM protestors who have been flooding the streets are awesomely eager to dialog.

      Collapse
  3. Joseph Wellford

    I am having my name changed to "None of these a**holes" my running mate is "None of the above". I think the ticket has a good chance in November.

    Collapse
  4. Bob Simrak

    Thanks Rachael. I share the feelings of your LA friend & Andrew Sullivan. Once our bases passions are engaged we're in riot mode.

    Collapse
  5. Adam Kaiser

    The blurb about the poor tragic article about the Seattle police chief resigning somehow didn’t mention that their budget cut was less than 1% of their $400 million budget and the chiefs salary cut was 3% off of ~$285,000 salary as a public employee. As a fiscal conservative these guys need to be (partially) defunded.

    Collapse
    1. Tim Johnson

      Yes, it's amazing how police unions are given a free pass when it comes to discussion of wages and benefits.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    You mean there is more than one book entitled "In defense of looting?" Just because a few people wrote goofy books doesn't blame the Democratic party. And if a mayor wants a police chief to resign, I doubt its because he or she supports looting. The mayor of Chicago is trying tp stop gangs from looting. She was in over her head, but I believe its over. But get this straight. These looters are NOT Democrats. They are looting because they are gangs who are taking advantage of the chaos.

    And one thing that everyone keeps forgetting is that these riots are happening under Trump's watch. He is doing absolutely nothing to calm the situation. Praising the gun toting crazies is only throwing gas the fire.

    Collapse
  7. Scroop Moth

    If conservatives in the US really value social peace, they should vote for any government to the left of center, whether it be Joe Biden or his puppeteer.

    I spent some time in East Berlin in 1975. There were soldiers on every corner. I was followed around for three days. A restaurant seated snoops at my table. When I went to the Brecht Theater to see a stage play, I was the only person in the audience. Waiting for the performance to start, I looked around at the empty house and pondered why the box office that morning had taken 20 minutes to tell me whether there were any tickets left. Just before curtain, a row of eight high school students filed in with an adult monitor, and sat behind me. I turned around to smile and they stared straight on. For months afterward, I had nightmares about being arrested for accidentally leaving Western coins at a restaurant as a tip.

    My point is, the streets were totally clear of rioters.


    Collapse
    1. Joe1776

      Denying the antecedent is the logical fallacy you are falling for.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

      If you have totalitarianism, then there is no rioting. Therefore if there is no rioting there must be totalitarianism. That is illogical.

      Just because totalitarians do away with rioters that does not mean the cities need to burn if we have freedom.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Sonofasailor35

      So, your point appears to be that we must give in and elect the leftist if we want “peace”. No, thanks. Can’t stand Trump on a gut level, won’t vote for him, but certainly won’t vote for Biden. If Biden wins I will live with it the same as I lived with Obama. I will accept him as our president, for whatever that is worth. I expect the same from Biden voters if Trump wins. But not going to hold my breath. If they can’t accept it then they are not accepting democracy. And any violence perpetrated in the name of “resistance” should be dealt with appropriately (which Dem mayors and governors are NOT doing).

      Collapse
      1. Scroop Moth

        You “lived with” Obama because he tried to be a President for all Americans. Trump isn’t the same. It’s unfair to “expect the same from Biden voters if Trump wins.” He is a secessionist, a president of red voters at war with blue voters. Why should Biden voters accept, and not resist, such a president? Why do you expect that without demanding better of President Trump?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Idontdocute

          And, Mr Trump made it legal last month in Alaska federal preserves to kill wolf pups and bear cubs hibernating in their dens after baiting out the mother. If we are going to put up with bad politicians, could we at least have one that doesn’t support shooting puppies during the election?

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Mudskipper

        Let's see. A Google search of "Chicago looters arrested" brings up a number of recent stories about looters being arrested--as many as 100 arrested just 3 weeks ago. A search of "Minneapolis looters arrested" brings up stories of 132 looters being arrested 2 days ago. I I suspect I'd see similar results if I googled other cities. This idea that democratic mayors are simply letting people get away with violence and looting is wrong.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    BrettH

    Nice piece Rachael, thanks. I really hope I’m wrong, but I can’t see how this election is not going to be a nightmare with plenty of violence and rioting breaking out in cities across the country regardless of the outcome. The lid is about to completely blow off the national pressure cooker and there’s plenty of blame to go around.

    Unless Trump wins he’s going to claim the election was rigged and who knows what depths of conspiratorial crazy the well armed right wingers will engage in. If he does win, the left is going to cathartically set fire to the very cities they call home and the likelihood of more Kyle Rittenhouse scenarios is all but assured as both sides increasingly itch for an all out donnybrook.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Vlad M.

    A party who cannot find himself to 1. condemn violence 2. arrest looters 3. denounce the obvious racism of Black Lives Matter is no party to support. Trump is an individual of low character, the GOP has been broken by Trump's ascension to the presidency, but the Democrat Party is really flirting with racist violence.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Nonsense. They are not killing white people. White people are killing black people. It is the left calling that out.

      Collapse
      1. Stan Jefferson

        Cannon Hinnant and Captain Dorn.to name a couple.

        Collapse
      2. Stan Jefferson

        With the silence from BLM leadership on all the looting and violence it feels to me that they view this as a form of reparations.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      1. Democrats, including Biden, have condemned violence 2) Democratic cities have been arresting looters--just google "looters arrested" 3) Whether or not BLM is racist or not depends whether you are talking about a general movement based on the slogan, the specific group that claims to be the BLM group, and your own personal opinion.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        cheerio

        Tell me about the white men found hanging from trees and lamp posts.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Victor Clairmont

          As an Fyi, of recorded lynchings, 72.7% were black and 27.3 were white. Typically whites were lynch trying to help blacks, except when you went out west some were lynched as just a way to kill people. Looking at around 6000.

          https://www.naacp.org/history-of-lynchings/

          Remember, recorded lynchings. There were sure to be more unrecorded.

          Collapse
        2. Stan Jefferson

          Does it make you feel better that people are being assaulted and killed for supporting President Trump?

          Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    I know this is a little off topic but.....

    Is there any chance The Dispatch, particularly David French, could in the future talk about the very strong push of the fringe republican's to use the state to hammer back power?

    Remember that guy, Sohrab Ahmari? Went after French and debated him ungraciously?

    The guy literally just called on the republicans in Spectator magazine to use the power of the state to destroy the power balance the left holds in media and other things...

    ....Pretty sure Sohrab is a theocrat from what he's written in the past. Anyone else see this or am I crazy? Would like this nipped in the bud. I quote (he's quoting another guy but he is endorsing the position):

    "...that conservatives ‘have no alternative but to use the state for the furtherance of their ends’..."

    https://spectator.us/right-after-trump-woke-conservatives-2024/

    Am I crazy here or is Sohrab crazy?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John Bowling

      If The Dispatch is going to take aim at post-liberalism, can it please do so by choosing someone other than Ahmari as it's punching bag? I'm not very familiar with Ahmari and I haven't kept up with the post-liberal movement since the French-Ahmari wars were at their height, but it seems to me that someone like Patrick Deneen is a more worthy sparing partner than Ahmari.

      First, there is the fact that Ahmari seems like a weaker target in that he is more a popularizer than a formulator (though I say this tentatively since I'm really not familiar with him--having read no more than four, and probably fewer than that, of his articles). If The Dispatch wants to direct its guns at the foundations of the post-liberal movement and not on the quirks of Ahmari's specific spin, such that other post-liberals could say "Sure, Ahmari is wrong here or states it poorly, but so what?", then it should not waste time with low-hanging fruit.

      Second, there is the fact that a lot of personal animus seems to exist between classical liberal conservatives and Sohrab Ahmari, such that I think it will be hard for The Dispatch, or French in particular, to see what parts of Ahmari's arguments are chaff and which are more substantive and worth wrestling against.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        John Bowling

        Having said that and having read Sohrab's article that you link to (one of the four or so that I've ever read from him), let me suggest that the point you highlight in the following quote may not be as crazy as you think:

        >>The guy literally just called on the republicans in Spectator magazine to use the power of the state to destroy the power balance the left holds in media and other things...<<

        Below I will try to charitably reconstruct part of Ahmari's argument that is relevant to this point. (That which is in quotes is from Ahmari.)

        (1) Principle 1: "[T]he aim of our political community is to secure the 'general welfare' of the whole..."
        (2) Principle 2: "Maximizing the freedom of private economic actors" does not constitute the general welfare of the whole.
        (3) Factual Claim: "[T]he unrestrained action of private firms [are] perversely destroying Americans’ liberties...", such that the general welfare of the whole is not secured.
        (4) Conclusion: The political community should restrain the action of private economic actors.

        Which premise is crazy? Is it the factual claim, both or one of the principles, or all of the premises? While I think one *might* reasonably disagree with any of the premises, none of them strike me as being so obviously wrong that one would have to be crazy to affirm them.

        In fact, the principles strike me as being widely accepted and uncontroversial in political philosophy. Since Rawls' A Theory of Justice is at hand on my desk, atm, literally flipping through the pages (somewhat) randomly I land upon this:

        "The liberties protected by the principle of participation lose much of their value whenever those who have greater private means are permitted to use their advantages to control the course of public debate. For eventually these inequalities will enable those better situated to exercise a larger influence over the development of legislation. In due time they are likely to acquire a preponderant weight in settling social questions, at least in regard to those matters upon which they normally agree, which is to say in regard to those things that support their favored circumstances" (198).

        And:

        "...liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty itself" (214).

        And:

        "...liberty is restricted by a reasonable fear of its exercise" (210).

        Now this last quote is talking about a fear of government action through an unclear legislature and judicial system. But given what Rawls says page 198 and elsewhere, it is obviously just as true that liberty is restricted by a reasonable fear of its exercise in regard to social and economic institutions which are sufficiently powerful as to, say, destroy one's life from doxing and outrage mobs.

        This idea and the idea that government should secure the common good (what Ahmari calls "the general welfare of the whole") are not controversial or crazy. What one may think controversial is the particular items Ahmari wishes to include in the list of common goods... But then that's hardly unique to Ahmari. Rawls's list and his more fundamental idea of the two principles of justice are also controversial.

        Part of Ahmari's argument is also that "there are no neutral institutions, not even the military and state security apparatus." This seems to be a key idea in the post-liberal project, from my limited reading. And I think the post-liberals would disagree that Rawls succeeded in finding two principles of justice that every reasonable person would agree to, were they in the original position--and that are, therefore, neutral. But it was my impression that conservatives generally held this view, though maybe I'm wrong. Furthermore, it's also not an idea that should be very counter-intuitive to, say, a Christian in the Reformed tradition of Cornelius Van Til. Now perhaps that doesn't mean anything to you if you're not a Christian in the Reformed tradition. But David French is.

        And while my claim is not that Van Til's no-neutrality thesis is expressed in what Ahmari says, I do think there's a plausible way to move from one to the other (or something very much like it). Also, I'm not saying every Reformed Christian is a fan of Van Til. But I don't think he would be or should be treated as crazy, and a voice which should be squashed, in regards to his no-neutrality thesis.

        Any way, I've digressed a bit here and lost my train of thought. I think this says enough of what I wanted to say though and probably more than needed to be said. I feel that many pundits--from Jonah Goldberg to David French to Charles Cooke--have not treated post-liberalism with the serious consideration it deserves and have wasted too much time propping up Ahmari as Post-Liberal Pope they need to spar with. Many of the blows they land seem irrelevant to the more significant claims of the movement and are also colored by the character of Ahmari.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          "The political community should restrain the action of private economic actors."

          All living humans are, "private economic actors".

          And to be sure, given the goals of the PLs, the "restraint" they speak of must necessarily be *comprehensive* lest it not have their desired effect of restoring America to a society wherein biblical commandments are a force in the lives of most Americans.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            John Bowling

            But all humans are not just private economic actors--that's the point.

            You then go on to insist that PLs must hold to a position which, from what I've read, they don't hold to. Further, even if it happens to be the case that all PLs are Christians, I've not seen anything in their argument that requires PL to be Christian.

            Maybe I missed it, but where does Deneen's argument in Why Liberalism Failed rest upon a premise that only a Christian could agree to?

            Maybe this explains the source of your animus though: you're convinced Deneen and Ahmari want to establish a Christian theocracy and so you're committed to exposing PL as a scary fascism prior to finding out whether this is in fact so.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        I'm fine with this.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Mabus

      I just read the specific article you linked to and I believe Sohrab has tipped his hand: he is a Dominionist. One of the key phrases of Dominionism/Christian Reconstructionism is "there is no neutrality". Sohrab name-drops this near the end of the article.

      So I retract something I said. He knows exactly what he is doing. He wants a theocratic state.

      He may be correct that we cannot rebuild the neutral engines of society, but that is a tragic loss, not a desirable outcome.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        John Bowling

        I may be wrong, but I thought Dominionism/Reconstructionism was a school of thought whose ideas tied very closely to a particular theological camp within Reformed theology (Greg Bahnsen, the son of National Review's David Bahnsen, was a thought leader).

        Maybe it's fair to say that Ahmari is a theocrat, which is a broader umbrella of which Dominionism/Reconstructionism is a type? I don't know enough about Ahmari, and it's been so long since I've ready anything by Dominionists/Reconstructionists like Greg Bahnsen or Gary North that I may not have the details right.

        Any way, the more important point here is that all of the "theocrats" I know of (like Greg Bahnsen) are not as scary as people often assume and the term functions more as a "boo-word" than one with intellectual content. Greg Bahnsen, for instance, believed in undertaking the theocratic project in the same way that pro-lifers undertake the pro-life project. He accepted working through the democratic process and with the tools of rational persuasion, as well as the fact that this would never come about sans a widespread conversion of a nation. Though one might try to argue that theocracy and democracy are incompatible and that therefore no theocrat could count as a democrat, I'm not sure that's true.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Mabus

          I would like to think you are right. But I also read, repeatedly, in Gary North's work that a) it was valid and appropriate to lie in service of God's work and b) that the church should ignore the poor and downtrodden to build power among the rich.

          I agree with you that in the late 90s when I was studying them, the Dominionists were solely associated with Calvinism. They were not afraid to make allies, however...or dupes.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            John Bowling

            I don't think you're being accurate about Gary North. For one thing, Gary North was the most extreme representative of theocracy. So even if Gary did have this view, it wouldn't be fair to characterize others, like Bahnsen, with this caricature.

            There is obviously nothing in the central theses of theocracy, as Bahnsen lays them out, which support lying or ignoring the poor.

            In fact, the idea of "ignoring the poor" seems like an uncharitable caricature that could only be supported on the same poorly thought out basis that it is thrown at conservatives generally. The idea among conservatives generally is not about ignoring the poor, but that broadly speaking it is not within the sphere of government authority and would not be the best means of helping the poor anyway. I think the Dominionists tended to agree with this.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        So I was right to say theocrat. Haven't heard Dominionism in awhile. That's some really fringed christian thought that needs to be booted when it comes to people trying to get into the government.

        Will be happy to see republicans not jump on this bandwagon. Pretty sure most don't, but I would rather people not entertain his solution. Anyone can name the problems, but the solutions we advocate for is what makes the ideology.

        Thanks for pointing that out. Last time I ran into any Dominionist was when I was a kid in Texas.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Mabus

          Dominionists are mostly rich Calvinists, and they focus their efforts on rich businessmen and lobbying Congress. Gary North wrote extensively about how recruiting the poor was a waste of time. They seem to have modified that principle a bit, but if you don't hear about them there's a good reason. They're not really silent.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Mudskipper

            I think Sohrab is in some respect a fellow-traveler with Dominionists, but not one himself. The reason I say this is that he seem to be coming from a Catholic tradition, and there is more emphasis on serving the needs of poor and working class. The Dominionists wanted to create a society based on the Old Testament laws (Gary North, I believe, even wrote a defense of slavery in this new biblically based society.) I don't think that's Sohrab's aim at all: he wants to create a society based on Catholic teachings.

            Collapse
        2. P Satter

          https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/790192972/washington-legislator-matt-shea-accused-of-domestic-terrorism-report-finds

          There's a little bit of this in eastern Washington state.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            John Bowling

            This has nothing to do with theocrats like Greg Bahnsen--and even Bahnsen's version of theocracy is (and I think always was) fringe.

            If we want to give Matt Shea the label of "theocrat" that's fine. But also applying that label to Bahnsen and thinking that Shea's radicalism can be imputed to anyone else with that label or that it is entailed by it would be a gross form of caricature and fearmongering.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            Hmmm....was that a part of Dominionism? Ties to Bundy and such, but is it the same thing even with his created pamphlet "Biblical Basis for War"? Happy to see the guy booted though when his ties were known. Less crazies in politics please.

            Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          Mabus

          It's worse than you realize. The DeVos family, almost certainly including Betsy, is a major Dominionist funder and group of supporters.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            Oh? So even if DeVos is repealing some of the crazy Title IX from Obama, she has Dominionist ties? Not that we haven't had crazy religious people in government before, but I'd prefer them not to be there, unless they completely keep their own personal theological views away from government work. Of course, that's another story.

            Anything you could link me? Curious about it now.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Mabus

      Sohrab is not crazy. He is nonetheless wrong. I'm doubtful that there *is* a right answer to the problems we face.

      Sohrab is right that the values underlying liberal democracy are eroding fast. He is right that the Democratic majority of the population has sided with this erosion. "Progressivism" would be a disastrous threat to our liberties...if it were in power.

      But Sohrab's proposed counter is itself a threat, as we see from the man in the Oval Office. 2016 was in fact a Flight 93 election, but the man who seized the control yoke is barreling us into the ground as fast as any terrorist--whether through intent or incompetence doesn't matter. No one has any reason to trust our vision of the "common good" because of the people we put in charge of articulating it.

      I'm voting for Biden, but I honestly don't believe he's much of a hope. I suspect he will either fail to turn the country in time, but if he succeeds it will just be straight toward the alternative disaster. We are between fascist Scylla and socialist Charybdis.

      Collapse
      1. Scroop Moth

        fascism and socialism are real. Scylla and Charybdis not so much. Fascism has been a one-way street to catastrophe, but socialism has been implemented in the US, Europe and Pacific nations for a century to one degree or another with positive effects on material welfare.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        Perhaps a zealot is a better word then?

        Not a fan of zealots. Agree his proposal is....a big threat.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Nelson

          Not a Cubs fan?

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Mabus

          I can go with that word.

          Sohrab does not understand that the appetite for power is a critical component of the socialist threat. He wants to replicate it. He is Saruman trying to copy the One Ring. He believes *his* rule will be benevolent.

          I have been called a zealot in my time, but I am a zealot for freedom and small government. Unfortunately, the majority really has rejected that stance and is screaming for some strongman to come rescue them. They have forgotten that in a free country, we rescue ourselves and then each other.

          Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Sohrab is crazy. But the right is perfectly willing to do anything, so don't think they would "never do that". They break laws and rules all the time.

      The Republican party now believes, as does Trump, that cheating is just another way to win. If violent overthrow is what it takes for them to hold power they will do it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Scarlette Tarte

        Also, growing in the conservative tribe, is a sect that believes in "Common Good conservatism". They believe in using the power of the state to "provide for the common good", regardless of what the people vote for, the state should give them what THE LEADERS think they need. Using the state to do so.

        Yep, they are the authoritarians in sheep's clothing. Always have been.

        Collapse
    5. Joe1776

      I agreed with him on the problems with the left, but his solutions were crazy. Basically it was when he said "For decades, conservatism dedicated itself to protecting private actors from state tyranny, failing to notice that private actors, too, can be tyrants....." and everything after that he lost me.

      Conservatives like me want limited government. Fewer taxes and other policies that take power from individuals and give it to Washington. Every time a trump hater complains about trump I say "right that is why I want whatever fool is in government to have very little effect on my life"

      Trump could be the best argument for limited government we ever had. But people like this guy try to say no the answer is to have government control more of the press when we are in power. Ughhhh! I just want government to leave me and my business alone and if a democrat pushes that I will vote for him or her instead of republican.

      If you don't like Twitter, google, facebook or the liberals who run it then don't use their platform. It is really that easy. As long as government is kept limited then even if they take it over it won't effect you much.

      Collapse
    6. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      Sohrab has been obviously radicalized and, like most radicals, justifies his authoritarian impulses on a distorted, poor faith depiction of his enemies.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        I personally wouldn't say, "radical" in this case. He and his movement are responding to long-term trends that can no longer be denied.

        His solution to the problem is both undesirable (I like freedom, personally) and, in practical terms, unattainable (the USA isn't ever going vote for a theocracy).

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kevin Durant?

          Well you like freedom, Iran, and an expansive federal government

          So you don’t actually like freedom

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Scarlette Tarte

            Lol, we love actual freedom. We don't like fake nuremburg flag porn freedom like we saw from the Republican convention this week.

            I swear they had every flag in DC on display. I hear they had to cut the part out where Trump humped the flag again.

            Poor flag. Now part of the #metoo movement.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            🧒🧒🧒🧒

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Kevin Durant?

        Yes Mud. You will love us and care for us and Sohrab is interfering with the love!!

        I can feel your sweet empathetic love deep in my groin!!

        Oh god you want to heal our bodies. Thank you so much. The minority bodies!!! The healthcare precondition bodies!!!!

        We ignored your empathy too much. Please give us your competence and love!!!!

        More empathy!!!!

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Mudskipper

          Nice to know I am still capable of stirring feelings in a young man's groin!

          (I actually have no idea what you're blabbing about.)

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            This is not the direction I ever envisioned or wanted this conversation to go.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Kevin Durant?

            (Sohrab’s theocracy must be stopped. If it isn’t, we will never feel the tender love of your government programs. Sohrab is denying our access!!)

            Collapse
    7. Avatar photo
      Klemens

      Sohrab is crazy.

      Collapse
    8. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      The French/Post-liberal debate is one I personally find very interesting because both side make points that are hard to refute.

      The Post-liberal argument is essentially that freedom and democracy kill Christianity in a systematic and inescapable way. They say--correctly--that the last 100 years of history in the West shows a steep decline in the power Christianity has over the everyday lives of people. They also say--and I can't refute this--that freedom, economic capitalism, liberal democracy etc. are directly tied to this decline. They conclude that Western liberal democracy (not "liberals" e.g. Democrats, but "liberal" in the sense of non-totalitarian) has to go if Christianity is going to regain its influence.

      If zoom out from the current politics and see that the nominally "pro religious" party in the USA is lead by a man who is about as anti-Christian as one can possibly imagine a human being to be, you can see that Trump is the final nail in the coffin for Christianity's realistic influence in America. Jerry Fallwell Jr. could not be more indicative of the current state of Christianity in the USA. The fox now runs the chicken coup like Tyson Foods.

      So thus far, Sohrab and the Post-liberals are not crazy. Wrong maybe, but they have an argument.

      Where they completely leave the planet is where they back Trump as their savior to bring forth the totalitarianism they need to revert the USA to a theocracy. They mistakenly imagine Trump's base to be something besides a bunch of people who vote for their immediate, concrete-bound interests.

      In short, if Trump said he wanted to outlaw porn, he'd instantly lose 80% of his voting base overnight. If Trump said that every American must attend church on Sunday even when there's a game on, he'd instantly lose 80% of his voting base. Etc. etc. Trump is not an affirmation of the power of Christianity, he's the sign that it is long gone as a major force in our society--that it's now just the name of a club that worships Trump and everything he does. (And yes I'm generalizing to the Trump-supporting segment of Christianity in the USA, but this is the portion that Ahmari cares about).

      David French, on the other hand, says something that I completely hope can be true: that Western liberal democracy does *not* systematically kill Christianity's influence, and we *can* work to make the two live together. (And for me it doesn't matter if you are a Christian or not, you can substitute a life based on moral values in terms of its necessity to maintain a civil society that allows Western liberal democracy to exist).

      The alternative to "Frenchism" is totalitarianism. So in that context I'm an extreme "pro-Frenchist". The problem, however, is that nobody I have read--including Mr. French--has some up with a comprehensive answer to the Post-liberal's basic charge against Western liberal democracy. I think the solution to this is some revolutionary thinking that nobody has yet written down.

      That said, I am a strong proponent of the "necessity is a Mother" school of social problem solving. The gigantic clash I am outlining here has *not* taken place. If the Post-liberals take over Republican messaging--which they very well could because they are stepping into an intellectual vacuum--their message will instantly incinerate in the daylight of popular sentiment. Americans don't want totalitarianism--none of them do. The ones who love Trump and the Republicans right now don't associate their support with any such thing. (Quite the opposite, Trump stands for "freedom" as it would be defined by a 10-year-old).

      But that collision could blow apart the Republican party--if it hadn't been blown apart already by a bunch of other things.

      So the Post-liberals have some points, and they have a plan, but it won't work...

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Scarlette Tarte

        Yes, freedom and liberal democracy does lead to a decline of the influence of the church in the everyday affairs of people. It was INTENDED to. Our founders were not "christian" in the sense that they wanted the church to have so much influence on the lives of people. Our founders were trying to free us from that kind of "influence'. They saw it as a negative thing. They were "anti-clerical". With good reason. Here is an excerpt from a letter from Adams to Jefferson, talking about the priestly class - " I observe a bill is now depending in parliament for the relief of Anti-Trinitarians. it is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, & one is three; & yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter but this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. we should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition."

        Pray remember that in their era, Thomas Paine wrote "The age of Reason" and "The Rights of Man", two books that are still, to this day, pretty shocking for most Christians to read.

        The founders were mostly very educated men. They knew the corrupting influence of the church, especially when combined with the power of the state. They were not seeking to limit just the role of government in people's lives, but also that of the church. Hence Jefferson's famous quote - "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man". Every form of tyranny includes religious tyranny.

        Anyone getting upset that liberalism leads people away from the influence of the church really needs to take it up with the founding fathers.

        Collapse
        1. Joe1776

          Scarrlette you are expressing a very limited understanding of the founders.

          See my comments to Riot above. Christian and western society has lead to freedom and capitalism and it still thrives in it. Sure freedom means some people will opt out of religion and Christians are ok with that. The problem is non-christians are trying to limit freedoms especially of religious believers and promote socialism. This indoctrination paid for by public funds is the problem for Christians.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Mabus

        Sohrab's argument reveals a fault line within the Christian Right itself.

        In the early American Republic, new and deliberately-disestablished churches carved out a space for themselves by supporting separation of church and state. Many of them constructed decentralized systems of church government that *could* not interfere with the state...which they also anticipated would stay small and decentralized.

        The state did not keep its end of this hypothetical bargain; it grew larger and more powerful. Unfortunately, the decisive break happened right after the Civil War, with the result that some of them took their opposition in a toxic and racist direction. The most anti-statist were also the most decentralized, and it took a very long time for them to mount effective opposition.

        Right now these churches have reached a point of desperation--they genuinely believe in decentralization, democracy, and freedom. It's part of their doctrine and embedded in their structure. But the surrounding society no longer agrees with them about the rights and freedoms a nation should provide. Many of them are taking pointers from their old adversaries in the old centralized state churches from Europe. A few still resist, at least in part, but they see no way forward.

        Trump represents the final explosion. They are giving up on democracy, but they will find that the old state churches fit into dictatorship far better.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          I would agree if you added, "church *leaders*".

          The flocks themselves go home from church and watch soft-core porno Hollywood movies all day with their kids. If you are a typical church leader, you know that your power over the flock is a tiny fraction of what it might have been say 100 years ago--and modern Western democratic capitalism has the sway over them.

          I totally get their desperation though. There's no solution to their problem.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Mabus

            I'm not sure this is the right division to make for this analysis. I look at the leaders and see a bunch of faith-healing hucksters. It's the flock who are desperate.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          John Bowling

          I think we're looking at the wrong level if we think post-liberalism means throwing out democracy. If I remember correctly, Patrick Deneen's project at the end of Why Liberalism Failed looks like something Jonah Goldberg could get in line with: federalism and strengthening civil society.

          Alasdair MacIntyre, who I see as fitting within the post-liberal project but whose analysis is occurring at a level even further abstracted, also warns against "Jacobins" and the attempt to coerce.

          It's my understanding that post-liberalism thinks the problem isn't with democracy per se, but with some other principles, like an assumed neutrality--which is really just a facade--or a hollowed out notion of freedom.

          The strong post-liberal thesis is that these features will inevitably lead to the downfall of liberalism (Deneen). The weaker post-liberal thesis is that these features are inherently unstable and things like small perturbations in the culture, like divergent views of the common good, can make the whole thing begin to topple. (I don't know if anyone holds to this weaker thesis, but it's the one that seems most plausible to me.)

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            If you aren't looking at throwing out democracy, you aren't looking at Post-liberalism, you are looking at something else. They are quite proud of their stance here, and deride *democracy* as the cause of all of our problems.

            I have read a lot of the materials and I would warn anybody to read carefully as they are packed with word games: they will say that freedom is actually slavery, and people are only "free" when they don't have to decide things for themselves, etc. and thus they are for "freedom" bla bla bla. The key is to keep asking yourself, "who decides things?". They don't go into that :-).

            I will always add, however, that their identification of the problems--and how democracy is undermining itself--is hard to refute. Whereas the Post-liberals take the stance that we should just give up on Western liberal democracy, my own stance is, "try harder and figure something out'. That's my bias talking though: give me liberty or give me death.

            Many Chinese people will tell you, "as long as you don't do anything crazy, you are mostly okay" in their totalitarian system. In other words, they are completely acclimated to living their entire life in fear. Westerners are not, and hopefully never will be. The protesters in Hong Kong aren't protesting their being arrested, or even the things they normally do being turned into illegal activity: they are protesting *a life of fear* that comes from knowing the State can simply end your life, your property or your business without any explanation.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Mabus

            I must admit that I'm not terribly familiar with these authors. I'm struggling financially and usually can't manage to buy new books, so im limited to what I can find for free online.

            I know that in my faith tradition, the assumption of state neutrality is a base requirement for democracy to function. I agree that it has become a facade, but that represents an irreparable crisis for democracy unless it can be restored.

            Collapse
      3. Joe1776

        "The Post-liberal argument is essentially that freedom and democracy kill Christianity in a systematic and inescapable way. They say--correctly--that the last 100 years of history in the West shows a steep decline in the power Christianity has over the everyday lives of people. They also say--and I can't refute this--that freedom, economic capitalism, liberal democracy etc. are directly tied to this decline. They conclude that Western liberal democracy (not "liberals" e.g. Democrats, but "liberal" in the sense of non-totalitarian) has to go if Christianity is going to regain its influence."

        This view is so contrary to the evidence it is hard to even begin. Every totalitarian anti-freedom anti-capitalism regime has struck out at Christianity. Sometimes with lasting and damaging effect as is the case in the soviet union. The rise of the view that science will somehow give us moral enlightenment that will replace christian morals has substantially contributed to eugenics and scientific racism the soviet union and pretty much every totalitarian abomination of the past 100 years.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          JohnF

          I think that the reason that many totalitarian regimes have tried to suppress Christianity has far less to do with the religion and far more to do with a desire to limit the power of the Church. If you are trying to consolidate power in your own hands, the existence of an established strong Church poses a potential competitor. This gives the would be Dictator two options: 1) Compromise and absorb the Church leadership into the new command structure to use the Church to control the people; 2) Suppress or ban the dominant Church(es) to eliminate a strong institution that might be used later to form some sort of opposition.
          As you point out, many past dictators have chosen Option 2. However, others (for example Erdogan, in Turkey) seem to prefer Option 1.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Yes, totalitarian regimes went after Christianity, but the Post-liberals would argue that Western democracy, freedom and capitalism has dealt it an even more damaging blow. The data is pretty clear: Christianity in terms of influence over Americans has drastically diminished over the last 100 years. Our society is realistically very secular today, and Trump's dominion over the "religious party" shows that what is left of Christianity in terms of political influence is clearly in name only.

          I agree that the collapse of American values is a bad long-term trend, and I don't even see how our liberal democracy can survive without it in the long run. But I can't fully refute the trends the Post-liberals are pointing at either.

          Collapse
          1. Joe1776

            Sorry I don't think the data supports that view. It would be good if we had more data but apparently the polls aren't asking this anymore:

            https://news.gallup.com/poll/16381/Church-Attendance-Party-Identification.aspx

            https://www.westernjournal.com/survey-finds-98-americans-support-socialism-reject-bibles-key-teachings/

            Practicing Christians are the ones voting for more rights and capitalism. It is not practicing Christians asking for soclialism and for the government to start policing speech with fact checkers - like the Biden platform.


            Now you might be saying Christians are voting for things (freedom and capitalism) that will ultimately eliminate Christianity. But I don't think that is true. I don't blame capitalism or freedom for the reduction of Christianity. In fact it is the government that is prohibiting the teaching of christian ideas in schools. Call it good or bad but don't claim that is freedom.

            It is the government that is saying we need more money from you to pay for these schools that will bash Christians. (see for example Bidens proposal that tax payers must completely fund state colleges and universities) That is not capitalism.

            School choice is capitalism and freedom. And that would help us maintain christian values. Keeping colleges free from government funding and therefore free from government interference is capitalism and will help Christianity.

            Collapse
      4. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        Hmm.

        Collapse
    9. Avatar photo
      Vlad M.

      I don't agree one bit with Ahmari but don't you find it a bit disturbing that American media is basically a one party state?

      Collapse
      1. DJ

        The mainstream media is by definition the places where most people get their news. For the last several years that place has been Facebook.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          And Fox News et. al., who are part of the "main stream" of American commentary...

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        cheerio

        That is a fallacy. There are many conservative and right wing media outlets. The talk radio genre is dominated by the right wing and is an effective form of brainwash. There are also other outlets like Sinclair, and that channel that spouts Qanon conspiracies, of course Fox, the Blaze, 700 Club channel, Icke, and other various religious type channels, etc. I am so tired of hearing the party of billionaires, coporations and dividend income whine about how powerless they are and victimized by media because sometimes it tells truth to power.

        Collapse
      3. @fakeJohn

        Tucker Carlson gets paid $10 million / year but the media is exclusively the property of The Left. Please.

        Collapse
        1. Stan Jefferson

          Unlike CNN and other biased, left-wing news outlets, Tucker Carlson states that he is an opinion based show and not a news show. CNN would garner a lot of credibility if they were just honest about their bias.

          Collapse
          1. GS

            I don't know about Carlson. But, I used to use your same defense of Hannity. But, over the years, he's disappointed me in his comments and playing of both sides. Semantics on his comments can be debated. But, my one truism is that my true opinion is that I think he plays both sides. My other opinion is that Carlson will probably do the same, eventually.

            “I never claimed to be a journalist,” he told the New York Times in 2016 when asked about his close association and friendship with Trump. But in another interview with the Times last year, he said, “I’m a journalist. But I’m an advocacy journalist, or an opinion journalist.” https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/18/analysis-is-sean-hannity-a-journalist-or-not/ (I'm assuming these quotes are accurate. But to my memory, Hannity has said similarly inconsistent statements before."

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            The rest of Fox News is *extremely* slanted in Trump's favor. They repeated the "Person Man Woman Camera TV" thing exactly zero times after Trump said it to them in their live interview. That the president is this daft is extremely big and alarming news, but also counter to the objectives of the Trump 2020 campaign, so Fox stayed on message. Etc. times a thousand other things.

            And there is simply no analog to Fox News on CNN, who have a slant, but they aren't North Korean TV like Fox is.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          I know they just keep repeating the same BS over and over even when its patently false. The poor right wing are just good hearted, honest folks making due with their homespun programs being dwarfed by the big bad left wing boogie man.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Mudskipper

            Well. homespun programs with bombshell blondes showing a lot of leg.

            Collapse
      4. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        The #1 news channel is Fox News.

        Right-wing radio shows like Rush are top-rated and reach tens of millions of Americans every day.

        Thousands of local TV stations in America are controlled by an overt, unapologetic Trump supporter who forces these stations to run canned pro-Trump messages every week.

        Etc.

        American media is most decidedly not a "one party state", even if the Right Wing Media Complex gets millions and millions of Americans to say it is ("the greatest trick the devil every pulled..." as they say).

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Nelson

          The number one cable channel is Fox, the networks have larger audiences. Left with talk radio failed. The right also dominates in think tanks.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougAz

            That's because some folks like other folks doing the thinking for em...

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Vlad M.

          Sure, man, the vast right-wing conspiracy. No one party state. What's next? Cancel culture is a right-wing myth?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            rlritt

            yes it is.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Ratings and audience numbers are not a "conspiracy". It's rather bizarre to hear millions and millions of people say, "nobody knows about xyz". Fully 45% of America hears only what Fox News wants them to know. 55% hears the other side. That is hardly a, "one party state".

            And cancel culture is alive and well for either political side. One Trump tweet ends careers.

            Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          Murrayprof

          Right on! (Riot on?)

          Collapse
      5. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        The legacy media? Mostly. Alternative media? Conservatives in America win that landscape if I remember the stats correctly. Facebook for example, most shares and liked options are conservative articles.

        https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-crowdtangle-data-top-posts-conservative-outlets-2020-7

        But if the solution to that is Ahmari's use the state to pound it down....Imma not hop on that bandwagon. I actually believe most conservatives (conservatives can correct me if I am wrong I am not in the movement) are not either. But, as we see in many circles, fringe idea's sometimes....take root?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Vlad M.

          What I don't understand is how using the state will actually further conservative aims. What happens when the Left controls the state? Some may say that the state bureaucracy is leftist by its very nature. What then? I am not so sure that this is a good idea.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            John Bowling

            But no post-liberal, to my knowledge, has thought that simply taking control of the state is an immediate or even long term goal.

            Deneen's immediate project (the short term goal) for post-liberalism is the same as Jonah Goldberg's is for classical liberalism in Suicide of the West (IIRC): focus on rebuilding and strengthening civil society.

            And their long term goals aren't naive enough to think that state control without a foundation of a healthy civil society in a democratic framework is sustainable.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Klemens

            Bingo. This is what im shocked the left doesn't get too.

            Collapse
          3. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            Right. This is what David was hitting him on with their debate a few months back.

            What’s the end goal?

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Vlad M.

          Indeed you are right. Sometimes they do take root, unfortunately. I was actually surprised to see Ahmari become such a firebrand. I only knew him from the Commentary podcast and he didn't seem so fiery back then.

          Collapse
Load More