Friday, June 30, 2017

Proud of my president

This week we get the US supreme court reinstating most of the travel ban with the rest to be reinstated a few months down the road, the House passing Kate's Law and a bill defunding sanctuary cities, the vice chair of the presidential advisory committee on electoral integrity requesting state-level voter registration data for federal elections going back to 2000, an aesthetically pleasant and thus maddeningly triggering video production from the administration, and Trump reaffirming his commitment to a wall along the southern border (okay, technically that was late last week but we'll take as many eight-day stretches like these as we can get!):

Sure, it's easy to get discouraged. None of these things happen under a president Rubio or ¡Jabe!, let alone the wicked witch, though. Not one.

This is what Trump was talking about when he pledged to take the country back:


Spit that black pill out--the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.


Sid said...

As Scott Adams once hinted at, Trump is getting all of the small stuff wrong and all the big things right.

He's boorish, crude, and vulgar. He gets in unnecessary Twitter battles. He's learning over time how you get things done in Washington, whereas Hillary, Rubio, and Jeb! would've hit the ground running.

And I don't care. He said someone had a facelift! Whoop dee doo, let me go and bask in Kate's Law getting passed, which seemed like a pipedream just two years ago.

Audacious Epigone said...


In being boorish, crude, and vulgar he is also delivering on this. It's why we forgive him (or in my case, genuinely enjoy it).

Issac said...

Sid- You speak to your audience. Trump's election victory was almost entirely ado of blue collar white men who like boorish, crude, and vulgar humor. It would be entirely counter-productive for him to town down the twitter battles on behalf of female white collar academics who find his behavior appalling.

Sid said...

I agree that the way Trump attacks his opponents gets blue collar men (and proles in general) to like him even more. The problem is Trump often goes too far and attacks people when it's counterproductive to do so. (Calling Jeb low energy or Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas was awesome; tweeting about the Mexican judge and the Muslim dad last year cost him big.) A lot of the time I think he's just blowing off steam or energizing himself - who cares what kind of ratings Arnold is getting on The Apprentice?

It's easy to dismiss upper middle class conservatives, white women, and others who either can't support Trump or hate him implacably, but the big strength Obama had was how he could make utterly deranged ideas sound sober and reasonable. The Dems found in 2016 that issues like trannies in the military, BLM getting to torch cities, and wholesale population replacement are harder sells than Obama made it look.

But, it's ultimately better to be too aggressive than too timid. Trump is president and Romney isn't. I personally don't care for Trump's excesses but they're insignificant in the bigger picture.

Audacious Epigone said...

I said the following to my uncle--a high IQ retired lead actuary and professor who voted for Katich in the primaries and reluctantly Trump in the general; so his view is exactly what you'd expect it to be:

"[Trump's tweets] are not bugs, they are features of his appeal.

The cuckservative, useless controlled opposition that has done nothing but lose reliably and respectably on *everything* for decades--they can't even conserve women's restrooms for God's sake--doesn't understand it.

They didn't understand how he won, they don't understand that his social media feed is far larger than the subscription base of the nation's 50 largest newspapers plus the prime time viewership of the 3 major cable news networks combined.

They don't understand why he continues to be pugilistic with the controlled press (even as CNN fires 3 people for especially egregious mendacity, one of whom wrote for USA Today and another who wrote for the NYT--uh, fake news, anyone?).

They're aghast that in the span of a single week we've gotten an aesthetically beautiful/brutal White House congressional picnic video that sent SJWs into conniption fits, Kate's Law passed along with a bill defunding sanctuary cities, a lifting of the injunction on most of the travel ban (the rest to come in a few months), a serious electoral fraud investigation, and another affirmation that a wall along the southern border is coming.

Not a single one of these things happens with a president Rubio or ¡Jabe!, let alone Hillary.

Most of those 'advising' Trump to stop being twitter-in-chief are those who hate him and want him to fail. The balance are those who reluctantly voted for him in the general after voting for anyone else but him during the primaries.

The stupid party has listened to the advice of its enemies for years and predictably has nothing but the social ratchet moving steadily to the left to show for it."

Issac said...

Sid- It's not just easy to dismiss one's political opponents, it's absolutely necessary. Changing your tune to appeal to people with a visceral hatred of your platform is the folly of all political follies. Working proles are his base and those with better angles of gentility who agree with his platform aren't going to defect due to his characteristic brand of vulgarity.

I think you're a bit too steeped in the Buckleyite Conservative mindset here. Obama didn't find success because he distilled horrendous ideas into reasonable talking points. He succeeded because he could speak for a few minutes at a time with minimal coherence while occupying the person of a half-black president, first of his name. The utterly deranged ideas were never hard-sold. They were simply stated and then all opposition was decried as bigotry towards the saintly president or the person of the "marginalized," group in question.

If you haven't noticed the X-factor here, it's one that a president Trump can never posses. He's a white man and the actually marginal groups he represents, various working class people and white male professionals, will receive the polar opposite treatment from the media and political advocates as those Obama was championing. No matter how eloquently Trump stated it, he could absolutely never come out and explain why white workers in America are systemically disadvantaged (affirmative action, hiring quotas, rampant diversity initiatives, work visa abuse, other ethnic groups being permitted to run obvious ethnic nepotism schemes in various industries). It simply wouldn't sell to anyone who wasn't already buying.

So ultimately, you can review the tone of his public persona, but you can only do so through the lens of his base. That's all he's got and that's all he's ever going to have. Men in your country will either learn to appreciate being abrupt and offensive or they'll learn to check their privilege. The middle never holds.

Sid said...


I mostly agree with your points. I think that his use of Twitter has been, while rough around the edges, indisputably groundbreaking and masterful overall.

The caveat I have, though, is that your uncle (like my dad) can only support Trump reluctantly. In fact, my dad said to me during the election campaign, "I try to get used to him, but everyone two weeks he says something that makes me cringe!"

Trump on Twitter is 80% successful, but he often gets in small, meaningless quarrels that honestly diminish his stature, and he sometimes makes abrasive comments which make utterly despise him when they would've have just merely disliked him.


I agree that Trump's more controversial comments will never sink him with his base. That said, I still think he could disarm his opposition if he could present his arguments just as strongly but not as crudely.

Obama was able to get people to tune out what he was saying and enjoy the rhythm and cadence. By the end of his presidency, he was able to encourage BLM to burn down cities and denounce murdered cops at their funeral in a calm, dignified, stately manner. Hence, we saw the unusual phenomenon where he left office with high approval ratings while being replaced with his political opposite.

I also disagree with you when you say Trump couldn't sell anyone on his political philosophy unless they were already buying. Today, it's respectable to say you dislike Trump but acknowledge we ignored and neglected the white working class, and think we ought to do more to help them. Three or four years ago, you could only express sympathy for gays, NAMs, and white college educated professional women. Trump has shifted the Overton Window.

"Men in your country will either learn to appreciate being abrupt and offensive or they'll learn to check their privilege. The middle never holds."

What leftists want you to do is to either submit to them or crudely react to them. They either have you in their grasp, or better still, they now have "angry white men" they can witch hunt, enjoying every minute while they tear the meat off your bones. The way you beat them is being smarter than them, expose them for the frauds they are, and reach out to more people than they can scare.

If you can't tell, I don't want any compromise with the left. If people think that white men in America deserve to have their country taken away from them and condemned to everlasting humiliation and penury, then no, I don't want to meet them half way. I want them to keep on losing every election, every time, until they either change or seethe in their own irrelevance.

That said, there are still many conservatives who aren't full on board with the program, and there are people in the middle and a certain amount of Bernie Bros who are slowly making their way to our line of thinking. Trump has reached out to them better than anyone else has yet, but there are times I wish he'd make it easier for them to wake up.

Audacious Epigone said...


Exactly. It's like the New York Times with immigration--Republicans are finished if they don't drop the immigration restriction rhetoric and champion comprehensive immigration reform! So Republicans, do this, because we really, really have your best interests at heart, we swear--Carlos Slim himself swears it!


Now that he is president there's a case to be made that he shouldn't be punching down and hitting individual media figures, especially relatively minor ones like this facelift lady. It doesn't bother me in the least, but that's just personal preference. However, the bully pulpit is effective and it's all Trump has besides his loyal support base. The Cathedral doesn't want him to use it because they know it's a powerful weapon but also just about his only weapon.

Issac said...

Sid- I agree that Trump isn't immune from angering his own base, but I disagree that inflammatory comments about liberal media figures will do anything to anger them.

I'm not sure actually Obama had the rhetorical gifts you're suggesting. His approval ratings came from the same places that suggested Trump had a negligible chance of winning his primary race and the subsequent election. The left is perpetually inflating it's own image. Were the right as astute, they would have Fox toasting the latest fastball from the President's twitter feed.

I'd also take issue with your statement that is acceptable to consider the white working class. I have read articles to that effect when they appear, but they're so heavily couched and caveated that only the most unassailable liberals even attempt it. And those who do, by the way, have been on the receiving end of a lot of flak. Trump did move the Overton Window, but he merely stretched it to the right. The left's idea of acceptable discourse hasn't change. Hence all the histrionics from the media liberals.

What leftists want is for white men to accept their position at the bottom of the progressive stack. Crude reactions can be spun in their favor, but acquiescence from the conservative (center) has never slowed their advance either. I can tell you're quite young if you believe "angry white men," is a new concept. That was something they trotted out decades ago and it's been a perennial tool to reprimand the right whenever it thought about trying to push the Overton Window it's own way.

What Bernie Bros and Neocons think is absolutely immaterial to the right. Bernie voters were mostly concerned about equality, so the overwhelming majority of them are absolutely never going to get on board with anything the right is selling. Tailoring one's rhetoric to grab effeminate men who like the idea of a universal basic income is not worth alienating the reproductive fit men who make up the core of the right. Similarly, neocons who dislike Trump are never going to be your allies either. They're against you body and soul. The former will have no children and the latter you should deport to Israel. We'll let them be the little patriots they've always wanted to be in the IDF.

Issac said...

AE- Yes. The left reliably telegraphs the ways in which they'd like to see the right harm itself. What's befuddling is how anyone could look at those who take their advice, national review for example, and think that it was anything but poison. Alienating a dozen neocon talking heads and minority-loving bernouts won Trump previously unthinkable votes in the rust belt. They desperately want him to walk back his rhetoric precisely because it works.

Audacious Epigone said...


Obama had an extraordinary ability to deliver prepared remarks. He is a painfully poor extemporaneous speaker--far worse than Trump, who is actually pretty good at it. Watch Obama in the presidential debates with Romney or McCain. It's "uh", "um", "uh" every other sentence. There are videos about it.

Re: "angry white men", I remember the Simpsons with a Rush Limbaugh type character showing as much in the mid-nineties, two decades ago. I wasn't politically or culturally aware then but I can see it now.

Feryl said...

"I can tell you're quite young if you believe "angry white men," is a new concept. "

By the mid 90's, middle-aged white men were (for good reason) fed up with high immigration levels, press1 for English, affirmative action, the gutting of various kinds of communal support (destroyed unions, declining and feminized churches, yuppies and diversity destroying workplace morale, etc.). Even in the 90's, people had a low opinion of the decade, so it wasn't just white guys who were frustrated. Lord knows that at the time and since, workplace massacres have been committed by all races.

Thing is, it was white guys who could accurately say that their declining status was due to unfair HR/government practices, and the overall culture berating them and expecting them to stoically accept whatever was thrown at them. But at that time, there wasn't a clear/concise liberal agenda in place (remember the battle of Seattle? When liberals threw a tantrum over globalism?), with some old-school Leftists still critiquing how economic elites took advantage of everyone, white males included. Most Millennials don't have a clue that in the 80's and 90's, it was actually the Left that opposed arrogant globalism with much of the new Right being comfortable with imposing McDonalds on the world.

Issac said...

I don't think the old left's tantrums at that time were much more than the occupy bluster we've seen in more recent times. The leadership of the left was always Machiavellian. Their total embrace of neoliberalism was inevitable, so I don't fault Millenials for missing out on that potential nostalgia. The true enemies of the neoliberal order were always the traditionalists in the old right and their last standard bearer was Pat Buchanan. The neocons were forced into a rather obvious and ham-fisted coup due to the potential for his success ruining the establishment shell game.