#655 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Tuesday May 9)
“The key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming....(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are "false", but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false.”
-- Neil Postman, Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk: How We Defeat Ourselves by the Way We Talk and What to do About It (1976)
Good morning,
A potpourri on the state of Trump and the Republican party…
Thank you, Adam Torson, for today’s excellent quotation. This is a great explanation regarding “the inability to prove the negative.” It is a common phenomenon that those who propose concepts—often outrageous—will not provide evidence to support their claim but, rather, require the listener to prove that they’re wrong:
“How do you know that we wouldn’t have been better off without a COVID vaccine (or, if one listens to Representative Robert Kennedy, any vaccines)?” We can’t prove what might have happened. In any event, would it have been worth it to test this thesis?
“How do you know that we weren’t visited by extra-terrestrials?” Well, I don’t think I need to prove that. I think it’s incumbent on you to show we have been visited.
“There are examples of imperfections in the voting systems in many states. While reported violations on a significant level never have been proven, you can’t tell me fraud didn’t exist or the election wasn’t stolen.” Obviously, one can never prove the absence of any occurrence. This is why evidence must be produced in court—it’s not enough to just think something “must have” happened.
GOING AFTER TRUMP VERSUS GOING AFTER OTHER SCOFFLAWS
Paul Kanin notes how ridiculous it is that Jim Jordan and others are attempting to shift the narrative regarding the indictment of Donald Trump for paying hush money to improve his electoral chances. Instead of focusing on the facts, Jordan and others attack District Attorney Bragg and ask “why isn’t he going after the REAL criminals?” Paul notes that this is a lot like someone being pulled over for a clear violation of the law and telling the officer, “Why aren’t you going after the ‘real’ criminals, committing far more serious crimes?” The question assumes that reckless driving is ok, even if endangering lives, because there may be other people out there who may have violated “more important” laws. The law still was violated.
WHY DONALD TRUMP MUST BE PROSECUTED
Donald Trump still is the Republican front-runner, by a wide margin and with a favorability rating average of 45.4%. Dana Gordon provides the following litany for why Donald Trump, who remains in the news as the Republican frontrunner, must be prosecuted. It isn’t “persecution,” as he and his acolytes would want us to believe:
“Donald Trump planned an overthrow of the government, conspired to rig and overturn an election.
He is accused of rape.
He paid money to a stripper to keep her mouth shut before an election.
He seemingly and knowingly took top secret documents from the White House and refused to return them, actually wanted to be paid for their return.
He planned for the fake electors and stood by as the Capitol was under attack and the lives of his VP and elected leaders were at stake.
He is being charged for all of these incidents.
He chose to run for president anyway, in order to scare the justice department for holding him accountable.
There wouldn't be indictments if he had acted like a regular person who didn't break the law. He could have forgone running for president and dealt with his legal troubles.
She continues: “The media doesn't stress enough the danger that he is. He states that he will disband the FBI, CIA and Justice Department. He will have a national ban on abortion. He will put all drug dealers to death- quickly. He lies and insults and threatens everyday. He isn't joking.
But, Joe is 4 years older.”
She concludes: “This Republican Party must be defeated so that moderates can come back. We should not have only one party. But in the near future, the party of Trump and the insurrectionists has to be defeated.”
IT’S NOT BINARY TODAY—LET’S HOPE THERE ARE TWO SERIOUS PARTIES IN THE NEAR FUTURE!
Tony Canzoneri longs for a spirited national debate, rather than the pre-occupation with the past election, the Trump circus and Trump’s apologists: who try to defend indefensible behaviors:
“Bravo for continuing to call out the sophistry of the Trump/Maga leaders and silent enablers. The strategy of their dangerously existential threat to our democratic governance, rule of law and truth is to create a binary ‘we/they” battle.
“The outrageous and unabashed attack on our constitutional democratic governance, rule of law and truth must be constantly opposed until we return to a system that has two or more “sides" focused on rational and truthful policy debate.”
“Reasonable minds will always differ and must be heard and respected. Unfortunately, [today’s] Republican Party strategy is to promote cultural issues that divide along dogmatic and emotional lines rather than allowing a focus on real issues that can be addressed using logical factual analysis…The positive force will not tolerate the AR15 mass killings, degradation of women’s rights and the many forms of racial, religious and sexual preference discrimination. And, as history has shown, the people will also not tolerate a system of unfair taxation. There is much complexity to debate on how best to promote the better good through taxation that adequately funds the many functions of government while also promoting innovation and progress. But the current Republican strategy of placing the greed of the wealthiest over the survival of those who depend on Medicare and Social Security will not play well in the political arena.”
Tony closes with the following note: “All of this from one who once registered Independent, voted for some Republicans, such as Ronald Regan, and was proud to call out bad thinking from both sides. Well they have succeeded in making this a zero sum game and we must stop that game until, in the words of Senator John McCain, "we have a return to regular order"…….!”
THE CHALLENGE
I still think that, in the end, the “reasonable” Republicans will come out of the woodwork when it seems “acceptable” to the right to do so. We can only hope for four or fewer candidates for the Republican nomination. In that instance, Trump probably can’t muster a plurality. If it’s a large slate of candidates, the phenomenon from 2016 might occur—where he cobbles together pluralities in earlier “winner take all” states. In that instance, the risk of another Trump presidency—better prepared this time to wield the levers of power aggressively and for his own gain—will be real—and frightening.
Have a good day,
Glenn