Trump supporters don’t care what Matthew Continetti has to say. He’s part of the problem. Married to William Kristol’s daughter, mentored by Rich “Starbursts” Lowry, his contempt is probably welcome. It’s troubling to have to admit that someone like Continetti, who so clearly comes from the Always Wrong Caucus founded by his father-in-law, is actually dead right about something, but he’s written a great autopsy of the Republican Party which can also serve as an application for 2016’s Darwin Award.
Ordinarily, I’d see his piece on the Self-Immolation of the Republican Party as little more than a neoconservative salvage operation, except that virtually every word of it rings true. He’s especially right when he predicts that Trump-supporting Republicans won’t accept any blame for the result in November:
And when we are in late October, and Trump is still behind, his supporters will dismiss the polls as skewed, as phony. And when Trump loses, his cheerleaders in talk radio and on the Internet won’t accept a smidgen of responsibility, but will blame the neocons and the media and the Republican establishment for not doing more to help a lunatic become president.
It’s a joke. All of it: his candidacy, the apparatus of propaganda and grift surrounding it, the failures of governance and education and culture that have brought us to this place. What disturbs me most is the prospect that Donald Trump is what a very large number of Republican voters want: not a wonk, not an orator, not a statesman, not even a leader, really, if by leader you mean someone who persuades and inspires and manages a team to pursue a common good. They just want a man who vents their anger at targets above and below their status.
Of course, I could have written the exact same words to describe the Republicans’ reaction to Mitt Romney’s loss or to describe the national disgrace represented by mainstream support for George W. Bush. After all, Dick Morris and Karl Rove gave us the skewed polls argument in 2012, and Dubya was no wonk or orator or statesman or leader of any project for the common good.
Of course, George W. Bush is currently in the news because he’s coming out of the woodwork to campaign for several vulnerable Republican senators, including neoconservative champions John McCain of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. There is a neoconservative salvage operation underway, it’s just a bit like trying to patch the Titanic with a box of band-aids.
Continetti blames “failures of governance and education and culture” for bringing us to this place, when he would be better off looking at a family portrait. We have to go back to Warren Harding to find a comparable example of failed governance to the latter Bush administration, and the GOP turned into a grift machine under the watchful eye of the Bush family. As for education, has anyone treated it as more of a business opportunity than Jeb Bush? There’s a cultural rot here, but there are actual people to blame for it, and it’s not the recipients of catapulted propaganda.
So, we’ll keep seeing these “what have we wrought” pieces from the remnants of the old Bush coalition, but there’s never enough “we” in them for my tastes. So, when Continetti says the following about Trumpistas, I feel like he should be writing it about himself as he watches his movement circle the drain:
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity. It’s what one expects of teenagers, artists, bloggers, pajama boys—immature, peevish, radical, self-destructive behavior.
We got to this place. People like Continetti led us here.
Now he’s looking around, saying “This is not my beautiful house! This is not my beautiful wife!”
Yup. They had no problem with every particular of the Trump style when it could plausibly be run for establishment candidates.
Trump is nuts, but the fact is, Ryan, McConnell, Cruz, Christie, etc. are all just as loathsome, and their so-called plans for America just as, if not more horrifying in their particulars. The only difference is Trump erases the last tawdry vestiges of establishment “respectability,” which is entirely a matter of using the right code words for how you want to punish and disenfranchise the poor and minorities, destroy the environment, and give away, right now and without delay, every dime, nickel and penny of natural and social value to the socio-pathic corporations and evil-“genius” billionaires who own this shit-show.
I keep expecting to wake up and discover he is dropping out for one reason or another. It’s like watching a train wreck, slo-mo. Don’t remember Goldwater campaign as being this redonkulous.
The really key issue for all of them, if things remain on this course is HOW they lose.
It’s absolutely true that if Trump loses or even pulls out or is not nominated, he’s going to unleash a flood of really crazy stuff about how the GOP screwed him, and they’re crooked, and their losers, how they wanted him to lose.
It’s already starting, Trump’s already telling them to support him or shut up (or else). Truly the most epic political meltdown of my lifetime. If you are a GOP Leader how do you want to lose this thing?
It’s worse than Watergate, which was really just about man, Nixon.
This thing is cutting half of the base away from the party. It’s as if the people that they captured from the Dems with the Southern Strategy are voting for secession (again).
The fact that they have selected Trump is really just a way for the base to say that they hate their political party. That can’t vote D, so instead they are choosing to burn the house down.
LMAO It’s just the mirror of what’s happening in the Democratic Party, except Democrats are more “we” oriented than “me” oriented so they are willing to throw their economic well-being under the bus “for the team”.
I am willing to undermine my economic well being for the sake of others. I’m proud of that. It’s not what’s happening this time, though.
I’m sure the 1% appreciate that.
“It’s just the mirror of what’s happening in the Democratic Party”
No it’s not. The state of the 2 parties is nowhere near comparable. Democrats are sort of united, about as much as always. And Bernie has helped drag HRC to the left, and he will continue to do that. Bernie in the end will help the overall effort.
Trump, not even at all. At this point his whole operation feels like he’s just trying to make sure that when the boat sinks someone else gets the blame. Notable GOP leaders are writing scathing things about their nominee – Cheeto Jesus – it is unprecedentedly bad. Meanwhile the Republican voter base is rubbing mud in its hair and dancing around naked like right out of The Lord of the Flies.
Both sides are bad is stupid and wrong. It’s a David Brooks talking point, which should tell you away that it’s wrong. It’s the perpetual chant of the villagers to try maintain the illusion of “even-handedness”. Don’t be a sucker and enable them, OK?
You can see the speck in your brother’s eye, but not the rock in your own.
Yes, because Hitlery Clinton has an army of right-wing authoritarians who show up at her rallies and beat the shit out of people they don’t consider members of their tribe.
Also, have you listened to all of those clips and seen all the videos of Hitlery talking about “Others” and how she could “shoot someone and not lose any voters”.
Oh, yes. Totally two sides of the same coin. Absolutely.
#Trump/Arpaio 2016: Because Hillary is just too dangerous.
This has to be true, because Hitlery Clinton.
Trump is the 5 Stages of Grief, personified.
The first stage, denial, was what we saw in 2012. The Republican base wanted anyone but Rmoney, but went with Rmoney because he was almost kinda electable.
Now, though, the base is in the Anger and Bargaining stages. Anger with the Republican donor class/establishment for never giving them what they’ve been promised (destruction of libruuls, and economic inclusion with the donor class). Bargaining that Trump, someone who isn’t a typical Republican donor/establishment figure can either give them what they want, or at least burn everything to the ground if not.
Depression will set in when Trump either fails to be the nominee, loses the General election, or is stopped from enacting his policies by a House and Senate that have enough non-lunatics to block his policies.
Acceptance, for the less-insane Republican base may or may not occur by 2020. It depends on how bad Trump loses, and how well the Republican grifter sub-type can spin 2016.
It worked better for them in ’68 when that 3rd party guy could scoop up all the bigots. Of course outside of the south, he was taking more of them away from Democrats than Republicans.
Pew Research – Cable News: Fact Sheet
Interesting chart on “Average prime-time viewership (CNN, Fox, MSNBC).” When viewership gets above 3.5 million it is correlated with Democratic electoral gains and below 3.5 million Republicans win.
So who is it that are being brainwashed by Fox News?
They don’t break it down by station, but it could mean that when viewership increases it’s more liberals tuning into CNN and MSNBC. Sort of tracks with presidential elections when they would be more interested and engaged.
Continetti writes:
Well…yeah. Of course they will. If (also of course) the Ratpub tanking that is being ballyhooed by the media actually occurs. Believe it or not, the jury is still out on that occurrence, and will remain so through two very contentious (inside and outside the convention venue) conventions and what promises to be a nasty, nasty campaign.
And as wrong as the Trumpsters are and will have been about many, many things, they will be absolutely correct about this one. If the roughly 90+% of the mainstream media continue to hammer away at the level they are now hammering at Trump’s faults while not equally and even-handedly hammering away at HRC’s faults, then the PermaGov fix will have succeeded.
The only valid question that remains…besides the eventual outcome of the election…is this:
Should it succeed?
This is knotty problem.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that HRC is now the overwhelmingly favored candidate of the Permanent Government and the .01 percenters/corporate interests that own it. The question is, do we want to continue the neoliberal, multinational corporate economic imperialist model on which this country has been running since at least Clinton I if not all the way back to Eisenhower, or do we want to jump off the cliff with Trump & Co. and hope the shock shakes things up but doesn’t kill us and quite possibly everyone else on the planet? there really ought to be a viable third choice, but it looks fairly sure that there will not be one. Not this time, anyway.
So it goes. Caught between Scylla and Charybdis, what did Odysseus do? he tried to mediate his ship through the Straits of Messina bey0tween the two monsters and lost his ship, his entire crew and nearly his own life. Many of those on the so-called “left”…and those on the right as well who have come to similar conclusions about the unsuitability of the PermaGov model as it now stands… are now trying Odysseus’s gambit…thread the needle and hope to survive. This didn’t work for him and his crew and it’s not going to work for you and your crew either. You will be completely subsumed by a Clinton II juggernaut if she wins and quite possibly totally destroyed by a Trump win and probably subsequent…no matter how well camouflaged…attempt at dictatorship.
Just sayin’…when in doubt, go to the wisest of our elders.
Like the I Ching.
Here is what it says about evil. (Emphasis mine.):
Think on it.
Does this resemble what y’all are doing? I don’t think so. The intelligent among you know damned well that the corporate interests that are represented by HRC are totally responsible for the foreign policy/military mistakes that have led to much of the disintegration of Western European and U.S. societies that e are presently witnessing…right on up to and including the Trump candidacy, which is merely a reaction to bipartisan centrist failure.
Speak out, fer chrissakes!!! You know better!!!
Please.
Your absence from the pro-HRC camp will not harm her candidacy, but your opposition to it will inform the future. Bet on it.
Please!!!
Later…
AG
I don’t care whether you are right or wrong about HRC.
But these people who go about how Hillary is as bad as a Trump or a Bush are just howling at the moon.
Even if you think Hillary is evil (I don’t), when faced with a situation where she is running against a more evil person, you need to vote for the merely evil one. Because not doing so is like voting FOR the more evil one.
By all means, campaign for a better democrat party or for Bernie, or better world, or whatever. But once the cards are played, don’t pretend that withdrawing and letting someone like Trump or W win is smart. It’s not smart. It is stupid.
Apparently, bt, you have refused to drink the Kool-Aid.
Do you think that morality is “Kool-Aid,” Mike?
If so…check out your own drinking habits.
AG
And who gets to be the final arbiter on the absolute definition of morality?
The only honest answer is each of us in our own coming to face the reality we currently face.
AG has his, you have yours and I have mine.
We have to live with the decisions we make while facing this reality, all the campaign propagandists and trolls not withstanding.
What clif said.
AG
What clif said below.
AG
You write:
More two dimensional thinking in a four dimensional world.
Let me ask you something, bt1138. How do you define “evil?” Osama bin laden…who quite obviously waged war against the U.S…once asked the following questions.
Given that Great Britain, Germany, the U.S. and other now-NATO powers essentially began interfering in Middle Eastern politics on all levels as soon as it was apparent that vast oil reserves were available there in the early 1900s, who started the problems that are now facing us from Middle Eastern enemies? Did the Middle Eastern states invade Europe at that time? Hell no!!! They were invaded.
One way or another.
Conquered.
OK.
Now on to the next question.
Do you believe that it is “evil” to fight back w/violence when attacked violently? Many people do…Gandhi, MLK Jr. and the whole pacifist/non-violent movement. If you do, then you condemn violence on any level, offensively or defensively. Thus you cannot in any moral universe vote for HRC on the evidence of her many votes and subsequent actions as Sec. State, because she has the blood of hundreds of thousands from both sides on her hands…the very definition of “evil” as far as I am concerned.
And if you do not condemn violence in self-defense, then once again you cannot vote for HRC for the same reasons…her support of war after war after war, all of which were not pursued for any rational “self-defense” reasons other than monetary profit.
Regarding Trump…who talks a lot of smack, I will agree…there is no evidence whatsoever in place that he has knowingly caused the death of even one person for any reasons. On this level, if you are going to vote for “the lesser evil,” Trump must be your guy.
I don’t buy the “lesser evil” routine, bt1138. Not a bit of it. If it was possible to ask an impartial observer…someone from a far-away planet who believed in a certain sort of morality that is generally recoginizable to us but had little knowledge of the ins and outs of domestic and international politics over the last hundred years or so…”On the basis of Trump’s and HRC’s last 30+ years of history, which one is the most “evil?” it would be HRC, hands down.
On the evidence.
If however you will admit that you want to vote for HRC rather than Trump because in your opinion she would do a better job than would he of making your life and the lives of other U.S. residents better no matter how many non-U.S. lives she made worse or dispensed with entirely? Then your vote would be quite understandable. Unless of course you factor in the ongoing proliferation of enemies that such actions cause,and the now-as-good-as-proven fact that individual terrorism is a very, very potent weapon against so-called “developed” countries.
But please…don’t give me that “lesser of two evils” crap. HRC has proven her alliance with death and destruction across the globe.
Trump? He just talks a lot of shit.
I don’t want to live under either of them, myself, but what do I know?
I’ll tell you what I do know……there is not a chance in hell that I would give either them my vote.
Ever.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
AG dig a little deeper and you will see the middle east as a proxy in the fight between the British Empire and Russian Empire IE; the “Great Game”.
After the defeat of France at Waterloo, the British saw Russia as the only credible threat to their Pax-Britannia, and set about forming a foreign policy dedicated to stopping the Russia bear from toppling them from their vaulted position they held at that time. The exact same thing we did post WW2 vis a vis the USSR
This was fought through out the 19th century, with the British gaining control of modern day India and Pakistan, and both Britain and Russia fighting for control of Afghanistan but losing. The Russian Empire has made substantial gains in the Caucasus, basically all the newly created former soviet states north of Afghanistan.
The British and French gained “control” in the middle east with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. To the victors go the spoils. Russia lost bout on this due to their revolution and subsequent dropping out of the Allied powers efforts against the Central Powers.
The people of the middle east have faced this assault for centuries.
Post WW2 you can replace British Empire with USA and Russian Empire with USSR and the “Great Game” continued in a cold war disguise.
The reason Osama Bin Laden centered on Afghanistan was first the ability to defeat one of the great powers in the 20th century version of the “Great Game”, and his efforts after 1990 were to entice the second into battle with him. It worked, but he didn’t understand our unconventional war abilities, which were his and most jihadist’s undoing, as ISIL is currently finding out in Fallujah the last few weeks.
In fact the current poking Putin is a return to the Great Game by the neo-cons, though more astute strategists think China not Russia is a greater threat to the control of the planet from a Anglo-American perspective hence Obama’s transition toward the Pacific from the middle east from a strategic military perspective, and Obama’s attempt to ring China in with TPP and military alliances.
Once you know this Hillary’s stance makes sense for the powers that be in the USA, Trumps does not. He is far too unstable/unpredictable and seemingly uncontrollable for them in this struggle for world hegemony. Even Putin probably would prefer to face Hillary as opposed to trump because Putin can predict what she will do and have responses planed to win what he NEEDS to win, like in Crimea, when the whole Ukraine debacle went down. He can plan in Syria with Assad for her stances, IE have Russian air assets assigned to Assad;’s forces to “fight ISIL”, just like the USA air assets are doing.
As to whom is the worst between them it’s where yopu stand, and how you think each of them will react.
Hillary most can predict to a certain extent.
Trump is an Alice down the rabbit hole experience.
For most predictability is preferred to unpredictability especially when the entire economic system the planet runs of requires stability based on predictability with in parameters.
A Vote to Check Unpredictable Evil with the Predictable
He does make a point here.
Couple of points:
After the defeat of France at Waterloo, the British saw Russia as the only credible threat to their Pax-Britannia, …
The UK was engaged in many wars in the 19th century* (several in support of the British East India Company), but allied with Russia during the Napoleonic Wars and WWI; sort of the biggies. So, the “Great Game” was a post WWI construct. (Recall that Queen Vicky had married off her kids and grandkids to most of the royal houses of Europe. King George V, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Alexandra, Tsarina of Russia were first cousins and grandchildren of Queen Vicky.)
The 19th century wars is more easily understood as propping up monarchies in Europe and land and commerce grabs outside of Europe. 1899 is interesting because it was all the Empires and two Republics (often at odds with each other) against another large empire.
Wars 1800-1899* and 1900-44
Marie in the middle east especially around India Pakistan and Afghanistan area the great game was operational.
[ended June 1815]
started 28 July 1914
Between those two times the Russian Empire was trying to expand, and the British Empire was interested in the same areas of central Asia the Russians were.
My Q: why SHOULD Trump supporters blame themselves when Trump loses?
It’s hacks and con artists like Continetti and his ilk who’ve designed, created, nurtured and riled up Trump’s fans to this current strategic boiling point. It’s been the Southern Strategy plan for decades, carefully nurtured by most of the media organs, Fox, Hate Radio, “Christian” broadcasting, rightwing think tanks, all sorts of social media sites. All fomenting hate, fear, hate, fear – most especially hate hate hate the horrible Libruls and the D Party, but also anyone who doesn’t look, think, act, dress, pray, have sex in the ways that you do.
Why should the voters be responsible? They’re heavily brainwashed at this stage. Look at them at their rallies. Should they know better? Well, it’d be nice, but if, like the proverbial Manchurian candidate, you’ve been heavily brainwashed to behave and respond certain ways to certain dog whistles and other signals… ??? Well this IS the expected outcome and result.
No I mostly do NOT blame Trump fans. I blame wealthy con artists like Continetti and his ilk for the current “fix” that the GOP is in. All the whining and crying by Continetti, David Brooks, Michael Gerson, blah blah blah… they’re all desparately trying to distance themselves from the shit show that they have spent decades creating, enhancing, nurturing and living off the riches of it.
Continetti can go pound sand.
WaPo Dozens of GOP delegates launch new push to halt Donald Trump.
Their problem isn’t halting Trump but finding a replacement consensus candidate that performs as well or better than McCain or Romney and the GE expectations for Trump.
Exacerbated by the problems they create by thumping Trump, regardless of who becomes the nominee. Any contested nomination is poisoned at this point. The only improvement for the Republicans will be if Trump withdraws graciously – very unlikely IMO.
One person with a veto over whether the convention repudiates Trump is Cruz, who did a pretty good job packing the delegations with his supporters (many of Trump’s delegates are actually Cruz supporters). Trump + Cruz supporters are probably an outright majority of the convention. What would Cruz’s incentives be? He certainly doesn’t want a poisoned nomination; he knows that’s a path to electoral humiliation. A poisoned nomination for somebody else would be worse than a Trump nom, as he would bear some responsibility and blame for it. I think his incentives are to let Trump flame out and basically say “I told you so” afterwards to Republican voters. He himself isn’t up for election so he’ll be in a good spot to run for the 2020 nom, with the coveted 2nd place and credibility with the ideologues.
Too many possible scenarios and variables to game it out. In several ways Cruz is worse for the GOP than Trump because he more directly reinforces all the issues that are handicapping the party. Trump is closer to Goldwater in that his appeal is more directly based on racial bigotry. Therefore, derailing Trump in favor of a compromise candidate has to include that Cruz isn’t that candidate.
I say they go with an Abbott/Ernst or Abbott/Gardner ticket.
Chait, via Lemieux, provides the ultimate retort: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/wherever-did-they-get-this-idea