This type of analysis is superficial and somewhat facile.

What Trump means to individuals is irrelevant beyond the fact that he represents base primitive instinctual imperative towards materialism, greed and self interest. In this sense there is a little bit of Trump in all men. He derives much of his support from many who believe they are not in fact Trump supporters.

What is important about Trump is that he shows us that democracy is in crisis. Britain has its Trump in the form of Brexit, and democracies around the world are contaminated by the Trump ideals of materialism and self interest.

If democracy can present America and the world with a Trump as its answer to national and international crisis, then it is time to recognise that democracy is in crisis, that it has failed.

Human beings are incapable of living up to the moral obligations of freedom. They must be disciplined and controlled. They must be educated into the understanding that happiness does not equate with materialism, and that materialism is its antithesis. Only then will we be worthy of democratic freedom.

The immanent collapse of global ecology will assert this reality in the same manner that external ill considered reality has collapsed all previous empires and civilizations.

Trump is not a pathology, he is merely a symptom.

Democracy and capitalism are the disease.

M

This is more or less the same argument made in the infamous Flight 93 Election editorial, from 2016, written by a former speechwriter for Bush and Giuliani, Michael Anton, under the pseudo-name Publius Decius Mus (who was a real Roman consul).

The airplane analogy Anton presents is more appropriate than a tandem bike, because the former includes others, as opposed to a simple two-person tandem bike, in which there is just you and, presumably, a representative leader. It ignores the fact that your decision (and singular perception that things are on a cataclysmic trajectory) will also harm others.

But the Flight 93 Election (and other myopic analogies) is full of fallacies and countless presumptions. It assumes that the reasonable conclusion of the "Flight", if there is no interference, is a catastrophic denouement. But how can it exclude the possibility that a large-scale political shake-up will do more harm than good? It also assumes that the current course we are on commensurately harms everyone, despite differing levels of socio-economic status, ethnic and religious identity, etc. It is presumptuous to assume that a current trajectory or an alternative overhaul will affect people similarly. It also assumes that what is required for a course-correction is a political outsider; that what is required is simply to shake up the system. But what is the best course-correction? What are our politico-societal objectives? Without content in political policy, alternatives can be ineffective, or actually do more damage.

One can argue that the system is indeed fucked, and that an alternative is necessary. On that basis alone, however, one could have argued in favor of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, who have two diametrically opposed political ideologies.

It was obvious during Trump's campaign in 2015/2016 that he was not what America's political system needed. He embellished and outright lied about US immigration and immigrants. He demeaned women. He lied about the state of the economy and trade. He was never an ally of the LGBT community, the working class, or minorities. Now, nearly a year-and-a-half into Trump's presidency, it is indisputable that he and his administration have done more harm than good to America and the global community. The system has certainly been shaken up, but as the dust quickly settles it is evident that it has been for the worse.

Incidentally, Anton has been in the news quite a bit lately with an article on citizenship and another related one on immigration. For anyone who's really interested in the topic (or just bored), here's his lengthy response to the many critics - on both sides of the political aisle - who bashed his original op-ed on citizenship for being pure sophistry.

Seems as though he's trying to assert himself as the primary (only?) intellectual force behind Trumpism, which sounds like a contradiction but is worth exploring in some detail. His background as a West Coast Straussian puts him at odds with East Coast Straussians like Bill Kristol and other allegedly "globalist" neoconservatives.

This just in: Republicans have introduced Articles of Impeachment against Rod Rosenstein. Disgraceful attack on the rule of law by corrupt partisan politicians shielding a corrupt president.

To impeach is to charge. Rosenstein, therefore, can challenge the accusation with whatever he has.

That is Rosenstien’s opportunity, to challenge what he has been accused of. It appears, these days, to have become privilege that you get such an opportunity. So this merely demonstrates Rosenstein is still of the privilege class.

If he has no reasonable defence, so be it.

It seems the only way to get some semblance of transparency from these employees of American citizens.

Yeah he's a blatant white nationalist.

Yeah he's a blatant white nationalist — Maw

You've got quite a color obsession going on there.

Fuck there's that pigeon cooing again.

Fuck there's that pigeon cooing again. — Maw

:lol:

We've had bad presidents, in recent history Nixon, Reagan, and GW Bush. But these were all essentially American and broadly speaking - i.e., in spite of there respective criminal or incompetent acts - served America and its values and its citizens. This means that when they fucked us and fucked with us, they were in virtue of that fundamental Americanism entitled to every thing, every consideration, and every protection that every American owes to every American. For the most part, although not limited to it, that is due process, rendered in the American spirit of fairness.

A prima facie case has been made that Trump is acting as a Russian agent. Defense of Trump is - has been for some time - like the tobacco industry's argument that no connection between smoking and cancer had been established (and therefore did not exist). But here's the thing: Trump is manifestly un-American and anti-American. When he fucks us, fucks with us, it is outside the horizon of of any interest of America, and clearly in the interest of the Russians.

So the stooges that support and defend him need to understand that their own actions, while possibly defensible in ordinary circumstances, are in the case of Trump potentially treasonous in effect, perhaps in intent! As such, on the instant of that final determination,when it is made, any privilege they enjoy as Americans instantly evaporates. A good attorney serves America by being a good attorney, better by being an excellent attorney, even in defending against a charge of treason. But aiding and abetting treason, especially through manipulation of the legal system, is itself treasonous.

All of which is to say that if you're going to defend Trump, you had better take some care as to how you go about it. But we have on this night news of articles of impeachment filed by eleven congressman against Rosenstein. These congressman need to understand that when they play the game this way, they had better not be wrong. Being wrong in defense of Trump amounts to yourself being an enemy of the people, a status far beyond being a mere criminal, and a status that means you have placed yourself outside the safeguard of those things we Americans owe each other. In effect you have joined America's enemies and thereby we owe you nothing except appropriate, stern, and rapid justice.

Treason is no place for partisan politics, even if high-minded. These miserable excuses for Americans, in the games they play, can only hope that when Trump goes down, which I believe will happen, no one remembers the parts they played. This includes Trump spokespeople, Trump appointees, Trump "news" people and every Republican that sold his or her soul for the privilege of kissing his ass.

It's just showboating and going nowhere. The more sensible wing of the Republican party knows you can't impeach someone just because you consider them a political enemy. Jim Jordan is likely also motivated by trying to distract from the recently exposed scandal involving him covering up sexual abuse. Pretty sad and will end in ignominy for those involved.

The more sensible wing of the Republican party knows you can't impeach someone just because you consider them a political enemy. — Baden

It is for not carrying out his duties. The duties American citizens pay him to do. He is an employee.

You don't have to legally defend yourself against every nonsense unsubstantiated claim made by those who consider you a political threat. You ignore all that and get on with your job, which is exactly what Rosenstein will do.

So the stooges that support and defend him need to understand that their own actions, while possibly defensible in ordinary circumstances, are in the case of Trump potentially treasonous in effect, perhaps in intent! — tim wood

It's construct gulag time again. Stalin is proud.

Yawn. Cite the evidence he's not carrying out his duties. And statements by lying politicians greasing their own wheels don't count. Go ahead.

You don't have to legally defend yourself against every nonsense unsubstantiated claim — Baden

Unless..........it's substantiation becomes clear.

:yawn: Evidence. Go ahead. We're waiting.

Yawn. Cite the evidence he's not carrying out his duties. And statements by lying politicians greasing their own wheels don't count. Go ahead. — Baden

It's not for me. It's for the impeachment process. It will falter or it will not, based on evidence presented to that particular forum and how it may be defended.

Certainly much butt-hurtness going on here though.

You are really slow. There will be no process because there is no basis for a process. Just like if you accuse someone of a crime they won't be charged when there is zero evidence they committed one. Do you understand yet? There will be no impeachment because there is no reason for one.

Evidence. Go ahead. We're waiting — Baden

Now, I didn't say he wasn't carrying out his duties. I merely paraphrased as to why the impeachment.

I don't know what the evidence is.

So, you supported his impeachment on the basis of nothing but some vague wish for transparency. OK, so presumably you support impeaching Trump for the same reason. Let's do it.

You are really slow. There will be no process because there is no basis for a process — Baden

A stage of "the process" has begun, has it not? Introduction of the resolution?

So, you supported his impeachment on the basis of nothing but some vague wish for transparency. OK, so presumably you support impeaching Trump for the same reason. Let's do it. — Baden

I "support" the accusation that he keeps failing to turn over requested documents.

Whatever process gets him to stop failing is sufficient.

There will be no further process involving the presenting of evidence. It ends here with this embarrassing self-serving move.

I "support" the accusation that he keeps failing to turn over requested documents. — raza

On the basis of no evidence. On your own admission you didn't even bother looking into it. That makes you one of the sheeple you like to talk about who just blindly follow politicians without thinking for yourself. Try looking at the evidence and try thinking for yourself. Follow your own advice.

Hope you're right, but it's terrible it's come to this. 'Transparency' has nothing to do with it - it is a blatant attempt to hobble a legitimate and important investigation which has become hopelessly politicized by the Trump lackeys in Congress.

Both Ryan and Gowdy's statements on the record show they think it's as ridiculous and unsubstantiated as we do.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/15/gowdy-rosenstein-impeachment-722237

"The chairman of the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Sunday he doesn't support a push by conservative lawmakers to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“No. For what? Impeach him for what? No,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/17/trump-ryan-rosenstein-impeachment-republicans-726247

"Ryan — who has long sought to avoid...confrontations with the Justice Department — told reporters Tuesday morning that DOJ is “now coming into compliance” with congressional subpoenas as part of lawmakers’ scrutiny into alleged FBI bias against Trump."

In other words, there is no failure to hand over documents, just a delay, which, considering the amount of documents involved, is completely understandable, and no reason whatsoever for impeachment except in the rabid imaginings of the extreme right who are even beginning to annoy the regular right with their childish shenanigans.

It's not for me. It's for the impeachment process. It will falter or it will not, based on evidence presented to that particular forum and how it may be defended. — raza

I was pretty disgusted when I was told that you partake in cannibalistic orgies with actual family members. Doubly so when it came to light that some think you have been snatching local babies for that purpose. To my mind, it's starting to paint a picture of why you oppose abortion. Of course, it's not for me to judge. I'm not endorsing any of these claims. But given their serious nature I think it's crucial that Philosophy Forum open up a process that will falter or not based on the evidence presented. Don't worry, you'll have plenty of time to defend yourself against these heinous accusations in front of your friends, family and the media. Surely, you shouldn't be bothered by the fact that those acting as judges and prosecutors and offering political spin will be your political enemies. If you're innocent, like you say, the facts will surely clear you.

A stage of "the process" has begun, has it not? Introduction of the resolution? — raza

Look, I'm just saying that we leftists here at PF have decided to withhold judgment on whether you're a child-snatching incest-crazed cannibal until everyone gets their say and all the evidence comes out over the course of a rigorous process. Incidentally, we'll be running the process. Of course, you shouldn't be bothered that we have a huge incentive to find you guilty. If you're innocent, like you say, the facts will surely clear you.

Now, I didn't say he wasn't carrying out his duties. I merely paraphrased as to why the impeachment. — raza

Now, I've never said that you're a child-snatching incest-crazed cannibal. I am merely paraphrasing why the banning.

Let the (show) trial begin!