Yesterday's January 6 Committee hearing was, once again, damning. If you were taking refuge in the notion of President Trump's having been misled by scheming lunatics, that excuse is gone.* Crazy or calculating, he was in the thick of the planning. If you still believe -- unlike Bill Barr, Pat Cipollone and a host of other Trump Administration insiders -- that the 2020 Presidential election was "stolen," then there's probably no hope for you.
The only "steal" was President Trump's attempted theft, which devolved into an attempted strong-arm robbery before being repulsed.
I have long relied on there being two mostly-sane political parties in the country, one leaping into the unknown on scant guesses and the other holding onto tradition with both hands. They tended to balance one another, especially over the long term. That's gone. With the U. S. Supreme Court solidly ultra-conservative, I don't see any reason to vote for another Republican until they've stopped being crazy. (Or even to vote for Libertarians, most of whom have decided their way forward is to become even crazier.) The Court will rein in any far-out stuff, and though a lot of the conclusions the Democrat politicians reach or the laws they propose won't be what I would prefer, they will, mostly, have at least started in reality.
I went into 2016 thinking Donald Trump was the archetypal bad boss writ large: loud, full of himself, unaware of the limits of his knowledge, arbitrary and rude. 2020 made it clear he was something much worse, a man contemptuous of our Federal republic, enamored of adulation and power, and willing to use any means to hang onto them. And he's managed to infect most of a major political party with the same attitudes.
___________________
* Posit, for a moment, that it is true: if a guy's that easily led, why would you ever want him to be President? So it's disqualifying either way.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
8 comments:
Fortunately there are enough sources of transcripts that I have not had to subject myself to listening to the pontifications of Congresscritters (some of whom probably would never dream of participating in such a hearing had the President involved had a (D) after their name).
Similar conclusions without investing in the time sink.
Sadly, as much as a trainwreck (to put it nicely) the man is personally (and nothing in the testimony really surprises me), his administration accomplished many, to me at least, good things in several areas that are likely to be tainted by his Ego driven actions at the end.
"Other than attempting to conduct a coup in order to retain power, he did some good things."
That's kind of like praising Mussolini because he made the trains run on time.
Some things should be beyond the pale of acceptable behavior in a free republic. That attempting to stage a coup is not one of them, for a lot of people, is worrisome.
An interesting historical sidenote: Mussolini did not, in fact, make the trains run on time. Italian passenger train service was notorious inexact before and during the Fascist government. The phrase was originally used sarcastically.
2024 will be, as most are, a question of who is least bad. Trump could be that.
Ed, I disagree strongly. There is no circumstance under which a man who tried to subvert the peaceful transfer of power though deception and violence could be "least bad."
I'd vote for Bernie Sanders in 2024 before I'd vote for Donald Trump. The hard-Right Supreme Court would keep him between the guardrails, and unlike Mr. Trump, Senator Sanders has shown an understanding of the rule of law (though not economics). My expectation for 2024 is the Dems will scratch like mad to find someone who is nearer the center and who lacks the negatives of Vice-President Harris, the GOP will run Mr. Trump or a Trumpesque surrogate, the Libertarians will run an absolute loon, and I'll vote for the Democrat. I'm not happy about that, but I'd rather have a sane President whose policies I disagree with but will abide by the rule of law than a loose-cannon authoritarian from a party that has shown a willingness to undermine the Federal government, or at least overlook the attempt. Under our Federal system, no branch of government has absolute power and such powers as they have are clearly defined and limited. I expect elected officials to respect that. If they won't, they should not hold office.
Comrade Misfit, I think I did not make myself clear.
I was not trying for the "at least he made the trains run on time" theme.
I was concerned that what I consider good things accomplished during that administration will be tainted politically due to the way his ego and personality flaws led to the events at the end of his presidency.
And that any attempt to revive them in the future will be dismissed with "that's what Trump did so it has to be bad and we won't even discuss it", no matter what the merits of said policy might be.
Roberta,
I respectfully disagree with the SC keeping anyone in line. To get a case there takes YEARS and not a little bit of luck, as the odds of getting there are quite small. They don't have an enforcement arm, and many Americans are to the point they won't follow rules that THEY feel are wrong. (Heck, the 2A crowd has been saying that since long before I was born.)
I want to believe. I just don't think the majority of us WANT to work together. That may tie into today's post.
Have an awesome day.
Anon, you wrote, "many Americans are to the point they won't follow rules that THEY feel are wrong. (Heck, the 2A crowd has been saying that since long before I was born.)"
And yet, "the 2A crowd" is remarkably short on un-tax-stamped silencers or full-autos, and comply -- grumblingly -- with onerous state-level regulations even as they try to get them changed. Passive non-compliance is more common (not registering or disposing of already-owned firearms or magazines when the laws change) but that's low-effort and difficult to tell from simple unawareness. Driving too fast and smoking state-legal (but Federally criminal) pot is more common.
More to the point, "the People" isn't who the Supremes need to have go along when they are yanking the leash on Legislative or Executive overreach. It's the elected and appointed officials. With one or two glaring exceptions, notably Worcester v. Georgia, the other two branches of the Federal government have complied with Supreme Court decisions.
Post a Comment