Being Known by the Company you Keep
Meeting with people who are essentially couplotters should be disqualifying.
There is a lot that we knew about Donald Trump’s actions on January 6th (for example, I think it is important to remember that he basically ended that day by releasing a video statement that was highly sympathetic to those who had stormed the capitol, and told them that “we love you”). There are mountains of inflammatory statements made, in public, about the election, its alleged theft, and how much people ought to be fighting mad. There are now hours of testimony from, I would hasten to add, Republican politicians* and officials as to Trump’s unwillingness to accept reality and, instead, his interest in exploring all options, including the extralegal, to stay in power.
Now, I know wading through all of that takes some work, so let me focus on the old adage, “you are known by the company you keep.” I am also not going to focus here on the issue of legal culpability, but simply on the question of suitability for office (which is largely a political question).
My most general question is: should a politician who has knowingly met with persons who came bearing extralegal, extraconstitutional (if not blatantly illegal and unconstitutional) theories about how that politician can remain in power be seen as qualified to run for office again?
We know and have known for going on two years, that Trump was associated with attorney John Eastman. We know that Eastman was at the “Stop the Steal” rally, for example, and met with Trump at the White House on many occasions. We also know that Eastman wrote a memo that stated that the Vice President had the power to simply reject electoral votes from the states. And, further, he argued that the sitting Vice President, Mike Pence, should reject the electoral votes from a set of states that Trump lost. In no uncertain terms, this was an argument for granting the Vice Presidency the power to decide the outcome of American presidential elections.
This was a memo designed to steal an election, plain and simple.
And I would venture to assert that most Americans if they read this story in a history book apart from the passions of the moment, would easily see the problem. Moreover, I think a lot of current Republican voters who are downplaying all of this (if not in active denial) would readily see the threat if we were talking about a Democrat hosting an attorney with such theories.
To be frank, the above fact should be enough for current Republican office-holders to be behaving more like Liz Cheney than like Kevin McCarthy. Or, if you like, they should be acting more like private Kevin McCarthy and less like public Kevin McCarthy.
We now have the following via the NYT: Little-Known Lawyer Pitched Trump on Extreme Plans to Subvert Election.
Around 5 in the afternoon on Christmas Day in 2020, as many Americans were celebrating with family, President Donald J. Trump was at his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Fla., on the phone with a little-known conservative lawyer who was encouraging his attempts to overturn the election, according to a memo the lawyer later wrote documenting the call.
The lawyer, William J. Olson, was promoting several extreme ideas to the president. Mr. Olson later conceded that part of his plan could be regarded as tantamount to declaring “martial law” and that another aspect could invite comparisons with Watergate. The plan included tampering with the Justice Department and firing the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, according to the Dec. 28 memo by Mr. Olson, titled “Preserving Constitutional Order.”
“Our little band of lawyers is working on a memorandum that explains exactly what you can do,” Mr. Olson wrote in his memo, obtained by The New York Times, which he marked “privileged and confidential” and sent to the president. “The media will call this martial law,” he wrote, adding that “that is ‘fake news.'”
Again, if the partisan labels were different, I think a lot of Trump-defenders who read this would take a very different view of the situation (and, I know, not some number of Democrats would change their tunes).
But here’s the bottom line, apart from any other evidence or arguments: it should be unthinkable and unacceptable for a sitting president, especially one post-election, to entertain these kinds of persons or ideas. If the local youth pastor was getting visits from NAMBLA ( associates, or from attorneys writing memos about how six-year-olds are actually adults, no one in their right mind would be sending their kids to youth group. Moreover, no member of that church should be willing to continue to employ such a person.
Would you hire an accountant who had lunch with a guy who wrote a book called Fifty Ways to Cheat your Clients?
In short, just these two examples (Eastman and Olson) should be enough to make reasonable people seek to move away from Trump–whether we are talking office-holders or voters. Trump was a sitting president listening to people who wanted him to subvert our electoral process. That should be disqualifying on its face. But, alas, this is not the case for a lot of Americans.
(I could also note the letter that Jeffrey Clark wanted to send).
When a bunch of people are making serious attempts at subverting the system and the sitting president is willing to listen to them, that should be disqualifying, plain and simple. There are other Republican politicians for the party to nominate. Nominate them and move on. Think about what supporting Trump for 2024 would mean.
I could do on, but will note Sidney Powell as well. Her theories included utter fabrications about Dominion Voting Systems and crazy theories about Hugo Chavez. Indeed, her claims were such that her defense in the defamation suit brought by Dominion included the notion “no reasonable person would conclude that [her] statements were truly statements of fact.” If one watches any of Powell’s press conferences, interviews, or testimony before the committee and finds her cogent and credible, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona one might be interested in. I might even throw the Golden Gate in free.
Let’s not forget Mike Lindell. Just on its face, and without getting into Lindell’s behavior and claims, the notion that some random CEO and TV pitchman of a relatively minor company would have deep information about the electoral systems of various states is farcical. If Lindell was a character in a prestige TV drama we would think that the writers had gotten quite sloppy. This is like Ron Popeil being a key figure in Watergate. And what was up with the Overstock.com guy being at the WH? It would all be laughable if who the president is and who they act and think wasn’t serious on a global scale.
I could go on and on and it is one ugly picture.
If one can look at people like Eastman and Olsen and not see the threat, or look at people like Powell and Lindell and not see dangerous clowns, then I would say that either one has no ability to judge expertise and character, and/or one’s partisan lenses are way too thick.
To cut to the chase: if you are a Trump supporter reading this, ask yourself what you are supporting and defending? I understand that having your side attacked is no fun and that the automatic response is defense. But you would not defend the above if a Democrat did it, so what is the moral, logical, evidence-based argument for defending Trump? Moreover: what is the basis to support him for the nomination in 2024?
(And please: to the regulars, can this not be another “it’s a cult!” discussion thread?).
A side note:
On this theme of the company one keeps, I will state that one of the things that has really struck me about the testimony in the hearings (and really, back to the behavior of various actors throughout the administration) is that we always knew, to use a phrase from Bill Sepien, Trump’s former campaign, there was a Team Crazy and a Team Normal in the White House. One of the things that really, truly concerns me is that a second Trump administration will be all Team Crazy. I have little doubt that one of the lessons that Trump learned is that careerists and professionals with actual resumes stopped him from doing what he wanted, but that there is a coterie of enablers out there who will be more than willing to do his bidding. I would expect a second Trump administration to be rife with such folks, and I honestly find that to be a horrifyingly frightening prospect.
This is not about Democrat/Republican or conservative/liberal. This is about basic competence and respect for logic, reason, and the basic rule of law.
*I keep being struck by the fact that almost all of the testimony at these hearings has been from either people who worked in the White House/for Trump directly or were supporters of Trump. They are, in a word, overwhelmingly Republicans. They all certainly voted for Trump, if not actively worked, let me again note, in the Trump administration. While I recognize that these hearings are not adversarial affairs (i.e., there is not a defense to counter the prosecution), the notion that they are simply a Democratic hit job is simply untrue on its face when the witnesses are almost all Republicans who worked with/for/near Trump himself.
I will also note that if a bipartisan or adversarial process was a good idea, then the Republicans shouldn’t have blocked one. I have no patience for such complaints as there could have been an independent commission, which would have been bipartisan, and McCarthy could have appointed members to this current committee. That Pelosi rejected a set of members who might be subject to the investigation itself was simply not an unreasonable position to take.
Note to the regulars: I am posting this one to FB, which I don’t normally do these days. I actually do hope that some Republican voters read this and think about it.
Eh, partly, because this is a different issue. The scum around Trump are not culties, they’re remora – the little fish that eat whatever dribbles out of the shark’s mouth.
Why don’t people like Kevin McCarthy reject Trump? Because they are remora. No shark: no food. Why don’t the MAGAts see this? Because they are culties. The remora are soulless but rational, driven by a discernible profit motive. The culties are engaged in religion, not reason, and their reward is spiritual.
A good analogy might be Roman Catholics – the priests may be predators abusing children for their own sexual pleasure, but that is a despicable but rational motive. The parishioners are culties in a faith-based reality. Were this not the case Catholic churches would have emptied out upon the revelations of sexual predation. Just as the the GOP would have been emptied out after Trump, were it not for the fact that the ‘congregation,’ does not live in the rational world. The number of Catholics who quit is probably roughly in line with the number of ‘Never Trump’ Republicans.
The more faith is challenged and those challenges ignored, the stronger the faith becomes. Facts act to harden faith. The MAGAts will stay faithful; the remora merely await the arrival of a larger shark. And a handful of Republicans who are neither remora nor culties will have seats on the January 6 committee.
All of it, the people, the words, the actions, is so far beyond the pale that if someone hasn’t been reached yet, I don’t know what it would take. Good article; I wish you luck.
@Michael Reynolds:
You just can’t help yourself. Essentially the first comment! 🙂
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’m not sure what a better word there is for people who purport to believe, sincerely, that Trump is a devout Christian, a faithful husband, a devoted father, and the greatest president we ever had.
Dr.Taylor,
At present Republicans disagree with objective reality. The entire concept that something exists which isn’t Able To Be Denied/Resisted/Called Erroneous is not a baseline assumption of The Party of the Right, to paraphrase Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose.
I don’t know where to go, all I do know is that Republican baseline assumption is that everything is open to discussion – because reasons.
Another thing that I find interesting in terms of another theme in the comment section here is that message is king, but also when I suggest that it might be possible to persuade some people who voted for or support Trump, the response is that those people aren’t persuadable and you really should try.
@CSK: I have tried, in earnest on many occasions, to explain when I think that term is applicable and when it isn’t and have decided that further forays into that territory are not going to be fruitful. I am honestly super weary of it.
I will note simply, as I have many, many times, that I think the term can be used with some precision in some cases but is not broadly helpful analytically or, for that matter, rhetorically.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Oh, I know. But it’s just too convenient a term when referring to Trump fanatics. Their adoration of him passes anything I’ve ever seen for a political figure.
I think the sunk cost fallacy comes first, then the blind faith behavior comes later.
If you’ve invested in Trump as the Great President that will save the country with any level of fervor, then before you can decide he’s not all that, you first have to admit you were duped. That admission isn’t about Trump, it’s about you and your capacity to reach a sound judgement. Reason and logic typically have a hard time competing with the other voices in your head seeking the justifications you desperately want to save face.
Leaning on another old adage, “in for a penny, in for a pound,” people will execute all manner of mental gymnastics to maintain they were right all along. I am confident that people who think Trump is wonderful also think that Eastman, Olson, Powell, and Lindell are wonderful themselves. To see these people as clowns, is to see Trump as a clown, and to see Trump as a clown is to admit you were fooled by him.
@Michael Reynolds:
Might be, but it’s not. I know a lot of Catholics, and I don’t know a single one who would trust what a priest or a bishop has to say without verifying. Even the ones I know who are obnoxiously Catholic, if you know what I mean, know the clergy needs to be watched.
@Steven L. Taylor: I’m on your side on this. While I don’t think you are likely to change the mind of the true believers, the 80% in the mushy middle are reachable.
I have no recollection of where I read the following, but it has always stuck with me. An older French Canadian woman was recollecting about her social milieu in the early 1900’s. Everything revolved around the Roman Catholic Church. The religious holidays and the need to buy the perfect outfit to be seen in at Mass. The importance of the pew you sat in, and who was invited for coffee after the service. The triumph of snagging a bishop for a dinner guest. And then, in her view, it just seemed to end. No one renounced the church, there was no conscious drawing away. But one day she realized that the high holidays were the only days the people she knew attended mass, and the perfect outfits were bought for other things. And thus the power of the church was reduced not by rebellion but by indifference. I bring this up to illustrate that while your FB post might not cause people to fall to their knees and declare, “At last you have convinced me! What a fool I’ve been!”, it could very well be another slight shift in the wind hitting their sails, pushing them gradually in a better direction.
@Steven L. Taylor:
You are agree on what the trumpers are, you just are all using different definitions of the word.
@MarkedMan: I think it’s a question of too broad a brush. There are clearly MAGA cultists out there who will go along with whatever today’s talking point is, even if it directly contradicts yesterday’s. I just think that describes a pretty small percentage of Trump voters.
Most Trump voters also voted for Romney, McCain, and Bush. They’re not super tuned in to politics on a daily basis. They default to the GOP and are predisposed to believe GOP rhetoric. Or maybe they’re single-issue voters on abortion or crime or taxes. They’re hard to reach but they’re not cultists.
He was one of the most expert people they could find who would tell them what they wanted to hear. There were a few others, like Gen. Flynn, who had more stature, and Sydney Powell, who had a law degree, and Rudy Giuliani, who had 9/11, but they wanted more.
And who cannot applaud the story of a cocaine addict who turns himself around, founds a successful pillow company*, and then saves America by discovering a plot to steal the election involving Italian satellites?
*: if just sleeping at a Holiday Inn Express grants expertise, imagine what owning a pillow company must do!
@MarkedMan: I really like this observation. Often people just change because they run out of energy and interest. What was once vital becomes boring.
@Steven L. Taylor: You taunted him into it.
Ah yes, the one size fits all FOX news defense against libel.
@Steven L. Taylor: I don’t think you can persuade most people with logic. “Logic” ends up being a tool to confirm what they already believe, and often has very little to do with actual logic.
I think you persuade people by finding the parts of their identity that are associated with what you want them to think, and then activating those. And then, maybe, if that is in conflict with what they previously thought, they might actually think things through.
For instance, if someone believes all politicians are corrupt, pointing out breath-taking corruption on one side doesn’t shift them to the other.
I think MAGA are more complex than just that cynical nihilism — but it contains it, and that makes it hard to say “these people are obviously grifters” and get any movement.
Claims of supporting white nationalism fall flat because most (white) people really liked the past when people didn’t discuss race all the time and weren’t hung up on it, and can’t we just go back there? Plus the fascist groups are getting more diverse.
Most people find the Q stuff insane, but they don’t really believe that the Q-pilled are talking about 12 levels of crazier shit built onto the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (I am so disappointed in them, make a better conspiracy theory), or how closely tied that is to Trumpism.
I think that’s a weak point. How you get people stepping away from Trump because of that, and then hitting them with the election fraud fraud while they are open, I have no idea.
But you need to get their identity in conflict to get them to even reassess what they “know” is true.
@James Joyner: Hmm. You think Michael thinks differently?
I am going to be that asshole, sorry….
Re the subhead:
So when did “couplotter” become a compound word?
I wonder what the overlap is between MAGA devotees and people with personality disorders? Or mentally ill? Lyn Wood has already been classified as mentally ill, and I don’t think Mr. 9-1-1 is doing any better.
At some point we’re going to have to start keeping people who believe crazy stuff from running for office. Or voting.
@James Joyner:
This may be true about whatever number, but I’m more interested in explaining Romney. Or Sasse. Or McConnell, for that matter.
These people, certainly folks we should consider tuned into politics, should be judged by the company they keep as well. And they must be considered “keeping company” with Trump until such time as they disavow him, side with Cheney and the rest of the J6 panel and start making noise about criminal referrals to the DOJ. Until they take a public stand, we should presume they are not concerned about Flynn, Eastman, Clark, and the rest of Team Crazy being allowed back in the White House.
@CSK: So, essentially, your position is that “it’s a cult” is the only salient point beyond the facts that Dr. Taylor so painstakingly pointed out?
Not a surprise, you understand. We all have our respective faiths to hold to.
In part, I think the Lindell thing is a
downstreamrun-off effect of cultural beliefs surrounding business and money. People with money are smart. CEOs and entrepreneurs are assumed to be the smartest people around.And of course, once you establish yourself in one domain, it confers authority in whatever you decide to speak about. (You all know who I have in mind. And, well, it shows the same characteristics of the discussion that shall not be had in this thread.)*
*Oh, too late.
@de stijl: It’s neologism. Perhaps compounded by a typo but neologism all the same.
@Kurtz: “*Oh, too late.”
Oh, you noticed, too? I’m sooooooo relieved. I was afraid I was the only one.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
No, not at all. I found Dean Taylor’s piece very interesting. I was remarking only on the broader use of the term “cult.”
@MarkedMan: thanks.
@MarkedMan: I have repeatedly tried to explain when, where, and how I find the term applicable and useful. James touched on part of it (heck, you did as well, after a fashion, in your previous comment). Regardless, I don’t see the point in continuing to hash over that particular term.
(I mean, I even expressly asked people not to bring it up 😉
@Gustopher:
Well, sure. But, of course, “most people” is a high bar.
But to run the risk of sounding grumpy, this kind of response, much like “reform is almost impossible” strikes me as odd and a bit off-putting. It almost sounds like I shouldn’t have written this (or, really, anything on the site).
Setting aside what may simply seem like me being overly sensitive, I am not herein trying to persuade most people. I am trying to hopefully persuade somebody—and I don’t know who it might be.
@de stijl: I feel like it is a neologism but it may be that it should be “coup plotter”
@Steven L. Taylor: of course. And I believe, in his delicate way, Michael has explained “ when, where, and how (he) finds the term applicable and useful.” Surprisingly, they don’t correspond!
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
It’s like catnip, I guess.
@MarkedMan: Indeed–so I was trying to avoid another needless (in my mind, at least) pedantic spiral on the topic.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I don’t think persuading people is impossible, but most people need something to knock them out of their default space, to where they will look at logic.
There’s the old story of the Republican who discovers support for gay rights after their kid comes out, and they are mocked for it. I think it’s not that they are hypocrites, exactly, they just haven’t thought about it and nothing made them think about it. These are typically establishment Republicans who have been talking about individual freedom, small government and the like, and marriage equality honestly fits them better, but they bought into the anti-gay stuff because the evangelicals are part of the coalition. They needed something to push them to be receptive.
Cast a wide enough net, and you will persuade someone. There will have been something that knocked someone around enough to where they will be receptive.
I think it would be better if someone somewhere figured out the right way to knock them. I think we (you, me, the folks who show up here) don’t even know the right language.
I think people like John Fetterman have a moderate clue. Plus he looks like a cross between Shrek and Gritty, which makes him very much not what folks are expecting, which probably helps.
I guess what I mean is that more people need to be smacked upside the head with a clue-by-four.
The President of the United States controls the worlds greatest panopticon. Huge, capable, intelligence services gather oceans of information for his use. The government employs experts on virtually any subject, all at the president’s beck and call. Several organizations and many individuals are charged with providing him the best legal advice available. And any number of respected outside experts would be happy to share their knowledge with the president. But the president, at least a normal president, is very busy and access to him is tightly controlled. No one speaks to the president unless the president, or his chief of staff, wants them to. If the president was spending hours with these grifters and looney tunes, it was because he desperately wanted answers he couldn’t get from anyone who actually knew what they were talking about.
@Steven L. Taylor: There are all sorts of needs. Clearly, you are underestimating one of Mr. Reynold’s needs.
@MarkedMan: I give Michael a lot of shit, but he has a way with words. If he would get over himself enough to get into the mindset of people he considers beneath him, without derisive judgement, I think he could do great things. He could use an appointment with the clue-by-four.
(Because of my complete lack of useful skills, the aforementioned clue-by-four would be wasted on me).
@Gustopher:
Ah yes, the elusive small government Republican who wants DC to stay out of their bedroom. I think I had lunch with him and Bigfoot while hiking the AT.
I’m sure many somber speeches will be dedicated to Pursuing that voter tranche which never existed outside of Chuckles the Todd’s ungrammatical opening monologues.
@Gustopher:
I mean, I am in limited agreement about the knock factor. Limited, because there is a big difference between what a moral issue and a practical issue. The knock factor is likely much higher in the former than the latter, because moral arguments are often made specifically to avoid rational argumentation. That’s a well-traveled avenue of exploitation for political actors.
Kitchen table issues are quite different from that. For some, it may require a bonk to the head delivered by the shit happens forces of life. But I’m not sure it’s that drastic for a good number of people.
I think it requires a less adversarial approach. I don’t mean civility. What I mean is, rather than say some form of “no” or “you’re wrong,” it’s better to use a basic fact that is more general but requires reflection to see its connection. Ideally, phrased in a way that is relatively memorable and something that you know they worry about.
It’s hard. It has a fairly low chance of success. But I think I view it as part of one’s responsibility in a democratic society.
Aside: To be honest, one thing that would go a long way would be to get a person to stop watching TV news, YouTube, and to avoid op-eds. Sure, if they replace it with one of the countless sites and blogs that are written versions of the same, it probably wouldn’t help much. But at the same time, get them reading more, and their brain will engage the material differently. Find sources that are reasonably fair and recommend them.
On the other hand, the media well has been poisoned for so long, maybe not. I cringe when I read news articles sometimes, not because I think it’s bullshit, but some phrasings that seem innocuous to a Leftie/leaner rings the alarm for someone with different priors, media habits, etc.
If you can show the difference between received and acquired knowledge, it can have a large effect over time.
It’s likely (hopefully) a mistake to consider everyone on the other side to be the equivalent of, say, @Smooth Jazz or the other folks who resurface here occasionally who appear to regard Joyner and Taylor as newly converted Marxists. I mean if they are sure that they ‘discriminated’ against everywhere they go, Chuck Bednarik couldn’t snap them out of it.
It’s fascinating to me to see the way “basic competence” is regarded by many Republicans as suspicious and expertise is immediately disqualifying. If there’s a pandemic, the last person they will believe is a doctor specializing in infectious diseases. If there’s a legal question, the last person they will believe is a lawyer. If there’s a question about science, the last person they will believe is a scientist. (I sometimes ponder if they carried this over into their personal lives, who would they take their car to if it stopped running? A doctor? If they needed electrical work done, would they hire a hair dresser?) The person they will dismiss the fastest is the one is most likely to know what they are talking about.
Naturally these voters wanted a “businessman” who had never held elective office and had no idea how to govern or even what government was supposed to do. All those other candidates were the “experts” and they would never trust them but someone who had never done anything like the job was someone they could trust.
Obviously that isn’t all Republicans. A great many don’t pay much attention to politics and just voted for the Republican because that’s what they’ve always done. They probably assumed Trump had a basic competence because it never occurred to them that he would have won the nomination if he didn’t. I’m hopeful that some of the Jan. 6 hearings is breaking through to them and they are waking up to the reality of the threat Trump represents. Not confident, but hopeful.
Maybe efforts like this will help nudge them into rejecting Trump firmly. Certainly it can’t hurt.
@Gustopher:
I’ve always thought that people like Fetterman are more talking to the faithful rather than trying to change anyone’s mind. From what I can gather, though, he’s making good headway with the “carpetbagger” issue so perhaps you’re right about this and I’m wrong. Your point about Fetterman not looking like a typical Democrat is a good point.
To adapt the “what if Democrats did it?” frame – what if the Eastman/Olson plan had worked, the House declared Trump re-elected? Would Democratic Party leaders accept this outcome, or protest, perhaps by refusing to attend Congress? Surely many people on the left would demand the latter, on the grounds that Trump could not be allowed to get away with stealing the election. They would be impervious to any arguments that Pence had acted correctly, no matter who made them.
And here’s the thing: many Republican voters are absolutely convinced that Biden stole the election. They believe without question that Democrats cheated. They believe they’ve seen the evidence with their own eyes; they’ve heard lawyers and academics explain that Biden’s supposed vote was illegitimate and mathematically impossible. They dismiss any attempted alternative explanations as lies and disinformation.
Consequently they believe January 6 was fully justified. They believe its only flaw is that it didn’t persuade Mike Pence to perform his constitutional duty. Therefore of course they support Trump being the nominee again in ’24. They are convinced this is the only way to restore integrity to the electoral process and save America from anarchy and probably a descent into violence.
There is no way to persuade these people that they have subscribed to a fairytale. One might as well try to use rational arguments to persuade born-again Christians that there is no god. Evidence and logic simply fail to make any impression on faith and emotion. But good on Steven for trying, of course.
@Steven L. Taylor: TBH it wouldn’t be appropriate for you to use the type of arguments required to persuade Trump voters (still on board) that getting off is best. There are really only 2 angles to go: Trump will fail or Trump is a Mole. Not persuasive angles for a credible Educator to take.
The average Trump voter elected Trump to save America from Democrats. s/ Seeing that Dems are Satan-worshipping, atheist pedophiles looking to replace white voters with illegal aliens, blacks, and alphabet freaks—they needed a special tough guy who could succeed where nicer men failed.
Who cares about Democracy since Dems are going to destroy it anyway. If Democracy has to be destroyed to save America then so be it. /s
30 years of unchallenged drip drip about conspiracies and plots staring the Democratic Party has reached its logical conclusion in the minds of several factions of Republican voters: America is too small for the both of us.
When people believe they are facing an existential threat, resorting to extreme measures to eliminate makes logical sense…to them
Man, Dr. Taylor laid this Smooth Jazz (and the other “intellectually conservative thinkers”) bait right out there, and he (they) didn’t even take it?! I’ve been waiting all day to hear more about how Trump is a victim of the evil MSM cabal and how he should’ve gotten a “honeymoon”. 😛 😛
Boring Sunday, indeed!
@Gavin:
I don’t think you remember the era where once a month a Republican Senator or Representative would discover he had a gay kid, and then shift his stance on a bunch of issues to protect their family. I want to say 2010-2014 had a lot of them. I remember it largely because I have a vested interest in the outcome, as a queer.
Lynn Cheney was the exception in that she didn’t go to her sister’s big gay wedding.
And I would say that the non-Cheneys were far less hypocritical than just never really had a reason to think about it.
@Kurtz:
A lot of what you would think of as practical issues are treated as moral issues. Only wanting to help the deserving poor. Those people are socialists. Capital gains should be taxed less then wages because myth about job creators because wealth is its own morality.
And they are bundled in a package with the hot button moral issues. If you believe gays are immoral, then you are much more likely to believe climate change is a hoax and guns are great, despite the three having nothing to do with one another.
If you start letting gays be visible in schools, then they will raise taxes on short term capital gains while on their way to abort children.
What I’m saying is: we need to make Republicans’ children gay. Or at least furries. Let’s start sending out cat ears headphones, and then see what happens.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Thanks for doing this.
@Gustopher:
Something I have noticed with the Rise of Trump, though, is the conservatives around me have become more “fixed” in place. Time was when my conservative mom was the only person invited to my cousin’s gay wedding. Now my conservative mom spits the word “rainbow” and thinks teachers should stop using pots of gold with rainbows activities because {again spits} “teh GaYs” have co-opted the rainbow and right thinking moral Christians aren’t allowed to use it any more. My sister, who belongs to the same evangelical Presbyterian church, won’t allow her daughter to wear anything remotely rainbow colored. (Said daughter, though, would have to bear a rapist’s child, in case you were wondering. Gay = bad, rape baby = good.)
I have a closeted child and at one point I sort of judged that child for being afraid to come out. I don’t any more. This environment has gotten more rigid and more hostile, and it doesn’t matter any more if it’s a beloved cousin or a grandchild. “Teh gAys” are destroying this
“good Christian nation,” aided and abetted by Obama (who’s behind ALL of it, you see) and Nancy. (“Poor Biden” is just Obama’s pawn.) My mom would definitely not change her stance now just because a grandchild comes out.
@Blue Galangal:
Are you guessing, just plain know from something, or has she told you?
If she’s told you, congratulations! You’ve created a space in this hellish environment where your kid feels safe. And she trusts you. And that’s awesome.
If you discovered it and she doesn’t know… the closet is really damaging, and queer kids have lots of problems. I don’t know that it’s a good idea to walk into her closet, tell her you know, you love her, you want her to be happy, she can take her time and you aren’t going to tell anyone, etc., but I would be tempted. Particularly given grandma.
The Trump era has unleashed the worst in people, and allowed being awful to be viewed as strong. Your mom pisses me off, and I don’t know her.
@Kari Q:
Dr. Taylor,
You may be interested in ruminating further on the implications of Swalwell’s exchange with the forced birther ghoul the other day in Congress.
Forced birther actually said.. if the 10-year old got an abortion, it wouldn’t be an abortion.
Of course the written text of laws say no such thing, but all the public talk from these psychopaths is that Exceptions Are Available. It’s an Alice in Wonderland moment — “Words mean just what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less”.
In this way, “logic” is simply something the forced-birthers as well as the rest of the RW are only interested in using AGAINST people who care about logic. They “know” they’re not going to be affected by these things, so their objective is to burn the system down Using Their So-called Logic Against Them.
To be clear, “them” is anyone who actually cares about objective reality. They just want to injure – period. Theocracy/Gilded Age the Return, here we come!
@Gavin:
Well that’s certainly a … uuuhhhh…
unique excursion into uncharted semantic territory. And as to the Gilded Age, my take is we’ve already arrived. Theocracy? My take is that the secularists outnumber the evangelicals even on the nutjob right, so it will only happen to the extent that “my kind” (whoever we may be) will not be affected. I could be wrong, but it seems that theocracy is moving back into the Reagan approach to the religious right–promise lots, deliver nothing, blame the liberals for “thwarting us.”