The Narcissist in Chief

“President Trump Departs for Louisiana” by The White House is in the Public Domain

To add to James Joyner’s post about the politicization of the coronavirus by the president some of his allies in the media, note the clips below. The way in which the president makes the situation about himself and his political fortunes is continually stunning.

I remember earlier in the administration when there were attempts to intone that “today is the day Trump became president” (which became a bit of a joke over time). Here we have his best chance for him to do so (a public health crisis should be one of the easiest items to treat in a nonpartisan, apolitical fashion) and yet here we are. Really, what better opportunity would he have to be the president of all the people and to rise above petty politics? Instead, the pettiness is palpable.

In the first clip he brings up his “perfect phone call” out of the blue and in the second he is clearly more worried about “the numbers” than doing the right thing from a public health and humanitarian POV. He also has to bring up the stock market (and how great it would have been). His narcissism and lack of even a basic understanding of his position, while not surprising, continue to stun.

FILED UNDER: Donald Trump, Health, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is Professor of Political Science and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Polimom says:

    Really, what better opportunity would he have to be the president of all the people

    This, right here, is precisely why I detest this president. He is not, and has no desire to be, the president of all the people. He wants to be the president of “certain” people — the people who adore him — and ONLY those people.

    The people who don’t fawn over him are “them”. The Enemy. Usually this means Democrats, and the ongoing demonization of half the country (or whatever percentage) is causing possibly (probably) irreparable harm. It doesn’t matter whether I agree or disagree with him on policy at this point; he’s deliberately cleaving Americans from one another.

    That should be disqualifying. It clearly is not. Evidently the Founders didn’t anticipate a Trump.

    ReplyReply
    26
    2
  2. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    Evidently the Founders didn’t anticipate a Trump.

    I disagree. Didn’t Franklin reply “a republic if you can keep it” to the question of what the Constitutional Convention produced for the people?

    The only system that I can think of that will protect the governed from their own stupidity is autocracy. And that doesn’t help if the autocrat is the stupid one.

    ReplyReply
  3. gVOR08 says:

    @Polimom:

    He wants to be the president of “certain” people — the people who adore him — and ONLY those people.

    Can’t agree. He doesn’t want to be president of those people either He’s president only for himself. He doesn’t give a damn about “his” people beyond conning them out of their votes.

    ReplyReply
    13
    2
  4. Scott F. says:

    @Polimom:

    Evidently the Founders didn’t anticipate a Trump.

    But they did. That’s why they designed in co-equal branches of government – the whole checks and balances thing.

    The Founders didn’t anticipate today’s Republican Party… the cowardice, the sycophancy, the complicity, the cover-up. Our system could handle a Trump in the Executive. It’s the corruption in the Legislature and increasingly in the Judiciary that is cleaving America.

    ReplyReply
    27
    2
  5. Michael Reynolds says:

    I remain un-stunned. Trump is what I’ve been saying for four years he is: a psychopath. Narcissistic, incapable of empathy, bold, dishonest, reckless, cruel and cocksure despite his undeniable incompetence. Were he a smarter psycho he could pretend to give a shit, but he’s not smart, so we get this poorly-drawn stick figure character acting out his programming with mechanical reliability.

    He always acts in character. Always. There are things missing from him and he lacks the self-awareness or common decency to try to repair the loose, sparking wires, leaky pipes and rotting foundation in his brain. He has a personality disorder, a mental illness, compounded by age and exacerbated by flattery and cowardly toadying.

    He will never grow, he will never change, he will never get better, he will just spiral slowly down and down, a turd in a toilet. And millions of idiots will ride that turd down with him.

    ReplyReply
    15
    2
  6. Scott F. says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    Were he a smarter psycho, partnering with such a pliant party, the country would be truly effed. There’s a sliver of solace in that, no?

    ReplyReply
  7. Lounsbury says:

    @Scott F.:

    The Founders didn’t anticipate today’s Republican Party

    Actually as one can frequently read, the US founding fathers did not anticipate properly political parties as such. As compared to some of your 19th century history, the current situation is not that novel, but what is novel is the development in the 20th century of a strong central presidency. (I shouldn’t wish to imply any sympathy to the typical American Libertarian PoV that this is some Evil unconstitutional development, it seems rather a natural evolution to modern challenges)

    The lessons of Trump are there is a crying need to reinforce institutional checks to the Presidential powers particularly around potential criminal or conflicted Presidential behaviours.

    ReplyReply
    7
    2
  8. Polimom says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    He always acts in character. Always.

    Yes. This is 100% correct. He’s therefore pretty predictable.

    @Scott F.:

    The Founders didn’t anticipate today’s Republican Party… the cowardice, the sycophancy, the complicity, the cover-up.

    Tell me, do you think there are any redeemable Republicans? Or does it all kinda go lock, stock and barrel together?

    ReplyReply
  9. @Michael Reynolds:

    I remain un-stunned. Trump is what I’ve been saying for four years he is: a psychopath.

    Let me clarify: I am not surprised that’ a skunk stinks, but my lack of surprise does not decrease the unpleasantness when the stench slaps me in the face.

    ReplyReply
    8
    1
  10. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:
    You are indulging in simile. Or is it analogy? I can never remember.

    ReplyReply
  11. gVOR08 says:

    The narcissism was apparent. I confess to being surprised by the degree of incompetence coupled with the pervasive Dunning-Kruger effect. I suppose the D-K is an aspect of the narcissism.

    ReplyReply
  12. grumpy realist says:

    @gVOR08: Trump–and most of his children–have never had to be intelligent in their lives. All their stupidities have been covered over by money or other people rescuing them.

    Hence, the continued narcissism on all their parts. They’ve never had to learn from reality, which bites you in the arse extremely hard.

    Trump is the sort of idiot who thinks he can ask “a scientist” to redefine the critical mass of plutonium.

    ReplyReply
    6
    1
  13. CSK says:

    Is pathological insecurity a function of narcissism? I ask because Trump’s need to be assured that he’s the greatest at everything seems to be bottomless. I mentioned in the politicization of the coronavirus thread his boast that so many doctors are astounded by his knowledge of Covid-19. We all know that no such doctors exist.

    What is this weird compulsion to lie so blatantly and transparently to boost his own ego?

    ReplyReply
    6
    1
  14. gVOR08 says:

    @Polimom:

    Tell me, do you think there are any redeemable Republicans? Or does it all kinda go lock, stock and barrel together?

    In my experience most of the Republican base voters are decent people. But if FOX “News” and the rest of the RW media remain what the are, and the base continue to marinade in it, they’re lost to reality.

    The professionals, the politicians and staffers, are careerist asshats and will continue to do whatever gets them enough money to win elections. The funders will continue paying them to do what they’re doing as long as it works. The only way Republicans change is if they go down in overwhelming defeat.

    ReplyReply
  15. Scott F. says:

    @Polimom:

    Tell me, do you think there are any redeemable Republicans? Or does it all kinda go lock, stock and barrel together?

    That remains to be seen, I suppose. I’d like to think so. I’m a big believer in redemption, but it requires atonement, does it not?

    Until such time as Republican politicians, in a bloc larger than say Mitt Romney, take an action against Trump more substantive than an under-the-breath rebuke, then Republicans politicians should be considered as a singular corrupt group.

    Until such time as Republicans in the general population, in a bloc large enough to swing the election, vote for the Democrat or refuse to vote at all, then Republicans in the general population should be considered as a singular complicit group.

    It’s not complicated. Trump could not achieve “the ongoing demonization of half the country (or whatever percentage)… causing possibly (probably) irreparable harm” by himself. Our system was built to prevent another king. There are checks available. That these checks are not being used has more to do with the cowardice of leaders in the GOP and the complicity of the Republican base then it does with Trump.

    ReplyReply
    10
  16. An Interested Party says:

    Tell me, do you think there are any redeemable Republicans?

    Of course there are…those who don’t support Trump, that is…let’s face it, those who do are either stupid, craven, power-hungry, or some combination of two or three of those…how else could anyone possibly support such a bigoted, ignorant grifter…

    ReplyReply
    1
    1
  17. Matt says:

    @An Interested Party: You forgot outright a##holes and trolls.

    Saw a car here the other day with a big view blocking grey and black semi transparent sticker flag covering the back window with a 45 in one of the stripes. Under it in the middle of a trunk was a large bumper sticker with TRUMP 2020 across the top and under that “fck your feelings” uncensored in large clear lettering. If you check google there’s a whole lot of those kinds of stickers being sold on amazon, ebay and various other sellers.

    A significant number of his supporters only support him because they think he triggers the left.. Hence Don Jr’s book name etc…

    I can’t get over how many Trump supporters I’ve met who treat the whole political process as if it was a football game and Trump is their team.

    ReplyReply
  18. Polimom says:

    @An Interested Party: @Scott F.: Every time I hear a Republican excoriating or demonizing a Democrat, my hackles go up — not because I’m a Democrat or my feelings are directly hurt, but because I know lots of Democrats who are hurt and angered by that. It’s even worse when it’s the POTUS who’s saying things like that, but the one-offs by Republican friends have a very similar effect.

    Do you suppose your continual non-stop slights and disparagements of Republicans have a different effect? I’m flummoxed by the inability of so many very (very!) bright, articulate people to not understand themselves as part of the problem.

    How about a follow-on question: Do you suppose it’s possible to recognize a bubble from the inside?

    ReplyReply
    2
    1
  19. An Interested Party says:

    I’m flummoxed by the inability of so many very (very!) bright, articulate people to not understand themselves as part of the problem.

    Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to this country and this world…his loathsome behavior and cruel actions are well known…anyone supporting him is enabling damage far and above any petty partisan sniping…I suppose you would have asked anti-Nazis in Weimar Germany why they didn’t realize that they were part of the problem…

    ReplyReply
    4
    1
  20. EddieInCA says:

    @Polimom:

    With all due respect, you exhibit the same kind of “bothsiderism” that people like Smerconish and a few others espouse.

    I think it’s bullshit, because there aren’t two equal sides to most issues. On most contentious policy issues, there are usually two sides that oppose each other. In those situations, the bothsiderism is fair. But in most cases, it’s bullshit.

    What’s the liberal equivalent to Trump taking Obama’s policy of family separation and ramping it up to be punitive and arbitrary, rather than rare and necessary.

    What’s the liberal equivalent to what the GOP did to Merrick Garland.

    What’s the liberal equivalent to the GOP impeaching Clinton over consensual oral sex?

    What’s the liberal equivalent to Donald Trump shitting over the Constitution and breaking norms?

    What’s the liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?

    What’s the liberal equivalent to the GOP ignoring actual laws when it comes to oversight from the House?

    ReplyReply
    18
    1
  21. grumpy realist says:

    @Polimom: Stupidity and lack of integrity should hurt. And if you’re someone who refuses to admit your stupidity and lack of integrity, why should the other side worry about your feelings?

    Being able to admit that one is WRONG and to fix one’s actions is absolutely necessary before complaining about how the other side treats you makes any sense. I haven’t seen that many Republicans admit the gaping holes that Trump and his acolytes have torn in America’s expected political norms. When the Republican Party demonstrates that they can police themselves and that they are thinking about ALL Americans, rather than “their own side”, then they will have my respect.

    ReplyReply
    4
    1
  22. Mikey says:

    @Polimom: While I do not believe you are a “troll” or that you are arguing in bad faith, I am finding your consistent bothsides-ism rather tiring.

    Only one side cheers the confinement of children to de-facto concentration camps.
    Only one side dismisses the scientific support for climate change.
    Only one side denies the rights of women to control their own bodies.
    Only one side supports a President who would declare himself an emperor.
    Only one side promotes the continuation of systemic racism in America.
    Only one side demands LGBT people get back in the closet.
    Only one side marches while displaying the Nazi hand salute and chanting fascist slogans.

    So no, I do not consider myself “part of the problem.” This is not a both-sides-do-it thing, this is one side shitting all over what America is supposed to be and the other side calling them out on it.

    ReplyReply
    11
    1
  23. Gustopher says:

    @EddieInCA: Oh, this is going to be fun!

    What’s the liberal equivalent to Trump taking Obama’s policy of family separation and ramping it up to be punitive and arbitrary, rather than rare and necessary.

    Increased marginal tax rates!

    What’s the liberal equivalent to what the GOP did to Merrick Garland.

    Bork!

    What’s the liberal equivalent to the GOP impeaching Clinton over consensual oral sex?

    Impeaching Nixon for a burglary that changed nothing! Surely that should have been a warning offense!

    What’s the liberal equivalent to Donald Trump shitting over the Constitution and breaking norms?

    Fast And Furious. My god, don’t you ever pay attention to the news?

    What’s the liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?

    Rachael Maddow and that woman who photographed herself with a plastic severed Trump head.

    What’s the liberal equivalent to the GOP ignoring actual laws when it comes to oversight from the House?

    Hillary Clinton testifying and refusing to admit that she personally killed four diplomats in Benghazi.

    ReplyReply
    17
  24. Scott F. says:

    @Polimom:

    Do you suppose your continual non-stop slights and disparagements of Republicans have a different effect? I’m flummoxed by the inability of so many very (very!) bright, articulate people to not understand themselves as part of the problem.

    I left the door open for atonement, didn’t I? The demonstrations of good faith I noted I would want to see before viewing Republicans en masse more generously aren’t renunciation of their political beliefs or a challenge to their core values. I ask only for an acknowledgement of Trump’s guilt and a civil act to make amends by removing Trump from office.

    I’m not typically a broad brush kind of guy, so it pains me a bit to ignore the nuances of how any individual could come to detest (your word) Trump, yet not publicly disassociate from his movement. But, what flummoxes me is that anyone can look at this unique moment in US history and not see the inherent danger. We have this constant stream of bad behavior from Trump and it’s given cover without question and to a person by Republicans in Congress. Trump shows his unfitness for office on a daily basis, yet his approval rating never falls below 40%.

    Unique times call for unique measures. I’m sorry if it raises your hackles, but if expecting some contrition makes me part of the problem, so be it. For myself, I suspect I would be part of a bigger problem if I didn’t speak out and allowed Trump to be seen as some aberration.

    ReplyReply
  25. Polimom says:

    Oh my goodness. How… unnerving. I guess this is what happens when somebody steps out of the loop for enough years. The divides are MUCH much bigger than I realized from the sidelines, and even places like OTB — LONG an admired stronghold for open minds and rational thought — are very changed.

    Folks, it IS possible to feel like policy is important enough to hold a nose and vote for someone. It IS possible to feel that Obama’s policies were overreaching. You don’t have to agree about it. I certainly don’t agree with a lot of it. But people — actual rational intelligent people — can disagree on policy and still communicate. Or at least, that used to be true. Maybe not anymore?

    Personally, I am unable to hold my nose firmly enough to block out Trump’s stench. And I spent a couple years in the angry wilderness after 2016, blaming people for having inflicted this monstrosity on us. I even cut some people out of my life over it. Somewhere along the line, though, my curiosity drove me to start talking to the people I know who are intelligent, educated, rational, and generally sane politically (imo), who voted for Trump. And I discovered that they were the same as they’d ever been, but they see the Democrats as the ones going over the far left edge. They are truly concerned that the left is unhinged.

    Hunh. How about that? Sound at all familiar? Imagine that, both sides going over the edges. LOL!!! That’s what I see from where I sit.

    You guys are free to believe what you want. Certainly there are stereotypical Trumpsters out there who will suit any horrific description you want to deploy. (I’ve cut off a number of them.) But you’re not doing yourselves or our country any favors by refusing to consider that there might be other perfectly rational perspectives besides your own.

    You can call it “both-siderism” and find me tiresome til the cows come home. But I’ll never stop seeing people as fundamentally good, or working toward understanding other points of view. Not ever.

    ReplyReply
    5
    1
  26. MarkedMan says:

    @Polimom:

    Do you suppose your continual non-stop slights and disparagements of Republicans have a different effect?

    I simply don’t believe that me being nice on this forum will change a single mind. I have friends that are Trump supporters and I don’t say these things to them. But here I feel I can vent.

    ReplyReply
  27. An Interested Party says:

    Hunh. How about that? Sound at all familiar? Imagine that, both sides going over the edges. LOL!!! That’s what I see from where I sit.

    No one is more unhinged than Donald Trump…surely you see that? And what power does “the far left” or even “the left” have when compared to the president and his enablers and toadies in the Republican Party?

    But you’re not doing yourselves or our country any favors by refusing to consider that there might be other perfectly rational perspectives besides your own.

    Why don’t you share with us the rational perspective that allows one to support this president…

    But I’ll never stop seeing people as fundamentally good, or working toward understanding other points of view. Not ever.

    Tell that to those who like to see immigrants locked up in cages, among many other odious transgressions…

    ReplyReply
    4
    2
  28. @Polimom:

    Do you suppose your continual non-stop slights and disparagements of Republicans have a different effect? I’m flummoxed by the inability of so many very (very!) bright, articulate people to not understand themselves as part of the problem.

    On the one hand, I understand what you are trying to say (and it is something I have tried to note as well–just excoriating people is rarely helpful). On the other hand, this administration has been especially problematic in a host of ways (as underscored by post, which you basically endorsed above, yes?). Those who continue to support him have some responsibility, yes?

    I do understand that there are a lot of people who voted for Trump for a host of reasons, but

    ReplyReply
    5
    1
  29. @Polimom:

    Somewhere along the line, though, my curiosity drove me to start talking to the people I know who are intelligent, educated, rational, and generally sane politically (imo), who voted for Trump. And I discovered that they were the same as they’d ever been, but they see the Democrats as the ones going over the far left edge. They are truly concerned that the left is unhinged.

    Hunh. How about that? Sound at all familiar? Imagine that, both sides going over the edges. LOL!!! That’s what I see from where I sit.

    I think that the fundamental problem is that while yes, you are correct that a lot of Republicans think that the Dems are the problem, I do think that it is difficult, from an objective point of view, to act as if both side (and hence the both-siderism charge) are in the same place–especially since the worst part of the GOP controls the White House and is being actively supported by the part that controls the Senate (and are working together to dominate the courts).

    I get it, and have noted here at the site, that one can understand how voters end up making a choice in a binary system, even to vote for Trump. I think that the frustration is that the party hasn’t just held its nose, it has embraced. (And because a lot of people are living in a media bubble that also actively supports Trump–indeed, this is why I think you are wrong in your interpretation on the other thread–I think it is quite likely an empirical illustration of certain conservatives being overly influenced by Rush and FNC and the president).

    ReplyReply
  30. All,

    As has come up before, it would nice if we were all a bit kinder to new commenters (although Polimon was previously a denizen here a while back). There is no need to chase people off.

    ReplyReply
  31. An Interested Party says:

    There is no need to chase people off.

    Indeed…but, despite what has become of the GOP, from Newt Gingrich through Mitch McConnell, Trump is something more…he represents an existential threat to this country, and while it isn’t nice to be rude, anyone who even suggests that the problems with Democrats and Republicans are equal, or anywhere near equal, is putting forth a ridiculous and foolish argument…I mean, can anyone compare anything bad Obama did vs. what Trump has done? To do anything of the sort is an outright denial of reality, and needs a strong pushback…and I mean no disrespect, but is there anything fundamentally good about Donald Trump? I’m puzzled at any point of view that would paint him in a positive way…

    ReplyReply
    4
    2
  32. Scott F. says:

    @Polimom:
    First of all, thank you for your earnest approach to this discussion. It is appreciated. You may not believe me, but I also strive to understand other points of view.

    But in this very thread, you yourself say that Trump is causing “irreparable harm.” Not overreach or policy disagreement, but harm that can’t be repaired. And still you can say it’s possible for people who are “intelligent, educated, rational, and generally sane politically” to rationalize allowing this harm to continue.

    I can’t square that. I don’t know how you can.

    ReplyReply
  33. An Interested Party says:

    So I was reading an opinion column at the New York Times website which had a link that sent me to the Reason website…I think it would be difficult to see people as fundamentally good or work to understand other points of view after reading that comments section…yikes…nothing that anyone has ever posted here could match the trash posted there…

    ReplyReply
  34. Gustopher says:

    Seen on Twitter…

    https://twitter.com/ap/status/1236476457494417408?s=21

    @AP: “BREAKING: The White House overruled health officials who wanted to recommend that elderly and physically fragile Americans avoid flying on commercial airlines because of the new coronavirus, a federal official tells The Associated Press.”

    @amicustard: “Trump is keeping Social Security solvent, one way or another.“

    @Lisaem5: “He said he’d be making cuts, – we just assumed it was to the budget, not the recipients.“

    Gallows humor. Good times.

    ReplyReply
  35. Jax says:

    @Gustopher: My Mom is a 67 year old cancer patient with long-term kidney disease and COPD, and she’s supposed to get on a plane to fly to Arizona Tuesday to continue her next round of cancer treatment (they can’t the drugs for this kind of cancer in the Rocky Mountain West easily….even in Arizona, they are splitting one dose between three patients).

    I am willing to drive her down there, but do I really want her STAYING there? It’s a retirement community with nightly “events”. It could become a hot spot fairly quickly.

    ReplyReply
  36. Jax says:

    @An Interested Party: I end up with no hope for humanity after reading the comments on most blogs/websites. Particularly anything Trump-related.

    ReplyReply
  37. Kari Q says:

    @Polimom:

    I am indeed aware of Republicans who think the Democrats are going to extremes. When I ask for examples, they fall into three categories: rants about Obamacare, complaints that Democrats are outlawing and planning to confiscate guns, and stuff that makes no sense.

    The first is (as I’m sure you know but they never seem to accept) the conservative approach to health care reform created by the Heritage Foundation. The second is wrong, but no amount of evidence will convince them.

    The third is perhaps the most telling. One example was a friend who claimed “liberals want to abolish Father’s Day.” After some chasing of links, I finally found the source of the claim was one woman from Australia who wanted her local school to celebrate “Parents Day.” It’s the “two students from Oberlin” problem (from an article by Kevin Drum, I think): no matter how reasonable and moderate mainstream Democrats are, the conservative media can always find a couple of students from a liberal arts college who will say something extreme and that will be portrayed as the Democratic position.

    Another “extreme” position that conservatives are claiming is commonplace among Democrats is support for abortion “after birth.” Something that literally no one supports, but that doesn’t matter.

    There may be legitimate questions about the conflict between gay rights and bakers, or that sort of thing, but those are never the things I hear. I hear caricatures and misrepresentations.

    ReplyReply
    11
  38. Scott O says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:
    “(although Polimon was previously a denizen here a while back)”

    Jan, last seen a day or two after the 2012 election?

    ReplyReply
  39. An Interested Party says:

    There may be legitimate questions about the conflict between gay rights and bakers…

    Oh? What are those “legitimate questions”…

    ReplyReply
  40. Kari Q says:

    @An Interested Party:

    General questions about where religious liberty interferes with civil rights. I don’t think baking a cake for a wedding for two women is an infringement of religious liberty, but some people that it is. If those I was asking these questions of had brought up those issues, I would still have disagreed but I would at least understand where they were coming from. Instead, it’s things that make no sense.

    Poor editing on my part cut half of what I was saying and the remaining part makes no sense.

    I was trying to say that maybe there’s an argument to be made there, but I have not heard it if there is. No one I have spoken with ever seems to care to make one. They just seem to think that the religious community is being trampled because gay people … Something something something.

    Read it as an extremely skeptical statement with emphasis on “may.”

    ReplyReply
  41. Gustopher says:

    @Polimom:

    Folks, it IS possible to feel like policy is important enough to hold a nose and vote for someone. It IS possible to feel that Obama’s policies were overreaching. You don’t have to agree about it. I certainly don’t agree with a lot of it. But people — actual rational intelligent people — can disagree on policy and still communicate. Or at least, that used to be true. Maybe not anymore?

    There’s a difference between disagreeing on policy and giving up on good governance.

    I have respect for those who hold their nose and vote for Trump because of abortion or trade or countless other reasons that I think they are wrong about.

    I have no respect for those who don’t hold their nose. The people who excuse the destruction of institutions and the abandonment of good governance and just don’t care.

    And now, we are unlikely to contain a major outbreak, although I hope to be wrong about that, with devastating consequences in human lives, and financial ruin.

    To me, it’s personal. Will my favorite Mexican restaurant survive a loss of customers for many months? (Also, will my father die? My brothers? Me? But mostly, the Mexican restaurant. And the workers — can they pay their rent, etc.)

    ReplyReply
  42. Gustopher says:

    @Kari Q: I’ve long believed that had “separate but equal” been even remotely equal, we would be balancing a lot of these decisions differently. And we’ve lost some rights to freedom of association as a result — the right trade off given the history, but still a trade off.

    I’m honestly a little uncomfortable with the gay hatin’ bakers being forced to make wedding cakes for gays… So long as there are other bakers of the same price and quality in the area that will bake the cake, I don’t see the problem. And people should protest and boycott the gay hatin’ bakers if they want.

    I think there is a reasonable way to rebalance this conflict between rights that does respect the gay hatin’ bakers.

    (I’m completely opposed to a conscience clause for pharmacists refusing to dispense Plan B, however, as there is a critical time window.)

    ReplyReply
  43. Mikey says:

    @Gustopher:

    I think there is a reasonable way to rebalance this conflict between rights that does respect the gay hatin’ bakers.

    There is: they can stop serving the general public.

    ReplyReply
  44. @Scott O:

    Jan, last seen a day or two after the 2012 election?

    No–far longer ago than that (and I know who she is, and she isn’t Jan).

    ReplyReply
  45. An Interested Party says:

    I’m honestly a little uncomfortable with the gay hatin’ bakers being forced to make wedding cakes for gays… So long as there are other bakers of the same price and quality in the area that will bake the cake, I don’t see the problem. And people should protest and boycott the gay hatin’ bakers if they want.

    So you wouldn’t have a problem with a baker who didn’t want to bake a cake for an interracial couple?

    I think there is a reasonable way to rebalance this conflict between rights that does respect the gay hatin’ bakers.

    Anyone who deals with the public has every right to hate whoever they want but they should not have the right to refuse service to and discriminate against whoever they hate…

    ReplyReply

Speak Your Mind

*