Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2d ago
As a leftist myself I do think the American left has often been too quick to cede ground on patriotism to the right. My impression is that a lot of this is due to a kind of cultural weaponization of the idea to marshal support for the Iraq war in the wake of 9/11. Fortunately there are writers on the left, both old and new, who recognize that patriotism and leftism or liberalism are compatible notions.
History aside, the notion that Donald Trump is some uniquely American president post World War 2 is an idea I find insane. Maybe that can be sustained if your image of what it means to be an American comes from slop like Team America World Police. Or if you have fully bought into the post 9/11 propaganda. But any passing knowledge of America's founders, it's elder statesman, our civic religion more broadly and the virtues embodied therein puts lie to the notion Donald Trump could possible be some avatar of it.
If we're quoting American statesman about what it means to be an American I rather prefer Learned Hand's The Spirit of Liberty
We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedoms from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning. What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.
What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3d ago
I appreciate the links. I think they convince me the author is a Never-Trump style Republican.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4d ago
Can you link me to his other writings? Because this is a quote from the article you linked:
Now, I am, by temperament, a hardcore partisan. I often respect principled adversaries on the other side, but moderates tend to strike me as slippery customers who can’t commit. I instinctively disdain them, especially those on my own “team.” I spent years daydreaming about Susan Collins being run out of my party, ideally on a rail, no matter how tactically stupid it would have been.
He goes on to say the Senate is meant to counter that temperament but this hardly looks like the writing of someone who does not prefer Republicans!
He is trying to make less polarized candidates, not candidates of a specific brand. Surely 30 Republican-leaning centrist and 20 Democrat-leaning centrist Senators would be better than what we have now?
I am not at all sure of that. I see little evidence that "moderates" in the Senate have done much to stand up to what I perceive to be Trump's abuses of power. Why would I want them to be more powerful, given that perception?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4d ago
I can't help but notice his proposal would, under current state legislature distribution, enshrine his preferred political party's dominance in the Senate. Even more than it already is! There are currently 30 states whose upper chambers (or only chamber, in Nebraska's case) are majority Republican. This has been true for the last ~decade if you go back through the data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. "I just happen to come up with a scheme where my preferred party has a 3/5 majority in perpetuity, but that's not why I chose it I swear!"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5d ago
I guess I don't find these kinds of arguments about the structure of an argument very compelling these days. If I think that some government actions are illegitimate and resisting them via force is justified am I thereby required, as a matter of logic or consistency, to accept that any individual's subjective assessment of any government action and the appropriate resistance is correct? Sure, if there are liberals and conservatives out there talking about how, actually, both government actions were equally illegitimate but then they have contradictory reactions then charge them with hypocrisy. I think this describes relatively few people though. Rather, people disagree about the facts with respect to which actions were illegitimate and thus what resistance was justified.
Mistake on my part, I still think it is not true.
What kinds of virtues did the founders of America hold in high regard? Civility. Integrity. Humility. Temperance. How does Trump embody any of these? What is it about Trump, his actions or mannerisms, that people should find aspirational?
More options
Context Copy link