Donald Trump Is the Fearmonger Republicans Have Been Waiting For

[bemildred]

By Jonathan Chait

In some ways, Donald Trump has hijacked the Republican Party and diverted its attention into populist obsessions with trade, immigration, and identity that are orthogonal to the core interests of mainstream conservatism. But on the subject of Islamic terrorism, Trump has not hijacked orthodox conservatism. He has intensified it, given it a more explicit policy objective, and brought its ideas closer to their logical conclusion. Sunday’s mass murder in Orlando, and the political response that has ensued, reveal Trump as a true conservative thought leader, and further reveal the ugliness of those thoughts.

A dozen years ago, George W. Bush ran for reelection, at a time when the post-9/11 fog of panic that had transformed him into a fearless and admired war leader had not yet dissipated. At that time, when Republicans wanted to depict Democrats as soft on Islamic terrorism, they would accuse them of seeing terrorism as a matter of “law enforcement.” (To take one of many examples, Bush charged during one debate, “My opponent said this war is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement. No, this war is a matter of using every asset at our disposal to keep the American people protected.”) The accusation had political force because it conveyed a larger metaphor, that Bush (allegedly) took terrorism seriously, and his weak, intellectual, vaguely French opponent did not. But it was also connected to a real policy idea. Neoconservatives believed that overturning hostile regimes in the Middle East would spread pro-Western democracy and eliminate sources of cultural, political, and financial support for terrorism. Their conviction that the war on terrorism must be an actual, military war, and not merely “intelligence and law enforcement,” reflected a genuine policy doctrine.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/fearmonger-republicans-have-been-waiting-for.html

[seabeckind]

1. So we democrats should fear Trump

and vote against the issues that are important to us in order to prevent him from changing our way of life?

So what do we gain if we give up our principles for some safety from this boogeyman?

[bemildred]

2. I didn't really feel that Chait said anything about what we Democrats should do.

I thought he was mostly criticizing Trump's policys, if one can call them that.

[seabeckind]

3. Just drawing a fearmongering parallel

make of it what you will.

[bemildred]

4. Everybody is getting very reactive.

Hormones pumping away.

[seabeckind]

6. Not everybody

The key to success is to keep your wits when all around you are losing their head.

[geek tragedy]

7. there is no parallel between "vote to keep a really horrible fascist and racist out of office"

and promoting hatred of Muslims and immigrants.

False equivalence, and a noxious one at that.

If you don't believe that we need to defeat Donald Trump, you are on the wrong website.

[bemildred]

14. Yeah, reason doesn't seem to be working here. nt

[geek tragedy]

15. reason and fear sometimes conflict, sometimes they align nt

[bemildred]

18. Fear is very motivating but it tends to make you do stupid things.

Like anger and hate. There is a reason they are called negative emotions, and it isn't because they make you smart.

They have a place, but they must be harnessed.

As Will says, "Anger is a gift", but only if it's not the boss.

[geek tragedy]

19. anger and hate are different than fear, imo--lack of fear can be lethal

lions are afraid of water because the cubs that aren't afraid of it get eaten by crocodiles

reason is essential for telling us what to fear, as well as when to ignore it.

[seabeckind]

25. Too much fear is just as lethal. n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

28. + a million or so!

Anyone who can't see that is NO Dem!

[geek tragedy]

5. You aren't giving up any principles or voting against the important issues

by voting Clinton over Trump.

Anyone who is sane should be frightened of what Trump would do in office.

[seabeckind]

8. Think so?

I guess you've been away these last 30 years.

[geek tragedy]

9. no, I am fully aware of how democracy works, it's always a choice between flawed options

if someone's guiding principles causes them to be unwilling to oppose Trump becoming the most powerful man in the world, then their guiding principles are absolutely worthless and should be rejected

those who are okay with a mentally unstable fascist and racist becoming president of the USA really should not lecture others about principles, as it's hard to see which principles they have

[seabeckind]

10. You keep throwing these strawmen at me

I don't remember saying I liked trump.

That's an accusation from those I'm not allowed to criticize.

It's called a Pyrrhic victory.

Maybe you're ok with living on your knees before a tyrant if the tyrant is wearing a suit instead of a uniform.

[geek tragedy]

11. you are arguing that we shouldn't be afraid of Trump and that it's a violation

of principles to vote to keep him out of office.

So we democrats should fear Trump and vote against the issues that are important to us in order to prevent him from changing our way of life?

So what do we gain if we give up our principles for some safety from this boogeyman?

Note: the bogeyman is not real, Donald Trump unfortunately is.

I am not okay living on my knees if the tyrant wears a suit, that's why I'm opposed to Trump.

The better question is why someone like you talks a big game about opposing tyranny but then says we shouldn't be afraid of Trump.

Why are you here?

There is no reasonable debate on the left regarding this--Trump must be kept away from the Presidency.

[seabeckind]

12. Nope. That isn't what I said.

I said that fear of Trump should not blind us to the principles that should be more important to us.

Here's a few:

State of the Union Message to Congress
January 11, 1944

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html

(added) Why am I here? I;m one of those old FDR democrats who didn't fall for the neolib bs.

[geek tragedy]

13. there's nothing more important than keeping Trump out of office. Nothing.

If there's a set of principles that argues for not doing everything we can do--within the law--to prevent him from taking office, those principles must be rejected.

If you're going to argue we shouldn't vote for Clinton over Trump, you do not belong here, period, and will need to take your act elsewhere.

[seabeckind]

16. Nope, I didn't say that either, did I?

Why all these love it or leave it threats?

My, it sounds just like those arguments long ago.

Wouldn't life be grand if you could just snap your fingers and any opposing opinions would just disappear?

Oh, how democratic of you.

[geek tragedy]

17. yes, you pretty much did, you said there was a conflict between

practicing our principles and stopping Trump

So we democrats should fear Trump

and vote against the issues that are important to us in order to prevent him from changing our way of life?

So what do we gain if we give up our principles for some safety from this boogeyman?

Tell us how it would be possible to:

vote against the issues that are important to us in order to prevent (Trump) from changing our way of life

Or what it would mean to

give up our principles for some safety from this boogeyman?

You are quite clearly dancing around site rules while arguing that we shouldn't vote against Trump in the general election if the alternative is Clinton.

You are not hiding it very well.

In the very small chance that I am incorrect, feel free to explain what you meant when you decried voting against our issues and violating our principles in order to keep him out of office?

[seabeckind]

20. I can't fix your comprehension issues.

I do have a problem that you are the keeper of the site rules in light of the comprehension problems.

Nowhere did I say "we shouldn't vote against Trump in the general election if the alternative is Clinton."

What the intent of what I said was: There are certain principles that differ between democrats and republicans. Democrats believe in equality for all people regardless of station. They believe in fairness. And so on.

Those principles should never be negotiable. We should insist that the candidate we put forth abides by those principles.

I might add... if we negotiate those principles away the differences between the 2 parties fade away, don' they?

[geek tragedy]

21. we are at the stage where the choice is Clinton vs Trump, and you are positing the existence of a

conflict between adhering to our principles and voting to keep Trump out of office.

You have not explained how this conflict would arise.

[seabeckind]

22. We are at the stage where the party platform must be defined.

That's where we are.

We are also at the stage where we, as democrats, must have assurances that whoever our nominee adheres to terms in that platform.

We also must ensure that any running mates, potential cabinet appointments, etc, meet the standards of our party platform.

That's where we are.

[geek tragedy]

23. cabinet appointments don't happen until after the election

the party platform will be quite liberal/progressive, it usually is.

[seabeckind]

24. Nice deflection.

Pretty weak, but a nice try.

[geek tragedy]

26. you won't know her cabinet appointments until after the election.

Clinton and Sanders agree on most things, so the platform's ideological slant is predictable.

[seabeckind]

27. Ok, I'll try one more time.

There were a number of points in my comment. Related but separate. These were:

1. "We are at the stage where the party platform must be defined" This is the point where we state those things that are our goals for our candidate in light of our party principles. These are the thing that define us. Our candidate may or may not agree but that person, if elected, should do as much as possible to achieve those goals. If the candidate doesn't think the job can be done, now is the time to say so and drop out. You would expect as much hiring a cook, why not the highest spot in the country?

2. "We are also at the stage where we, as democrats, must have assurances that whoever our nominee adheres to terms in that platform." This is the follow on to the first point. We defined the job and now we need a few assurances that the candidate will make an effort. If it's obvious that the candidate isn't going to do it...

3. "We also must ensure that any running mates, potential cabinet appointments, etc, meet the standards of our party platform." It's not against the rules to ask whose on the list, is it? Or are you happy to buy the box lunch?

Those things are OUR responsibility.

[maxis4037]

29. Trump is truly out of his mind

I never imagined he'd get this popular. May God help us all if he wins.