(10-08-2019, 06:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'd say it's the Progressives who are/ have been trying to destroy the effectiveness of the nation more than it's Trump at this point in my life. Dude, if Trump was more of a Progressive, you'd love the guy. I say that because he's the type of Progressive leader that you've been telling us you'd prefer and believe is needed for Progressives to prevail and change America. If the issue with Trump isn't viewed as being an issue with the working class voters who tend to vote Republican or those who exclusively vote for Trump/support Trump, the Republicans aren't going to support impeachment. You see the the thirty some percent that Trump has the support of right now is actually 75% of the entire Republican base. Me, I'm not a big fan of Trump or a working class voter but I am still a member of the entire Republican base. Basically, I'd be in the some what agree group that Eric lumped in with the strongly agree to form his view of there's a strong majority in favor of impeaching Trump.
At this point it is the Progressives who now stand for the protection of the rule of law and Constitutional government. Donald Trump is just so blatant that he must be impeached.
Please do not tell us that if Trump were a Progressive that we liberals would back him. We disliked Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe for their dictatorial tendencies, let alone Fidel Castro. We do not defend our rogues*. Trump could have pushed a solid pro-business agenda that includes the dismantling of the welfare state, privatization of all public assets that can be sold off to monopoly gougers, outlawing or at least eviscerating labor unions, cutting taxes for the Master Class, raising taxes and other responsibilities upon everyone else, abolishing the federal role in protecting workers' safety, and undoing environmental regulations with the support of a compliant Congress without violating the Constitution, then those who dislike it might be stuck with adapting or with finding some other country if we are not so rash as to go underground.
Know well: Trump is in potential trouble for violations of statutory law. The language of law is extremely rigid in meaning and applicability. Nobody gets to shade it to win a case. One cannot euphemize one's way out of criminal liability as by saying that larceny is 'merely pilferage'. Trump comes from a business milieu in which people get away with puffing (using imprecise language to laud something one is trying to sell). One does not get away with such in science, medicine, engineering, or law.
For good reason, most politicians at or above a certain level are attorneys by trade. It's not simply that attorneys are smart; so are CPA's, physicians, architects, engineers, college professors, and research scientists. Attorneys such as Barack Obama can take a look at a legal statute and concur, whatever their ideology, that the law in statute and in legislation is exactly what it says it is. Other smart people do not have the legal training. With a really-good President who is not an attorney comes a recognition that the law is exactly what it says it is. Think of Dwight Eisenhower, the President that I most often compare to Obama.
The history of American politics at its highest level is a history of legislation and formal judgment. Budgeting is legal in form. Even during the Second World War, Franklin Roosevelt made sure that everything was lawful -- even if he gave generals and admirals much discretion in the field.
Donald Trump has frequently evaded the legislative process and assumed that he would get away with much if the right people support him. Know well: House and Senate majorities are more fleeting than they seem. This time, of course, should Donald Trump go down in impeachment, then so can the current Senate majority. Indeed, should Senate Republicans resort to a perfunctory dismissal of charges against their President and make a travesty of the process of impeachment, then we liberals (or as you call them, Progressives) end up replacing many Senate Republicans as Donald Trump goes down in political flames a year from now.
We Progressives, as you call us, may have grand designs for reshaping the world to fit our dreams of something better, only to find that some political reality, including opposition from entrenched interests who like things as they are. This time we have become the supporters of the rule of law, due process, and Constitutional government.
*It may be ironic, but right-wingers are far more likely to defend roguish figures.
https://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/...arians.pdf
Quote:So (to foreshadow later chapters a little) suppose you are a completely
unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say
whatever he has to say to get elected. (I apologize for putting you in this role, but it
will only last for one more sentence.) Whom are you going to try to lead, high RWAs
or low RWAs? Isn’t it obvious? The easy-sell high RWAs will open up their arms and
wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby
low RWAs, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect
because you sing their song? So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the
right-wing authoritarians, because the RWAs hunger for social endorsement of their
beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right. Heck, Adolf
Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany running on a law-and-order platform just
a few years after he tried to overthrow the government through an armed insurrection.
You sometimes hear that paranoia runs at a gallop in “right-wingers”. But
maybe you can see how that’s an oversimplification. Authoritarian followers are
highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of
self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups. So (in another experiment I ran) subjects
were told a Christian Crusade was coming to town led by a TV evangelist. The
evangelist (the subjects were further told), knowing that people would give more
money at the end of the evening if he gave them the kind of service they liked, asked
around to see what that might be. Finding out that folks in your city liked a “personal
testimonial” crusade, he gave them one featuring his own emotional testimonial to
Jesus’ saving grace. How sincere do you think he was? Most subjects had their doubts,
given the circumstances. But High RWAs almost always trusted him.
(RWA = right-wing authoritarian, an abbreviation that the author uses 439 times in his paper).
I know your content well, and Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) describes you well.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.