Much as I hate to, we must discuss Squirrel-Hair again

A round-up of a few of the most salient takes on his ban-all-Muslims utterance, and then my own thoughts.

Douglas Murray at the UK Spectator:

 . . . suppressing legitimate concerns and decent discussion inevitably leads to people addressing the same things indecently. We can thank the American left for the creation of Donald Trump and we can thank them for his comments last night. For years the left made the cost of entering this discussion too high, so too few people were left willing to discuss the finer points of immigration, asylum or counter-terrorism policy and eventually the only release valve for peoples’ legitimate concerns is someone saying – wrongly in my view – ‘keep them all out.’"

David French at NRO starts his take with an explanation of the Overton Window:

 Developed by the late Joseph Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the “window” refers to the range of acceptable political discourse on any given topic. As the Mackinac Center explains, “the ‘window’ of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election.” The key to shifting policy lies not so much in changing politicians but in changing the terms of the debate. In other words, “The window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them.”

He then lists the numerous fronts on which the Left has moved the Overton Window in post-American public discourse. And then he describes what S-H has done with it:

On key issues, he didn’t just move the Overton Window, he smashed it, scattered the shards, and rolled over them with a steamroller. On issues like immigration, national security, and even the manner of political debate itself, there’s no window left. Registration of Muslims? On the table. Bans on Muslims entering the country? On the table. Mass deportation? On the table. Walling off our southern border at Mexico’s expense? On the table. The current GOP front-runner is advocating policies that represent the mirror-image extremism to the Left’s race and identity-soaked politics.
Critically, the Overton Window was smashed not by a politician but by a very American hybrid of corporate/entertainment titan — a man rich and powerful enough to be immune to elite condemnation and famous enough to dominate the news media. How many people can commandeer live television simply by picking up the phone and calling in? How many politicians can cause Twitter to detonate seemingly at will? While many of Trump’s actual proposals are misguided, nonsensical, or untenable, by smashing the window, he’s begun the process of freeing the American people from the artificial and destructive constraints of Left-defined discourse. 

French foresees "deeper polarization, and even less civility." He says that the only recourse for those disturbed  by this probability is to "model the values you wish to see in others" - that is, speak with "informed conviction" but stay above the venomous level which is going to comprise an ever greater portion of post-American discourse.

John Podhoretz at the NY Post says that  S-H's latest salvo was slickly calculated to put him back at the fore of the news cycle for the next couple of days, at a time when poll numbers indicate slippage in Iowa.

Mona Charen at Jewish World Review sees that that is indeed S-H's objective, and his success at it bodes ill not just for the Republican party, but national security:

As Commentary's Jonathan Tobin noted, during a week in which the disastrous fecklessness of President Obama and his party in the face of terrorism ought to have been Topic A, we are all talking about Trump instead. Brilliant. Tobin's point actually applies to the entire presidential contest. By rights, it should be about the Democrats' unraveling. From Obamacare to terrorism, from the economy to climate change, and from guns to free speech, progressive policies have proven deeply disappointing when not downright obtuse and dangerous. Clinton promises more of the same while trailing an oil slick of corruption in her wake. And yet swinging into the frame, week in and week out, the orange-maned billionaire bogeyman dominates the discussion.

Hell yes, Republicans are anti-Hispanic bigots, Trump (a lifelong Democrat) is supposed to confirm. Just look at the way he talked about Mexican "rapists" and vowed to build a wall that Mexico will fund. 

Hell yes, Republicans want to fight a war on women. Did you hear what Trump said about Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina?

Hell yes, Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-handicapped, anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim. Line 'em up and Trump will offend. Not cleverly, mind you, but crudely. Donald Trump is fond of saying that our political leaders are stupid, constantly outmaneuvered at the bargaining table by shrewder Chinese, Mexicans, and Japanese. No one can accuse him of stupidity: provided his goal is to elect Hillary Clinton.

This week, while we were still burying our dead from San Bernardino, every Republican -- rather than explaining why President Obama's refusal to fight the war on terror has led to this moment -- instead had to condemn Donald Trump's mindless proposal to keep every single Muslim out of the United States until further notice.

She gets to the heart of what I think is most important about all of this a few paragraphs later:

Leave it to Trump to lob a stink bomb that putrefies everything.
Above all, the great favor that Trump does for Obama and for Hillary Clinton is to focus on personalities instead of philosophy. Trump, of course, has nothing to offer except personality (even if its charm eludes me). But his emphasis on "getting the best people" is exactly wrong. That's the progressive idea -- that the best people know better how to run your life than you do. That's what we've had under President Obama. Obama is a failure not because he's stupid, or stubborn, or inexperienced. He's a failure because he believes in failed ideas.
Hillary Clinton believes in all the same myths and shibboleths. After two terms of decline and decay, voters are ready for a different approach, unless someone crashes the Republican Party. Can it be pure accident that Donald Trump is playing the role to perfection?

Consider our current juncture. As of mid-December 2015, the two presidential candidates likely to face each other are a.) a bitter, power-mad radical leftist with an axe to grind due to her far more likable yet incorrigibly womanizing husband, and b.) a narcissistic, bombastic, shallow huckster with no regard for the way government is Constitutionally arranged. Also consider that they are both 69 years old.  Then consider that the current person holding the office of president - or, more accurately, the office of dictator of post-America - combines Candidate A's power lust and radical leftism with Candidate B's narcissism and bombast.

Then there is a Congress comprised of roughly equal parts Republican establishment squishes, radical leftist Democrats, and principled conservatives with great ideas for restoring America.


Then there is a society more bitterly polarized by the day, and a culture more crude, raw and addicted to distraction by the day.


The sum total is not a good formula for a bright future for the nation.

Indeed - and I'm far from the first to point this out - each succeeding outburst of Squirrel-Hair's - from "how-stupid-are-the-people-of-Iowa" to "Israel-doesn't-seem-interested-in-the-sacrifices-needed-for-peace" to "I'take-my-little-wine-and-my-little-cracker-and-I-guess-it-makes-me-feel-cleansed" to this latest utterance - only further stokes his following.

And a certain type of supposedly principled conservative opinion leader in the right-of-center pundit-sphere - primarily found on talk radio, but in some print and online forums as well - tries to castigate as an elitist anyone who points out that the cycle of new outrageous pronouncements and ever-greater zeal for he who pronounces is an unhealthy development. They say it is us who endanger the GOP's chances for, as they see it, calling S-H's base a mob of oil-informed pitchfork-wielders.

I'll be candid; there is a certain pitchfork quality to their mentality. But even at this late date, I'd rather steer the to a serious candidate. I don't wish to dismiss them. With the electoral picture stacked the way it is, I don't want to toss anybody who is anti-Hillionaire overboard.

But it's hard to have a serious conversation with just about anybody in late-2015 post-America.