I may have mentioned this before here at LITD in some context, but I'll draw your attention presently to a post I wrote at The Freemen Newsletter last November titled "The Conflation Problem."
I do know that I've discussed the problem here before. It started once the GOP went all in for Trumpism, and has only gotten worse in the nine-year interim.
The Washington Post and CNN et al love nothing more than to brand drool-besotted yay-hoos like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Charlie Kirk as conservatives. And the drool-besotted yay-hoos love nothing more than to brand the likes of Liz Cheney as traitorous decidedly non conservatives.
The task of disentangling the real deal from Trumpism is one of the main things I write about, and discuss with my colleagues.
A lot of principled - I think - folks have made some kind of Faustian bargain in order to reach the widest audience.
For instance, Guy Benson is a sociocultural observer with his head on straight, but he unfortunately has chosen to have the garbage site Townhall be a main outlet for his columns.
But his piece today is so important that I'm going to hold my nose and link and excerpt anyway.
It's on the business about the Alitos' flags, and it's rich with substantiation for his position, which is that it's all designed to erode the Supreme Court's independence and fealty to the Consittution:
Let's be explicitly clear: They are not doing so because they are genuinely concerned about "ethics." They are not doing so because there are clear violations or conflicts of interests at play (this cynical brigade has shown zero interest in similar or more flagrant potential issues involving the Court's leftist contingent). They are doing so because the Court's conservative majority is denying them the outcomes they desire. It's that simple. They are laboring to tear down an institution that stands in the way of their extreme ideological project because they view and demand power as their ideological birthright.
This is dangerous, both to "our democracy," about which they purport to care very deeply, and to the targeted justices. We've witnessed the Democrats' Senate leader specifically threaten members of the Court by name, earning a rare rebuke from the Chief Justice. We've seen ugly, menacing protests outside the family homes of various justices. And we've even seen a thwarted assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which garnered shockingly little coverage. As always, "civility" and "rhetoric" media panics cut in one direction among the progressives who run America's widely-distrusted, 'elite' newsrooms. And it's from those newsrooms that the current, ludicrous controversy has emanated -- driven by activists, and picked up by elected Democrats. It's ginned-up nonsense. It's embarrassing. And it's all so transparent. The country is supposed to be scandalized by an upside-down American flag flown outside of Justice Sam Alito's home in early January 2021. The country was then instructed to be further appalled by the discovery of another, 'insurrectionist-linked' flag flying at his vacation home.
Justice Alito has explained the 2021 incident, drawing incredulous heckles from the Left, but it turns out that his account aligns with contemporaneous reporting from the Washington Post. Indeed, back at the time, the Post looked into the matter and found the episode so unremarkable that they didn't even run a story on it. But here we are, years later, and the manufactured outrage machine insists that everyone simply ignore this [the fact that WaPo determined it was a non-story at the time].
It getting 'out of hand' was the whole point, of course. But the fact remains that the Post dug into this flap more than three years ago and declined to report on it after concluding that the upside-down flag was hoisted by the justice's wife, over a neighborhood dispute. The dispute, it seems, originated from bouts of profane rudeness from left-wing residents: "Alito said that a neighbor had posted a sign saying 'F**k Trump' near a school bus stop and then a sign attacking his wife, Martha-Ann Alito. On a walk, the justice told Fox, the Alitos got into an argument with the neighbor, who used the term 'c**t' at one point. His wife then flew the inverted flag," which is a sign of distress. But the New York Times' breathless reporting in recent days is designed to conjure up the impression that Alito is a pro-Capitol-riot, 'stop the steal' lunatic. Facts that were explored and dismissed at the time have been resurrected and distorted, as part of a shameless political hit job. As for the other 'problematic flag,' what an embarrassing attack:
Rather than retreat in humiliation, the Times doubled down this week with a follow-up report of yet another flag—this one right-side up—spotted at the Alitos’ vacation home in New Jersey. The left tells us that the 1775 Pine Tree flag was spotted among Jan. 6 protesters! And moreover, that its catch phrase, “an appeal to heaven,” derives from a radical character—John Locke. The Times somehow fails to let readers know that the flag is a longtime symbol of independence; that it was designed by George Washington’s secretary; was flown on ships commissioned by Washington; has been honored, commemorated and flown over state capitols; and is the official maritime flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is currently displayed outside the office of the speaker of the House. Dozens of historic flags were toted to the Capitol on Jan. 6, as were copies of the Constitution and pictures of the American eagle. Are they all now symbols of “insurrection”?
Benson then notes that the Appeal to Heaven flew at San Francisco City Hall last year.
Another big story of the current news cycle is the conclusion of Trump's falsifying-of-business-records trial in New York.
Now, I'm inclined to think that serious, respect-worthy legal minds such as Andrew McCarthy have the better argument - namely, that Bragg and Merchan have been licking their chops at the prospect of incarcerating the Very Stable Genius, at the expense of a sound legal case.
But there's the matter of focus, and I have trouble - as I have for some time - with Byron York's emphasis on the legal flimsiness and those who de-emphasize that. Today, at The Washington Examiner, he zeroes in on the change in George Conway's thinking:
“Not all that long ago, I thought that the trial currently being held … seemed the least serious of the cases against him,” wrote George Conway, the conservative lawyer-turned-Biden megadonor, in the Atlantic earlier this month. “But I feel the need to admit error. The truth is, I’ve come around to the view that People v. Trump is, in at least some ways, the perfect case to put Trump in the dock for the first time, and — I hope, but we’ll see — perhaps prison.”
Why is that? Conway, one of the more aggressive members of the anti-Trump resistance, wrote that he now believes the Manhattan case perfectly exposed what he says are Trump’s myriad lies. But for the resistance, the most salient fact about the Manhattan trial is this: It is happening. It is getting done before the election, which is the most important consideration for Democrats who pray that a Trump conviction could change the dynamics of a presidential race in which Trump leads President Joe Biden.
True enough, but there's something damn weasel-y about overlooking this major aspect of the matter:
doesn’t it look a little incongruous for House Speaker Mike Johnson, who makes a point of putting his Christian faith front and center, to make the prosecution’s zeal the main point? Yes, there is a solid rule-of-law angle to this, and precedents could be set that would subject future presidents to ever-more-frivolous legal challenges.
And yes, Michael Cohen has done his credibility no favors over the past few years, but come on, nobody doubts that Trump had a tryst with Stormy Daniels (the included a bonus spanking with a rolled-up magazine) or a months-long affair with Karen McDougal, all while Melania was home with an infant Barron. Nobody doubts there were other dalliances as well.
For the I’m-not-voting-for-a-pastor crowd, I’d ask how confident they are that things would go well on a policy level in a. second Trump administration.
No, I'm not for sleazy tactics in the bringing down of Donald Trump. But I'm damn sure all for bringing him down.
Anybody who's cool with voting for someone so devoid of character and consistency, who thinks he could solve the world's hot-spot crises with the power of his charm, and that he could do so transactionally - that is, in insisting on a quid pro quo for the aggressed-upon parties in each case - is no conservative.
"But it's going to be a binary choice in November."
No, it's not. You can stay home and rest well at night knowing the eternal record book shows that you weren't a party to either form of American ruination.
No comments:
Post a Comment