Latest Posts

They are all lying sacks of fetid garbage

They are all lying sacks of fetid garbage

by digby

The Republican Party

You've probably heard about the New Yorker bombshell which has another woman coming forward to say that Kavanaugh drunkenly assaulted her. They were freshmen, it was a drinking game, and Kavanaugh allegedly pulled out his penis and put it in her face. You will hear a lot more about it over the next day or so I'm sure.

I just want to highlight the opening paragraph:

As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

They wouldn't let the FBI investigate. They concocted a ridiculous "doppleganger" conspiracy theory and blamed an innocent man for the assault. They went nuts trying to get him on the court before anyone found out.

What scumbags they all are.


“The party has already lost college women, alienated by Trump’s style and behavior. Cannot lose them twice.” So, to hell with ‘e

"The party has already lost college women, alienated by Trump’s style and behavior. Cannot lose them twice."

by digby

So, to hell with 'em. Let's confirm our boy!

Oh look:

Democrats hold a 12-point lead in congressional preference among registered voters according to a new poll that suggests trouble for Republicans in the midterm congressional elections in six weeks.

The new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows President Donald Trump is dragging down his party, with nearly six-in-ten saying they’d like to see significant changes in the direction President Donald Trump has been leading the country.

Those results exceed the minimum that political handicappers generally see as necessary for Democrats to regain control of the House of Representatives. The Democrats’ large lead may also increase their chances to regain a majority in the Senate, despite a map that leaves more Democratic than Republican seats up for grabs. Democrats have vowed to increase oversight of the Trump administration if they assume control of either chamber.

Remember when James Baker said "fuck the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway"? Looks like the Republicans are going there with women now:

Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are edgy about the agreement for Christine Blasey Ford, Judge Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, to testify publicly before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

The arrangement isn't really a gamble because Republicans have no choice. They have to let Ford testify if they're going to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, as top GOP sources still (nervously) predict.

And in a possible setback for Ford, the N.Y. Times reports, a woman and two men who were said to have attended the party now say they have no recollection of it, seeming to "eliminate any chance of corroboration ... by anyone who attended."
But the risks are blatantly obvious in an election year where women — and especially college-educated women — already loathe Trump and appear motivated to vote out Republicans.

Republicans involved in the process worry that the accuser, a college professor, will connect with the voters already most animated against them.

And while Republicans involved in Kavanaugh’s confirmation tell Axios that the elderly male Republican senators are approaching this gingerly, there’s nervousness in the sources' voices because there’s so much room for error.

A former administration official said Republicans are "walking the tightrope of making sure not to piss off women for the midterms yet not alienating the base by ditching Kavanaugh."

And one top Republican texted: "Most Republicans know the party has already lost college women, alienated by Trump’s style and behavior. Cannot lose them twice."

True. But they seem to have lost the ability to count. If they don't have African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, college educated white women and liberal white men, they are going to lose. There simply are not enough non-college educated white people and CEOs in this country to keep that party afloat.




by digby


They didn’t have to steal papers from Obama

They didn't have to steal papers from Obama

by digby

It is insane that it is totally believable that this is how they deal with the man-child in the White House. And they're all miscreants too! It's not as if they are great heroes or have actually kept him from destroying the country. They are helping him! It's just that they try to find ways to do it without sparking WWIII or putting the final nail in the GOP's coffin. I guess that's better than nothing ...

So yes, we do have a crisis of democracy.

Maher talks about Trump's narcissism and its good:


The Brett Kavanaugh Mysteries: Worst. YA. Series. Ever.

The Brett Kavanaugh Mysteries:  They're never solved because Senate Republicans say they never happened.  

Behold, a Tip Jar!


Don’t worry about Brett

Don't worry about Brett

by digby

Actually, he would end up being a right wing hero on the level of Robert Bork, a martyr to the cause, worshipped and feted everywhere he goes. Since he is a political operative posing as a judge, this is actually a better outcome for him. Being on the Supreme Court is nice and all, but it requires a certain dignity that a partisan frat boy character assassin would likely find restrictive.

He will be more than fine. He will be a wingnut God.


“They made a decision this was ok when they nominated this president”

"They made a decision this was ok when they nominated this president"

by digby

The Washington Post on the Party of Men:

The Republican Party’s fight to save President Trump’s embattled Supreme Court nominee amid allegations of sexual assault has surfaced deep anxieties over the hypermasculine mind-set that has come to define the GOP in the nation’s roiling gender debate.

The images are striking: The specter of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee — all 11 of them men — questioning U.S. Appeals Court Judge Brett A. Kavanaugh’s female accuser. A senior GOP aide working on the confirmation resigning amid his own sexual harassment allegations. A viral photo of “women for Kavanaugh” featuring more men than women. A South Carolina Republican congressman making a crude joke about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg being groped by Abraham Lincoln.

And then there is the party’s id, Trump, who as a candidate denied more than a dozen accusations of sexual assault and harassment and sought to silence and retaliate against his accusers — and who as president has defended one accused man after another.

The moment brings into sharp relief the gulf that has emerged between the two political parties as they navigate America’s cultural reckoning on sexual assault. Democrats have embraced the #MeToo movement to galvanize female voters and attempt to lift scores of female candidates to victory in November’s midterm elections. A growing number of Democratic women are also considering presidential campaigns in 2020.

By contrast, strategists in both parties say Trump’s agenda and style — and the fact that the GOP leadership stands mostly in lockstep with him — are undoing years of often painstaking work by party leaders to court more female and minority voters.

Trump risks solidifying the Republican Party as the party of men. Though the president is not on the ballot this fall, he is framing the midterm elections as a referendum on his presidency, and that has leaders and operatives in party fearing what GOP strategist Alex Castellanos termed a “pink wave” of women powering a Democratic takeover of the House, and perhaps the Senate, to deliver a rebuke to Trump.

“The antipathy to Trump from women — college-educated, white, suburban women — transcends anything I’ve ever seen in politics,” Castellanos said. “And it’s not just against Trump’s policies, of course. It’s against Trump as the 1960s ‘Mad Men’ alpha male. It’s Trump who grabbed women where he shouldn’t. Women are coming out to vote against Donald Trump because they see him as a culturally regressive force that would undo the women’s march to equality.”

The fault lines were evident last week, when Trump spoke out about the Kavanaugh episode by saying the real victim is the federal judge, whom Christine Blasey Ford accused sexually assaulting her when he was 17, and attacking Ford’s credibility. The president’s comments made some Republican elected officials plainly uncomfortable; Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) called them “appalling.”

But the president is not an isolated figure outside the party’s mainstream. Trump is the embodiment of his political base’s instincts, grievances and worldview, roaring about what he sees as injustice against accused men and pulling his party along with him.

“Everything about this kind of encapsulates in one moment the problem the Republican Party has with women, ranging from it being male-dominated — with Trump’s Cabinet and the Republican leadership in Congress — to issues of dismissing women who experienced harassment and assault with typical kinds of victim-blaming,” Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg said.

Inside Trump’s political orbit, there long has been what one former White House official called a “blindness” to gender issues as a political liability — in part because the president resents the accusations that have been brought against him personally and because he and his allies see the broader issue as a liberal talking point.

"A talking point". They are determined to push even more women out of their party.

The gender gap between the two parties has increased since Trump’s election. The percentage of women who say they lean toward the Republican Party is now 32 percent, down from 35 percent in 2016 and an average of 37 percent between 2010 and 2017, according to Post-ABC News polling.

The shifts in partisanship coincide with a gender divide on Trump’s popularity. The president’s approval rating has averaged 12 percentage points higher among men than among women, 45 percent to 32 percent , in Post-ABC polling since April 2017.

“What we did in the 2016 election is trade fast-growing, well-educated suburban counties for slower-growing, less-well-educated small-town and rural counties,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres said. “That worked for Donald Trump in 2016, by the hair of his chinny chin chin, but it’s not a formula for long-term success.”

This female troll was adorable though. I'm so glad we got to hear from her:
Melina Palken, 60, a retired Army physician who raises sheep and dairy cows, drove 16 hours from her home in Elk City, Idaho, to see Trump on stage in Las Vegas on Thursday night. Asked about the Kavanaugh allegations, she said, “Oh, my God, you have to live under a rock to not know that man is the sweetest ever and he would never do anything like that to women.”

Palken added: “He’s, like, pure as the driven snow.”

Ain't she sweet? You have to love these GOP women Trump voters.

The article does mention that the Democrats have had womanizers and accused assaulters in their party too so we are made aware that patriarchy isn't a partisan issue. No kidding.

I think strategist Anita Dunn makes the most important point and one that most people who are opposed to Kavanaugh understand viscerally:

"They made a decision that this behavior was okay when they nominated this president.”

They did. It's not as if women didn't let them know immediately that they had a problem when they did it:


They’d better schedule those overseas vacations by @BloggersRUs

They'd better schedule those overseas vacations

by Tom Sullivan

International Criminal Court, The Hague, Netherlands. Photo by Hypergio via Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9 hit theaters this weekend. The phrase "last surviving Nuremberg trials prosecutor" in Dennis Hartley's review last night brought back something we have covered before. But that was in regard to the last Republican administration. The current one now deserves attention.

President George W. Bush seems always to have been a homebody. For a guy who wanted so badly to be president of a superpower, he spent an inordinate amount of time in office at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. He displayed a limited knowledge of world affairs. Still, with the help of more seasoned international hands he managed to launch and not finish wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. His "we're an empire now" team intended to plant democracy in the Middle East and reaped chaos instead. The Islamic State was one byproduct.

Perhaps I missed a trip, but it stands out that former globe-trotting world-changers of the George W. Bush administration seem not to have set a toe outside U.S. borders since leaving office. Maybe they just lost all taste for travel to exotic places. But one suspects their involvement in sanctioning international kidnappings, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, deaths of prisoners in captivity, and state torture of prisoners may have something to do with their remaining safely at home. Not that they will ever see the inside of the International Criminal Court, but that wouldn't stop some in the world from using their presence on foreign soil to try. It's just not something that comes up in polite Beltway conversations.

Ben Ferencz is at 99 years-old the last surviving Nuremberg Trials prosecutor. Michael Moore sought him out in making Fahrenheit 11/9 and includes in the film his reaction to the Trump administration's family separation policy at the southern border:

BEN FERENCZ: Taking babies away from their mother and locking up one or the other and separating them—because they did no harm to anybody, they just didn’t comply with the stupid regulations—that’s a crime against humanity, in my judgment.
Moore described their encounters in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!:
MICHAEL MOORE: Well, I wanted to go speak to him. I didn’t realize there was only one surviving Nuremberg prosecutor. He lives just outside the city here. He is 99. I think his wife is turning 100 in another month or so. And he is a witness from the past, a witness to what happens when you allow fascism to become the way of life and the law of the land. And he’s very powerful, the things he says in the film. At one point he says that Donald Trump, in doing some of these things that he’s done, is committing crimes against humanity. And he says, “You know, this is—I can’t deal with this, because I’m thinking, you know, we hung people for doing some of these things, for behaving like this.”

And one of the inspirations to make this film was a book I had read back in the 1980s by Bertram Gross called Friendly Fascism. And in the book, Gross says that the fascism of the 21st century will not come with concentration camps and swastikas; it will come with a smiley face and a TV show, that the fascism that will take hold in the 21st century, there won’t be a lot of guns fired, because the population will be brainwashed enough. First they’ll be dumbed down—you know, ruin their schools, reduce their press, put whistleblowers in jail. And then brand things—the smiley face. Don’t use swastikas. Just make it happy. “You’re going to be happier if you go my way, the Trump way.”

Coincidentally, Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton really, really doesn't like the International Criminal Court. Bolton announced in a speech to the Federalist Society ahead of September 11, "The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court." Bolton called the body "ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed outright dangerous." As a member of the Trump administration, one would think Bolton would find those attributes assets. Except for the justice part.

Business Insider's Felipe Bueno writes:

In his speech, Bolton claimed that the court was "already dead to us," and said that the US will use "any means necessary" to protect Americans in response to the court's first-ever public investigation into alleged US war crimes. Last November, the Court's requested to launch an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by US service members and CIA operatives in Afghanistan and the war on terror, especially in secret prisons.

While Bolton has wanted to see the "illegitimate" ICC die on its own for years, he is now uniquely situated to ensure that happens — even if it means an armed invasion of the Hague.

In response to the formal establishment of the ICC in 2002, the Bush administration passed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, commonly referred to as the 'Hague Invasion Act' by its opposition. Its eerie nickname stems from its vague wording, which allows the US to "take all means necessary and appropriate" to release US personnel being held by the International Criminal Court.

Gen. Wesley K. Clark (retired), a former NATO supreme allied commander, pushed back in the Washington Post against the Trump administration's stance. Clark called for the United States to establish its own “truth commission” to "provide a channel for admitting mistakes where they occurred and providing restitution to victims where it is warranted." The ICC inquiry, Clark writes, "provides us with precisely the means we need to strengthen our security, our American values and our march forward on the right side of history."

Suggesting by omission that he thinks we are on the wrong side of it now. Hague Invasion Act or no, Bush veterans stay close to home.

If America is on a slippery slope, we are already far down it. The Trump administration is turning what was a Bushie ditch into a Trumper excavation about which Moore frets using a different metaphor:

And this is what I find most frightening when I think about, and what I hope this film does in terms of ripping the mask off, what’s really going on here, that we are on—you used the word “precipice” earlier. We are on a precipice. We are on that edge. Democracy has no self-correcting mechanism. It’s a piece of paper, the Constitution. I know we like to get all teary-eyed and all goo-goo about, you know, our wonderful Constitution. It’s a piece of paper. And it’s the human beings in each era that decide exactly what’s going to go on, which part we’re going to listen to and which part we’re not, of this Constitution. And if we get too close to the edge, where we’ve given up too many of our rights, where we’ve allowed the democracy to be whittled down, where we’ve made voting a most difficult thing to do for people who have the right to vote and should be voting—if we do all of that, it could easily fall off that cliff. Before you know it, it could be gone. And you have to operate with that.
That, in the end, is what is at stake both in the outcome of this November's elections and in the GOP's desperate push to ram through Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. AlterNet reporter Matthew Chapman suggests the reason Senate Republicans will not abandon Kavanaugh is that even if the public becomes furious with the GOP over the confirmation process, his presence there could strip voting rights "to the point no one can do anything about it." So get out and vote this fall, won't you, and take your friends?

Meanwhile, Trump, Sessions, et. al. had best get in their foreign junkets now before they are no longer able to unless their destination is Moscow.

* * * * * * * * *

For The Win 2018 is ready for download. Request a copy of my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.


Through the looking glass – Fahrenheit 11/9 (***½)  By Dennis Hartley @denofcinema5

Saturday Night at the Movies

Through the looking glass – Fahrenheit 11/9 (***½)

By Dennis Hartley

On occasion, like any self-respecting lefty cuck, I will “hate-watch” Fox or “hate-read” Breitbart. Today Breitbart has a post entitled “MICHAEL MOORE’S 11/9 TANKS AT BOX OFFICE” (barely 24 hours after the film opened wide…but whatevs). As I skimmed through, risking a bout of vertigo from eye-rolling, this bit caught my attention:

We go to the movies to see what we cannot see at home; so, what can Moore possibly offer in a world where a Jake Tapper is topping him daily, a world where Moore’s dishonest and shameless leftism runs wild 24/7… and is just a click away?

Dismissing the predictable tribalism, the OP raises a legit concern; one I admit consumed me yesterday, even as I forked over my hard-earned $13 (and an additional $7.50 for a goddam SMALL popcorn). Now I loves me some Michael Moore, and I feel duty-bound to cover this film, which could well be our final beacon of hope in these dark, dark times.

But I fear that Trump Fatigue threatens to overtake me. In my private despair (which I labored to hide beneath a brave face, for the sake of my fellow dedicated graying Seattle libs scattered throughout the sparsely attended 3pm matinee showing) I indeed pondered what insight Moore could possibly offer at this point, in a world where anybody who still gives two shits about our Democracy is on 24-hour Trump watch…and just a click away?

Was I in for 2 hours of Trump-bashing? I would nod in agreement, while thoughtfully stroking my chin. But to what end? The credits would come up, I’d go home, turn on the news, and…he’d still be in office. That’s the bad news (he’s still in office). The good news is that Moore’s film is not necessarily all about President Donald J. Trump himself.

It’s about us. According to Moore, we all had a hand in this (consciously or not).

In my 2011 review of the documentary Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today, I wrote:

“Crimes against humanity” are still perpetrated every day-so why haven’t we had any more Nurembergs? If it can’t be caught via cell phone camera and posted five minutes later on YouTube like Saddam Hussein’s execution, so we can take a quick peek, go “Yay! Justice is served!” and then get back to our busy schedule of eating stuffed-crust pizza and watching the Superbowl, I guess we just can’t be bothered. Besides, who wants to follow some boring 11-month long trial, anyway (unless, of course, an ex-football player is involved). 
Or maybe it’s just that the perpetrators have become savvier since 1945; many of those who commit crimes against humanity these days wear nice suits and have corporate expense accounts, nu? Or maybe it’s too hard to tell who the (figurative) Nazis are today, because in the current political climate, everyone and anyone, at some point, is destined to be compared to one.
Let’s dispense with this first. Yes, Michael Moore goes “there” in his latest documentary Fahrenheit 11/9…at one point in the film, he deigns to compare Trump’s America to Nazi Germany. However, he’s not engaging in meritless trolling. Rather (as Moore slyly implies), don’t take his word for it-listen to what one of his interviewees has to say here:
“Taking [immigrant] babies away from their mother [at the U.S. border] and locking up one or the other and separating them because they did no harm to anybody…they just didn’t comply with the stupid regulations…that’s a crime against humanity in my judgement.”

OK, so that’s one man’s opinion. You would be perfectly within your rights as a healthy skeptic to counter with “and what makes this guy such an expert on what constitutes a “crime against humanity”? Unless the gentleman in question happened to be the last surviving Nuremberg trials prosecutor…which he is. 99-year-old Ben Ferencz’s appearance recalls the scene in Annie Hall where Woody Allen “just happens to have” Marshall McLuhan on hand to call out an insufferable blowhard waiting in a movie line.

So how did we get here? It’s complicated. Following a brief (and painful to relive) recap of what “happened” on 11/9/16, Moore’s film accordingly speeds off in multiple directions As he has always managed to do in the past, he connects the dots and pulls it together by the end. In a nutshell, Moore’s central thesis is that Trump is a symptom, not the cause. And the “cause” here is complacency-which Moore equates with complicity.

Specific to 2016, it is the complacency of the 64% of eligible American voters who sat out the election. But Moore does not lay the blame squarely on disenfranchised voters, many of whom have valid reasons to be disillusioned and fed up with politicians in general. He cites a number of examples, and he spares no one. In fact, he lays into a few sacred cows of the Left; the DNC, President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

The most dangerous kind of complacency is what happened in Michigan, and enabled Governor Rick Snyder to essentially seize despotic control of the state under the guise of “emergency powers”. Moore traces the political machinations that led to the water crisis in his home town of Flint, and it’s chilling. Using comparisons with how a democratic, liberal Germany handed power to the Nazis in the 1930s, Moore envisions how easily Trump could take a page from Snyder’s playbook and implement it on a national scale.

If this is all beginning to sound dark and despairing…well, it is. However, this is Michael Moore. He knows exactly when to interject levity and hope into an otherwise sobering treatise (e.g. he drives a truck full of Flint water up to the gates of Governor Snyder’s mansion and proceeds to water his lawn with a high-pressure hose). He reminds us that there is a grassroots movement afoot that hopefully continues to catch fire; from the nationwide teacher strikes that began in West Virginia to the blue wave of progressive candidates in this year’s midterm primaries. He spotlights the passion and determination of the student activist groups that organized in the wake of the Parkland school shootings.

If you’re a Michael Moore fan, you will not be disappointed. If you a Michael Moore hater, this film likely won’t change your opinion (although I am flattered that you’ve chosen this post as your daily “hate read”). The rest of you can play amongst yourselves; but do me (and the country, and our Democracy) one favor? Please, please vote this time.

Previous posts with related themes:
Michael and me in Trumpland

More reviews at Den of Cinema
On Facebook
On Twitter

--Dennis Hartley


The Imperialist Whine

The Imperialist Whine

by digby

This thread about Brexit has been making the rounds on twitter and I thought I'd just share it here for the record. I think it's quite profound:

Brexit makes sense for a nation that feels sorry for itself, but the mystery is how Britain as a modern prosperous nation came to define its political future through self pity.

The higher we think of ourselves the more we can feel sorry for ourselves when we don’t get what we believe we deserve.

Self pity combines a deep sense of grievance and a high sense of superiority. Passionate nationalism has taken two antagonistic forms - imperial and anti imperial.

Brexit wants to be both imperial and anti imperial.

Brexit is an insurgency and needs to imagine that it is a revolt against intolerable oppression.

Britain historically entitled to a grudge. 1971: Colin Wilson argued that a grudge had built up over 25 years due to disappointment at the results of the war.

By no means ridiculous to feel that the British had deserved much but received little.

Fintan O’Toole does not begrudge the British their national grudge.

Postwar loss of sense of superiority led to British self pity.

Psychological power of Brexit: fused superiority and inferiority into a single emotion. Both enormously hard done by and enormously grand.

British sense of disappointment that joining EEC will lead to a new era and resolve all problems - added to previous sense of postwar loss.

Welfare state functioned as a bulwark against self pity. Consolation for decline is the notion that Britain is doing something radical and profound.

Erosion of welfare state from Thatcher onwards, then becomes regarded nostalgically as part of a lost golden age.

Need for a new scapegoat for failure - non white immigrants

Overt racism shifts out of respectability (until recently) after accession to the EEC.

Without parallel? A functioning Western state starts to see itself as fundamentally oppressed.

England now starts to imagine itself not as an empire but as a colony.

Importance of the word “humiliation” - including in today’s headlines. (What happened? Just that May didn’t get her way.)

Robert Harris’s Fatherland written against backdrop of German reunification. NB also Len Deighton’s SSGB.

Harris’s alternative history invokes an alternative Treaty of Rome - Britain forced into a European trading bloc.

While Harris was writing Fatherland in 1990, Nicholas Ridley compared EEC to the Nazis.

Attraction of this kind of self pity is that it allows a fantasy of the emergence of a future heroic English resistance.

EU as oppressor has to be invented by the English to facilitate dark invasion fantasy.

This is a way of dealing with post imperial guilt: we are not responsible for anything because we are being oppressed.

Patrick Melrose novels speak to the masochistic fantasies of a ruling class that has lost its power.

In the Melrose novels the image of the Irish famine is evoked very directly.

This type of storytelling part of a larger narrative oppression. Boris Johnson contributes to this - Johnson the journalists invents EU oppression. Started with the threat to prawn cocktail flavour crisps. The more absurd the examples, the less easy it is to deal with them.

Stories about straight bananas exist in the same realm as fiction.

Favourite Brexit form of discourse - imagine we’re the Irish Free State. Dominic Raab as Michael Collins. Hannan: get agreement than throw off the conditions as a Free State did after 1922.

Note the breathtaking reversal of self image: we are now the Irish in 1921, EU is Lloyd George Government.

Maybe there is a last stage of imperialism when zombie imperialists have one last thing to appropriate from their former colonies - which is their pain.

I think you can see the echoes in our own situation.

One of the most unbearable aspects of Trumpism and the conservative movement writ large is this constant whining about how they are the "real victims." Trump's rhetoric is more childish but it comes from the same place. It informs his whole ignorant worldview about trade and defense and alliances.

I have long said that he's not an isolationist as much as people yearn to believe it. He is actually an imperialist --- a simple-minded one to be sure --- but an imperialist nonetheless.


 1 2 3 >  Last ›