Business, History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

The Middle Finger Of God

52 Comments

Some worthy thoughts on mendacious politicians, the Clintons (but I repeat myself), and Donald Trump:

I’ve talked enough about the virtue of politeness and persuasion in politics. But how about a little disdain for unrestrained political carelessness? Trump’s total lack of ideological or intellectual rigor and consistency is making fools of people who once claimed they cared about such things.

Trump’s schtick as a sprinkler system of insults is getting everyone dirty. He throws mud on anything and anyone in his way. But that muck washes off quite easily. What stains down to the soul is the eagerness to apologize for, or even celebrate, the filth. In his professional life, Trump has left a trail of wreckage. His own James McDougals are strewn about like victims after a tornado. And his defenders celebrate this as proof he’s a great businessman.

Now the F6 is heading for Washington. His fans remind me of the naïve fools in Independence Day who welcome the aliens with cheers and handmade signs on rooftops, incapable of fathoming that they will be greeted with a death ray. The analogy breaks down because the dupes on the roof didn’t pave the way for the invaders. Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters have been crucial in bringing the Middle Finger of God to our doorsteps.

It is an amazing phenomenon.

52 thoughts on “The Middle Finger Of God”

  1. Really good G-File, recommended. As usual though, he gets off-track in spots.

    Trump is a blind, crazed, bull in a China shop smashing and stomping everything to bits, and his fans stand on the side and salute his genius and care.

    I doubt most of his “fans” are saluting anything that can be described as “care”. That’s kinda the point Jonah.

    Imagine if, in 2008, Barack Obama had ridiculed John McCain for being captured and tortured. Every single member of Trump’s amen chorus would have denounced the comments unequivocally. But when Trump does it, the response is to marvel at how he survived the statement. That’s not moral or intellectual seriousness, it’s blatant power worship. And it is disgusting.

    1) Had Obama done that and “survived” it, there would have been plenty of “marveling” going on, in all corners.
    2) Had you proffered the word “disgusting” regarding “power worship” a little more liberally eight years ago you might find your current dismay being taken a little more seriously.

    Let us stipulate that we have been and are in dire need of some disruption. Can we also stipulate that some of the pieties and hypocrisies in American politics are a function of necessity, not corruption?

    So stipulated. Care to go into your favoring Rubio over Cruz?

    I’ve talked enough about the virtue of politeness and persuasion in politics. But how about a little disdain for unrestrained political carelessness?

    Actually I think it’s unrestrained political correctness that’s got more people up in arms, but OK, let’s go with carelessness. Below are some relatively recent examples:
    “spread the wealth around”
    “bitterly clinging”
    “necessarily go bankrupt”
    If your distain meter pegged when those gems were released I guess I somehow missed it. If I recall, your responses were more along the lines of humorous asides. Don’t get me wrong, your talent at creating those is un-rivaled. I’d just suggest going a little easy on the virtue of politeness stuff at this point.

    For a good clear-eyed take on the Pope brouhaha here’s Jerry Pournelle.

    1. I am not so certain Trump’s supporters would have cared if Obama made fun of McCain. While Obama didn’t make fun of McCain, his supporters did. No one cared in the media.

      Obama also continuously insulted people during the campaign and ever since. No one asked how he could survive after doing it or lamented what has become of politics. They laughed and cheered. Ridicule has been Obama’s most effective tool in signaling his status to Democrats, who also get off on bullying others. And they can’t figure out why non-Democrats don’t like them.

  2. And, so we lurch from one flashy tap dancer (Obama) to another (Trump). There is no contemplation, no sober-minded analysis. Just raw emotion. It’s like voting for the King or Queen of the prom. Vote for the cool kid. High school for a nation of adolescents.

    Trump is truly the anti-Obama, and when they collide, annihilation and release of uber destructive power is in the offing. I have a very bad feeling about this.

  3. Again, it doesn’t matter how many tantrums NR throws. They disqualified themselves when they ignored what amounts to an immigration emergency. They aligned themselves with a corrupt “Democrat lite” Republican establishment, not the yucky nativist Republican base. They may well be right about Trump, but who the hell is going to listen to THEM – the voice of the US Chamber of Commerce – now?

    Cruz ’16

  4. Just read the column. Jonah Goldberg is such a great writer. Admittedly, some of my perspective on him is shaped by his witty allusions to pop culture of my era, which would probably be lost on Millennials, e.g., the Michael Jordan / Larry Bird comparison.

  5. The reason so much of the electorate is determined to raise their middle finger at the party establishment is the party establishment earned it.

    Trump isn’t my first choice, not by a longshot, but I’d vote for him in a heartbeat over the party establishment candidates (Rubio and Bush), who I’ve said from the start of this race I will not support in the primary or general. I’ll support any other R nominee in the general, even Kasich, whom I loathe.

    I still think Cruz (My preferred choice) has a very good shot at the nomination.

    1. the party establishment is the party establishment earned it.

      Blah, blah….

      Your constant crying about the “party establishment” would have more credibility if you weren’t supporting a man who epitomizes the corrupt New York establishment.

      1. Yup, Trump is pretty much an establishment candidate, which shows people can support that type of candidate. It also shows people are not upset with establishment candidates per sey, but rather how the current establishment has treated the base and other prts of the party.

  7. As time goes on, and primaries come and go, unless there’s a major shift in Either Cruz’ or Rubio’s performance, I suspect one of those two will have to fall on their sword to stop Trump.

    The window for collection of the low-enders (Kasich, Jeb, Carson) votes will be enough to beat Trump in a primary is closing….especially since Kasich and Carson don’t seem to want to leave.

    Should one of the two second placers bow out and give their delegates to the other, Trump will lose: he still only gets totals int he 30’s.

    So, it depends upon how badly the GOP wants to win in November.

    1. It’s not whether they *want* to win, Gregg. Stan Evans called it the “stupid party” for a reason.

      Although, with the current immigration hysteria, “Know Nothings” might be more appropriate.

      1. Trump can win the general. He has broad appeal even though some people love to hate him. He would be devastating to Clinton and Sanders in face to face encounters.

        Sanders is also likely to lose through shenanigans which will depress turn out among his supporters and could even turn them to Trump because the two candidates positions are so similar.

        Rubio and Cruz can also win, which is why Carson and Kasich need to drop out. We need to see where their support goes. Then Cruz and Rubio can get a better idea on their chances against Trump and each other.

      2. It’s not “hysteria” when you’ve lost your job, gone to part time wages or have your wages cut.

        Ask the IT Dept at Disney if they’re “hysterical”.

        1. No, the Disney IT department is not hysterical. Two — count them, two — former Disney employees who filed a lawsuit claiming they lost their jobs because of immigrants are hysterical.

          All of the Archie Bunkers calling that a “crisis” are hysterical.

          You scream about two jobs lost to immigrants but refuse to see the thousands of jobs *created* by immigrants. How many jobs has Elon Musk created at SpaceX alone?

          There are also thousands of jobs *lost* to Canada when the United States refused to allow Asian programmers into the US. What was the result? Microsoft hired the same programmers anyway but located them at a new development center in Vancouver, just across the border, because Canadian immigration is much more reasonable.

          The result was an economic boom in Vancouver. Those Microsoft employees created thousands of new jobs, for baristas, grocery-store clerks, realtors, etc. Jobs that *would* have been created in the Seattle area, if the Archie Bunkers had allowed it.

          Archie Bunker policies *exported* thousands of jobs from the US to Canada. And this is just one example, which we are able to see. We can see Microsoft and SpaceX, but we don’t see all the new companies that *weren’t* created by all the Elon Musks who *weren’t* allowed into the US. This is what the great French economist Frédéric Bastiat talked about in his class is essay “What is Seen and What is Not Seen.”

          Now, you may not care about economics. But the laws of economics don’t change just because you choose to ignore them. Believing that you can create jobs by ignoring economics and enacting protectionist policies is like believing you can fly by jumping out the window because you don’t believe in gravity.

          1. You cannot see how the system has been rigged by the state. You cannot see how corporations have rigged the visa process to bring in cheaper labor at the expense of Americans. You cannot see how lack of border enforcement has hurt this country. You cannot see that a system biased towards Muslims and against Christians is a deliberate attempt to stamp out basic American values. Just look at Soros’ Open Society.

            If this were truly a free market system I might agree. I admit Musk and other immigrants have contributed greatly. However, things are much different than an academic-based free-market society envisioned by Hayek.

            Calling people names like Know Nothings, stupid, Archie Bunker, etc. does not help your argument.

          3. Elon Musk is a legal immigrant.

            We do not equate legal immigration with illegal immigration.

            Why do you?

            We are not calling for an end to legal immigration….

            Why do you and others make us repeat this ad nauseum?

            Why can’t you accept that that is our position and stop building strawmen?

          4. when the United States refused to allow Asian programmers into the US.

            LOL. Edward, if you can’t locate your meds, ask for help.

  8. I don’t think Cruz can beat Trump since Trump won the evangelical vote in South Carolina after Cruz spent a week essentially hold tent revivals. Kasich and Carson’t don’t have a prayer, so that just leaves Rubio.

    Given the shift away from Democrats shown by the huge turnouts for Republicans and the massive drop in turnout for Democrats, the only hope Democrats have is if Rubio beats Trump and Trump runs third party.

    So the best Democrat primary strategy at this point is to vote for Rubio. ^_^

  9. OK, I get the 30 percent thing, that is, if Governor Kasich drops out, his votes ain’t rallying behind Mr. Trump? Donald Trump, bless him, is in such a unique class that these 30 percent vote totals represent all his going to get?

    But weren’t people talking about Donald Trump “being really strong in South Carolina, so watch out”? I was hearing figures of reaching 40 percent, but that was before he cut John Ellis down to size by dishing on his president brother, and that was before him saying that he supports or sorta-supports the PPACA Individual Mandate?

    Yeah, yeah, there are conservatives showing their inner dislike of the Bush family, but “Bush lied, people died” is unadulterated Bush Derangement Syndrome, and endorsing “Obamacare?” Am I living in bubble to think that this rubs all Conservatives/Republicans the wrong way? Or is this like the boast that Mr. Trump could walk down 5th Avenue and start shooting people and still remain popular?

    Yeah, yeah, and yeah, the Lester Holt runs an interview with an S.C. Trumpist explaining matter-of-factly “He is rich, he is a billionaire, so he doesn’t owe loyalty to anyone and gets to speak his mind.”

    Yes, I get that, and speak-his-mind does he as Yoda would say, but at some point Mr. Trump gets to the point that he says stuff that offends his core supporters and the reasoning that he is the one guy non-beholden-to-anyone isn’t reason enough and people get sick of what is coming from his independent mind and out his mouth, and the people getting tired of him are no longer just the people at Fox News?

    1. You’re assuming his core supporters are conservative Republicans. It seems to me that his campaign is driven more by Archie Bunker-ism than conservatism. Trump and his supporters denounce “the Republican establishment,” but their idea of “establishment Republicans” is Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp. At the same time, they’ll speak respectfully of Hillary.

      His supporters love him as a candidate for the same reason they loved him on World Wide Wrestling and the Apprentice. Why not? He’s playing the same character.

      1. So I am making the same mistake as my school chums? When they saw their first episode of “All in the Family” they breathlessly told me I needed to see this new show about “a conservative”?

        Whether the Archie Bunker character was a Movement Conservative or a natural conservative, I believe no less than Democratic Party iconoclast wrote that Archie Bunker was a Democrat as were the Chicago Police officers vilified by the nascent New Left wing of the Democrats in 1968 as was Hizzoner Richard J Daley, the Mayor of Chicago who was bounced out of the floor of the Democratic National Convention in 1968.

        Carroll Connor’s buffoonish character was Norman Lear contributed to the Great Democratic Party Purge of those Archie Bunker was supposed to represent.

        So then Donald Trump is a Democrat, after all, but his appeal is to those the Coalition of Inclusiveness has consciously and pointedly if not tried to exclude, has been actively scolding for the last 40 years as lacking in revolutionary focus (What’s the matter with Kansas?).

        Does this mean the Republican Party is divided into three factions, the Country Club Establishment (Rubio), the Libertarian-Conservative-Fusionist Insurgency (Cruz), and Democrats Who Got Left Behind in the 1968 Revolution (Trump)?

        OK, I then “get” liking Obamacare, but this means ditching the Cruz faction, and how does that work when you are not running as a Democrat like, say, Jim Webb? Maybe Purple Heart Marine combat veteran Webb could say or insinuate “Bush Lied, People Died” and get away with it, but can Webb even say that to the Archie Bunkers? Does Mr. Trump, even remotely, have standing to say that, especially to the Archie Bunkers?

        1. No, Archie Bunker was not a conservative, any more than Stephen Colbert is a conservative. He was liberal Hollywood’s idea of what conservatives are.

          Hating people who are different does not a person a conservative. You will find plenty of socialist groups who hate outsiders.

          Conservatives want to *conserve* (protect, defend, save, preserve) traditional values, most especially those enshrined in the Constitution. When Gregg said that the libertarian principles of the Founding Fathers are obsolete because we live in a more complex society, he was echoing generations of socialists and progressives. That is not is not a Conservative statement; it is a radical statement, attacking the root of our nation’s values (radical, from the Latin radix = root).

          Archie Bunker did not care about the Constitution, any more than the modern Archies do. He thought the government should keep out foreigners not because he thought there was any Constitutional power to do so but to protect his own tribe. Like the liberal justice Rand mentioned in another post, he thought his prejudices should be law because they were “good ideas.”

          1. “When Gregg said that the libertarian principles of the Founding Fathers are obsolete because we live in a more complex society, he was echoing generations of socialists and progressives.

            Hey I will tear you a new one RIGHT NOW if you ever put words in my mouth again. Don’t EVER do that again you effing waste product. Anyone who does that is a moronic doltish infantile lout.

            I’m talking about YOU, Edward Wright.

            Show me where I said that. RIGHT NOW! Provide the exact and complete quote. And it had better not be your interpretation.

            I HATE it when people put words in my mouth, as you perhaps can tell.

            I have never said that the principles of the Founding Father’s are obsolete.

            You thought you could sneak that one in Eh? Buried in a pile of mush?

            I had a reasonable level of respect for you until now…when you play those stupid, high schoolish Obama fascist games of making up something someone said and then using it as an argument.

            My respect for you is now at the negative 2 billion mark.

            I’m calling you out right now: Provide the exact and complete quote where I said that or be forever branded as a lying dolt.

          3. Great Donald Trump imitation, Gregg. With a little work, you’ll be ready to host professional wrestling.

            If you don’t have the intellectual integrity to stand behind your own words, I’ll just have to Google for you.

            Here’s the first example that shows up:

            Gregg
            December 15, 2015 At 9:56 AM
            1882…………

            Today…………………..

            A few things different between then and now. I wonder if you could think of them.

            Acting like a WWF wrestler may make you feel macho, Gregg, but it does not prove your point.

          4. I’m sure Gregg will come to his defense, but to me that looks like a terrible, terrible stretch. How do you conclude that he claimed that the libertarian principles of the Founding Fathers are obsolete because we live in a more complex society from the statement that there are differences between 1882 and now?

    2. Or is this like the boast that Mr. Trump could walk down 5th Avenue and start shooting people and still remain popular?

      Not sure how you can “remain” something that you’ve never been. His disapproval remains high.

      1. He’s been popular with Republicans. Gallup put his net approval with GOP voters at +27 in December-January. He’s quite unpopular with Democrats and Independents.

        If he wins the nomination I expect his GOP approval ratings to go up, as GOP voters rally to defeat the Democratic nominee.

  10. One candidate to Trump them all. I guess if anyone can show how to lead an Empire while sitting on a cesspool of debt for decades it is the Trumpmeister.

    I thought Rubio would win this one but I dunno now.

  11. I predicted that Trump would be fading by now. Instead he’s the clear favorite for the nomination. I believed that he wouldn’t wear well over time, that his numbers would drop like those of other non-politicians (e.g. Carson, Cain). Telling a pollster that you support Trump as a sort of protest is one thing, but actually pulling the lever would be another. I was wrong.

    The lesson I take from it is that there are a lot of voters who are willing to overlook all sorts of things that would be disqualifying in a conventional candidate, if they think the unconventional choice is speaking to them and for them. I should have remembered that from Perot’s first run.

    Another lesson I take from it is that Trump is a much better than average candidate. He pays attention to what his audience wants, and he gives it to them.

    1. “The lesson I take from it is that there are a lot of voters who are willing to overlook all sorts of things that would be disqualifying in a conventional candidate, if they think the unconventional choice is speaking to them and for them. I should have remembered that from Perot’s first run.”

      You should have learned that lesson long ago – your side has been doing that for decades and continues to do so with Hillary, Bernie, Liawatha……the list is endless.

      1. Hillary and Bernie are conventional presidential candidates, with long resumes in public service and previous experience in running for office. Warren’s record in politics and government isn’t as long, but it’s still conventional. Trump, by contrast, would I believe be the first president to come into office without previous experience in government or the military.

        A Democratic equivalent to Trump would be someone like Michael Moore or Tom Steyer leading the polls and winning primaries.

          1. Even Debs had some experience in electoral politics (in the Indiana legislature) before running for president. Sanders, of course, has been in Congress for 25 years. Compared to Trump he’s a totally conventional candidate.

        2. “Hillary and Bernie are conventional presidential candidates, ”

          Be interesting to know your definition of what a “conventional presidential candidate” is.

          My definition does not include communists, haters of the founding principles of the nation, hatred of personal citizen freedom.

          1. A conventional presidential candidate is someone who’s successfully run for office before (e.g. for the House, Senate or a governor’s seat), or commanded the nation’s military. Every president to date and every recent major party nominee has fit that description, i.e. it’s been our convention to choose our presidents from that pool of candidates.

            Sanders would be a particularly leftist Democratic nominee; in that way he’s like Dennis Kucinich or Jesse Jackson or (on the other side) Pat Buchanan or Michelle Bachmann. Such candidates don’t tend to win the nomination, and when they do (i.e. McGovern and Goldwater) they tend to lose the general.

          2. “A conventional presidential candidate is someone who’s successfully run for office before (e.g. for the House, Senate or a governor’s seat), or commanded the nation’s military. ”

            Well…..

            You’re welcome to define conventional any way you like for yourself.

            But the rest of us don’t have to accept a ridiculous definition like that. There is so much more to what makes a candidate.

  12. This may be the first general election I skip, since I came of voting age and cast my first vote for Gerald Ford. Or maybe I’ll do a write in candidate. Rand you available?

  13. Yep, Disney just fired two people:

    “During the holiday season of 2014, I was sent a meeting invitation by a prominent Disney executive. With an excellent review in hand along with company announcements of record profits my mind buzzed with thoughts of a promotion or a bonus,” Leo Perrero, the former Disney worker testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. “I walked into a small conference room with about two dozen highly respected fellow IT workers. The Disney executive made a harsh announcement to us all.”

    That harsh announcement, Perrero said, was that Disney was laying him and hundreds of others off. He would be without a job in 90 days.

    “Your jobs have been given over to a foreign workforce,” Perrero recalled the executive saying. “In the meantime you will be training your replacements until your jobs are 100 percent transferred over to them and if you don’t cooperate you will not receive any severance pay.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/25/laid-off-disney-worker-breaks-down-in-tears-before-senate-panel/

      1. Wow, talk about projection. No hate here. I’m not the one going apoplectic and putting words in Gregg’s mouth.

        Sure, there is a distinction, between foreign workers and immigrants. I put that up to point out to you that it was more than two people. You might want to look back at the post where you said that. And also, in today’s global economy, we need to look at both how we deal with foreign workers and with immigrants.

    2. So, Jon, when will you cry about the striking Disney workers who lost their jobs when the union took over, because Disney couldn’t afford to hire them all back under the new contract?

      Or don’t those jobs matter?

      How about all the baristas, realtors, car dealers, etc. in the Seattle area who lost out when Microsoft decided to open its new center in Canada instead, because immigration laws wouldn’t let them bring Asian programmers into the US?

      Or don’t those jobs matter?

      Why do you cry only about jobs lost to immigration and ignore jobs lost to unions and protectionist legislation?

      1. So, you’re telling me that when the US passes laws that Microsoft doesn’t like, they are allowed to offshore workers, yet reap the benefits of being an American corporation?

        My, oh my. Let’s just grab our ankles anytime Bill Gates wants to screw us. That is certainly being true to the philosophy of Hayek.

  14. Yes, Gregg, Elon Musk is a legal immigrant.

    The H1B visa holders who you guys are complaining about are also legal immigrants.

    You are being disingenuous when you pretend it is only illegal immigrants whom Immigration Warriors want to stop. Arizona CJ is at least honest about that.

    The government can only stop legal immigration. It cannot stop illegal immigration. The government couldn’t stop the flow of alcohol during prohibition. It can’t stop the flow of drugs today. If the government can’t stop people from crossing the border carrying drugs, why do you imagine that it can stop people who are crossing the border *without* carrying drugs?

    FYI, there are 4.4 million people currently on waiting lists *trying* to immigrate into the US legally. That’s according to the Center for Immigration Studies, a self-proclaimed “low immigration” group. That does not even include those who are caught in the backlog of immigration paperwork.

    98% of those are family sponsorships. Only 2% are sponsored by “qualified employers.” So, unless a person has a family member already in the US, it is nearly impossible to enter legally. To claim the process is easy and anyone can do it is mendacious, to say the least.

    1. “The H1B visa holders who you guys are complaining about are also legal immigrants.”

      We are complaining about companies that hire H1B’s to get cheaper labor when there are plenty of skilled American citizens capable of filling the position, yes.

      “You are being disingenuous when you pretend it is only illegal immigrants whom Immigration Warriors want to stop. ”

      You are being dense and obtuse in consistently failing to read what we write – countless times. Which leads you to putting words in people’s mouths – you’ve been branded and are doing it yet again. Doesn’t astonish me….

      I have said many times (as have others here) – and you consistently ignore and put different words in my mouth – that the benefit of controlled legal immigration is that you can meter who you let in based upon need. If there are jobs in an area for which there are no trained US citizens (or not enough) then you look to let any immigrants trained in those areas in, if they apply legally. You could even advertise – nothing wrong with that.

      Legal controlled immigration exists for the benefit of the nation and it’s citizens – nothing more. It is not a charity.

      The WHOLE POINT which you consistently fail to grasp – or choose to not grasp – is that legal immigration allows controlled immigration. Why do you think we SAY we like legal immigration? We’ve told you many times but you do not pay attention. You never stop to think about why we say that. You’re too busy making things up.

      “The government can only stop legal immigration. It cannot stop illegal immigration.”

      Oh yeah? Tell that to Mexico which does a wonderful job controlling illegal immigration.

      But even aside from the direct prevention methods available – and which work – is the fact that if you come down hard on companies hiring illegals such that they stop hiring illegals (i.e. make it more costly to hire illegals) , and you eliminate welfare and medical benefits to illegals, and eliminate the anchor baby methodology to citizenship, then there’s no reason for them to come here in the first place.

      They come here for the entirely rational reason that they get more for free here than they can earn back in their own countries, and because if they work they can work and get paid under the table – and get paid more for the same job as compared to back home, and if they drop a baby here they are in.

      Eliminate the rationale for coming here and you end illegal immigration for the most part. But since the Establishment (both sides) really doesn’t want to do that, and because it won’t end it entirely plus we do not want terrorists filtering in as they are clearly doing now, you have to also build a wall.

      Now go away and ignore this and make up other straw men……

    2. “Yes, Gregg, Elon Musk is a legal immigrant.”

      And therefore your statement is ridiculous and that proves my very point.

Comments are closed.