Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Popular Culture

The Enemy Of My Enemy

11 Comments

This post is related to this one. I agree with Ben Shapiro:

Unfortunately, many conservatives have embraced this sort of binary thinking: If it angers the Left, it must be virtuous. Undoubtedly, that’s a crude shorthand for political thinking. It means you never have to check the ideas of the speaker, you merely have to check how people respond to him.

That’s dangerous. It leads to supporting bad policies and bad men. The enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend. Sometimes he’s your enemy. Sometimes he’s just a dude sitting there minding his own business.

You don’t have enough information to know.

The logic of “if he melts snowflakes, he’s one of us” actually hands power to the Left, by allowing leftists to define conservatives’ friends. It gets to choose whom we support. This isn’t speculative. It happened during the 2016 primaries, when the media attacked Trump incessantly, driving Republicans into his outstretched arms. The media’s obvious hatred for Trump was one of the chief arguments for Trump from his advocates: If, as his detractors claimed, he wasn’t conservative, then why would the leftist media hate him so much?

And yes, many of Trump’s policies are bad, and he is in many ways a bad man. I’m glad she lost, but I don’t have to be glad he won, and because I was never a supporter, I don’t have to reflexively defend everything he does, though I will in fact defend him when the attack is unfair.

Read the whole thing.

[Thursday-morning update]

How Trump could create a Republican split. Or lovefest.

BTW, I’ve never predicted that the Senate would remove Trump. Just that, unlike her, it could.

11 thoughts on “The Enemy Of My Enemy”

  1. I reject Shapiro’s premise.

    It used to be in this country we stood up for a person’s right to speak even if we didn’t agree with it. So my answer to his question doesn’t have anything to do with the speaker: I am opposed to anyone being silenced.

    I might make an exception for actual Hitler or one of the Iranian mullahs or something, but David Duke? No. This is America. He has a right to speak. I don’t have to listen, and I don’t have to agree with him.

    1. It used to be in this country we stood up for a person’s right to speak even if we didn’t agree with it. So my answer to his question doesn’t have anything to do with the speaker: I am opposed to anyone being silenced.

      This ^^

      The only people who are prevented from speaking are people who are at odds with Democrats for one reason or another. Supporting the right of free speech for these people does not mean you endorse the content of their speech.

      There are a lot of people, who are not conservative, who have seen the totalitarian craziness of the modern day Democrat party, thanks to gamergate and the SJW crusade against the younger generations, and turned against Democrats. That doesn’t mean they are for Republicans, but they are horrified by Democrats. There are many youtube personalities that are like this and they have large audiences.

      I hope that this leads some of them to learn more about conservative principles.

      Milo’s main cause is freedom of speech. We have all seen the young lady who was maced in the face after giving an interview at the Berkley riot. She was there because she supports the freedom of speech. This is pretty common for people attending Milo’s events.

      It seems to me that in the realm of first amendment demonstrations, the more controversial a speaker is, the more it shows the value of the first amendment.

  2. Fingers crossed the people around him will pull us through…

    I’m liking Pence.
    I’m really liking McMaster. Always have, ever since Armored Cav was published.

    But those were Trump picks. So credit where due….

  3. I realized something a few months ago. This is an example. Here’s a response to which I agree.

    Of course, invitation is also a form of speech, and should be used carefully. Shapiro is talking about an university that held a political debate (information that Shapiro doesn’t provide or weigh). Debates, especially a political debate involving candidates for the same position, usually include differing opinions. The university was right to provide to invite. Shapiro’s entire premise is rubbish which of course leads to the stupid conclusion.

    And no, the media’s hatred of Trump was not one of the chief arguments for Trump. The chief argument is he seemed to be sincere in following through on his promises, especially compared to the GOP. For example, where is the GOP on repealing Obamacare, now that they have the Presidency and a majority in both houses of Congress? Oh… Sure they rather talk about how Trump doesn’t deserve support.

    Trump supporters are, because Trump actually opposes the Left with real actions. They support him because of what he is fighting, not whom. The fact that Shapiro makes the comments about Trump tells you it is Shapiro who is arguing based on whom, and that’s just part of his hypocrisy in his article.

    1. Republican politicians have been happily losing for decades. Trump wants to win. That’s why people support him. They’ve been wanting a winner to vote for since Reagan, and the Republicans wouldn’t give them one.

  4. Sometimes I think the analysts should STFU because of the level of idiocy they spew. It’s about time they just watch and learn.

  5. Way overdoing it. Trump has been a very pleasant surprise for conservatives. Many of us support him far more than we did during the campaign. He has been consistently doing almost all the things we wanted, and pretty much all the things he promised.
    He’s still a shock jock, and still says a lot of dumb stuff. But that’s actually okay with me, since it seems to totally distract the media, and doesn’t actually do any harm. And he’s been winning. The ones people approve of all lose.

    1. Bingo. Much of what Trump does seems to be aimed at triggering the media, so they run around shrieking and clutching their pearls and ignore the real work he’s doing in the background.

  6. Remember Skokie? It’s not as if the Jewish neighborhood INVITED Nazi’s to come march thru their streets. And yet the ACLU litigated and publicized and fought for the Nazis, not for the idea of fascism but for the idea of Free Speech. And Danny Kaye and Carl Reiner and other celebrities were so happy about the “successful” (Nazis _were_ allowed to march and provoke Jews) they made a TV movie about the whole deal.

    So if the uninvited, LITERAL, Nazis have free speech, why not Milo?

    Not enough? How ’bout Flynt v. Falwell? If Jerry Falwell has to put up with being mocked in a porn magazine, why are “snowflakes” protected from mockery by the flaming faggot?

    Not enough? I got others…

    1. Speaking of Flynt vs Falwell:
      “…and out of nowhere my secretary buzzes me, saying, “Jerry Falwell is here to see you.” I was shocked, but I said, “Send him in.” We talked for two hours, with the latest issues of Hustler neatly stacked on my desk in front of him. He suggested that we go around the country debating, and I agreed. We went to colleges, debating moral issues and 1st Amendment issues — what’s “proper,” what’s not and why.”
      http://www.latimes.com/la-op-flynt20may20-story.html

      I’m sure there’s a lesson in there somewhere.

Comments are closed.