Conservatives for Kamala

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

44 Responses

  1. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    MAGA Republicans have become like the radical leftists of old, where they are at war with the very people they claim to love.

    They don’t want the childless cat ladies and trans people to be happy or thrive but rather, they really want to to not exist or at least, not exist visibly as co-equal citizens.

    This is why as so many have pointed out, they are now at war with democracy itself because democracy can’t yield any possible outcome that they would like.

    One of the main themes of fascism is that it is forever at war with a fallen world. Think of how many times we’ve heard the refrain about something haven “fallen”. For a long while they were wailing about “Eurabia”, and continue to talk about the “long march through the institutions” or more recently, “woke corporations”.
    The common themes is the idea of the fall of civilization, that barbarians have taken over.

    Notice also the obsessive fixation on crime and disorder. Notice how furiously they reject good news or optimism, and vehemently insist that things are getting worse, ever worse- and not just during Democratic administrations, but even under their own.

    Even during the Trump years, even during the Abbot governorship of Texas, Texas cities like Houston or Dallas were never portrayed in conservative media as anything other than dystopian hellscapes rife with drugs and lawlessness.

    There isn’t any large American city with a Republican leadership, because in the conservative portrayal, it isn’t the leadership of American cities that has failed the people, it is the very people themselves. When you read conservative lament about cities, its clear that the people who live in cities are themselves the problem.Report

  2. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    I will defend the Libertarian delegate stripping on stage.

    He was doing it to mock the proceedings and calling it a clown show. He was *PARTICIPATING* in the clown show by stripping. Not creating it.Report

  3. J_A
    Ignored
    says:

    @David_Thorton

    I understand your issue with MAGA, one that more than 50% of the country shares. But I do not understand exactly what do you find so objectionable about the Democratic Party.

    This is not a gotcha or a trolling question. I honestly want to understand where you stand and what separates you and me, politically. As a start, I am going to assume none of your objections are related to the Culture Wars, and I am not going to go there. If that assumption is wrong, I am happy to dig deeper in that area too. I would also point that, unlike the Republican party, the (relatively) far left tail is nowhere near moving the party in any substantial in their direction, neither in economic nor in social terms.

    So, in a Left-Right classical economic axis, the Democratic Party’s actual policies are probably to the right os the UK Conservatives -who are themselves to the right of Reform UK, a purely Culture War offshoot of the tories. The only material difference between the two in this axis is probably that the Democrats are more friendly to organized labor that the Tories. And this is, I think, a relatively new change. Neither the Clinton nor the Obama administrations were so labor friendly.

    On a isolationist vs internationalist, the Republican party has for the longest time being at the isolationist end. As a non native that has lived in several countries, and married to someone from another culture, I am as cosmopolitan as it comes, so you’ll find me in the internationalist end of the spectrum. But from reading your pieces, I believe I’ll find you there too.

    And maybe it’s my European blood, but I find the Democratic let’s try to reform and to address the causes approach to Law and Order to yield slightly better results than the throw the book at them punish and forget of the Republicans. Your mileage might be different in this matter, and we can discuss.

    Since this is in hard numbers an urban country, and I am an urban guy, that was born in a big city and grew happily from baby to college bound in a (series of) high-rise building(s), I prefer a party that, to borrow a phrase, does not hate me, as Chip points above. I know you are more of a rural/exurban person, so that might be a difference between us.

    I hope these few paragraphs show that this is not trolling, and I hope to hear your thoughtsReport

    • Saul Degraw in reply to J_A
      Ignored
      says:

      I think there are a fair number of voters out there who think Trump is vile and gross and corrupt but they have this cartoon version of the Democrats in their head which is basically close to Comet Pizza. Not exactly Comet Pizza but they still think the Democrats are some radical party that wants to allow Judith Butler to rewrite elementary school to introduce mandatory gender queer in second and third grade. I

      Every now and then there is someone who can be very loosely associated with the Democratic Party (who is not officially a Democratic spokesperson) that feels like a blast of a furnace to a normal person.

      The NYC City Council is trying to find a way to ensure students don’t get signaled out based on their race, gender, weight, etc. for dress code violations. This is known to happen a lot. Girls get hit with more violations than boys and in ways that are completely random. An internet acquaintance stated she was punished for wearing sundresses but not for her more revealing (in her words) cheerleading outfit.

      Students who discussed this at a NYC City Council meeting were accompanied by a woman named Alaina Daniels, who allegedly introduced herself to the Council as a “white, queer, neurodivergent, nonbinary trans woman” (according to the NY Times article).

      I think there are a decent percentage voters out there who here this, find it extremely intimidating, and somehow impute it to the Democratic Party overall and think we all talk like this, all the time.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        Conservatives want to glide right over the anti-democratic and authoritarian aspect of Trump and deflect to “he is vulgar and vile etc.”

        It becomes so much more clear if we look at it in a faraway place like ‘I oppose Communist Party Chairman Xi because he is vile and ill mannered and eats with his fingers”, studiously ignoring all the awful things he does to democracy in Hong Kong.

        Like, if Trump were suddenly to be well mannered and genial and knew what fork to use, then all the attempts to destroy democracy would just be forgiven.

        Which really just validates that Crooked Timber essay where the author noted that really, the only difference between Trumpists and “reasonable” Republicans is that the latter don’t park their cars on the lawn.Report

  4. Fish
    Ignored
    says:

    “I have encountered many people who claim to not like Trump but are among his most ardent defenders.”

    Oh boy. A good friend of mine from the old home town regularly insists that he’s not in any way a Trump supporter, yet he consistently and reliably parrots the latest Trump apologia Fox News spoons out to it’s viewers.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Fish
      Ignored
      says:

      Is it so hard to picture someone favoring Trump’s policies (at least the ones he’d get through, compared to the ones Harris would get through) without holding the guy in high regard?Report

      • Philip H in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        From the outside that would take a lot of cognitive dissonance.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          There’s no conflict at all. Trump’s personal character is bad. His policies are 50/50. The policies he’d be able enact are 80/20.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            And yet according to conservatives character counts. Go figure.Report

            • Burt Likko in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              I will say that, in principle, holding your nose and voting for a bad-but-less-bad choice is defensible behavior in a democracy. Certainly it will be a very rare occasion when any candidate is near-perfect. Just like the Fellowship of the Ring having to choose between a) a dangerous, wintry mountain pass, b) the Mines of Moria, or c) trying to sneak by Saruman’s tower unobserved, sometimes you have to pick the least bad option and go with it.

              Trump is so uniquely, terribly, amazingly, destructively awful it is very hard for me to imagine how anyone, from Ted Cruz to Elizabeth Warren, could possibly be evaluated as worse. To quote the OP:

              Our options are not equally bad. While I oppose much of the Biden-Harris-Walz platform, those objections pale in comparison to a candidate who is willing to tear down constitutional guardrails for his personal benefit. In 2016, I remember people (approvingly) saying that Trump was prepared to “burn it all down,” and he is. He’s willing to destroy any institution that gets in the way of his obtaining and maintaining power. We’ve seen it time and again by now.
              That’s not the way to make America great again. That’s an existential threat to America’s continued survival as a constitutional republic.
              It’s also an existential threat to Ukraine, Europe, and Taiwan. MAGA isolationism and pro-Putin policies would endanger Ukraine’s survival in the near term. It would also embolden China to take action against Taiwan. This isn’t an issue of lofty principles or culture wars, it’s an issue of real world realpolitik.
              The threats from the two parties are not the same.

              I don’t really agree with all of the OP’s reasoning but this is the destination that it seems to me principled conservativism would arrive at. The immediate and durable erosion of the rule of law and institutional integrity that a second Trump administration would bring could not possibly be worth the benefit of the fraction of implementable policies that a conservative would see as beneficial regardless of the President’s identity, particularly when most of those policies would be evanescent and endure for only as long as Republicans could hold the White House.

              YMMV. I’m generally okay with using a “more bad versus less bad” rubric, but here the choice is between Boromir and Sauron. Boromir had flaws to which he sometimes succumbed but basically meant well even when he disagreed with the prevailing wisdom about how to proceed.

              Giving Sauron the One Ring back is never going to be the less bad option.

              (I do not see Pinky saying — at least not here — “Let’s give Sauron the Ring.” Saying that there’d be some policies resulting from a Trump administration that Pinky considers beneficial is not the same thing. And we must admit that Sauron taking charge of Mordor probably did dramatically increase per-Orc productivity, so that was a silver lining of sorts?)Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Burt Likko
                Ignored
                says:

                The only problem is when you and your opponent have different utility functions.

                “Your candidate supports policy X.”
                “But that’s good though.”
                “No, it’s not!”
                “Yes it is!”
                “No it’s not!”
                “Then why did your candidate adopt it as a policy yesterday?”
                “Let me see that… okay. Well, for one thing, we want 20% more of it than you did. You wanted an amount that was bad.”
                “So policy X, plus 20%, is good?”
                “Yeah. So won’t you please vote for our candidate now?”Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “Also, when your candidate proposed policy X we all knew what he really meant by it.”Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            There is only one Trump policy.
            “Whatever Trump wants he gets”.

            It doesn’t matter if it is two scoops of ice cream or the overturning of a free and fair election, Trump, and his defenders will work diligently to make it so.

            So, no, it it isn’t possible to defend Trumps policies because they all trace back to the same callous disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law.Report

      • Fish in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        Other politicians might deserve this regard, but not Trump. So…yes.

        Next question.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Fish
          Ignored
          says:

          What regard? I said that I don’t hold Trump in high regard.Report

          • Fish in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            Try this instead:

            Other politicians and their policies might deserve the benefit of the doubt, but not Trump. So…yes.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Fish
              Ignored
              says:

              We should make a distinction between Trump-exclusive policies and policies that Trump has espoused. We should also note that Trump spent four years not implementing the Trump-exclusive policies. What we’re left with is support of entitlement programs, limiting regulation, appointment of originalist judges, and confrontation against Russia and China. I could do without the first, but I’m not going to turn my back on the rest simply because Trump implements them.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                And Muslim travel bans, and significant tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations, and attempting to significantly damage the professional civil service. None of which were good for the country.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            Then why, again, are you working so hard to defend him as a viable political option?Report

            • Pinky in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              I don’t defend him; I just don’t lie about him.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Neither is anyone else. We just happen to take him at his word, what with January 6th and all.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                You just said there was a Muslim travel ban. That’s certainly not a true statement. Neither are many of the statements I’ve seen about January 6th.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Just so I’m being clear here without being snotty, could you make a specific statement about the “Muslim travel ban”?Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Are you asserting that Trump being unable to implement his promise of ‘a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.’ is somehow to his credit?

                https://web.archive.org/web/20151207230751/https:/www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

                Seems extremely odd to complain that people are using the same words as Trump used to describe it.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                Pinky is doing the thing where, since you can’t find a document titled “Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban” he didn’t do it.

                Despite the executive order banning travel to the US from certain Muslim countries.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m going to treat this as your specific statement about the Muslim travel ban. The ban didn’t specify Muslims. It didn’t include the majority of Muslim countries, and it affected nowhere near the majority of Muslims worldwide. You could just as fairly call it the female travel ban, because it was applied to countries with females, without specifying that females were the problem and without banning them specifically. Or you could note what Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen have in common. Hint: the EO quoted quote from the State Department’s “Country Reports on Terrorism 2015”.

                So your clarified statement about the “Muslim travel ban” actually isn’t wrong, but it’s different than claiming that there was a Muslim travel ban.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Since I’m feeling persnickity today – When you seek to ban travel from Muslim majority countries you are, in fact banning Muslim travel. You don’t get to hide behind the absolute volume of people banned.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s just silly. A Sudanese Christian is banned, an Indonesian Muslim isn’t.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Christians make up 5.4% of the Sudanese population. The country is 91% Muslim.

                That aside – if one wants to believe Trump that he was trying to keep out terrorists, why weren’t Saudi’s banned? 15 of them were Saudi …Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                If a thing applies to AX and BX but not AY and BY, it’s unreasonable to describe it as applying to A.

                That aside – if one wants to believe that Trump was trying to keep out Muslims, why weren’t Saudi’s banned? 85-90% of them are Muslim…Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                We have to understand where the bread is buttered.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                If a thing applies to AX and BX but not AY and BY, it’s unreasonable to describe it as applying to A.

                It’s not unreasonable to describe it that way when it was explicitly presented as targetted at all A when proposed by the people doing it.

                This isn’t a bunch of people guessing motives, Pinky. This is some extremely clear publicly stated motives about what is being attempted, even if the attempt was eventually watered down and then failed.

                It is perfectly reasonable to describe something using the terms the creator described it as, even if it doesn’t live up to their hype. It’s certainly not a ‘lie’ to use that terminology…if they didn’t want it described as a Muslim ban, they shouldn’t have talked about how they were stopping the travel of all Muslims to the US!Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                As Holocaust deniers will tell us, there wasn’t a signed order saying: “Kill all the Jews. [signed] Adolph.”Report

              • Pinky in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                But the net effect of all their policies was intended to achieve the same thing. The net effect of Trump’s policies was nothing for more than 90% of all Muslims who wanted to travel to the US.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                This is almost the opposite.

                It’s more analogous to “He promised in a tweet to kill all the Jews but the courts blocked him so really, he isn’t antiSemitic.”Report

              • Pinky in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                I am not asserting that. Philip implied that there had been Muslim travel bans, while in another section I was arguing that we’re required to tell the truth about even those we disagree with. I also believe I should avoid personally attacking a fellow commenter. (I do take shots at you because that seems to be the only way you communicate. If you’d give me the room to be polite with you, I would.) I wanted Philip to back up his comment about Muslim travel bans with something specific so we could talk about whether Trump was unfairly being accused.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                So the Capitol wasn’t attacked on January 6th by a mob of Trump supporters who believed he directed them to disrupt the counting of votes?

                Fascinating.

                Disgusting, but fascinating.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “That’s certainly not a true statement. Neither are many of the statements I’ve seen about January 6th.”

                does not equal

                “the Capitol wasn’t attacked on January 6th by a mob of Trump supporters who believed he directed them to disrupt the counting of votes”Report

  5. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    Trump’s former press secretary backs Harris. Is slated to speak at the DNC:

    https://newrepublic.com/post/185061/donald-trump-insider-support-kamala-harris-dncReport

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *