Consent is at least a valid point of discussion, whereas "taxation is theft" is just sloganeering. Not sure if that's a word or not but if it isn't it should be. At any rate, I too have heard, and on occasion used, the consent line. One place it leads that is even sticker though is participation-with low voter rates and even lower number that participate in some level of government there is an element of consent that applies actually try to influence beyond a keyboard. I'm guilt as well, of course, but it is something to consider.
It fits the "feels like its true" thought process of populism so I doubt we will ever be rid of it. I suspect many that are using that line don't know or care it limits their audience, and the ones that do (like Kirk which is why I used him) are mostly doing so for engagement it brings from those same folks.
Myself, I had to go to a preparer some years ago since my job entailed multistate filing, and of course I picked two states that were not reciprocal on state taxes. Same team does mine every year and its still a minimum of half day doing it even well prepared and them being familiar with my situation. So your point on the physical aggravation of filing is well taken.
Regarding your point on Me1: It isn't just everything covered up by this specific story. Those same people kept the secrete for 50 years, including some defending/excusing him even now. What else has been buried, excused, and covered for in that time span for some warped version of "greater good" in that time...
@christopher-carr this is a fine, and accurate quote: "I think people are just using taxes not even to argue for their preconceived, already-decided positions, but just to pivot to their preconceived, already-decided positions."
You are not the first person to draw that comparison and I think it has merit. Drawing power to yourself at the expensive of others, and maintaining it by keeping them forever blaming something other than their actual abuser is one of those universal truths we find in homes and halls of power, Unfortunately. Wherever we find it, we must oppose and hold it accountable. Sticky part of this analogy of course is dealing with those who cannot see that in their leader.
Not unfair, but the toxic charismatic leader, of whatever stripe and form they come in, still only has the power over their followers that they themselves allow that leader to have. Coerced, manipulated, fooled, ect...there are factors as you say. But in almost all cases there is a point where the follower makes a decision that whatever they are getting-or perceive themselves as getting-in exchange for their devotion just outweighs their qualms. If there is a dark power afoot it is the one that already dwells in the human nature much more so than in the leader that exploits it.
Whatever number you want to ascribe to his core base, (the shoot someone on 5th ave crowd) most that I've seen would put it somewhere around 30-35%. It is a level of personality cult, they follow the man, all other issues go to the side. Unique perhaps in US Presidency, but not unusual in history. There is no dark power.
Incomplete though it might be, it also can be applicable to failure theater congress, who manages to not do much but fundraise off "we tried really hard and look how awful the other guys are".
Trump is mostly explained by breathless, wall-to-wall media coverage that was afforded to him, which is far more responsible than any single issue. No one Republican candidate was able to satisfy much of anyone, and the one that was different, Trump, stood to gain from the unprecedented media coverage and the frankly uninspiring other candidates who didn't know how to adjust to such a disruptor. Say what you want about pollsters, but it is a data set; if you dismiss you are working more on conjecture than "historical fact".
Respectfully, the data does not support that assertion. According to Pew, immigration (8%) was 5th on the list of reasons voters supported Trump, behind He isn't Clinton (33%), Change (27%), issue policy (26%), and economic policy (10%).
As a reformed drunk I encourage you to have more faith and optimism. Are not our liberal friends supposed to believe in the inherent goodness of people? Folks are immersed in it, but few are really enjoying it. Trump, in the grand scheme, is a temporary thing.
This is the answer to many of our pundit/commentator/social media questions:
"I contend that you will never get someone to switch sides by ridiculing them. But you can get really famous and make a lot of money by ridiculing people, for sure, and pretend that’s powerful"
To your points:
1) The Russians knew and scurried out of the way, the only way they were going to get hit is if they purposefully wanted to be. If they wanted an escalation they were handed it on a plate...they declined and stood aside.
2) Our casualties are not a measure of weakness/strength. If so, how does the 300 odd mercenaries the Russians lost at Deir al-Zor look?
While I can see how the Yugoslavia/Balkan wars is a tempting comparision, I do not think it applicable here. Those were ethnic/religious wars. While Syria has elements of that it is much more complicated. This is a proxy war, within which is contained a civil war, which is being fought between various degrees of very bad people with a lot of innocent ones caught in the middle. Amount of skin in the game, as you put it, doesn't have bearing on seeing those facts clearly.
@chip-daniels this is a very valid point. This is a fair criticism of current conservative thought, especially in pundit/chattering class. Having for decades decried the "preying on victimhood" by others, in last few years it is in vogue to play up their own victim status. Quite frankly, this line of thinking is the bridge from what had traditionally been conservative thought/principles to the unmoored populism that now parades the name conservative around.
I disagree, that is a very broad brush. No 3 people are equally motivated, let alone 60 million. No doubt Trumps behavior brings out the worst in a segment of people, far to large a segment; but there were others, rightly or wrongly, who voted for Trump for an endless amount of reasons. None of those reasons excuse Trumps moral failings, and excusing them for things those folks did like about Trump is a moral failing of its own kind, but there were many that saw him for what he was and calculated accordingly.
This "how we got Trump" has become a cover-all for a multitude of things, but is far to simplistic, as it how we got Trump. Shapiro's use here, clearly as device, is typical of what the phrase is.
There is a lot to work through in this well written piece that I enjoyed despite disagreeing with parts of. I think its a good thing to raise questions about "star" pundits as it is politicians; if part of the trouble with Trump is his supporters making him an unassailable hero, the same is true of people doing so with their favorite media figures. He is quite right that Shapiro isn't going anywhere, whatever you think of his beliefs he is very intelligent, media savvy, and has built quite the brand for himself. I don't think supporting Trump is an unpardonable sin to conservatism, especially people who for whatever reason initially bought in and changed there mind. Doing that makes Trump the decoder ring for what is/isn't conservative, and while I'm sure many would like that, it is not accurate. People of all beliefs have the ability to change minds, evolve, admit errors. They should be able to explain, its fair to challenge them on it, but it must be allowed.
I tend to agree with this. I believe he filters things like race and class like he does everything else, through a lens of helping/hurting whatever his goal is at the moment. This is the limits of being pragmatic instead of principled, if your goal is self serving, plenty of things get abused in the process.
I suspect the percentage of voters, let along Trump supports, who know any of that is incredibly low. For that matter, even Trump supporters on the whole probably have no idea about the man pre-Apprentice. That the considered such things as part of their support doesn't seem likely. Your description of "party hard frat-boy conservatism"-and you are right it has always been a strain-is, to be fair, more of an elitist mindset that transcends particular sides than a conservative one.
I find talk radio host, Rush is an example, who built an audience with one message then excuses Trump from being held accountable to it, to be the hypocrites they are.
Well done on the turn of phrase there...Tolkien is always appropriate.
To your point, I have trouble believing anyone can honestly defend Trump strictly on policy as it changes based on his whim, never mind he ran and won on positions counter to all of his previous life. There are endless theories and each no doubt had their reasons but the further we go the more I personally think simplest answer is they made Trump into an aggrievement avatar: whatever your complaint about the world is, project it onto him, and he played into it perfectly. Once you make that mental leap, regardless your original position, hard to talk someone back up the hill.
I do not think I can agree to Trump being the "logical endpoint to many years of talk radio and Fox News", though I can see the temptation to think so. Everything about the first 69 years of Trump ran counter to what that same talk radio proclaimed. It was they that modulated more so to him than the other way around. The right is not a monolith, and many had various reasons, but the common thread was people change their long held positions in the name of buying into Trump the personality.
On “Tax Day 2018: Taxation Is or Isn’t Theft?”
Consent is at least a valid point of discussion, whereas "taxation is theft" is just sloganeering. Not sure if that's a word or not but if it isn't it should be. At any rate, I too have heard, and on occasion used, the consent line. One place it leads that is even sticker though is participation-with low voter rates and even lower number that participate in some level of government there is an element of consent that applies actually try to influence beyond a keyboard. I'm guilt as well, of course, but it is something to consider.
"
It fits the "feels like its true" thought process of populism so I doubt we will ever be rid of it. I suspect many that are using that line don't know or care it limits their audience, and the ones that do (like Kirk which is why I used him) are mostly doing so for engagement it brings from those same folks.
"
Myself, I had to go to a preparer some years ago since my job entailed multistate filing, and of course I picked two states that were not reciprocal on state taxes. Same team does mine every year and its still a minimum of half day doing it even well prepared and them being familiar with my situation. So your point on the physical aggravation of filing is well taken.
On “Morning Ed: Media {2018.04.17.Tu}”
Regarding your point on Me1: It isn't just everything covered up by this specific story. Those same people kept the secrete for 50 years, including some defending/excusing him even now. What else has been buried, excused, and covered for in that time span for some warped version of "greater good" in that time...
On “Tax Day 2018: Taxation Is or Isn’t Theft?”
@christopher-carr this is a fine, and accurate quote: "I think people are just using taxes not even to argue for their preconceived, already-decided positions, but just to pivot to their preconceived, already-decided positions."
On “The Magic of Ben Shapiro”
You are not the first person to draw that comparison and I think it has merit. Drawing power to yourself at the expensive of others, and maintaining it by keeping them forever blaming something other than their actual abuser is one of those universal truths we find in homes and halls of power, Unfortunately. Wherever we find it, we must oppose and hold it accountable. Sticky part of this analogy of course is dealing with those who cannot see that in their leader.
"
Not unfair, but the toxic charismatic leader, of whatever stripe and form they come in, still only has the power over their followers that they themselves allow that leader to have. Coerced, manipulated, fooled, ect...there are factors as you say. But in almost all cases there is a point where the follower makes a decision that whatever they are getting-or perceive themselves as getting-in exchange for their devotion just outweighs their qualms. If there is a dark power afoot it is the one that already dwells in the human nature much more so than in the leader that exploits it.
"
I am all for the justified chucking, couldn't happen to a nicer lot. Only referring to what is occurring, not the folly of it.
"
Whatever number you want to ascribe to his core base, (the shoot someone on 5th ave crowd) most that I've seen would put it somewhere around 30-35%. It is a level of personality cult, they follow the man, all other issues go to the side. Unique perhaps in US Presidency, but not unusual in history. There is no dark power.
"
Incomplete though it might be, it also can be applicable to failure theater congress, who manages to not do much but fundraise off "we tried really hard and look how awful the other guys are".
"
Trump is mostly explained by breathless, wall-to-wall media coverage that was afforded to him, which is far more responsible than any single issue. No one Republican candidate was able to satisfy much of anyone, and the one that was different, Trump, stood to gain from the unprecedented media coverage and the frankly uninspiring other candidates who didn't know how to adjust to such a disruptor. Say what you want about pollsters, but it is a data set; if you dismiss you are working more on conjecture than "historical fact".
"
Respectfully, the data does not support that assertion. According to Pew, immigration (8%) was 5th on the list of reasons voters supported Trump, behind He isn't Clinton (33%), Change (27%), issue policy (26%), and economic policy (10%).
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/21/in-their-own-words-why-voters-support-and-have-concerns-about-clinton-and-trump/
On “Environment: Individualism vs Collectivism”
That is an excellent turn of phrase, executed centrally vs centrally motivated.
On “The Magic of Ben Shapiro”
As a reformed drunk I encourage you to have more faith and optimism. Are not our liberal friends supposed to believe in the inherent goodness of people? Folks are immersed in it, but few are really enjoying it. Trump, in the grand scheme, is a temporary thing.
"
This is the answer to many of our pundit/commentator/social media questions:
"I contend that you will never get someone to switch sides by ridiculing them. But you can get really famous and make a lot of money by ridiculing people, for sure, and pretend that’s powerful"
exactly right @doctor-jay
On “Air Strikes In Syria”
To your points:
1) The Russians knew and scurried out of the way, the only way they were going to get hit is if they purposefully wanted to be. If they wanted an escalation they were handed it on a plate...they declined and stood aside.
2) Our casualties are not a measure of weakness/strength. If so, how does the 300 odd mercenaries the Russians lost at Deir al-Zor look?
While I can see how the Yugoslavia/Balkan wars is a tempting comparision, I do not think it applicable here. Those were ethnic/religious wars. While Syria has elements of that it is much more complicated. This is a proxy war, within which is contained a civil war, which is being fought between various degrees of very bad people with a lot of innocent ones caught in the middle. Amount of skin in the game, as you put it, doesn't have bearing on seeing those facts clearly.
On “The Magic of Ben Shapiro”
@chip-daniels this is a very valid point. This is a fair criticism of current conservative thought, especially in pundit/chattering class. Having for decades decried the "preying on victimhood" by others, in last few years it is in vogue to play up their own victim status. Quite frankly, this line of thinking is the bridge from what had traditionally been conservative thought/principles to the unmoored populism that now parades the name conservative around.
"
It is no more so than the assumption 60 million drew great joy out of his worst moments.
"
I disagree, that is a very broad brush. No 3 people are equally motivated, let alone 60 million. No doubt Trumps behavior brings out the worst in a segment of people, far to large a segment; but there were others, rightly or wrongly, who voted for Trump for an endless amount of reasons. None of those reasons excuse Trumps moral failings, and excusing them for things those folks did like about Trump is a moral failing of its own kind, but there were many that saw him for what he was and calculated accordingly.
"
This "how we got Trump" has become a cover-all for a multitude of things, but is far to simplistic, as it how we got Trump. Shapiro's use here, clearly as device, is typical of what the phrase is.
"
There is a lot to work through in this well written piece that I enjoyed despite disagreeing with parts of. I think its a good thing to raise questions about "star" pundits as it is politicians; if part of the trouble with Trump is his supporters making him an unassailable hero, the same is true of people doing so with their favorite media figures. He is quite right that Shapiro isn't going anywhere, whatever you think of his beliefs he is very intelligent, media savvy, and has built quite the brand for himself. I don't think supporting Trump is an unpardonable sin to conservatism, especially people who for whatever reason initially bought in and changed there mind. Doing that makes Trump the decoder ring for what is/isn't conservative, and while I'm sure many would like that, it is not accurate. People of all beliefs have the ability to change minds, evolve, admit errors. They should be able to explain, its fair to challenge them on it, but it must be allowed.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2018.04.15.Su}”
I tend to agree with this. I believe he filters things like race and class like he does everything else, through a lens of helping/hurting whatever his goal is at the moment. This is the limits of being pragmatic instead of principled, if your goal is self serving, plenty of things get abused in the process.
"
I suspect the percentage of voters, let along Trump supports, who know any of that is incredibly low. For that matter, even Trump supporters on the whole probably have no idea about the man pre-Apprentice. That the considered such things as part of their support doesn't seem likely. Your description of "party hard frat-boy conservatism"-and you are right it has always been a strain-is, to be fair, more of an elitist mindset that transcends particular sides than a conservative one.
I find talk radio host, Rush is an example, who built an audience with one message then excuses Trump from being held accountable to it, to be the hypocrites they are.
"
Well done on the turn of phrase there...Tolkien is always appropriate.
To your point, I have trouble believing anyone can honestly defend Trump strictly on policy as it changes based on his whim, never mind he ran and won on positions counter to all of his previous life. There are endless theories and each no doubt had their reasons but the further we go the more I personally think simplest answer is they made Trump into an aggrievement avatar: whatever your complaint about the world is, project it onto him, and he played into it perfectly. Once you make that mental leap, regardless your original position, hard to talk someone back up the hill.
"
I do not think I can agree to Trump being the "logical endpoint to many years of talk radio and Fox News", though I can see the temptation to think so. Everything about the first 69 years of Trump ran counter to what that same talk radio proclaimed. It was they that modulated more so to him than the other way around. The right is not a monolith, and many had various reasons, but the common thread was people change their long held positions in the name of buying into Trump the personality.