What do you call it when socialists and nationalists govern together?

In my last post (and elsewhere), I criticized Trump’s (self-appointed) ideological vanguard for their Lefty/statist orientation, i.e. government-as-mechanic that tightens a tariff here and raises a rate there and — voila — The Economy! I also warned that a one-party system, with the political battlefield reduced to an internecine struggle between two Lefty coalitions fighting over the means of production coercion, was really scary news for all the peace and freedom loving people stuck in between, i.e. liberals.

Recently, Arnold Kling wondered about the same thing: what does a compromise look like between these two lefty coalitions?

My first thought is national socialism. It needs another name, because of all the Hitler/holocaust baggage, but here is why it makes sense.

The nationalism would include immigration restrictions, protection of “culturally significant industry” (e.g., wine in France), and cultural pride. This would appeal to the anti-Bobos. The socialism part, which requires technocratic management of economic outcomes, would appeal to the Bobos.

To get to national socialism in the U.S., the left would have to give up its attachment to multiculturalism and the right would have to give up its attachment to free markets (which Alberto Mingardi says has happened). Right now, it is easier for me to imagine the latter than the former, but maybe if the left loses one more election that could change.

That sounds about right (and it’s always been strange that the National Socialist movement is widely accepted as the epitome of right wing politics, but that’s another thought for another day).

Again, ethnonationalist socialism is actually pretty common. Off the top of my head, most of the regimes in North Africa and the Middle East (except for Israel and the emirates) are basically fascist: militant, ethnocentric, nationalist and socialist. It’s an observation that typically gets dismissed because of all the “baggage” associated with the original national socialists, but I think that’s a diagnostic failure.

For many a good reason, our cultural memory of the Nazis (and Hitler) is that of frothing at the mouth madmen and true Bond villains. The problem with that caricature, however, is that we’ll never see the next Nazis coming (indeed, they’ve been here for a long time) because we’re expecting some ghoulish evil mastermind to emerge as their leader — i.e. Hitler as we’ve reimagined him. But that Hitler wasn’t real and those characters by and large do not exist outside of their parents’ basement.

More importantly, one doesn’t require evil intentions to perpetrate great evil — quite the contrary, it’s righteous intentions and a broadly inspiring message that are (and always have been, including with Hitler) the prerequisites for inflicting harm at an order of magnitude to be considered evil. Indeed, it’s pretty unlikely that people would willingly destroy the lives of others if they didn’t genuinely believe it was for “the greater good.” Sociopaths are by far the exception and not the norm.

I view this diagnostic failure as part of the good intentions fallacy. People generally think intentions are predictive of outcomes and therefore their policies and leaders are righteous and altruistic, while the other team’s are heartless and selfish. That’s a mistake.

Intentions are more or less the same across the political spectrum — everyone generally wants to help the unlucky and stop the bad guys. We impute bad intentions to people we disagree with because we have no other way to explain their disagreement (since how can people with the same intentions desire divergent policies if intentions are all that matter?!). We also create a robust market for outrage and character attacks to justify our inferences about the other team. Tell me whether the candidate is a baby killing Christ-hater / racist oppressor of women, so I know who to vote for.

What we don’t do is pay sufficient attention to incentives, which actually do vary a good deal and truly are predictive of outcomes. And when we focus exclusively on intentions and ignore incentives, we get fascists and their multicultural counterparts, i.e. communists. [For related reasons, I think there should be a Godwin’s Law for Godwin’s Law.]

If you want to call Trump a Nazi, go ahead, just make sure you’re doing it for the right reasons: i.e. he’s an advocate for a robust state apparatus to “reengineer” a more “just” nation. Y’know, just like the early progressives who, concurrently with the Nazis, empowered labor cartels (through commercial and immigration regulation) in order to “protect” the American “working class.” And just like the present-day progressives who want to do the same thing for the international proletariat “multicultural working class.”

When politics is reduced to national socialists fighting with the international socialists, bad stuff happens.

Valid Criticisms of Trump / Let’s Hope We’re Not a One-Party Country

The American Affairs Journal, the self-appointed ideological caretaker of Trump’s populism, has published a statement of policy . . . and it’s gawdawful. It might be summarized as “reclaiming populism from the Democratic Party” or “We Want Our Progressive Movement Back!” If you look closely, you can almost see Matt Yglesias’ fat bald head staring back at you. As the editors point out, Bernie Trump is their real hero:

Throughout 2016, the media presented both Trump and Sanders as essentially lunatics. The former was supposed to be seen as evil and the latter adorable, but neither was supposed to be taken seriously. Yet it was they who addressed the serious concerns of the electorate.

Anyways, some highlights:

On Trade:

Trade: Trade policy is a key area of focus for us and a broad topic that includes everything from tariffs to monetary policy and more . . . At bottom, however, rethinking trade means rethinking the theoretical foundations of economics and moving beyond the textbook abstractions that have justified decades of failed policy.

Um, I think the “textbook abstractions” are the ones where government officials tweak a rate there and a tariff here and *BEEP BOOP BOP* like an engine, THE Economy springs back to life. What’s not an abstraction is that it’s dumb to tax the entire country in order to subsidize a few special interests.

On Healthcare:

Health care: In general, we support universal health care administered by the government. This could involve an outright “single-payer” system—which we have no ideological objection to—or something like a “Swiss system” . . . The government should also take a much clearer role in controlling costs and setting prices for procedures and prescription drugs . . .

Conservatives’ insistence on “private” health care is at this point purely ideological and counterproductive. We have not had a “free market” health care system in this country for decades, and obscuring that fact only makes it more difficult to improve the system. Today’s small cartel of health insurers no longer offers any meaningful market in the choice of health insurance, which for most people is chosen by their employer anyway. In most circumstances, the choice of actual medical care is hardly governed by market principles.

Yeesh. “Setting prices” does not “control costs.” It never has and it never will because prices are not costs. Prices are dynamic signals: to entrepreneurs they whisper “supply here,” and to consumers “demand here.” If you mess with those signals, then you just confuse people and the result is shortages and surpluses, i.e. supply untethered from demand. Again, it’s like the lobsters and the herring (or starvation and disease in Venezuela) — these problems are way too complicated for any central decisionmaker to grasp, let alone solve. As Poppa Milton once said, if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.

The editors are at least correct that “we have not had a ‘free market’ health care system in this country for decades.” However, their solution — total government ownership of the healthcare industry — is lunacy that betrays their own ignorance of the “theoretical foundations of economics” they claim to “rethink.”

On Financial Regulation:

Financial regulation: Financial regulation is by nature complex and difficult to summarize, though we support measures such as the elusive “Glass-Steagall for the 21st Century” and the closing of the “carried-interest loophole.” The deregulation that occurred during the Clinton and Bush administrations has rightly been blamed for contributing to the financial crisis, but trade and other imbalances contributed to the expansion of the financial industry and its bubbles as well.

Durrr, it sure is complicated but one thing we know for certain is that regulations (that we can’t explain) definitely, 100% would have stopped a financial crisis (that we also can’t explain). ‘Nuff said. Bernie Trump! Goldman Sachs, rawwwr!

On Immigration:

Immigration: Although it has become something of a cliché, we favor a “Canadian” approach to immigration. Streamlining high-skill immigration while limiting low-skill—and eliminating illegal—immigration offers one means to support wage growth.

It’s only partly terrible, and again, the rationale is stupid. “Wage growth” in isolation is just cost growth and making things more expensive will cannibalize any perceived increases to income. Imagine if New York City made it illegal for non-native New Yorkers to work in New York City — now, consider how much more expensive financial services would be at that point (before the whole industry finally moved to a different part of the country leaving hollowed out factories sky scrapers behind). You don’t have to think hard — financial services are already incredibly expensive given the currently regulatory barriers to entry. Productivity is what you’re shooting for, i.e. making the pie bigger, and not scarfing a larger slice of the pie. When the salt of the earth complains that healthcare costs too much they can blame the healthcare labor cartels who only wanted their turn at “wage growth.”

As for the stuff I skipped, there are bits on taxes (make them simpler and more protectionist), infrastructure (build it), tech (army gizmos) and foreign policy (America First). Only the last (and sorta the first/second) is a coherent view, but query whether it’s a prudent one.

The editors conclude with a somewhat muddled love/hate rant about technocracy, but if I were to summarize, it’s: “Let’s geographically reorient progressive statism around the Unite States — the folks right here — rather than the United City-States of New York, Paris, London, San Francisco, Berlin and Brussels.”

The wonk’s conceit is that “politics” is simply a matter of tinkering with administrative arcana, a pastime best reserved for former or aspiring bureaucrats and lobbyists. The “policy innovation” preferred by the wonk mistakes complexity for seriousness and masks a fundamental affirmation of the status quo. Proposals for tweaking interstate barber licensing requirements or altering the opt-in clauses of health savings accounts, for instance, are ultimately as inconsequential as they are soporific. They are excuses to justify think-tank donations more than anything else . . .

The new “populism” has identifiable legislative commitments, yet its radicalism resides not in implausible policy demands but in a new intellectual outlook. It is about recognizing that the ideological categories of Right and Left are no longer relevant to the essential questions of the present. It is about recognizing that today’s economy has little in common with Adam Smith’s capitalism and that there is no longer a straightforward policy choice between the “free market” and “government intervention.”

It is about recognizing that leaving the people out of decision making results in a more fragile and dangerous politics. The choice is not between the apolitical individualism of universal consumerism and the ever-shifting narratives of identity politics. These are merely different sides of the same globalist, neoliberal coin. The true alternative is the reconstitution of a common American citizenship that stands in contrast to both. The essential task is the redefinition of the American people’s distinctive interests in the present, and their unique hopes for the future.

Donald Trump is and always has been a Democrat, i.e. a statist. He terrifies the Democratic party because (among other things) he’s reclaiming their brutish playbook for its original constituency and geographic locale. Democrats can’t really argue with any of these policies, so to oppose Trump, they’re forced to admit that they really, really don’t like his constituency. “The policies work, they’re just not for you, you ugly, no good nationalist patriots. Borders are so last century. Global cantons are where it’s at and we’ll never let you in our cities anyway!”

When both coalitions are essentially Leftist/statist in their outlook, that’s bad news bears for liberals.

Blood Frenzy

Live footage of the MSM reporting on Trump:screamingmin.gif

I’ve always wondered if/when the MSM would tire itself out from it’s daily outrage machine. How many times a day can they stare down an unprecedented (since yesterday) global catastrophe? It’s gotta be exhausting. I figured Trump would basically wait them out and eventually the MSM would return to mundane reporting.

It actually seemed like the MSM had eased up a bit, briefly gloating about healthcare, then turning to mild accusations of genocide-by-Trumpcare, and then genuinely distracted by humdrum ransomware.

And then Comey. Comey. RUSSIA. Comey. RUSSIA. RUSSIA. Comey. Comey. The guy they loved, then hated, and then still hated, but would have preferred better timing. CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!!!!

When they said Trump would release the animal spirits, I’m not sure this is what they meant. The Comey firing was like blood in the water for dormant sharks.

So let’s review:

Scandal #1: Trump fired Comey to obstruct justice.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is no justice to obstruct. Trump did not fire Comey to stop an investigation because he doesn’t care about the investigation in the slightest. That’s not surprising because Trump knows there is nothing to investigate, which is also why every investigation has come up with absolutely nothing. Yes, it behooves junior staffers to believe that their work is of grave importance and the forces of evil have conspired to stop you, but there’s a tendency to overrate one’s stature in the big scheme of things. Sometimes you’re just collateral damage because you don’t matter enough to be the primary target. It’s a tough pill to swallow, but I’ve witnessed this phenomenon firsthand.

Trump fired Comey because he’s president and gets to appoint the head of the FBI. Trump fired Comey because Comey is not Trump’s guy, cannot control leaks in his department, and arguably bungled the non-scandal emailgate. For all the fevered headlines and leaks, there continues to be zero evidence of anything untoward with Russia . . . just a lot of fevered headlines and leaks. Inserting the adjective “shady” or “shadowy” before “ties” does not make them so. Drawing lots of confusing circles and arrows similarly does not constitute evidence. But if you’re starting assumption is that something shady happened with Russia, then every bit of circumstantial evidence gets a negative inference and becomes additional evidence to validate the original (baseless) assumption that something shady happened with Russia. It’s conspiracy all the way down.

Scandal #2: Trump leaked sensitive Israeli intel to the Russians putting the fate of the universe at risk.

Alternative Hypothesis: Trump dropped a tidbit of intel in a totally routine and unremarkable way.

The MSM is already convinced that Trump perpetrated some grievous injury without knowing what the intel was, whether Russia already knew it, how frequently such sharing occurs, whether Israel cares or whether the source is actually at risk. I mean, if it’s so friggen sensitive, then why is this anonymous source running straight to the press? “Ohmigosh! Trump just told the biggest secret to the Russians. Can you believe it?! If anyone finds out, literally millions of people will die. You won’t tell anyone, right?”

It’s straight out of Mean Girls.

Even Dennis Kucinich, playing the token opposition voice of reason, has weighed in against the MSM and these brave anonymous sources, as reported by none other than Breitbart:

Kucinich went on to say that he had read the Washington Post story very carefully and, based on his 16 years of experience in the U.S. Congress, “tracking all these things that are said about foreign policy,” that “there’s a high BS quotient going on right here.”

He added that the “meter should be going off all over town” and redirected attention to troubling leaks from the intelligence community. He said questions need to be asked about why and who within the intelligence community is leaking this information, “we don’t need to look to Russia for any affirmation here.” Kucinich went on:

Ya know we don’t need to look to Russia for any affirmation here. We need to ask questions about why is this intelligence community trying to upend the President of the United States with these leaks? Here’s the Washington Post story (holds up physical copy of the newspaper) I mean its, and all over town people are saying the President did this and that — look, I disagree with President Trump on a number of issues, but on this one, there can only be one President and somebody in the intelligence community is trying to upend this President in order to pursue a policy direction that puts us in conflict with Russia. The question is why? and who? and we need to find out.

Seriously, what’s worse? Trump “leaking” intelligence at his presidential prerogative with our sorta ally with whom we share much intelligence, or some “white house official” leaking the substance of private meeting between the president and our sorta ally with whom we share much intelligence? At least you have to think about it, right?

Trump did bad stuff with the Russians to erode our democracy.

Like what?

He leaked sensitive emails.

How do you know?

It was leaked by an anonymous inside source.

But experts like James Clapper, happy to be in the news for something other than alleged perjury, have decided (after perusing the Post article) that Trump is a certifiable threat to our national security and no one will share intelligence with us again. OK then kids, just remember to finish your homework and no cookies after 9pm.

Scandal #3: Trump expressed his “hope that [Comey] can let this [Flynn investigation] go” which is also obstruction of justice.

Alternative Hypothesis: Trump expressed his “hope that [Comey] can let this [Flynn investigation] go” because he felt that Flynn was a good guy getting a raw deal being raked over the coals by a paranoid, bloodthirsty and foaming-at-the-mouth press who had gone through the paces of an investigation that turned up absolutely nothing.

Again, to believe that there is anything nefarious about asking Comey to end the Flynn investigation, you have to believe that there is something to the Flynn investigation. If it’s just nonsense, then hoping that nonsense goes away is pretty reasonable.

To be clear, I don’t feel terribly sorry for Trump. He certainly peddled in a non-scandal or two in his day. The point is that peddling in non-scandals is obviously not disqualifying behavior, despite the MSM’s insistence to the contrary. In general, the MSM (and its feverish readers) have zero credibility to criticize anyone for fear-mongering, conspiracy peddling, fake news, bias, hypocrisy, partisanship, obstructionism, lying or undermining democratic processes or institutions.

There is no daylight between the MSM and the Democratic Party. If the political narrative is that Trump is an incompetent, intemperate buffoon who puts his own personal interests ahead of the country such that he will steal the presidency by colluding with our (new) arch-nemesis Russia (and otherwise fumble it away), then that’s the news narrative. That will be the interpretive framework by which all data are collected and analyzed and the feedback loop will be complete. It doesn’t matter that the MSM has been wrong about every one of its fevered predictions about Trump because its fevered predictions are themselves the “facts” that support the inference in favor of more fevered predictions.

There is no other way to explain the levels of cognitive dissonance that permit intelligent and sane people to celebrate bureaucratic mutiny, chant “not our president,” openly #resist and undermine the president at every turn, fulminate over a stolen presidency and count down the days to impeachment all because Trump is the one threatening to undermine our democratic institutions.

Americans Becoming A Punchline?

I’ve written previously that politics — and human behavior generally — is in large part a status game: we care a lot about the way we’re perceived by other people (and ourselves). As Adam Smith observed with respect to charity, our actions are fueled by a desire to be regarded as “lovely.” In politics, we want to be perceived as “better” than the other team. More broadly, we do all kinds of things that are basically performative: look at me, aren’t I smart, wise, trustworthy, funny, cool, confident, modest, etc.? There’s nothing wrong with that — signalling can be functional and rewarding — but of course, sometimes the tail wags the dog (i.e. “virtue signalling”).

Anyways, conventional wisdom has it that the Left has the market cornered on international political status. In other words, one of the upsides of being on the American Team Left, is that folks in far away places hold you in higher esteem. “We sure are embarrassed by Bush Trump, but at least we brought you Obama, amiright?” I remember when folks were so bullish on the status power of leftism that they believed Obama would bring peace to the Middle East, simply by repairing our “bad” reputation cultivated by W.

Overconfidence notwithstanding, there is something rewarding about external validation. In the Left’s debate with the Right, the Left can say “well, everyone else thinks we’re totally better, so boo on you.”

That’s why it’s a good thing for the Lefty psyche that lefties don’t know much about China. It appears (in an article I am taking at face value) that lefties have become something of a punchline in the world’s most populous country:

If you look at any thread about Trump, Islam or immigration on a Chinese social media platform these days, it’s impossible to avoid encountering the term baizuo (白左), or literally, the ‘white left’. It first emerged about two years ago, and yet has quickly become one of the most popular derogatory descriptions for Chinese netizens to discredit their opponents in online debates.

Why is baizuo such a take down? Let the internet tell you:

A thread on “why well-educated elites in the west are seen as naïve “white left” in China” on Zhihu, a question-and-answer website said to have a high percentage of active users who are professionals and intellectuals, might serve as a starting point.

The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the ‘white left’. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.

Sick burn, broheim.

It turns out the Chinese netizens regard lefties with the same contempt as American netizens. To put it mildly, the baizu have the widest possible gap between their self-perceived righteousness and their actual righteousness. At least Don Quixote had the cojones to strap on armor and a sword, even if he was blindly tilting at windmills (and mixing cultural metaphors). The baizu are decidedly not lovable losers.

What’s really interesting is that the Chinese are throwing shade from the peanut gallery — they’ve got no real skin in the game when it comes to this left-right debate — they just think the Left is dumb . . . and making America look bad:

However, Chinese netizens’ fierce attacks against the ‘white left’ seem curiously devoid of experiential motivation, since all these problems that conservatives in the west are concerned about – immigration, multiculturalism, minority rights, and affirmative actions – are largely unknown to Chinese society . . . The stigmatization of the ‘white left’ is driven first and foremost by Chinese netizens’ understanding of ‘western’ problems. It is a symptom and weakness of the Other.

Well, at least we can look forward to the New York Times editorial about how Trump is lifting America’s reputation in China, by far our greatest geopolitical rival.

Ha, no. If the data don’t fit the model, throw ’em out. Better yet, make up new data because the Left is nothing, if not sheltered and parochial:

In May 2016, Amnesty International published their survey results indicating that the most welcoming country for refugees was China. Leaving the reliability of its sample and methodology aside, this finding was not at all taken as a compliment in the Chinese media. Global Times conducted their own online survey in response to Amnesty’s claim, and the results were quite the opposite: 90.3% said ‘no’ to the question ‘would you accept refugees in your own household?’ and 79.6% said ‘no’ to the question ‘would you accept refugees in your city, or would you like to be neighbours with refugees?’. Ironically, Amnesty’s portrayal of China as a welcoming country for displaced people was even read by some netizens as part of a foreign conspiracy, intended to pressure the Chinese government to accept more refugees. A senior researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences commented that this survey was “weird” and seemed to “incite citizens against the government.”

So, Amnesty International made a tried and true appeal to vanity: “even the Chinese think admitting refugees is the right thing to do. See, righties? Everyone agrees we’re right!” However, back in China, not only were the results of Amnesty’s survey facially preposterous, they were interpreted as an insult: “how dumb do you think we are?! Some kind of baizuo?! As if!”

To be clear, this is not just about immigration or refugees. The Chinese seemed to have captured the zeitgeist of American politics perfectly (perhaps a bit too perfectly):

Following the debates in the US, a number of other issues such as welfare reforms, affirmative action and minority rights were introduced into online discussions on the ‘white left’. Baizuo critics now began to identify Obama and Clinton as the new epitome of the ‘white left’, despite the fact that they were neither particularly humanitarian nor particularly kind to migrants. Trump was taken as the champion of everything the ‘white left’ were against, and baizuo critics naturally became his enthusiastic supporters.

So, the Left claims that Trump and his supporters don’t like people of color. Trump and his supporters say that it has nothing to do with people of color and everything to do with the baizuo morons running things into the ground. The Chinese have surveyed the field and their ruling is in: Trump and his supporters are right. Now it’s the Right’s turn to gloat: “See, Lefties, even the Chinese agree that if any skin color is under attack, it’s white, which even you’d agree, is a proxy for the governing elite. Stop calling us racists and just admit that the problem is you, assholes.”

Personally, I’ve always maintained that establishment opposition to Trump is more about the diminished stature of the establishment than anything else. It seems even the Chinese agree with me.

The rest of the article, which purports to explore why the Chinese (yes, ALL the Chinese) are so critical of baizuo, isn’t that interesting. It does, however, reveal the biases of the author, which are decidedly to the left (giving me a bit more comfort to take its findings at face value). To summarize, the Chinese perceive baizuo as precipitating and hastening the demise of Western Civilization because the Chinese are afflicted with “a kind of brutal, demoralized pragmatism in post-socialist China.” They make the mistake of sharing values like “living within your means” and they erroneously believe that inequality is an “inevitable consequence of economic growth, and that inequality is unlikely to give rise to political or social unrest.”

Stupid Chinese with their cool-headed pragmatism — how dare they be at ease with basic economic principles?! Don’t they know the baizuo will whip the less fortunate into a jealous rage that will require more baizou policies just to keep the peace? It’s the downward spiral of civilization that’s inevitable, not inequality!

I guess that’s why the Chinese censor the internet.

If the Chinese take over the world, does that mean McCarthy was right all along?

Disgraceful Disgraces!

Did you hear? According to the New York Times, “Trump calls Hearing on Immigration Ban ‘Disgraceful.’” If you look at the headline on the front page, we learn that “Trump Attacks Judiciary for ‘Disgraceful’ Hearing on Ban.”

capture3

Well, attacking the judiciary is the hallmark of an autocrat, so that’s bad. “Lashing out” seems even worse. Maybe it was taken out of context?

Not so, says the Times. Trump was talking about having watched the hearing and said:

“I listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful,” Mr. Trump said. “I think it’s sad. I think it’s a sad day. I think our security is at risk today.”

Ahhhh, well that settles it. Trump definitely called “a bunch of stuff last night on television” disgraceful. What. A. Jerk.

But seriously, who attacks the judiciary? Only a monster would do that:

Days after the Supreme Court announced its opinion in 2010, the president warned about the dangers that “revers[ing] a century of law” would bring to our democracy by opening “the floodgates for special interests.” Last year, on the fifth anniversary of the decision, Obama (a former constitutional law professor and sitting president at the time of the decision) said that the “Citizens United decision was wrong, and it has caused real harm to our democracy.”

I have to take a moment to note the eventual (and doubly delicious) irony of the grassroots, small-money outsider (republican) whipping the big-spending, corporate big wig (democrat) and putting the lie to the whole ‘money in politics’ boogeyman.

More importantly, it reflects a recurring flaw in the Trumpsteria [Trumpolexia? Trumpoplectic is definitely a word I intend to use]. Whatever the demerits of Trump’s autocratic and disdainful style, the Democratic party just spent eight years reveling in disdainful autocracy. EO’s were Obama’s thing (although he wasn’t the first), and so was berating the judiciary when it didn’t go his way.

I mean, how do you simultaneously complain about a “stolen” SCOTUS seat, while bemoaning “attacks” on the court’s legitimacy? I guess the same way you take to the streets to protest violence, intolerance and fear, when it’s your team perpetrating most of the violence, intolerance and fear.

Fear Mongering

My favorite contra-Trump is “He’s a an alarmist and a fear monger and if he becomes president the country is GOING TO HELL!”

I’ll have a longer post on the politics of fear, but in the meantime, stuff like this makes it hard for me to take you seriously MSM: