2016 May 17 Tuesday
Andrew Sullivan Complains About Trump

Andrew Sullivan complains at length about Donald Trump: America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny

It was increasingly hard not to see in Plato’s vision a murky reflection of our own hyperdemocratic times and in Trump a demagogic, tyrannical character plucked directly out of one of the first books about politics ever written.

On the other hand, Sullivan sees the intensifying craziness of the progressives.

For the white working class, having had their morals roundly mocked, their religion deemed primitive, and their economic prospects decimated, now find their very gender and race, indeed the very way they talk about reality, described as a kind of problem for the nation to overcome. This is just one aspect of what Trump has masterfully signaled as “political correctness” run amok, or what might be better described as the newly rigid progressive passion for racial and sexual equality of outcome, rather than the liberal aspiration to mere equality of opportunity.

He goes on to describe how the white lower classes are vilified by progressives who are much higher up in the status and income hierarchy.

Much of the newly energized left has come to see the white working class not as allies but primarily as bigots, misogynists, racists, and homophobes, thereby condemning those often at the near-bottom rung of the economy to the bottom rung of the culture as well. A struggling white man in the heartland is now told to “check his privilege” by students at Ivy League colleges.

Well Mr. Sullivan, the progressives are only getting worse. GOPe figures cower before the progressives and offer little substantial opposition to their insanity. I say a charismatic figure is needed as a weapon against the progressives and Trump is the only one who has arisen. Nothing less will fight back effectively and the insanity (e.g. open borders, and the latest Title IX insanity: little boys going to the little girl's lavatory) keeps getting worse. We can count on the MSM to take the side of progressives no matter how insane they get.

Sullivan complains that Trump supporters are violent. Wait a second. Opponents of Trump literally block roads to Trump rallies. Trump opponents try to disrupt Trump rallies. Trump opponents physically attack Trump supporters. The Trump supporters get angry about this and Sullivan ignores their legitimate grievances - morally delegitimizing them just like the progressives do.

Sullivan goes on to vent at length about Trump. He should put so much effort into venting against the progressives and propose another way to stop them. I think Trump is reasonable compared to Sullivan.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2016 May 17 06:14 PM 

Dan said at May 18, 2016 10:56 AM:


These idjits haven't got any better ideas...

Trump is not tyranny. Quite the opposite, Trump is the last best hope of Democracy. If I were a democrat, I would want Trump to keep the game going for longer, kind of like how pro sports leagues need some parity to keep fans interested.

Sullivan doesn't exist on any reservation, but Romney I have no patience for. He is on an ideological crusade but I'm not even sure what for.

Romney was the great hope in 2012 and the GOP underclass faithfully supported him in his failed campaign. Even though he is Mormon. Even though he was a corporatist. Even though his conservative bona-fides were thin.

Now he comes back to f things up some more.

Where was he when conservative battles came up during the last 4 years since he lost his election? Oh yeah, he was shooting at his own side.

Turd Romney, when he attacked Trump like a madman, didn't even endorse anyone. He didn't run himself either.

I really believe Romney is autistic. He seems to get involved in the conversation at all the wrong times (why didn't he launch his tirade in the long period before Trump because the presumptive nominee?) and has no understanding of the Republican base. I am sure that if a girl tried to dance with him, in a few minutes all the bones in her feet would be broken.

James Bowery said at May 18, 2016 3:10 PM:

Supremacists call "consent of the governed" "dangerously populist".

Check it out said at May 18, 2016 3:36 PM:

Trump followers are no danger. They are just the typical petit burgeoise fascists who don't even know that he won't win.

These Trump followers really don't know that Trump is just a distraction so that the U.S. could have -and accept- the first woman president after the first black president. Trump even knows it; he's a part of the show; he's just acting, and getting paid well by the way.

Trump is there playing clown so that hormone-loaded Hillary doesn't look so stupid or Hilarious when she's back in the White House... as president! ha ha ha, and Bill as the first... husband? ha ha ha.

As funny as this sounds, Hillary will become the next president. Dudes, there's a pattern. Trump is not there to win, only to make money as part of the scenery.

That's all the choices we have folks. Be happy with what you have.

James Bowery said at May 18, 2016 8:19 PM:

You sound like a Player Keeping It Real. Slap me five, Check it out.

As a Player Keeping It Real, lay odds implying you're Real when you say you "know that he won't win."

Check it out said at May 19, 2016 5:39 PM:

James Bowery, all you and I have to do is wait, and see. See Jimmy, that's the beauty of it, you can prove me wrong, but you have to wait and see. Stop moaning like a horny unfucked bitch, and wait. You're all heated up and hormone loaded like the next bitch president. Be a man and know how to wait and control yourself, like Putin does. Maybe that'll give you some time to collect your thoughts and come up with better repplies or punches instead of just scratching.

When Hilarious Clinton becomes president, I just hope you are man enough to swallow your words and have at least the tiniest balls to aknowledge that I was right. Don't worry, elections are coming soon. They'll decide who was wrong, you or me. For now, just chill and have another coke; you have time to jerk off throughout all this charade you believe to be real.

Victor Stan said at May 19, 2016 6:48 PM:

Hoo-ahh! We got a dare here, make your bets gentlemen!

Well now, that is so very audacious of Check it out. For somebody who claims not to be dogmatic he sure seems pretty positive on what the future will bring in detail.

Don't mind me Check it out, I don't want to get into a fight with you, we all know you can make your point here very intensely, but if you're wrong you will have to find the balls you claim to have and say that YOU WERE WRONG, on this very same page 2016 May 17 Tuesday. I'll remind you in November in case you forget. If you're right we will have to accept that you were right, even James Bowery, ok James....

Hope we got a deal here.

Seth W. said at May 24, 2016 5:20 PM:

Donald Trump could win, but for me he's way too visceral and vulgar for a politician. If I want visceral and vulgar I turn to wrestling, football and Judge Judy. Neither vulgarity nor viscerality have ever taken part in politics.

Seth W. said at May 24, 2016 5:22 PM:

Excuse me. My 5:06 post should've gone on the previous post, "No Medicines, Broken Machines In Venezuela Hospitals". Sorry.

Jim said at May 25, 2016 5:40 AM:

Seth W. - What are these ten countries?

Seth W. said at May 26, 2016 4:51 PM:

Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Switzerland, Austria, New Zeland, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, maybe Costa Rica. Not necessarily in that order.

I think that's 12. It's quite narcissitic to think that we came the closest.

Jim said at May 27, 2016 4:11 PM:

Seth W. - They didn't achieve affluent societies before the US with the possible exception of Australia and New Zeeland. Luxembourg in 1945 for example was not affluent nor was Norway or France. Finland was quite poor throughout most of it's history. It achieved affluence only recently. Iceland was very poor throughout most of it's history. The population of Iceland is only about 300,000 so it's not comparable to a huge country like the US. It's more like a midsize American city.

Actually one country that did achieve affluence quite early was Argentina. But they went into decline thereafter.

The countries you mention generally have very small populations which in total are a very tiny percent of the world's population. In the late 19th century Australia might have had a higher standard of living than the US at that time but the Australian population was much smaller.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©