How to Help Trump Win (Barf Alert)

Dear Reader (including the good cat, which for some reason is opposed to my daughter getting an education), I should just say it clearly: I will never fall in love with Donald Trump. For most of you, this is not a big surprise. But for some, it’s a kind of betrayal.

In much the same way the Left gets furious when you just don’t care enough about its priorities, many of Trump’s biggest supporters get bizarrely angry at the fact that I am not emotionally correct when it comes to the new president.

Monsieur Google tells me that “emotional correctness” is a term that’s been used before including by — ack! — the constantly self-parodying Sally Kohn. But fortunately, I don’t mean it the way she does. In fact, I think I mean something close to the opposite.

There’s a lot of tribalism and romanticism in the water these days. By tribalism I mean the idea that loyalty to one’s side comes first and arguments come later, and when they do, they must be bent to fit the needs of one’s side. By romanticism, I mean the primacy of feelings over facts. Epistemic Closure for Thee, But Not for Me The vexing thing is that a lot of liberals agree with this observation when it’s framed as a criticism of conservatives.

That’s Obama’s whole shtick these days, decrying “bubbles” and the lack of a “common baseline of fact.” And by “these days,” I really mean his entire presidency. Obama has always argued that anyone who disagrees with him is doing so from a deficit of facts and surplus of partisanship and ideology.

Even when Elizabeth Warren disagreed with him, he resorted to this lazy arrogance. But Obama is hardly alone. This has been a theme in progressivism going back a century, from the progressive obsession with “disinterestedness” to JFK’s insistence that “political labels and ideological approaches are irrelevant to the solution” of modern challenges. “Most of the problems . . . that we now face, are technical problems, are administrative problems,” he insisted, and these problems “deal with questions which are now beyond the comprehension of most men.”

The whole ludicrous and yet somehow quaint “epistemic closure” panic of the last decade and the rise of “explanatory journalism” illustrated the extent to which liberals believe that confirmation bias is a uniquely conservative failure. Paul Krugman cut to the epistemological chase with his claim that “facts have a liberal bias.” Neil deGrasse Tyson’s fantasies of creating a utopian world called “Rationalia” is in one sense a great punchline to a joke, but it’s also a perfect example of how liberal tribalism uses scientism to discredit perspectives it doesn’t like.

Care, Damn It All of that is annoying, but it can’t hold a candle to the ugliness of emotional correctness. In recent years, we’ve seen how the real crime isn’t conservative intellectual or ideological dissent but conservative emotional dissent. Mozilla’s Brendan Eich being pelted from his job, the perfidious treason of the wedding-cake bakers, the assaults on Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A, the bonfires of asininity lit every day on college campuses: These have so much less to do with an ideological argument and more to do with the new unwritten and unspoken fatwah: “You will be made to care.” During that idiotic Halloween controversy at Yale, one student captured the moment beautifully when she complained that an administrator’s attempts to discuss, explain, and debate the issue were beside the point. “He doesn’t get it,” she wrote. “And I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain.”

The truth is she didn’t just want to talk about her pain, she wanted her pain validated and even celebrated. In the Soviet Union and other totalitarian societies, displaying overt signs of “insufficient enthusiasm” is a crime: “Now, if a North Korean university professor is suspected of insufficient enthusiasm for the system, they will be gone without a trace very quickly,” Andrei Lankov has written of the Hermit Kingdom. “Even the memory of the unlucky victim would likely disappear.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/443848/donald-trump-popularity-twitter-use-how-help-trump-win

I didn’t think it was a bad article. It’s a shame he had to spike it with the quip about Trump. Why don’t neverTrumpers admit what the rest of us know, that Trump won in spite of them, not because.

Aside from Jonah’s admitting to not being a Trump admirer, the essence of this article is absolutely true.

I think it is a very worthwhile piece to read.

He is basically chastising all the liberal ‘snowflakes’ out there who are not adult enough to experience legitimate debate.

Just because a writer is not jumping up and down about Trump does not mean he is the enemy. There is no reason to believe that Jonah is ever going to be a liberal thinker.

I don’t like his smirky attitude, which is basically, if you admire, love etc Trump, you’re a dumb@ss.

I think he’s intellectually a dumb@ss. I think he and people like him are dangerous ignorants.

We’ve learned a lot these last 8 years, maybe even before, but for sure these last 8 years about:

1. The liberal media agenda.
2. The GOPe
3. The Bush Family
4. Fox News ( not as thoroughly conservative as you’d like to think.)
5. Our Intel Services
6. The extent of the Obama Admin and behind the scene dealings with Iran and others. (much worse than we could ever imagine.)
7. The extent of the Clinton Foundation and its behind the scene dealing. (much worse than we could ever imagine.)
8. The liberal leanings the Hollywood Movie Makers who are laying the seeds of hate for white people, in young people of color.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.