If all the institutions are owned by one side, the rules are not applied fairly
An outbreak of truthiness from a high-profile US philosopher has sparked a row because he said the quiet part out loud; anything is OK if it stops Donald Trump from regaining power as president. However you dress this up, it’s extremism, a subversion of the age-old moral imperative that the ends don’t justify the means. …
That those on the Left thought law-breaking was necessary against Trump has long been a truism for some, and suspected by others, and [Sam] Harris is to be commended for his honesty …
Country club conservatives have been no match for the whatever-it-takes fighters on the other side, a truth former [Australian] prime minister John Howard would do well to remember when he castigates Donald Trump for not abiding by the umpire’s decision in the 2020 election. Umpires are all well and good when the rules are applied fairly, which seems to be Howard’s working assumption about the United States.
The reality is different. By way of corrective, I offer eminent Hoover Institute historian Victor Davis Hanson, who in a brilliant monologue on Fox News last week, said of the Left:
‘They’re talking non-stop about civil war, they really are, and they do things that are revolutionary. Nobody on the Right said let’s junk the 233-year-old Electoral College, the 180-year-old filibuster, the 150-year-old nine-person Supreme Court. Nobody said let’s bring in two more states and end the idea for 60 years of a 50-state union… nobody in the Republican Party ever tore up the State of the Union address on national TV like Nancy Pelosi. No Speaker of the House, not Newt Gingrich, not anybody else, Paul Ryan, ever said to the minority party you can’t have these people on committees, that was a revolutionary thing to do in the House. Nobody ever goes outside the homes of Justice Kagan, thank God or Justice Sotomayor, there are just not Right-wing assassins that show up out there….
‘Or if you read Time magazine, that classic article by Molly Ball in February 2021 where she gushed, she was giddy, outlining what she called was a conspiracy to change radically the voting laws to inject $400 or $500 million dollars to alter the way we voted for centuries, so that 70 per cent of the votes would not be cast on election day….
‘So these are revolutionary things they’re doing… it’s easy to say Trump is a fascist or Trump did this… but did Donald Trump ever try to weaponise the IRS in Lois Lerner fashion? Did he take the FBI and use it to go after Joe Biden’s residence when he was president? Did they go into the DoJ and have this collusion hoax? Did any of these people who worked for Trump lie four times to a federal investigator like the FBI director Andrew McCabe? So they are the revolutionaries and they project it on to others.’
I could go on with a laundry list of law-breaking, including the Roe v. Wade draft judgement leak from the Supreme Court of the United States, the unprecedented FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, the justification for which changes by the day (nuclear? Presidential records? Classified records?) and the explanation for which has not yet been forthcoming, but the point is made. The question then becomes, what are they prepared to do next time around to make sure Trump cannot win again? Testament to his enduring popularity is his overwhelming win record of GOP candidates he has endorsed, now standing at 209-17.
Eventually everyone gets it, even the stubborn partisans.