tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post1590595491671005968..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: There's No Liberal Obligation To Prevent Trump from Being NominatedDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-43874133538075815302016-03-01T20:56:08.203-08:002016-03-01T20:56:08.203-08:00It almost makes you wonder if the GOP base isn'...It almost makes you wonder if the GOP base isn't particularly good at identifying dishonest dialogue and conversational tactics.<br /><br />In any event, I think its obvious that the GOP has any obligation to prevent Clinton or Sanders from being nominated. The argument that "Trump is special" is that a Ted Cruz (say) victory may be terrible from a liberal vantage point (ditto a Bernie Sanders win from a GOP vantage point), but it's nothing more than normal politics where sometimes your side loses and a guy you really really dislike wins. If you don't acknowledge that -- if the prospect of an ordinary member of the opposing party winning is too much to bear -- then your problem is with the idea of democracy itself. <br /><br />Trump, the argument goes, is different because there's a non-trivial case that he really would destroy our constitutional system of government outright -- in a literal (rather than a hyperbolic "shoving Obamacare down my throat in open defiance of God and the Constitution/PATRIOT Act is the new fascism that may as well put us all in a gulag" way that unfortunately has become de rigeur in histrionic American political discourse). George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton -- there are huge differences between them, but they all fundamentally believe in basic democratic and constitutional precepts. You acknowledge the authority of the courts. You recognize that the president is not a monarch. You don't beat up protesters. And so on. There are very real reasons to doubt Trump signs on to that basic program, and that makes him a qualitatively different beast from, say, Ted Cruz (even though I think there is a non-trivial chance that a Cruz presidency would be a policy matter "worse" for me. But I have to tolerate policy losses if my side loses. It's a different thing to watch the constitutional system itself crumble).David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-87756852123961865132016-03-01T17:35:07.258-08:002016-03-01T17:35:07.258-08:00David,
Hmm, turnabout is fair play, right?
There&...David,<br />Hmm, turnabout is fair play, right?<br /><br />There's no obligation for Conservatives to prevent Clinton from being nominated. After all if they want to elect a person who has less sense and is just as corrupt that the law applies to her than Mayor Tammany (see Peter Schweizer .. Clinton Cash ... or the more recent disregard of Secrets Act violations). <br /><br />There's also no obligation for Conservatives to prevent Sanders from being nominated. After all someone who fondly remembers his visits to a regime that, alas, has a worse record with respect to human rights than the Nazis has got to have a finely developed moral compass. <br /><br />So before you want to throw stones at the other side, look to your own. <br /><br />(note: this is not a defense of Trump, I'm somewhat aghast that the GOP rank and file for reasons largely related to rejecting the beltway whole hog is willing to embrace a guy who has even more dishonest in his dialog and conversational tactics than even Obama. You'd think that would have been a lesson learned, but no.)Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.com