I don’t support Donald Trump for President, although I do oppose him less than I oppose Hillary Clinton. I’ve written before that I intend to vote strategically this November. By that I mean that I don’t expect my vote to count. Maryland is so blue that Hillary will probably carry the state unless the election is a 49-state blowout for the Republicans. I’m likely to vote for a third or fourth party candidate, either as a matter of conscience or to try to get a minor party over the line to qualify for federal matching funds in 2020 or, and this is a long shot, to send the election to the House of Representatives.
For now, the possible candidate who appeals most to me is David French. Popehat explains why. Will French run? Can he get on enough state ballots to matter? I don’t know, but it would be nice to have someone to support for a change.
You mean, “White Working Class Communities Deserve to Die” French? Okie-Dokie.
If French would have supported “White Midget Pedo Communities Deserve to Die”, I might reconsider.
Nope, wrong NRO writer.
Actually, Scoob is right, French defended Williamson:
“The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432796/working-class-whites-have-moral-responsibilities-defense-kevin-williamson
I find it fascinating that both men think that liberalism is the cause of the ills of the black community, which would be corrected by compassionate conservatism, but the ills of poor whites are their own fault and rubbing them out of existence is the way to go in their case.
One of the French quotes (the one above is from the Williamson piece): Kevin is right. If getting a job means renting a U-Haul, rent the U-Haul. You have nothing to lose but your government check.”
Well, okay then. I read the Williamson piece, but not French’s defense of it. I think the criticism of Willamson is at least half over-wrought, because my take was that he was
1) advising people who wanted more opportunity to move to places where more opportunity is found [which seems unobjectionable]
2) expressing contempt for those who operate in and survive on the [gov’t benefits & meth] illicit local economy in former factory towns, and especially the otherwise law-abiding people who knowingly cater to that market.
He didn’t seem, to me, to be expressing the wish that any person die [with the possible exception of the meth-merchants], but rather that it would be better for their inhabitants for these stagnant towns be sufficiently depopulated as to kill off the illicit economy.
I don’t think it really works that way, but that would make Williamson merely wrong, not evil.
Perhaps I’m too generous.
Yes, you are too generous. When one compares the “whelping children” of folks in vast stretches of American to “stray dogs” one has crossed all lines of civilized discourse.
Vast? Not my impression, reading the piece. Nor was he talking about everyone, even in the stagnant former factory towns. He was, as I recall, accurately describing the activity of the government-dependent [and in large part, meth-dependent] sector of the population in those towns.
*
I won’t vote him, but then I couldn’t anyway, the deadline for Independent Candidates to file to be on the Ballot has passed in Texas.
The problem I see with French and his Puppet Master Bill Kristol, is that they have no intention in trying to win, they just want to be spoilers, and send Hillary into the WH.
Kinda like Casich in Indiana.
John,
This is utterly disgraceful.
First of all, David French has willfully forfeited all right to be considered a decent human being. To wit, there was an outrageously bigoted article by Kevin D. Williamson at National Review in which Williamson attacked White rural Americans as living in “communities that deserve to die,” stated their were characterized by heroin addiction, and compared their “whelping children” to stray dogs. None of these claims were even remotely true. David French wrote an article white-washing Williamson’s bigotry.
Talk of sending the election to House is nonsense. That dream died when Mitt Romney opted out of the rump run. Romney had a path to winning some electoral college votes by carrying Utah. No other third-party is going to earn an electoral vote. Only a tie would throw the election the House. It is a million times more likely that French costs Trump electoral votes that elect Clinton president than it does to create an exact tie. Nor, would throwing the election to the electoral college be a sure bet if the Republican elite throws in on blaming the White working class for losing their jobs, when the reality is that it the politicians who voted for NAFTA who are largely to blame. If the White working class electorate turns against the Republican party it could be Clinton that a Democratic House elects. Nor, would the optics of the House electing the rump Republican who wins 1% and none of the electorate votes over the Republican nominee who won over 45% and 50% of the electoral votes. So much for democracy. Brett Kimberlin is better a law than people suggesting this are at politics.
What is going on here is simple enough. The Republican electorate is fundamentally dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and, the actions of “their” elected leaders in Washington. No one was done anything about illegal immigration except privilege it. Endless wars in the Middle-East has resulted in thousands of our boys coming home in body bags for no discernible results. Trade policies have resulted in, as noted by someone else, “Large swaths of America looking as General Sherman has swept through but left the buildings.” Instead of electing someone dedicated to doubling down on these failures, they opted for change.
In response, the talking head class that is funded by those advocates of illegal immigration, NAFTA, war-mongering have started a desperate campaign not to save the country, but, their jobs and titles. The project was succinctly articled by an assistant Wall Street Journal editor as being to run up the score against Donald Trump so high that the Republican electorate is taught a “lesson.” What he didn’t articulate is that that “lesson” is do as you are told.
Conservative Republican voters are best viewed as battered spouses who always keeps going back to their abusers after the abuser makes empty promises to change, to do something about illegal immigration, etc. Now, after having to endure, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain and Romney, and being told to endure Bush III, conservatives have opted to leave their abusers. In response, the abuser class has decided to give us a beating we won’t forget.
It is time for those talking heads that have failed us –When has the conservative movement won anything?– to lose their jobs and go away. Since when has de facto voting for socialism and a Supreme Court that allows mass gun confiscation ad nasceum be considered the “principled conservative position.” The Democrats are overt socialists, while the Republican leadership class are closeted de facto socialists. As Lenin said,
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it!”
This may be the beginning of the KW article referenced, a subscription is required to view the whole thing: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/432569/father-f-hrer
If that’s it, then this is likely French’s related piece which excerpts are large part of KW’s: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432796/working-class-whites-have-moral-responsibilities-defense-kevin-williamson
Please judge the content of both for yourself. Your view may vary greatly from the above characterization. Mine did.
Here is one of French’s key quotes about Kevin D. Williamson’s bigoted rant:
“These are strong words, but they are fundamentally true and important to say.”
This “defense” of Kevin D. Williamson is based on the false premise that it cannot be true that both Kevin D. Williamson is a bigot, and, that their is some of grain of truth in Williamson’s observations. Pleading out Williamson’s bigoted remarks as merely being “strong” does provide any answer as to why it is acceptable to compare “whelping children” in West Texas to “stray dogs.” And, again, it is premised on the notion that words cannot be both “strong” and “bigoted.” French doesn’t have an answer. All that he does is deflect to a discussion as to whether, or not, some social pathology exists in some rural communities. He then argues from the false unstated premise that if there is in fact some social pathology in rural America then any rhetoric to describe it is automatically acceptable including Kevin D. Williamson’s. That is doubly dishonest consider how sweeping Williamson’s attacks on upstate New York communities were compared to how precisely targeted French’s pseudo-defense was.
Had David Duke wrapped comparisons of “whelping Black children” to “stray dogs” with a litany of social pathologies in urban Black America, I don’t David French would have noted that David Duke was onto a “fundamental truth.” I think he would just call out his racism.
Here is one of Williamson’s quotes:
“The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible.”
This is a particularly odious remark. Think for a moment what it means for a community to die. Imagine a town were the chief employer is a factory that is closing to relocate to Mexico. Consider what the “death” of such a community means. First, it means property values fall to zero. People who worked hard and played by the rules in order to live the American dream of home ownership would be completely screwed. They’d be bankrupted and their credit destroyed fundamentally through no fault of their own. All the small business, the merchants, the restaurants, the apartment buildings, the movies theaters, etc. would close ruining their owners. Then, entire networks of extended families would be torn apart as relatives scattered across the country to seek work. These outcomes simply aren’t moral imperatives. They are moral tragedies. If French and Williamson can see these facts their moral compasses are simply broken.
Equally fanciful is are notions that the “solution” is the U-Haul. While renters might flee relatively unscathed, it isn’t reflect the reality that there simply aren’t enough full-time jobs to go around. Total jobs are about where they were a decade ago, and full time jobs are lower. Changing the addresses of the unemployed won’t either increase employment or decrease unemployment. It will merely rearrange the players. The following analogy illustrates the issue starkly. Imagine putting 100 dogs in a room with 95 bones. After the fighting is done, 95 dogs will have a bone, and five will be licking their wounds. Now, imagine as a “solution” one tries to take each of the 100 dogs aside and “train” them to compete more vigorously for a bone. Put them in the room again, and, eventually, 95 will have a bone, and five will be licking even more severe wounds. Giving people a U-Haul or giving each dog “training” are equally irrelevant in larger scheme of things.
The fundament solution is more jobs. Taking steps to end the deindustrialization of American makes more sense that blaming the residents of the communities that lose their factories. Williamson, French and Nation Review have taken the position that NAFTA is a good thing, and, the deindustrialization it was caused a net economic plus. Both Donald Trump and I disagree, but, their are honest disagreements. But, when National Review wishes to imply that factories moved to Mexico because factory workers in American were too strung out on heroin to work, then, I’m calling it bullshit. As a policy choice, NR opted that these people be the losers, and, that their lives be fundamentally disrupted, included financially ruined. Maybe it can be suggested that the gains of others outweighs their loses. But, to blame the job loses on the workers themselves, rather than the policy they supported is simply NR attempting to blame their victims for the NR’s actions. The folks in these communities didn’t close the factories, policies such as NAFTA did.
{Redacted} the National Review, and {redacted} Kevin D. Williamson and David French. And, yes, the proceeding is complete sentence, not a fragment.
That you disagree doesn’t make either man wrong, racist, or bigoted. No matter how worked up you get about it, the facts remain the same.
I would point out that I presented the “facts,” and, explained exactly why they indicated bigotry. You provided an opinion. Okay. You consider comparing people’s “whelping children” to “stray dogs” morally acceptable. I do not. I don’t think it would have been considered a “fundamental truth” if the same had been said about the underclass of any other race by the you, me, John, the National Review, or anyone else, but, whatever.
Jane, no matter how much you wish to make this ad hominem by saying I was “worked up about it,” the “facts” are that I made a series of arguments. I laid out carefully about the real effects of a community dying. It isn’t pretty. Such economic dislocations inflicts real suffering on real people. Being indifferent to it, or worse, gleeful, shows a basic lack of empathy. I pointed out that the job loses seen in places like upstate New York are in part the results of policies such as NAFTA so blaming the workers in those factories for losing their jobs is scapegoating.
Since you claim to be interested in “facts,” I’ll post this report that gives the government’s best estimate of heroin use, less than 1% of the population, and, roughly equal among Blacks, Whites and Hispanics, and ask you if you think that justifies Kevin D. Williamson singling out White rural America and tarring it with the heroin brush? [ “{Rural American’s} main products are misery and dirty heroin needles.”]
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf
Every community has its bad apples. Characterizing the larger community by these bad actors is fundamentally unfair and unjust.
Finally, I would note I previous posted a large-scaled study that indicated that the folks in rural American are happier than their suburban Americans and urban counterparts. There the facts are crystal clear: Kevin D. Williamson is simply wrong.
I’ve lived it, thanks for playing.
Jane,
While you or Kevin D. Williamson might very well have had a negative experience living in rural America, large scale studies show very clearly that residents of rural American are significantly happier on average than their urban and suburban counterparts.
1) People can be happy in some pretty awful circumstances. That doesn’t mean that the circumstances aren’t awful.
2) Many of these communities could benefit from some creative destruction. We no longer have a buggy-whip industry and we (and they) are better off for it.
3) I am hopeful that technology becomes the mechanism for it. As bandwidth expands businesses may not see the need to build/maintain large office complexes for their office workers. The office worker contingent may just up and flee the big cities for the back woods for the lower cost of living.
When the con man known as Donald Trump rips you off, don’t come whining to me. I can’t stand the man, and his alt-right lackeys need to take a long walk off a short pier. The Trump cult is just as bad as the Obama cult.
My vote has zero relevance in presidential elections, as Illinois would vote for anything on the democratic party ballot.
Something like 70% of Americans want something done about illegal immigration. Suppose every member of the “alt right” took the “cure.” Would we then live in an America where 69.9% of the surviving Americans wanted something done about illegal immigration, other than privileging it? The average Trump supporter is a person who believes that the leadership of both parties have ignored their concerns in favor of special interests. Smearing these people with the “alt right” brush is going to help your case, it will only piss these people off even more.
I’m still writing in Cruz myself 🙂
I’ll hold my nose and vote for Trump.
The potential Supreme Court picks matter and Donald will select better judges than Hillary Clinton. Trump knows he has to select conservative judges or he will get an incumbent President primary in 2020, which will likely be easier with Ted Cruz delegates making strategic rule changes at the convention.
And nearly all of what BigBobSky said too – talk about sending the election to the House is beyond fanciful. It’s stupid talk only sheep led by elites like Kristol and Romney would entertain.
All a third party run would do is give Hillary Clinton a Ronald Reagan electoral college wipeout and a mandate. Even with less than 50% of the vote but with a huge electoral college victory, the media will make it a mandate and Paul Ryan and the other establishment RINOS will agree and do what she wants.
If Kristol and Romney were serious they would fund a fourth far left candidate too if they want a House election. They aren’t doing so because they want Hillary Clinton for President.
That’s an insane argument. How exactly are you supposed to fund Sanders without sabotaging him? What should you do if you view Trump vs. Clinton like a choice between Kimberlin and Schmalfeldt?
Trump is just like Obama – all of his promises come with an expiration date. I have not seen any evidence that the former Clinton donor would be much of an improvement over the utterly vile Hillary.
My impression of French is not as positive. Excluding objections having to do with timing or intended effect of his run, there are practical problems. He has a number of “setters on the roof” I do not think he could overcome, even if he were charismatic (and he is not, and would not be, even if he didn’t have a precious accent and a high pitched voice.) Having zero chance at recapturing a fractured GOP, he can only play Nader in this round. It just puts us right back with the Trump/Clinton dilemma with a new edge for Clinton. It’s arguably the chief point of proposing him as a candidate.
You can do a “force fit” for the minimum number of states to get to 270. I think it comes down to just 14 states especially when conventional wisdom is tossed out. Nothing is impossible.
David French wasn’t an immediate pick for me but I could live with him as President. We could easily do worse. With what is on offer, we still might!
The strategy is predicated on Donald Trump not noticing that the NR is tearing down Hillary Clinton in some states, and, Hillary Clinton not noticing that the NR is tearing down Donald Trump in others. Surely, Trump will make voters in the states the NR is trying to tear him down of the their glowing endorsements in the other states, and, Hillary Clinton will do likewise. Nor, are the American people going to fail to notice that forces are attempting to play them like a puppet on a string. When they realize that a small minority is trying to invalidate an election and seat a candidate with almost no popular support they will be outraged. This is not a game. This is a free people electing their next leader through a democratic process. Electing Hillary Clinton would be a national tragedy. Appointing a rump candidate through Machiavellian intrigue would be a national disgrace.
And, I forgot to mention talk about forcing a tie is merely boob bait. The entire point of French’s candidacy is to elect Hillary Clinton.
And if I think Trump would be as bad as Hillary, what then? It’s like choosing between hanging out with Kimberlin or Schmalfeldt.
Speaking of Kimberlin, Trump apparently loves brass knuckles reputation management. He intends to go after his media critics using the court system.
First of all, hang out with Schmalfeldt is the obvious. While he might be an insufferable ass, you aren’t apt to suffer the fate of Julia Schyphers.
I would note that our esteemed host is suing breitbarkunmasked. com, and its editors for words published there. I assume you support that lawsuit. I would merely ask you, “Do you believe that ABC News, NBC News, and CBS News differs from breitbartunmasked.com in kind or in degree?”
I, for one, find the difference merely one of degree. All are dishonest propaganda organs fundamentally at war with the truth and driven by an agenda. The only difference is the degree to which they try to disguise it.
I would note that Hoge isn’t suing BunnyBoy Unread and it’s editors for being biased propagandists.
They both are and BU moreso than ABCNNBCBS, but that’s not what the suit is about.
The suit is for defamation among other torts, is it not?
When in a Katie Curic hit piece a 9 second pause was dishonesty edited into a response, the responsible parties showed an egregiously reckless disregard for the truth that was a malicious and damaged a reputation. If that isn’t defamation, what is? Why should the people who do things like that have more protections than you or I for posting on the internet?
Yes, Ms Couric (and really the director’s/editor’s) actions are dishonest and biased. Yes, BU and it’s editors are even moreso. On those charges BU and ABCNNBCBS are different only in degree.
However Couric/director/editor’s actions do not not rise to the legal definition of defamation.
“Your honor, Ms Couric defamed me by saying it took 9 seconds longer to answer a question than it really did.” That’s just not gonna fly in a courtroom.
Thus BU is different both in degree *and* in kind. But it’s the latter, not the former that Hoge is suing for.
After some searching later on…I’m just astounded you didn’t mention David French graduated from Lipscomb! He’s not one of ours but he did graduate from one of the brotherhood schools. That’s an endorsement of him to me by itself.
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:06:24 +0000
Two words: Ross Perot
The independent candidate who siphoned enough votes away from George HW Bush for Bill Clinton to win.
Repeat of ’92? No, thank you.
The difference between David French and George Herbert Walker Bush is that Bush broke his promise to the American people after he was elected, while French has broken his promise to the Republican party before the election:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/01/david-french-will-vote-donald-trump-nominee/
I’m curious as to why this illicited a down twinkle. When National Review began its Jihad against Donald Trump one of their talking points was that Donald Trump wasn’t a real Republican, had no loyalty to the Republican party, and, might bolt to third party, or endorse the Democrat, fracturing the Republican vote and electing the Democrat. David French piously noted that he would support Donald Trump if he were the nominee to gain an advantage. It wasn’t merely a casual promise. French and the National Review were claiming it was all about who was a real Republican, and who was really loyal to party.
I guess we found out.
Pingback: Erik Erickson throws cold water on Bill Kristol’s David French Third Party Idea… | Batshit Crazy News
Trigger warning: No sugar coating his opinions here, either:
The proposed $15 per hour minimum wage and various local increases have caused fast food restaurants to begin automating, not unlike how much of our manufacturing is now automated. I’ve known many factory workers who saw their job taken over by a machine. As technology improves, more and more of that will happen. And as taxes and regulations, oh-so-many regulations, rise, more and more businesses will find it impossible to do business here, and find it not worth it to hire people for any job that can be done by a machine.
Anyone who believes tariffs will solve their problems probably believes corporations pay taxes, rather than the consumers of their products.
oops – http://www.nationalreview.com/us-trade-trump-gets-it-wrong
KW has some other pieces on trade that will further expand/explain his positions.
Concerning the rah-rahing for NAFTA. The 68% figure represents about a 2% increase per year compounded over nearly a quarter century. That 2% would represent a 1% per capita increase per year given population growth. That would be the worse quarter century for American manufacturing in American history. Given economic growth during that period was greater than 2% that would represent a shrinking share of the GNP. [I agree that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was a massive plus because free trade among the industrialized nations is a net positive, while, entering free trade agreements with poor third-world nations costs jobs.] And, as noted, increases in productivity has meant massive losses in manufacturing as a share of the labor market. If you wish to spin the worst quarter century ever as success, so be it. But, those are the facts.
And, that meager figure comes with two very big caveats. The first is that NAFTA passed when American was in a recession, while, today, statistically, the next major recession is long over due. When the next recession hits, the trough to trough comparison is going to be even worse. The second is that much of the increases in “manufacturing” has been from factories built on the Mexican border, staffed in large part by illegal aliens from Mexico, than do final assembly on components built a few blocks away in Mexico so that the product can have the “made in the USA” label on its packaging!
That was quick. The National Review’s great hope to throw the election to Hillary Clinton has quit:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/05/david-french-wont-mount-independent-bid-for-president.html
Now, that will have to overtly campaign for Hillary Clinton.