Pages

Saturday, June 25, 2016

George Will Leaves the GOP

Never thought you'd see this day:

"Conservative columnist George Will has left the Republican Party."

"The longtime commentator reportedly made the announcement during a Federalist Society event in Washington, D.C., on Friday."

"Will, who resides in Maryland, said he changed his affiliation this month from Republican to unaffiliated."

"A report from PJ Media quoted Will as saying: “This is not my party.”

"He also said that it’s too late for the Republican Party to nominate someone who isn’t Donald Trump, an idea that those in the Never Trump movement have been holding on to as the convention nears.

“Make sure he loses,” he said. “Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House.”

"Trump attacked the Washington Post columnist as a “major loser” last month, criticizing a column Will wrote, headlined “If Trump is nominated, the GOP must keep him out of the White House.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/george-will-leaves-gop-224801#ixzz4CcqpYKwE

This is actually doubly good news. Not only is he out of the GOP, he's saying it's too late to stop Trump at the convention. See if his colleague at the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin, catches on to that one.

Hank Paulson full throatedly negative endorses Trump-and so endorses Hillary.

"Former Bush Treas Sec (& China hand) Hank Paulson sets example that should shame the Vichy Republicans."

https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/746466012673933312

Paulson:

"Now let’s talk about Trump the prospective president. Are we to believe that Trump, with his intensely divisive rhetoric and behavior, could bridge our country’s partisan divide? The American people are disgusted with business as usual in Washington, and it’s not hard to understand why. They feel like they are being left behind or are afraid that they will be. They aren’t getting honest answers, and they believe that the most important problems are not being solved. This is not the fault of one political party; it’s the fault of too many partisans and ideologues on both sides who are unwilling or unable to work together."

"I can’t help but think what would have happened if a divisive character such as Trump were president during the 2008 financial crisis, at a time when leadership, compromise and careful analysis were critical. The only reason we avoided another Great Depression was because Republicans and Democrats joined together to vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program ( TARP) — a vote that they knew would be politically unpopular but in the best interest of our country. Critical to that effort was the leadership of President George W. Bush. As I led the Treasury’s efforts to fashion a difficult, imperfect, controversial but essential solution with bipartisan support, I was — and still am — grateful to have had President Bush at the helm."

"Today’s challenges include economic stagnation and disruptions in the labor markets — driven to a large extent by technological advances moving at warp speed — that are widening income disparity, destroying jobs and hollowing out the middle class. And populists on each side are playing to fears and frustrations, pointing fingers at scapegoats and creating boogeymen: blaming the banks, greedy companies or foreigners for our problems. But the politics of grievance is not the answer."

"Now is the time for a bipartisan approach to policy solutions that address our most difficult domestic problems. This requires a president who exhibits an ability to compromise — and basic civility — neither of which Trump displays."

https://t.co/ey4McGEDvU

I actually agree with a lot of what he says. Ok, I personally think the GOP has had the lion's share in an unwillingness to compromise-though the Berners are an example of it on the Left.

Part of why things went smoothly in 2008 was that Obama worked with Paulson and W rather than tried to score partisan points.

Paulson also correctly diagnoses the problems the country face with wage stagnation due to technology.

Anyway, Paulson if nothing else remains someone worthy of respect-though the debate about optimal 2008 policy goes on.

I don't hold Will on quite this level, but give him credit for knowing when to say enough if enough.

At least no one can ever reproach him with trying to defend the indefensible.

The key point is Paulson's larger argument: country over party.

"Republicans stand at a crossroads. With Donald Trump as the presumptive presidential nominee, we are witnessing a populist hijacking of one of the United States’ great political parties. The GOP, in putting Trump at the top of the ticket, is endorsing a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism. This troubles me deeply as a Republican, but it troubles me even more as an American. Enough is enough. It’s time to put country before party and say it together: Never Trump."

https://t.co/ey4McGEDvU

It's one thing for Republicans who said Never Trump during the primary-after all, partisan interest in beating Hillary Clinton obviously pointed to someone other than Trump as the nominee.

Those still saying it now that he is the nominee-unlike Little Marco and friends-deserve our respect.



11 comments:

  1. Great news Mike! “Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House.” ... is maybe the worst endorsement of Hillary yet, but I'll take it as an endorsement nonetheless. Lol.

    The fact that it doesn't seem likely Trump can be removed at the convention just makes me more eager for the #DumpTrump forces (like Rubin, Erickson and RedState are cheering for) to try anyway. Maximum damage happens if the #DumpTrump movement gets close, but doesn't hit the mark.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of the "delegates should dump Trump" advocates writes it as #Trexit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike, one natural advantage Democrats have over Republicans: I would bet that on average, Democrats are better critical thinkers and more realistic and skeptical. Not all, certainly, there are some real lunatics on the left, but on average. Why do I think that is? I think it's because of religion. Religion IMO is the exact opposite of science: it teaches you to respect authority and to do everything in your power to wallow in the false comfort of confirmation bias. Why am I bringing that up? Because, the normally sober RedState (who not fans of most alt-right conspiracy theories) posted this "trending" article which is laughably ridiculous:
    http://www.redstate.com/diary/creinstein/2016/06/25/12-million-democrats-voted-republican-primaries/

    I email a link to Nate Silver. I figure he may get a kick out of that. I noticed that the comments were far from credulous: he was getting a lot of push back, apparently partly based on that particular author's history. So I looked up some of his other articles, and sure enough, his predictions during the primary were crazy inaccurate. It's almost comical what a crank that doofus must be. I tried to find an email for him (Michael Harrington) but I didn't see one, and his facebook page wouldn't allow me to comment. (BTW, TheResurgent.com has a facebook page that I've been abusing because they allow comments, unlike TheResurgent itself).

    So if Mr. Harrington fools GOP voters with his wildly inaccurate analyses, then GREAT! Let them live in the bubble, comforting themselves with self delusions, until the cold water of reality splashes in their faces. Mr. Harrington apparently hasn't learned a damn thing from his repeated failures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Along those lines, there were two articles in a row on TheResurgent (the first by Steve Berman and the second by Erick Ericson) about James Dobson proclaiming Trump to be saved. Both articles followed a bit harsher article on the same subject by Susan Wright over at RedState. Here's my general impression:

      Susan Wright: These reports from Dr. James Dobson are troubling. (In the comments I was happy to see a few people ready to throw Dobson under the bus where the writers at RedState and the TheResurgent have already thrown some of the others who met with and/or endorsed Trump, including Jerry Falwell Jr, Mike Huckabee, Dr. Carson, Tony Perkins, and Michele Bachmann... not to mention some other "fake" Christians who preach a "prosperity gospel").

      Steve Berman: I have immense respect for Dr. Dobson, and if he says Trump is saved, then I believe it without reservation (even though Dobson got the information second hand). However, I'm still not voting for Trump, because he's still immature in his faith like I was, blah, blah, blah [I got on their facebook page and made fun of this article by Berman... saying I thought Dobson was probably a worthless pile, who cares only about power, and will lie cheat and steal to enhance it, and you should probably get your pea brain examined if you fall for his BS like some sort of pathetic chump]. Of all the writers at either RedState or TheResurgent Berman seems to be the most deferential to evangelicals who back Trump (not just Dobson, whom he embarrassingly fawned over, but some of the others as well, though to his credit he was a bit more skeptical of the others). I'm not sure why.

      Erick Erickson: Mean people are taking advantage of a doddering old man (Dobson) by passing along false information to Dr. Dobson, and they should be ashamed of himself! They're unfairly besmirching the reputation of a great man by taking advantage of him in his mentally challenged years!
      http://theresurgent.com/someone-told-someone-else-that-donald-trump-found-jesus/

      The illustration for both Berman's and Erickson's articles are the same and are a bit shocking to me coming from such devout Christians as they claim to be: A statue of Jesus, with Trump's yellow hair drawn on top. In fact, in Berman's article, the visual sarcasm of that illustration didn't really match his cautious and deferential tone in the article. I was glad to see Erickson come along immediately after and throw just a bit of cold water on the whole idea that Trump could possibly be "saved." Basically I think Erickson read Berman's piece and was having none of it. His clever reply avoided trashing Dobson or Berman, but left no doubts about his stance on Trump's born again status: it's BS.

      So basically I think that Berman represents the bubble boy who's more than willing to immerse himself in self deception just so he can keep his respect for his Fundy heroes untarnished. He does mental gymnastics to square Dobson's evaluation of Trump with his stance that Trump is unfit for office. The way he spoke of Dobson reminded me of a fawning member of Mao's inner circle, put in a tough spot by some stupid nonsense out of the dear leader's idiotic mouth.

      Delete
    2. BTW, if you ever want to barf all over (or praise) one of TheResurgent's articles, you can do it here on their facebook page:
      https://www.facebook.com/theresurgent/
      I've noticed the authors sometimes respond to your comments.

      Delete
    3. Mike, did I ever share with you that study that looked at the psychology of liberals, libertarians and conservatives in the US? It's pretty good. I first saw information like that on Bill Moyer's website some years ago, but it's recently come up again by Johnathan Haidt:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt

      I don't want to try to find the articles and/or lectures, but I think I can summarize: there are real differences between the three:

      Conservatives tend to score high on a broad range of concerns, evenly spreading themselves between caring for others, personal freedom, and respect for sacredness.

      Liberals are low on respecting sacredness, but high on caring. Personal freedom is basically a match with conservatives.

      Libertarians are low on caring (for others) and low on respect for sacredness. They're all about personal freedoms.

      Delete
  4. Mike, I was glad to see Frances Coppola leave a couple of comments over at Sumner's. In one she directed part of her comment to me:

    "CA,

    the Brexit vote is not binding on the government. It is advisory only. Government could refuse to act on it. In fact the current Prime Minster has effectively done exactly that. He’s resigning, though not till October. The next PM will have to decide whether or not to initiate Brexit by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This doesn’t need Parliament’s approval, but it does need a clear statement of intent by the PM. Cameron doesn’t agree with Brexit and doesn’t want to provide that statement. That’s why he is resigning.

    Tom Brown,

    Heck yes, the UK tabloidocracy is every bit as bad as the US’s. The tabloids (except the Mirror) are largely responsible for whipping up the anti-EU and anti-immigrant fury that has led to Brexit."


    http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31810#comment-872442

    But honestly, I got the "tabloidocracy" idea (if not the actual word) from Simon Wren-Lewis' piece.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She was solidly in the Remain camp:
      http://www.coppolacomment.com/2016/06/silence.html?showComment=1466924184922#c4112116724051603005

      Delete
    2. And she is sort of MMT as well. This idea that Brexit is good in progressive terms, I just don't buy it

      Delete
  5. Yeah, Tom, I just left her a comment where I asked her where the pound is going! LOL

    I'm trying to find a currency expert.

    ReplyDelete