Wednesday, October 12, 2016

What Pisses Me Off About The Atlantic by Nathan Bedford Forrest

An old friend of mine recently announced that despite his “classical liberal principles” he had no choice but to vote for Hillary Clinton, as Donald Trump is – according to Clinton and her minions in the media, at least – a bigot and a demagogue. As part of his super-signaling announcement, he shared this video from The Atlantic.
The Atlantic’s endorsement should be interpreted by Americans the same way that Belshazzar interpreted the “writing on the wall” at his feast: as a sign of their impending doom. Abraham Lincoln, who ascended to the presidency with a 39% plurality, caused the secession of seven States with his divisive rhetoric, the secession of four more States with his threats of force, and the suppression of secession in at least three other States. The war which followed freed the slaves in the worst way possible for whites and blacks, as well as tore apart and trampled upon constitutional-republican government. Lyndon B. Johnson, who succeeded JFK after his assassination, drove the United States into the calamity and atrocity of Vietnam, drew blacks into a cycle of dependency and dysfunction by expanding the welfare state, ruined white-black race relations by replacing separate spaces with civil rights, and destroyed traditional American demographics by opening up immigration to the Third World. The Atlantic, of course, believes that these endorsements bestow great moral authority upon the magazine.
The Atlantic admits that Clinton “has her flaws,” but boasts that she is “among the most prepared candidates ever.” What does that mean, exactly? That she has served in many offices and received much publicity? Yes, she has served in many offices, in which she has exhibited mostly terrible judgment. Yes, she has received much publicity, most of it negative. Clinton touting her “experience” in public office would be akin to Al Capone touting his “experience” with law enforcement.
“Preparedness” is not necessarily a virtue for those pursuing power. President John Adams, for instance, thwarted the ambitions of Alexander Hamilton during the Crisis of 1798. Despite being more prepared for leadership than any other Federalist – a Revolutionary War veteran, framer of the Constitution, first Treasury Secretary, George Washington’s protégé, etc. – Hamilton would have driven the young republic into civil war out of spite for his arch-nemesis, Thomas Jefferson. Clinton is much like Hamilton, minus his bravery, energy, intelligence, and qualifications.
Even conceding the point that Trump is, as The Atlantic claims, erratic, secretive, sexist, and xenophobic, are those character flaws really worse than someone who has made a career out of selling government access to special interests and stirring up conflict around the world? Indeed, the Atlantic-endorsed Johnson was also notoriously erratic, secretive, sexist, and xenophobic.
Erratic? Trump took some cheap shots and made some low blows during the primaries, true. Is that any worse than Clinton calling Putin “the next Hitler” for reunifying Crimea and Russia, refusing to negotiate with Gaddafi during the Libyan civil war, and cackling “we came, we saw, he died” on national television upon hearing of the latter’s death?
Read More:

No comments:

Post a Comment