I find it wearisome to have to say, each time I criticize the Democratic Party, that yes, I am a Democrat and have never in my life voted for a Republican. I also find it wearisome to repeat that I detest Trump and think he’s a terrible President. But what I cannot say is that everything Trump’s done, without exception, is bad, and that he’s incapable of doing anything good.
I cannot judge all of Trump’s motivations, and cannot agree with some readers who argue that even if he does something that has good results, his motivations were bad, evil, or self-serving. I will judge an action by its results, not by its motivations. As I’ve said before, I align with those Democrats who used to lean more Left, but since the entire party, dragged by the donkeys of progressivism, has shifted to the Left, I now find myself in the center—but still a Democrat.
The video below by pro-Israel activist Lizzie Savetsky, expresses some of this sentiment. I can’t find her party affiliation, but again I don’t care much, as what she says should not be judged by whether she’s a Republican or a Democrat.
Which brings us to our attack on Iran. Savetsky calls out the Democrats for now supporting Iran and criticizing Trump for his attack on the country. Given how the attacks have played out, generally support them, hoping for a toppling of the terroristic and murderous regime, for the Iranian people to be free of that regime, and for its nuclear program to be abandoned forever. Will that happen? I don’t know. Like many actions, this attack cannot be judged until it’s been over for quite a while, and I have no crystal ball.
Have a listen to the five-minute video. I agree with much of it, though Savetsky is too hard on the Democrats as a whole. I don’t, for example, think that the entire party is riddled with fraudulent positions (many of us, for example, have not been silent about the oppressive Iranian theocracy). And Savetsky’s argument that the Party is driven by an “oppressor vs, oppressed” postmodern ideology is incomplete. Those Democrats crying “Hands off Iran,” also see Muslims as oppressed because they are people of color, and the U.S. (and Israel) as odious because we are seen as “colonizers”.
I think Savetsky is right in saying that the Democrats’ position has devolved largely into demonizing one man: Trump. We are not allowed to say he’s taken any action that has good results, for that would be an admission that we agree with some actions taken by Republicans. If something does have a good result, then we must say that it was driven by bad motivations. That’s what happened when, not long ago—in an attempt to mend some of the American rifts—I asked people to name something good that Trump has done. I still get flak on that one.
But if I put up only posts that don’t get me criticized, this website would become an anodyne mouthpiece for progressivism and wokeism, as some other sites have. And I would be a coward.
I hope that some day the Democrats will become less driven by progressivism and its monomaniacal concentration on Trump, so that I can feel comfortable in the Party.
And I stand with the brave people of Iran, and hope that at the end of the battle they get freedom, and that the government stops its singleminded drive to export terror and build nuclear weapons.
Watch Savetsky below, and weigh in in the comments, remembering Da Roolz.
“And Savetsky’s argument that the Party is driven by an “oppressor vs, oppressed” postmodern ideology is incomplete.”
To complete it would be to recognize that this is Marxism at the root. I repeat: this tension is the beating heart of Marxism since day one in 1848 right up to today. Marxism is a spectrum, and the Democrats are on it.
[start personal conjecture] Karl Marx resented. He resented that he did not chose to be born, resented that you have to earn a living, resented that many created so much value (capitalism) that they became wealthy, and if he had lived long enough he would have resented that workers became middle class, not due to socialism. As to why current Democrats have taken up this dirge, I leave it to them to explain their choice. [end personal conjecture]
The basic dictum of enthusiasts for “revolutionary” change (and to some extent for “Progressivism”) is this towering pretension:
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it”. 11th and final thesis from Karl Marx’s 1845 Theses on Feuerbach.
Personal conjecture: Marx suffered from hemorrhoids, which
perhaps influenced him, and in turn the psychic character of movements he has influenced for the last 180 years.
An addendum to your conjecture on Marx and his hemorrhoids: according to Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump only sleeps for two to three hours a night because he has “things to do”. Wonder how often destructive ideas and plans have been created due to the creator’s physical discomfort, ill health, or sleep deprivation.
I think the challenge in critizing a party, whether Democrat, Republican, or something else, is that it’s not actually clear what the party is? Is it the elected officials, the professional employees, the card-carrying members, the people who donate money, the people who vote regularly for the party, all or some of the above (and, I suppose mouth-pieces in the media)? When I hear criticisms like these of “Democrats”, I think mainly of professional Democrats: elected officials mainly, but also party staff. I don’t think that the majority of Dem voters necessarily support what’s being criticized. On a day to day basis, none of us is really the party. Only on election day.
If I were to interpret her views though my lens, I would say elected “progressives” as well as “progressive” regular-people Democrats. I don’t agree with her if she is saying that her criticisms apply to all Democrats.
The problem you identify here is due to the fact that neither major party has any clearly articulated moral principles guiding it. The structure of the United States government means that two parties is the only mathematically stable possible outcome. Unlike in a parliamentary system, therefore, these two parties will be made up of multiple groups, many with mutually incompatible goals. Whenever one of these groups, currently the regressive left within the Democratic Party and MAGA within the Republican Party, is in the ascendant it will wield the power of the entire party.
In this environment, clear definitions of what it means to be a Democrat or Republican are a disadvantage to the goal of the party as a whole, namely gaining political power. Unfortunately, that means when they do get that power they lack the moral grounding to do anything beneficial with it.
As a contrast, consider the Libertarian Party. Their platform clearly states what it means to be a Libertarian. This makes it very difficult for them to achieve success at the ballot box.
If I weren’t naturally cynical, I suspect this would all make me sad.
The problem with political philosophies is that they simplify the human society and its problems to a fault. “Everything would fall into place if only…?” In real life, the goal of every opportunist is to game the system to one’s own advantage. That would not change if the state had no function other than enforcing contracts. It would just make hell out of the lives of everyone who is not able-bodied. Many people can’t game the system, and rely on other people’s understanding that it is morally REPUGNANT to leave people to fend for themselves when they CAN’T. But they of course would do exactly that if individual charity were the only option. Moral? I don’t think so.
Great point about two parties bringing in extremists because the extremists can’t have their own parties in the US system.
You saw this, for example, after Tucker Carlson was platforming extremists on his show. Many politicians, including JD Vance, refused to condemn Carlson, presumably because he wants the votes of Carlson’s audience, even if they’re odious and he doesn’t agree with them personally.
Her close about the Party abandoning many of its voters holds across an array of issues. Maybe I am reading too much of my own practice into her words, but I suspect that when she talks about the Democratic Party, she has in mind the elected officials, staff, activists, and others who are enmeshed in the party’s formal structure and funding apparatus. I can see, however, where a Democratic voter could think she is overgeneralizing. And it is true that some lifelong voters for Democratic candidates now find themselves in stark disagreement on many important issues with a party leadership and candidate class that seem incapable of exercising independent thought and pride themselves on “unity”—too often a self-congratulatory term for groupthink and conformity, when it isn’t a mask for outright cowardice.
Excellent analysis, although I feel she, like so many others, is making a fallacious conflation (say it five times fast): that between Trump’s goals and his actions. She says Trump’s goals are to bring democracy to Iran and peace, hope, and dignity for all in the region. I personally don’t buy that for a second. Rather i think he wants to exploit the land and its people for his own goal of amassing all the personal power and wealth that he can. Yet I see no cognitive conflict between my detesting Trump and my being overjoyed at the attacks on the Iranian government that he has greenlighted. I just think she could have made her case even stronger by cleaving Trump’s actions from his goals. But yes, it is very nice to encounter such voices of clarity in these morally muddied times.
So, yes: “I…cannot agree with some readers who argue that even if he does something that has good results, his motivations were bad, evil, or self-serving. I will judge an action by its results, not by its motivations.”; I see no contradiction between my despising Trump and my feeling ecstatic that the Iranian threat is being curtailed.
Agreed!
I don’t have topic-specific comment, but I am compelled to share this IMHO salient (w/regard to the noted domination of “progressive” politics) and also IMHO fascinating book I just got – I’ll add the inside flap text – it was scanned so there are artifacts – hopefully not too long :
Politics as Religion
Emilio Gentile
Translated by George Staunton
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
168 pages w/ references
First published in Italian under the title Le religioni della politica
2001
[begin inside flap excerpt ]
Emilio Gentile, an internationally renowned authority on fascism and totalitarianism, argues that politics over the past two centuries has often taken on the features of religion, claiming as its own the prerogative of defining the fundamental purpose and meaning of human life. Secular political entities such as the nation, the state, race, class, and the party became the focus of myths, rituals, and commandments and gradually became objects of faith, loyalty, and reverence.
Gentile examines this “sacralization of politics,” as he defines it, both historically and theoretically, seeking to identify the different ways in which political regimes as diverse as fascism, communism, and liberal democracy have ultimately depended, like religions, on faith, myths, rites, and symbols.
Gentile maintains that the sacralization of politics as a modern phenomenon is distinct from the politicization of religion that has arisen from militant religious fundamentalism. Sacralized politics may be democratic, in the form of a civil religion, or it may be totalitarian, in the form of a political religion.
Using this conceptual distinction, and moving from America to Europe, and from Africa to Asia, Gentile presents a unique comparative history of civil and political religions from the American and French Revolutions, through nationalism and socialism, democracy and totalitarianism, and fascism and communism, up to the present day. It is also a fascinating book for understanding the sacralization of politics after 9/11.
[end inside flap excerpt]
The most frustrating thing is how it seems that few people, left or right, are willing to think critically about the positions they hold. It’s all a simplified, black and white, with us or against us view of the world. Perhaps I am overstating this, but it seems worse then at any prior point in my lifetime, and I’m a “boomer”.
No room for consideration of the complexities of any situation, either you’re against Trump and everything he says and does or you’re a traitor and a hater. Either you’re for Trump or you’re an anti-American, trans loving, illegal immigrant sheltering, Commie traitor. I can barely have a conversation with some people I know anymore, it just devolves into formulaic pronouncements and empty rhetoric.
This is what worries me the most.
Perhaps contemporary U.S. politics has become BEING something rather than DOING something.
It grieves me that ‘democracy’ has nearly disappeared from major-party discourse.
When I click on the video; it flashes once, but will not play. Do you have a link to the original? Thanks.
Trump has already indicated that this is NOT about democracy, freedom, oppression. What the Iranians do about it is up to them, those that value the above are on their own.
For me it’s about the Iranian threat to the US which reads, my wealth, my business interest, my families wealth and that of my wealthy political elite and schmoozing sycophants.
If he did care about democracy, freedom, oppression, Ukraine would have received a darn sight more attention than it is now from this US administration, which is to suck up to Putin with a hard on.
Which is also why I give Trump a tick, he has never indicated anything else to the contrary his hand is open and it usually wants cash in it.
And there lies the path for the Iranian freedom and democracy fighters, offer him trump towers and golden statutes.
Taking out a active terrorist state? go9d move but all terribly vauge at this point, do end up with an extreme like Afghanistan or a mess like Iraq. All very sad for the ME.
So true. The Iranians should buy some Trump crypto too!
I think in the larger picture, the Left’s political program of class struggle died in 1989 when Poland voted in no uncertain terms to end communism. Then the Marxist movement of the West did not die, but morphed. They found another group that was more likely to start a revolution: the “oppressed” minorities. They convinced the leadership of every non-conservative party that winning on the outdated “class struggle” mandate is impossible. They had to adopt instead the “struggle for the oppressed” as their new banner. This shift happened over a short time in almost all leftist political parties, and even dragged along some Green and centrist ones.
Trump’s motivation is of some relevance, but the method I find disturbing and depressing.
“Dragged by the donkeys of progressivism” – I’m gonna steal that phrase. 😁
OK Mrs. Savetsky, let’s talk about hypocrisy and double standards. If you feel so strongly about deposing the oppressive Iranian regime, join the IDF or the US Marines and your boots can be the first on Iranian ground to free the oppressed Iranian people. Better yet, send your sons because we all know the asymmetry of how it’s the men who suffer the consequences of combat operations and not women when going to kill people for others’ freedom. (Yes, women serve in the IDF but their casualties are a tiny fraction of the men. Look up Ukraine too). I weary of the bravado of influencers leading charmed lives inside the safest of spaces while passionately advocating for the death of others to fulfill their humanitarian virtue while feigning ideological consistency. Talk is cheap.
Also, please quadruple your taxes to fund combat operations in Iran so other Americans don’t have to. Trump is seeking $15T in military spending which sounds about right to attempt the Iran fix. We Democrats won’t support the oppressive Iranian regime if you will go kill the baddies for us. How about your blood and your treasure first if you want it so badly.
I am often wrong when I assume I know what motivates other people. And I often make that mistake since I want to know what makes an individual do what he or she does. So I imagine their motives. If I like the individual, I often assume his or her motives are similar to what I imagine my motives would be in a similar situation. If I dislike the person, I question or disparage the motives I imagine he or she had. Why the heck do I think that way? I put it down to primate group behavior but truth to tell, I’m making that up too.
Social scientists call that the fundamental attribution error. The one that applies to in-group vs out-group thinking is called the ultimate attribution error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_attribution_error