The Two Kinds of Unity

Unity can arise in two very different ways: when a group of equals recognize their common interests and purposes, or through dominance and submission. Guess which kind of unity Trump called for Thursday night.


Shortly after Donald Trump’s ear was barely grazed by a bullet, piece of shrapnel, or whatever it was, he announced that he was rewriting his convention speech to call for Unity.

It is a chance to bring the country together. I was given that chance.

The media dutifully reported this intention, imagining, as they so often do, that Trump was about to mature and become presidential. Friday morning, some headlines around the country echoed Trump’s call for unity, as if he had actually made one. Parker Malloy collected the evidence:

She commented:

The notion of a Trump “pivot” is as old as his political career. Since 2015, the media has repeatedly predicted — and prematurely celebrated — moments when Trump supposedly transformed into a more measured, presidential figure. These predictions have consistently proven to be mirages, disappearing as quickly as they formed.

When the mainstream media realized the speech wasn’t what they had predicted, they started interpreting it as two speeches at war with each other (which at least would explain why it was twice as long as a typical acceptance speech).

The “new” Donald Trump soothed and silenced the nation for 28 minutes last night. Then the old Trump returned and bellowed, barked and bored America for 64 minutes more.

This interpretation is misguided. Trump gave one speech, with a single theme: unity, but not the kind of unity politicians in a democratic republic usually call for.

Pundits misinterpret Trump when they refuse to recognize what he is: a sociopath. As such, Trump has no concept of what we usually mean by national unity: A broad consensus of citizens coming to recognize their common interests and purposes, and using that recognition to put aside their previous conflicts and mutual distrust.

The most obvious examples of unity in our history come after shocking disasters like Pearl Harbor or 9-11. Republicans did not instantly find love in their hearts for FDR, and Democrats similarly did not love W. But they recognized that all Americans faced a common threat and needed to move with a common purpose.

Admittedly, moments like that are rare, and the attempted assassination of Trump didn’t rise to that level. But nonetheless there are common purposes Trump could have invoked and built on.

Hardly anyone likes the level of hostility that currently exists in American politics. We’ve fallen a long way from that moment in the 2008 campaign when John McCain corrected a questioner who said she couldn’t trust Barack Obama because “he’s an Arab”.

“No ma’am,” McCain politely but firmly replied, “He’s a decent family man, a citizen, who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. And that’s what this campaign is all about.”

We’re also past the moment that same year when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Speaker Newt Gingrich made an ad together about addressing climate change.

Nonetheless, there is still a lot to build common cause around. A substantial majority of Americans in each party want our children to get educated, and to be able to find productive places in a prosperous economy. We want our basic infrastructure — roads, electrical power, communications, etc. — to work flawlessly. We want clean water and breathable air. We want sick people to get care and old people to live their final years in dignity. We want to be safe from crime. We want to live in peace. We want our country to do well in international competition, and not to fall behind China (or anyone else) either economically or militarily. We want to help our fellow Americans when natural disasters strike. We want to be able to take pride in our country, and to believe that oppressed people around the world see us as a beacon of hope.

We often lose sight of these common intentions, but we shouldn’t. How to accomplish any of these goals leads to serious arguments — like whether the government or the market should take the lead — many of which are hard to resolve. So there would still be plenty of room in our politics for “disagreements on fundamental issues”. But there is a lot to build unity around, if we would choose to do so.

Donald Trump, however, doesn’t live in a world where that kind of unity is possible, or even makes sense. To a sociopath, all relationships are built around dominance and submission. In every interaction, somebody wins and somebody loses. Win/win is just not a thing.

This view runs far deeper than just his politics. The Art of Deal, for example, is about winning every negotiation, not about building mutually beneficial long-term relationships with clients, employees, or suppliers. He often refused to pay small contractors who worked on his casinos and clubs, or he bullied them into taking less than their contracts called for. (They will never deal with him again, but so what? He won.) The background for his recent fraud trial was that banks would no longer offer him competitive rates without special guarantees, which he verified through false documentation.

Or take a look at his cabinet picks from 2017: Mike Pence, Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, Steve Mnuchin, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo, Ryan Zinke, Sonny Perdue, Wilbur Ross, Alexander Acosta, Tom Price, Ben Carson, Elain Chao, Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, John Kelly, David Schulkin, Nikki Haley, Scott Pruitt, Mick Mulvaney, Robert Lighthizer, Linda McMahon, and Andrew Puzder. Forget about whether any of them will serve again should he be reelected; how many of them are even supporting him now? Why did he even need a new vice president?

Trump doesn’t do mutually beneficial relationships that build trust over time. He uses people until their usefulness is exhausted, then he discards them as “losers” or denies that he ever really knew them.

Similarly, NATO has never made sense to him, because it’s about countries banding together for mutual protection. In his mind, though, if we’re not taking advantage of them, they must be taking advantage of us. Many of the fantasy sir-stories he tells during his rallies are about him expressing dominance and other world leaders submitting. Here’s one in his convention speech:

For years and years when I first came in, they said President Obama tried to get [gang members we wanted to deport] to go back and [other countries] wouldn’t accept them. They’d put planes on the runway so you couldn’t land the plane. They’d close the roads so you couldn’t take the buses; they’d all have to turn back.

As soon as I said no more economic aid of any kind to any country that does that, they called back and they said, “Sir, it would be our great honor to take M.S. 13. We love them very much. We love them very much, sir. We’ll take them back.”

He reinterprets his greatest diplomatic blunder — tearing up the Obama agreement that would have kept Iran from getting nuclear weapons, then utterly failing to get the “better deal” he said was possible — as simply not having enough time for his attempted domination to take effect. (Because of course the country that was willing to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers in its war with Iraq would crumble under his economic threats.)

I told China and other countries, “If you buy from Iran, we will not let you do any business in this country, and we will put tariffs on every product you do send in of 100 percent or more.” And they said to me, “Well, I think that’s about it.” They weren’t going to buy any oil. And they were ready to make a deal. Iran was going to make a deal with us.

And then we had that horrible, horrible result that we’ll never let happen again. The election result. We’re never going to let that happen again. They used Covid to cheat. We’re never going to let it happen again. And they took off all the sanctions, and they did everything possible for Iran and now Iran is very close to having a nuclear weapon, which would have never happened.

Because to Trump, that’s what relationship is all about: dominance and submission. If you’re not the predator, you’re the prey.

So it should have been immediately obvious what kind of national unity Trump would call for in his convention speech: If you’ve been resisting his dominance, it’s time for you to recognize that you’re beaten and submit.

The opening part of Trump’s speech, the 28 minutes Axios liked, sounded like common-purpose unity, if that’s what you were primed to hear.

I stand before you this evening with a message of confidence, strength and hope. Four months from now, we will have an incredible victory, and we will begin the four greatest years in the history of our country.

Together, we will launch a new era of safety, prosperity and freedom for citizens of every race, religion, color and creed.

The discord and division in our society must be healed. We must heal it quickly. As Americans, we are bound together by a single fate and a shared destiny. We rise together. Or we fall apart.

I am running to be president for all of America, not half of America, because there is no victory in winning for half of America.

But it is also consistent with the sociopathic unity of dominance and submission, as the second part of the speech made clear. He wasn’t reaching out to the other half of America, he was demanding its surrender.

And we must not criminalize dissent or demonize political disagreement, which is what’s been happening in our country lately, at a level that nobody has ever seen before. In that spirit, the Democrat party should immediately stop weaponizing the justice system and labeling their political opponent as an enemy of democracy. … If Democrats want to unify our country, they should drop these partisan witch hunts, which I’ve been going through for approximately eight years. And they should do that without delay and allow an election to proceed that is worthy of our people. We’re going to win it anyway.

He lamented what has been happening to his sons, who were fellow defendants in the fraud lawsuit that he lost (because a jury of ordinary Americans found that he and his sons committed fraud).

[Eric is] such a good young man. He went through a lot of trouble, and Don, last night, was incredible. They went through so much trouble. They got subpoenaed more than any people probably in the history of the United States. Every week they get another subpoena from the Democrats. Crazy Nancy Pelosi, the whole thing. Just boom, boom, boom.

They’ve got to stop that because they’re destroying our country. We have to work on making America great again, not on beating people. And we won. We beat them in all. We beat them on the impeachments. We beat them on the indictments. We beat them. But the time that you have to spend, the time that you have to spend. If they would devote that genius to helping our country, we’d have a much stronger and better country.

Got that? Everyone has to stop focusing on beating people, but I beat you. You don’t win; I win. So stop trying to make me obey laws or holding me accountable for my crimes. Submit. And then our country can move forward in unity.

If we do that, if we submit to Trump, he offers the vision that he can become powerful enough to dominate others on our behalf.

For too long, our nation has settled for too little. We settled for too little. We’ve given everything to other nations, to other people. You have been told to lower your expectations and to accept less for your families.

I am here tonight with the opposite message: Your expectations are not big enough. They’re not big enough. It is time to start expecting and demanding the best leadership in the world, leadership that is bold, dynamic, relentless and fearless. We can do that.

We are Americans. Ambition is our heritage. Greatness is our birthright.

But as long as our energies are spent fighting each other, our destiny will remain out of reach. And that’s not acceptable. We must instead take that energy and use it to realize our country’s true potential — and write our own thrilling chapter of the American story.

Trump closed by recalling past American glories.

Together, these patriots soldiered on and endured, and they prevailed. Because they had faith in each other, faith in their country, and above all, they had faith in their God.

Just like our ancestors, we must now come together, rise above past differences. Any disagreements have to be put aside, and go forward united as one people, one nation, pledging allegiance to one great, beautiful — I think it’s so beautiful — American flag.

But you will search this text in vain to find any indication that Trump himself is putting aside past differences. He’s still talking about “crazy Nancy Pelosi” and refusing to recognize any positive purpose (like mitigating climate change or trying to limit Covid deaths) that Biden might have been trying to achieve with his policies. And if you don’t share “faith in their God”, well, you just don’t count.

Even Sunday, after Biden withdrew from the race, Trump could not be gracious, and continued to lie about Biden and his record.

Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President, and is certainly not fit to serve – And never was! He only attained the position of President by lies, Fake News, and not leaving his Basement. All those around him, including his Doctor and the Media, knew that he wasn’t capable of being President, and he wasn’t – And now, look what he’s done to our Country, with millions of people coming across our Border, totally unchecked and unvetted, many from prisons, mental institutions, and record numbers of terrorists. We will suffer greatly because of his presidency, but we will remedy the damage he has done very quickly.

So no, putting aside differences is not for him, it’s on me and on you. We just need to get in line and submit. Only then will America have the kind of unity Trump wants.

There is a word for this kind of unity, but not an English word: gleichschaltung. It’s an old German engineering term, for when you wire a bunch of electrical circuits together under a common master switch. It got applied to German politics in 1933, for reasons that you may recall from history books.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 22, 2024 at 11:08 am

    I’m reminded of Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech: it’s not enough to let [the Confederacy’s successors] have their way, we must join them in calling it right.

  • Guest's avatar Guest  On July 22, 2024 at 11:29 am

    The nuance around unity and Trump is well taken, Doug, but I wonder if you are able to see a similar dynamic mirrored within the Democratic party’s left and right flanks?

    Blink and you missed it, but a DNC insider let slip last week on cable news that Biden was chosen in 2020 not because he was better suited to beating Trump (he wasn’t), but because he was best suited to beating Bernie, further justifying a position you can hear on the left that the Democratic Party’s “aristocracy” would rather lose to Trump than see the left win. And then the elites fully expect the left to mobilize and vote Blue despite fully aligning with party donors and refusing all but empty platitudes and skin-deep representation on the issues. Unity though domination. But only bad when Trump does it?

    How great would it be to take a page from France’s recent defeat of fascism and put forward a Democratic Harris-Sanders unity ticket? Finally throw the ideological base some red meat (something R’s embrace, but D’s disdain) but, because of his age, not a block in any way to whichever corporate suit would be anointed in the next cycle. But that would mean embracing unity over dominance. And the next time the Lords of the DNC make that choice will be the first time in my lifetime.

    • weeklysift's avatar weeklysift  On July 22, 2024 at 11:59 am

      I have been skeptical for many years of the argument that left-wing candidates would run better in a general election. I’d like to see some example where a progressive won some governorship or seat in Congress that Democrats weren’t expecting to win. In general, Democrats who win unexpected victories are centrists like Kentucky’s Andy Beshear.

      Biden won the nomination in 2020 the same way Hillary won it in 2016: He got more votes than Bernie. If Bernie ever had the votes, he’d have been the nominee. That’s how Trump did it in 2016. The Republican establishment was against him, but he had the votes.

      • Guest's avatar Guest  On July 22, 2024 at 1:24 pm

        The last time we had a bold, progressive Democrat in the White House they had to impose term limits because he wouldn’t stop winning.

        Presidential and congressional races are apples and oranges so your litmus test is off the mark, but your point there just underlines the larger “unity through domination” dynamic that you rightfully decry in Trump but apparently defend in the DNC. Leftists by and large are simply not allowed ballot access or support by party Lords, and when one or two happens to slip past, the king-makers will do anything, and spend any amount, to unseat them (see Jamaal Bowman most recently). Given the multitude of polling in 2016 and 2020 that showed Bernie as the strongest Trump contender, with double-digit leads in the thick of it, I’m afraid your skepticism strays into willful ignorance. But if categorically speaking domination unity is only condemnable in Trump but admirable in the DNC, then there is no contradiction.

      • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 22, 2024 at 1:59 pm

        @Guest  On July 22, 2024 at 1:24 pm

        You might want to look into Ranked Choice Voting. It makes it easier to run without relying on the two major parties.

    • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 22, 2024 at 1:24 pm

      You’re implying that “Biden was chosen in 2020” by the DNC. That didn’t happen. Biden was chosen by millions of voters like me, who voted for Biden over Bernie.

      I heard the same in 2016, that the DNC determined that the nominee would be Hilary, not Bernie. That choice was made by me, and the people like me who voted for Hilary. She would have made a terrific president.

      • Guest's avatar Guest  On July 22, 2024 at 4:11 pm

        Thanks, Anon, but you don’t have to take my word for it. The “Biden was chosen” language is straight from the mouth of Rep. Adam Smith, ranking chair of the House Armed Services Committee, on MSNBC just the other week, a man with direct knowledge of the matter.

        With that said, if you refuse an insider’s information, then I’m not sure what to offer you except a reductio ad absurdum for a position that, respectfully, reads as “there are no men behind the curtain, no levers being pulled in backroom power dealings, there is only the Great Oz of the ballot box on election day and nothing more.” Consider making a similar argument about Hitler in 1933, ie, that there was no relevant context leading up to it, no private maneuvers among power brokers, he simply had the votes to become Fuhrer and that was that. Naive and simplistic to the point of being ahistorical, no? I don’t see us doing ourselves any favors by adopting a similar stance today.

        To the other Anon pushing Ranked Choice Voting, I’m not opposed to it, although I’m skeptical that it’s the democratic panacea its most vocal supporters make it out to be. I think it can abused like any other system. I also think, on the national level at least, it’s stuck in a sort of Utopian-thinking infinite feedback loop of (1) we can get what we want with RCV -> (2) what we want is RCV -> (1). I’d be happy to settle instead for, well, unity in the Democratic party. Which I suppose, judging from the Sift response, makes me the pollyanna.

    • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 22, 2024 at 6:02 pm

      “How great would it be to take a page from France’s recent defeat of fascism and put forward a Democratic Harris-Sanders unity ticket? “

      France’s election was a parliamentary election, so more like a congressional election here.

      They didn’t actually create a “unity ticket.” In districts that had candidates from three parties running in the same election, the candidate with the fewest number of votes in the first round election dropped out, so as to not “split the vote.” (A result that could be accomplished here, without anyone officially dropping out, by using Ranked Choice Voting.)

      I think a more relevant point about the French election is that they had the highest voter turnout in decades. The country came out in force to reject the Far Right party.

      • Guest's avatar Guest  On July 23, 2024 at 12:09 pm

        You’re not wrong, Anon, but my point here is that France’s high voter turnout didn’t happen in a vacuum, and rather was significantly indebted to the very unity displayed by the centrists and left. Unity in the form of dropping out and supporting the stronger candidate gave people something to vote FOR, not just against.

        Of course because our systems are different, the specifics of unity actions will necessarily be different, but the unity itself is the thing. In the US presidential race context, adding a popular leftist like Bernie to the ticket is the closest analogue.

        Given recent history I acknowledge it’s a daydream, and that in all likelihood unity will be rejected in favor of domination (it’s only bad if Trump does it), and we’ll see a less-than-inspiring centrist double-down a la Tim Kaine and John Edwards. And Trump is that bad, and Roe so important, that it might not matter at the top of the ballot, maybe we edge out a narrow victory like 2020 anyhow. Democracy may be on the line, but it’s worth the risk because it’s better for the donor-class and their handmaidens to lose to Trump than win with Sanders.

      • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 23, 2024 at 2:38 pm

        “my point here is that France’s high voter turnout didn’t happen in a vacuum, and rather was significantly indebted to the very unity displayed by the centrists and left. Unity in the form of dropping out and supporting the stronger candidate gave people something to vote FOR, not just against.”

        I disagree. There have been previous elections in France where the Far Right party did well enough in the first round of voting to be on the ballot in the second round. In those cases, everyone holds their noses and votes for the not-far-right candidate. The votes that the Far Right gets in the second round is no higher than what they got in the first round, because people vote against them – regardless of who they have to vote for in order to do that.

        The difference this time was that the Far Right did well enough in the first round that they might have ended up as the largest party in parliament. The percentage of votes that the Far Right got in the second round had to be lower than what they got in the first round. So the country came out in force to reject the Far Right party, by doing what they’ve done before: voting against the Far Right – regardless of who they have to vote for in order to do that.

      • Guest's avatar Guest  On July 24, 2024 at 3:59 pm

        “So the country came out in force to reject the Far Right party, by doing what they’ve done before”

        It was my understanding, Anon, that the “drop out and endorse the stronger candidate” display of unity was unique in this case and not something France does every cycle. I suppose I stand corrected. Although, if that is the norm as you suggest, I’m not seeing it as a refutation of the power and importance of unity among centrist politicians and left politicians. Just the opposite, really.

        Stepping back from France though, I don’t get the impulse to reject unity between the center and the left generally. My only guess (and it’s a total shot in the dark because centrists, including the Sift faithful, never seem to be able to articulate it) is that it is in part a generational thing with a cohort of liberals old enough to still be scarred by 1972, but too young to remember FDR, and learning all the wrong lessons from a place of relative comfort as a result.

        For Democrats, the alternative to unity, the domination of entrenched power, seems to rely in recent times on the explicitly right-wing opposition being as obnoxiously extreme as possible, in order to avoid offering anything of substance to the left aside from “the lesser evil.” Even to the point of offering material assistance to the extreme right in primaries. From a purely election-outcome strategy POV, the track record is mixed. It worked well in the most recent midterms. It was absolutely disastrous in 2016. From a humanist POV, it seems undemocratic and needlessly prolongs and exacerbates death and misery at home and abroad.

      • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 24, 2024 at 7:09 pm

        @Guest On July 24, 2024 at 3:59 pm

        You misunderstood my point.

        Your text:
        “my point here is that France’s high voter turnout didn’t happen in a vacuum, and rather was significantly indebted to the very unity displayed by the centrists and left. Unity in the form of dropping out and supporting the stronger candidate gave people something to vote FOR, not just against.”

        You left out my description of what they did before.

        My text:
        So the country came out in force to reject the Far Right party, by doing what they’ve done before: voting against the Far Right – regardless of who they have to vote for in order to do that.

        My point is that the high turnout was driven by voting against the Far Right, not voting for the other parties. That’s the pattern.

        And I’m not saying anything about the general idea of unity between center and left. I’m just pointing out that the recent election in France doesn’t support that idea in the way that you think it does.

      • Guest's avatar Guest  On July 25, 2024 at 10:46 am

        In that case, Anon, for your point to hold any weight you’ll have to prove that the Far Right would have been defeated in this last cycle even without the display of unity between the center and left pols.

      • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 25, 2024 at 7:22 pm

        In the world of political strategy there is very little proof of anything. There’s lots of data. There’s experience and history. There’s hunches and intuition. There’s conviction. But not much that actually can be proven.

        Your idea seems to be roughly:
        High turnout in the French elections was driven by people excited to vote for Center and Left unity. We should follow their lead and have a Harris/Sanders unity ticket.

        If you aren’t interested in input that doesn’t support that idea, then carry on.

        I won’t be following your lead.

      • Guest's avatar Guest  On July 26, 2024 at 10:15 am

        Points for honesty, Anon, in essentially admitting you don’t have anything to back your point. Hard to admit for many. I am open to input from any side provided it’s based on anything substantial.

        The French example, for me, is that when the threat of right-wing extremism is greatest, unity between the center and left seems to work well (worked well for FDR too, threat level was pretty high in his time if I recall). We are told, and not without reason, that the stakes for democracy have never been higher for upcoming election. If that is indeed the case, why not give peace a chance?

        Your idea seems roughly to be that unity was superfluous at best (or something that had to be actively fought against and overcome at worst) in the recent win over the extreme right in France because…in different elections in the past the right was defeated using different strategies. Ok…

        The thing is, in America, the rejection of unity for domination of the centrists has a mixed track record in modern presidential elections. Worked for Bill Clinton (though he did have an assist from Perot, ie, a non-unified right, perhaps another clue). Didn’t work for Gore or Kerry. Was a disaster for Hilary Clinton. Worked in 2020 for Biden but barely, to the tune of a rounding error fraction of votes in a handful of swing states. Polling, sentiment, and donor support seemed to be going in the direction of a Trump victory had Biden not been pushed out.

        With Biden out, there is a sense of optimism with Harris. That things can be different. Hope, change, etc. In that context, can you really blame me for daydreaming about unity? I fully expected that neither you nor any of the Sift faithful specifically or centrist liberals generally, would follow the lead of unity. Not out of any prejudice, but only because you have consistently rejected unity in favor of a type of domination condemned in Trump in Doug’s article here, but embraced without pause for decades on our side of the aisle. So it goes…

      • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 27, 2024 at 5:12 am

        You’ve managed to misunderstand most of what I said, and to say I said things that I didn’t say, but let’s try one more. I didn’t say that I wouldn’t “follow the lead of unity.” I said I won’t be following your lead. Because you’ve managed to misunderstand most of what I said, and you are super-sized annoying.

    • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 23, 2024 at 4:45 am

      First the DNC insiders/professionals bash the hippies (which is anyone who doesn’t toe their corporatist, Republican-lite Third Wayism) and then they demand those bashed shut up and vote Blue because to do anything else is enemy-appeasing disloyalty.

      Your analysis is spot on.

  • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 22, 2024 at 1:49 pm

    With respect to selecting a new D Nominee and the appetite for a contested convention, it is important to note one thing.

    In the old days of beauty-pageant primaries (or none) and real decisions being made in smoke-filled back rooms (the ones that you the voter never got invited into), the candidates were people who’d been working various refs and angling for the job for months, if not years, before the convention. It was never the kind of free-for-all that would result if the Ds try to pick somebody other than Harris this time around.

    A contested convention would leave just enough time for a lot of attacks to leave wounds on whoever emerged, but not enough time for those to heal. Which is maybe why the legacy political media seem to want it so bad.

  • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 22, 2024 at 2:18 pm

    I voted for Obama in 2008. I voted against Romney in 2012. Obama was a disappointment. I actually voted for the Green Party in 2016. Voted against Trump in 2020 after thinking Biden was just another centrist.

    Biden turned out to be delightfully progressive. I was looking forward to giving him my vote. Now I will give Harris my unenthusiastic vote. The rich doners and elitists will again get what they want. I long for a democratic Democratic Party.

  • Alpha 1's avatar Alpha 1  On July 22, 2024 at 2:29 pm

    Liberals using McCain saying “Obama’s not an Arab, he’s a good man” as an example of Americans coming together across party lines is like the Rosetta Stone for understanding why they’ll accept any level of violence America does in the middle east.

    • ldbenj's avatar ldbenj  On July 23, 2024 at 7:04 am

      Did I miss something? Is the US fighting another war in the Middle East?

      • Alpha 1's avatar Alpha 1  On July 23, 2024 at 12:37 pm

        Biden helped kill half a million Iraqis by supporting the invasion in 2003, and liberals won’t shut up about how “decent” and “empathetic” he is.

      • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 23, 2024 at 1:00 pm

        I hold the Bush administration more responsible for that. In addition to lying to the American people about WMD, Bush misled Congress into supporting his war only if it became necessary. It still shows poor judgment on Biden’s part, but that was over 20 years ago. I don’t see the American people accepting a new war in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter. People may support one side or the other in Ukraine, Israel, or Taiwan, but won’t tolerate American boots on the ground in any of those places.

      • Alpha 1's avatar Alpha 1  On July 23, 2024 at 2:24 pm

        Killing half a million people is just an oopsie when those people are Arabs!

      • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 23, 2024 at 2:46 pm

        I never said that. But if you hold Biden equally responsible with Bush for the Iraq War, what about holding yourself responsible? Assuming you live in the US and pay taxes.

      • Alpha 1's avatar Alpha 1  On July 23, 2024 at 5:00 pm

        Biden was the head of the senate foreign affairs committee, and he was so pro war that he tried to bribe Putin into supporting the invasion with promises of Iraqi oil money:

        “He came to us, actually, he was there. We made it clear that as leading Senators – leading, old Senators — from both parties we could not guarantee anything, but I asked the following questions: What if, in fact, President Bush would agree that the first proceeds coming from Iraqi oil would pay off the roughly $12 billion owed by direct hard currency that the Russians needed? And what about the contracts that we had if in fact we would agree to work in consortium with the Russians? He said, “Oh, that’s now how I base my policy, but let’s talk about that.”

        “Poor judgement” is certainly an interesting way to describe supporting a war of aggression, the act that the Nuremberg trials called “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” If you really saw the war as that magnitude of crime, you would be denouncing Biden and every other politician who supported the war as a criminal who destroyed millions of lives, instead of demanding accountability from random posters. But if it’s just an oopsie when those lives are the lives of Arabs…

      • ldbenj's avatar ldbenj  On July 23, 2024 at 8:46 pm

        Well, you’ve convinced me. I’m not voting for Biden again. Or Hillary Clinton, either.

        Trump wasn’t in office, but he did support the war at the time, even if he denies it now. Does that count, or he gets a free pass because he was a private citizen and we’re not allowed to demand accountability from anyone but politicians?

        Regarding war crimes, let’s start by charging Bush, and then we can work our way down the line until we get to Biden.

  • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 22, 2024 at 11:02 pm

    This article made me realize that Trump is Jareth the Goblin King from Labyrinth

    Jareth: I ask for so little. Just let me rule you, and you can have everything that you want.

    Sarah: Kingdom as great … damn! I can never remember that line…

    Jareth: Just fear me – love me – do as I say, and I will be your slave!

    Sarah: My kingdom as great … my kingdom as great … [she looks at him, realization dawning] You have no power over me!

  • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On July 23, 2024 at 5:12 am

    Most people are authoritarians, in the meaning of that term being that they want and need to be told what to do. That Trump demands to be submitted to feeds directly into this need, and produces a willing cult submissive to the person irrespective of actual policy, which in most cases directly harms them.

    What frustrates Trump is that not everyone is so submissive; that there exist people who are autonomous beings capable of exercising their own agency. This is what must stop. Only then will unity be possible, with all things directed by Dear Leader and any objection punished as unhealthy, self-centered deviance. Dominate and control. It’s why today’s Republican Party so seamlessly overlaps and combines thoughtless evangelical religion with the MAGA cult of personality, and is happy to have Trump as the figurehead by which to enact this mission of using raw power for these ends.

Trackbacks

  • By Resolutions | The Weekly Sift on July 22, 2024 at 11:22 am

    […] This week’s featured post is “The Two Kinds of Unity“. […]

  • By Denial | The Weekly Sift on August 5, 2024 at 12:00 pm

    […] back at my article on his convention speech, which was billed as a “unity” speech. The only unity Trump recognizes is submission to […]

Leave a reply to ldbenj Cancel reply