In the opening moments of the first Gulf War, the US Army dealt with miles of well-manned Iraqi defensive works by attaching bulldozer blades to tanks and filling in the trenches. Plotting strategy, Saddam Hussein had hoped to produce a quagmire at the front end of the war; the quagmire lasted for several extraordinarily horrible minutes, and the tanks rolled on over the newly made mass graves.
Ah, but Annie Dillard was a real person not someone trying to be what she wasn't. I have loved her book for 30 years. Her view of the insect world! and the cosmos.
It seems like that's the heart of the thing that's happening across the culture: being vs. seeming, living vs. "trying to be what she wasn't." I feel that in the air.
I want to say something profound here. Something moving, inspiring and in as few words as possible. But that is not the skill set I was blessed with. So I'm just going to lay it out there.
I can't even remember how I found your stack. But ever since I did, I scan my mail several times daily, anxiously waiting for your next take on the moment. Your writing had been a stepping stone for me but also so much more. I've been inspired, educated and encouraged. You've made me laugh, cry, ponder, share. You give me hope. I also look so forward to the comments for this community for the same reasons. Most everyone in my circle sees what we see. But three days a week, I drive 25 miles to work and I find myself in a whole different country. Where virtually everyone is consumed with this mind virus. The misery and hate is palpable.i detest confrontation because when I'm angry I don't communicate well. I'm still addicted to a roof and food and I need my job for a little bit longer. So I tamp that shit down, stay out of the fray and laser focus on being the type of co worker that everyone loves to be around. I try to sincerely summon every bit of love and kindness I can muster and it sustains me. My patients have called me an angel four times this week( which may be more than the entire 35 years prior) . I am no angel, but if that's what they see when they spend a totally miserable 10 hours of their life with me, then I feel like I'm on the right track. I'm not losing my humanity. I'm making a connection with someone that would be shocked to know I am a deplorable,a filthy right wing extremist maga supporting Bible thumping gun toting intolerant racist fascist transphobic POS in "real life".
PLEASE don't disappear!!!!
Your writing is a beacon of hope and sanity for me and obviously for so many others here. It makes a difference. ( TOTALLY missed the goal of"as few words as possible, lol) Thank you, Chris. God bless you and your work .
Once a month I get a Chris bray notice and I am like “cool, open that first.” But it is just a subscription payment conflation, and I am like, darn… but it is the best money I spend.
I have an old college friend trying to convince me to read “The Christian Case Against Donald Trump” by Pastor Pat somebody-or-other. Same shit,
different day, another Trump-is-Hitler shouter. No thanks. He was already in office for 4 years and my life was much better than, groceries were affordable, my 401k was making money, and I felt safer and our borders felt slightly secure.
I remember when that orange dictator felt that the states should be in charge of the "pandemic" response, because that was what the Constitution said - what a power hungry madman.
If you’re still looking, you might try “The Case for Trump” by historian Victor Davis Hanson, mainly because, well, Hanson. It’s not so much about Trump as why Trump. It was written in 2018, but the historical perspective is insightful.
Truth & Falsities; He who wins can change history books.
My question is; What is the truth? Majority of corporate grubberment Pubic educated students were educated/propagandised/brainwashed on false historic events no different to Tavistock MS media.
What is the truth of history? We have been brainwashed that civil history dates back to something BC. Yet there is information that civilisation pre dates > 200,000 years.
Lots of disappointment out there. But there’s room for hope! Why don’t more Evangelicals vote? Many pastors of large Christian churches have been corrupted by the left. See Megan Basham’s book “Shepard’s For Sale” to see how. Basham is a culture writer for Daily Wire as well. Also many gun owners don’t vote. Ted Nugent tries in that area.
My dear sweet 67-year-old neighbor, retired teacher, shuffles over with her glass of wine often, when she hears my wife and I on our patio. It doesn’t take long before she snaps into a rant about Trump. She is just regurgitating the bile she gets from her TV, which is always on. “Trump is a racist!” but she can’t give a reason why. “Trump hates women!” Blah, blah, blah. She goes into a trance and becomes another person. She cannot be reasoned with. Her two sons avoid her because of it. My wife and I try. She is a good person but her mind has literally been taken over.
I listen to am radio while I drive or work. Every news break is anti Trump propaganda bullshit. Every. Single. Story.
I don’t even like Trump. I tell my neighbor this and she scoffs and says bullshit. I insist I don’t but I can’t even tell her my reasons because my reasons would sound alien to her. But I have fought for unrigged elections for 24 years and I know that mainstream legacy media is the enemy of humanity. If the entire structure of every form of media is rabidly opposed to a man, you can bet I will vote for him.
I have a similar neighbor-lol, the sweetest old lady you could meet. One day I mentioned Trump’s name and it was like Bilbo Baggins changing faces - “I’d like to cut off his d*ck and put it where his head is!” I was just so dumbfounded I couldn’t believe she said it! 😅. Yep. It’s the TV all right. Can’t wait for the election to be over.
That’s what my wife and I think. She was a lifelong Republican until Trump and she is multi jabbed even though me, my wife and her two sons tried to talk her out of it.
There's a great book that examines what our brains have been through: "The Indoctrinated Brain," by Michael C. Nels. He talks about the role of the mRNA injections among many other factors. Fascinating and illuminating read.
I had a similar convo with a dear, long-time, decidedly un-woke (but generally liberal) friend the other day. We were catching up nicely and then I said something like "yeah there really isn't a good outcome for this election, whichever way it goes" and suddenly, silence on the line. He then expressed in no uncertain terms what he'd like to see done to Trump, things I won't repeat here. I'm no Trump fan but was definitely taken aback. (To be fair, we moved on to other topics and then at the end of the conversation, he did apologize.)
Same with my mother-in-law. She tells my wife she's afraid of what Trump will do if he's elected. Bizarre. Hmm, maybe similar to what he did the last time (only, please God, no more covid. Please!). So, no wars. Peace. Affordable groceries. Sanity in international relations. Only this time, let's have domestic peace (get a real AG). And maybe this time send JD Vance out to talk to the press. Unfortunately, also, if he wins this time, there will be more blood and fire in the streets. And the deranged press will be even more loud and deranged. I ignore them but for those who feed off that sh*t it'll just mean their brains get further zombified.
Kamala was exactly the same during her interview with Brett. I noticed it when she went off about how Trump is going to kill his American followers. And was ranting about it. It occurred to me that she watches Rachel Maddow and gets her information from there.
propaganda works. But it’s not just that something is repeated so often that it seems like it must be true. It’s also that there is no other story to challenge it. That’s why censorship is so important. How many stories have you heard about trump’s random acts of kindness? Or clips from him clowning with the very people who now call him Hitler? Or his award alongside Rosa Parks?
Someone was president from 2017 to 2021. I don't remember who that was. Most of what I do remember from that time is the endless horror of Pussy Hats abandoned by the railroad sidings as the trains pulled away. I also have another memory (or is it a fantasy?) of being able to pay cash for our groceries. Was that ever true?
I don't know if I believe you, Chris. I'd like to, but I have this sinking feeling that you are NOT superhuman and that like the rest of us poor suckers, you CAN'T LOOK AWAY.
I want to slap her upside the head. Trump doesn't reach the ankles of any of those, when it comes to speech-craft. His only saving grace is his natural buffoonery and being blunt so that he is entertaining.
All her three examples were rather good at public speaking, among the best of their time. Is she so much an ignoramus she confuses their politics with their technique?
First US-Irak war was if I remember correctly also when "embedded reporters" became the standard. The father of a friend of mine explained why: "They'll never make the mistakes they made during Vietnam, when photographers like me could roam freely and actually document what war looks like and what people do to each other." And the he refused to explain further, nor would he open his private, padlocked, filing cabinet where he kept those pictures (and not just from Vietnam, the guy had been in Kongo and other places too) that papers refused to publish.
My point: Can the practice of "embedded reporters" have contributed to, or even caused, what we see to day from US corporate media that they are acting as a part of a one-party state? Journalists and photographers back then protested vehemently against the military having control over where they could go and who they could speak with, both in the US (if I'm not misremembering) and elsewhere, and it mattered not what the political colour of whatever publication they worked: they all opposed any kind of government-adjacent control of content et c.
Does anything of this hodgepodge of memory-ideas match your experiences from that time?
Conservatives in the UK are placing a lot of importance on Trump winning.....even our mainstream media has succumbed to TDS. But then it has a strong, skittle haired left wing bias, so no surprises there. Trump may be a deeply flawed human, but he's smart and sane.
Chris, Not overlooking your primary point, but observing that you were bored in your English class, and assigned extra work..... explains/proves that the talent you display is innate. Keep up the Good Work!! 👍
Have you listened to Tucker’s interview with Mark Halperin? Great conversation on politics and the presidential race. At least go to about the two hour mark where he forecasts the reaction to a Trump win. He sees the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country.
Randy, haven’t watched that one yet, but will. Tucker also sat with Harmeet Dillon, who thoroughly investigated the ho and her legal record. “I prosecuted hundreds of drug dealers” in KH speak actually translates to TEN cases in 10 years in Alameda Co. Not only is KH a liar, she is also one lazy……..Can’t quite use the word since I talk to Chris about his language all the time but you can fill in the blank!
I watched that one as well (I confess to a man crush on Tucker 😂). Love Harmeet and am glad she is in charge of overseeing the election in AZ for the Republicans. She won’t let any sh*t happen without raising a ruckus.
Rotate the "W" a quarter turn counterclockwise, draw a vertical line connecting the three points on the left and drop any letters before the newly created letter.
It is a available also on YouTube and is riveting. Halperin is one of the last true journalists and is appalled at the disintegration of his profession. He still cannot wrap his mind around it.
Kelly was one of my favorite reporters/writers. He was killed when the vehicle he was riding in rolled over. Great loss for all of us, one of the few honest people covering that deep state war Bush launched to get even with Hussein for trying to assassinate his dad. And you're right about these totalitarians who now populate all of the msm, describing anyone who disagrees with them as Hitler, etc. They all can't be suffering from mad cow disease because of the prions they got from the mRNA injections: many are just insane naturally. My guess is that the uniparty members will use massive numbers of illegals/dead people/machine manipulations to gain votes, then dispute the election results, and refusing to certify the Republicans' wins. These writers you mention, and most all the rest of msm and most of the various institutions, will support all the chaos and we will be left with hoping some judges will adhere to the Constitution. Bill of Right, and stare decisis to overturn the many thefts. That's a pretty thin reed to rely on for any justice, as almost every judge and prosecutor, federal, state, and local, with "D" by their names, is not an officer of the court but are Democrat operators. It wouldn't surprise me if sometime in November/December that Biden resigns, collects all the pardons he and gangster family needs from President Harris, and the uniparty members refuse to seat Trump and many other "R"s. The "D"s are good at coup de tats, violent and otherwise. So, Chris, keep writing and we all should keep reading and praying for the Republic.
What is with the Atlantic? Their headlines have been so insane this election cycle, I’ve been taking screen grabs of them for when I need a laugh. They are Repo Man-level darkly hilarious. Get a grip, bitches. Really.
They’ve all become the AIDS Walk ribbon bully from Seinfeld.
Maybe every day of our lives has been April's Fools Day and "Ground Hog Day", rolled into one, all our lives....but we didn't notice it until The Scamdemic?
If this is the one you had in mind, what issues do you have with the piece?
I see two myself:
1. That Brooks downplays the fact that Kamala Harris simply isn’t a credible messenger for the change she is now claiming to represent. Many voters are too familiar with Democrats clothing themselves in moderate policy attire every four years only to abandon it once the election is over (I think we do not buy that Kamala Harris has suddenly become a moderate, given her record); and
2. That Brooks’s asserts that only the Republicans today present a threat to democracy. This is certainly not true — several prominent policy proposals from the Democrats threaten our constitutional system today, even by the expressed standards of the party in the 20th Century. The two most prominent in my mind are the embrace of censorship and the new court packing plan being advanced by prominent Democrats in the Senate.
With that being said, I see those threats as products of the same unpopular progressive orthodoxy that Brooks argues the party should abandon in this piece. So Brook’s prescription is still correct, even if he is guilty of omission in the piece.
For example, the party’s obsession with remaking the Supreme Court so it can be used as a policy making instrument arises, in my view, from the party’s stubborn adherence to a policy agenda that the American people and their representatives in Congress would reject. As long as Democrats cling to to unpopular progressive policy positions that have no chance of becoming law the proper way (through acts of Congress), the party will continue to look for ways around it, including their politicization of the Supreme Court and demand that it greenlight unconstitutional executive actions that allow progressive policies to backdoor into American life without popular support.
Likewise, the party’s concerning embrace of censorship also arises from the party’s unshakable adherence to policies it knows cannot withstand a vigorous public debate. Therefore, free speech (rather than the unpopular policies) become the problem, and censorship becomes their tool of choice .
Those would be my critiques of the piece, which otherwise I found to be insightful.
What are yours?
Chris, thank you also for this excellent Substack; I always look forward to reading your articles.
I could go on and on about this, but let's try to just do a few examples.
Seventh paragraph: "Trump has spent the past nine years not even trying to expand his base but just playing to the same MAGA grievances over and over again."
This assumes, first of all, that Trump doesn't believe anything that he's saying, and political discourse is always just a game. He was talking about illegal immigration a few years ago, and he's still doing it. See, he's just "playing to the same MAGA grievances." Brooks is projecting his emptiness onto Trump, who is still "playing to the same MAGA grievances" because they reflect his understanding of a reality in which wage erosion and the decline of the middle class because of labor competition are actual problems. Brooks concludes that Trump is being morally and intellectually consistent, which is a huge failure in his framing. Why is he still saying the same things?
But he also doesn't notice that Trump is campaigning with a growing chorus of rivals, starting with RFK Jr., who's a Democrat and comes from a radically different ideological starting point. Trump is obviously and strategically expanding into new ideological spaces.
Then Brooks says this, just a few paragraphs below the one where he says the parties are locked into their ideological roles and not trying to expand their base: "Class is growing more salient in American life, with Hispanic and Black working-class voters shifting steadily over to the working-class party, the GOP."
How is there a sizable minority shift to the GOP if the parties are locked into the same messaging to the same people and not expanding their bases?
Your discussion of Democrats embracing censorship and rejecting debate, which I agree with completely, also speaks to the assertion Brooks makes, casually, that Republicans are a threat to democracy and Democrats aren't.
Speaking of Trump "saying the same things", there is a clip of Trump on Oprah's show in 1987, where she asked him about an ad he put in the paper expressing that Americans were getting screwed on trade. He said, "I'd make our allies pay their fair share". When he was president he attempted to do that in both trade and defence. So, I'd say that's sticking to principles that most Americans would agree with.
Thanks for this thoughtful response. I want to reread David’s piece before I respond and share what I interpreted his overall argument to be and why I am more sympathetic to it. If you will indulge me, I hope to do that and get a few thoughts over tonight.
I appreciate you engaging with me here, and hope I’m not distracting you from other writing more columns, because I know I’m not the only one who looks forward to reading them.
When I think about great presidents, Abraham Lincoln sits highest on my list. He was an American prophet as far as I’m concerned. Lincoln led us into the bloodiest war in our history — against ourselves — knowing that we would make it out on the other side in tact and truer to our American values.
Ernest Hemingway once wrote:
“The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.”
I think what Hemingway says is true. Certainly it is true of Lincoln, who was undoubtedly very brave.
I mention the story of Lincoln for two reasons.
The first is because Trump was criticized this week for suggesting that slavery was not worth the cost of war. He suggested that Lincoln may not have been a great president because great presidents don’t fight wars they avoid them.
“Lincoln was probably a great president, although I’ve always said, why wasn’t that settled? You know, I’m a guy that—it doesn’t make sense we had a Civil War…. You’d almost say, like, why wasn’t that [settled]? As an example, Ukraine would have never happened, and Russia, if I were president. Israel would have never happened; October 7 would have never happened, as you know.”
Trump was wrong in his understanding of Lincoln’s leadership in the Civil War, and Trump‘s critics were wrong in thinking that Trump was expressing an idea that would have offended Lincoln.
When you read Lincoln’s first inaugural address, it‘s striking how emphatically he was trying to cut a deal with the south to avert war. He even appeared open to return Americans who had escaped from slavery back into it, if I recall correctly.
For Lincoln the unity of the nation the uncompromising principle that he told the south would be the redline of the negotiation. The south ignored him seceded anyway. The south’s fateful decision to cross Lincoln’s redline cost it slavery — as well the idea of independence in the end. But only in Lincoln’s wartime second inaugural address was it clear that Lincoln would take slavery away from the south as a spoil of the Civil War, perhaps knowing that a moral battle made for a more vigorous one.
Lincoln leadership example shows that an American president must prioritize compromise while still upholding strong principles and the unity of the nation itself.
That lesson is the second reason I bring Lincoln in the context of David Brooks’s column. Because its the argument I glean from the final paragraphs of his piece.
Brooks writes:
“The problem for Trump is that he is even better at repelling potential converts than the Democrats….
“The problem for the rest of us is that we’re locked into this perpetual state of suspended animation in which the two parties are deadlocked and nothing ever changes. I keep running into people who are rooting for divided government for the next four years. It will mean that America will be able to do little to solve its problems. They see this as the least bad option.”
I would argue that our biggest problem today is that Americans are so divided and polarized in how we see the other side that we have become blind to all the things we actually agree on and could leverage to move us forward.
You are right that Trump has expanded his coalition and gained ground with working class voters, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, black Americans, etc. But for whatever reason the gains he has made with those groups he has lost with others.
An American president needs the politics of addition in order be effective. After the failed assassination attempt against in Butler, Trump had the opportunity to realize the politics of addition. Instead he selected Vance as his running mate, which energized his base but closed off the opportunity to add voters and unite more Americans.
After Trump chose Vance and Biden was pushed aside, the Democrats could have had a held competitive primary process that included candidates the American people could see as credible mavericks to the unpopular party orthodoxy they despise (Joe Manchin or Bill McRaven are two examples). Instead, they caved into the party orthodoxy and coronated Kamala Harris, who now is trying to run as a moderate but is not viewed as credible.
Had either party chosen the politics of addition when the opportunity presented, they would have positioned themselves to win and more effectively solve problems for the country.
Instead both played the politics of addition and subtraction and we are looking at an election that once again reflects our our paralyzing division rather than solved for it.
Sorry for the long response and for being a day later than planned in getting thoughts over. Yesterday got away from me.
We have a similar problem here in canada, the woke progressives want a bunch of insane rules and laws but they know they cannot get elected on their policies so instead they pack the courts with woke progressive judges and then they pay insane woke progressive activists thru a program called the Court Challenges program to bring lawsuits to have the court rule.
The previous conservative government killed the program but then woke moron Trudeau reinstated it
Here, what Democrats are advancing is even more malign than politicized judicial appointments, which unfortunately has become a political norm but at least still passes through a Constitutional process.
What prominent Democrats are proposing now, should they win power, is an expansion of the Supreme Court from its historic 9 seats to 13. Party leaders want to flip the the ideological balance of the from conservative to liberal with a five new Supreme Court appointments that they would control
.
A similar attempt to pack the court was tried before in American history. It was emphatically rejected by Democrats.
1937, President Franklin D Roosevelt was frustrated that a conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court was consistently ruling against key pieces of his New Deal legislation. In response, FDR introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 —known as “the court packing plan.”
The bill would have allowed FDR to add six of his own justices to the existing nine. Like today, the expansion was politically significant because two liberals occupied the bench already in 1937. With six additional FDR-appointed justices, any New Deal legislation that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 7-2 rulings could be favorably reversed 8-7 with the new justices in place.
FDR’s plan was killed by his own party — the Democrats — which had a supermajority in Congress at the time (control of both the House & Senate)
The Senate Judicary Committee did not mince words when emphatically rejecting his plan, which they saw as a foundational assault on our constitutional democracy. Here is what they wrote:
“The bill is an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country. . . . It is essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy that the judiciary be completely independent of both the executive and legislative branches of the government…
“It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.”
The Democrats talk a lot today about the unique threat to democracy that Trump presents. At the same time, they are perfectly happy to propose policies that party leaders have loudly sounded the alarm about in the recent past and rejected.
Below is a link to the new court packing plan. It is unsettling to hear Democrats running for Senate proudly campaigning on their desire and willingness to push it through.
If you want some real news, spend some time with this thread:
https://x.com/cabot_phillips/status/1847634453998293298
This thread. Oh, my. I don't know what to say. I think I will donate to the veteran's group mentioned in the thread.
Annie Dillard walking Tinker Creek. I wish I'd added that one to the list of surprises.
Sherwood Anderson, Kenzaburo Oe and Paul Bowles was plenty (although I do prefer Bowles' short stories).
Leaving us with Lucinda Williams was a bonus. Happy trails.
She wrote one of my favorite essays. It's lovely. You might enjoy: http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/beste/English1121/Assignments/Profile/Deathofamoth.htm
Thanks for the suggestion, DD, and thanks to Chris for the introduction. I did enjoy.
Ah, but Annie Dillard was a real person not someone trying to be what she wasn't. I have loved her book for 30 years. Her view of the insect world! and the cosmos.
It seems like that's the heart of the thing that's happening across the culture: being vs. seeming, living vs. "trying to be what she wasn't." I feel that in the air.
It is the IS/OUGHT problem writ large.
An American Childhood by Dillard was a great book.
I want to say something profound here. Something moving, inspiring and in as few words as possible. But that is not the skill set I was blessed with. So I'm just going to lay it out there.
I can't even remember how I found your stack. But ever since I did, I scan my mail several times daily, anxiously waiting for your next take on the moment. Your writing had been a stepping stone for me but also so much more. I've been inspired, educated and encouraged. You've made me laugh, cry, ponder, share. You give me hope. I also look so forward to the comments for this community for the same reasons. Most everyone in my circle sees what we see. But three days a week, I drive 25 miles to work and I find myself in a whole different country. Where virtually everyone is consumed with this mind virus. The misery and hate is palpable.i detest confrontation because when I'm angry I don't communicate well. I'm still addicted to a roof and food and I need my job for a little bit longer. So I tamp that shit down, stay out of the fray and laser focus on being the type of co worker that everyone loves to be around. I try to sincerely summon every bit of love and kindness I can muster and it sustains me. My patients have called me an angel four times this week( which may be more than the entire 35 years prior) . I am no angel, but if that's what they see when they spend a totally miserable 10 hours of their life with me, then I feel like I'm on the right track. I'm not losing my humanity. I'm making a connection with someone that would be shocked to know I am a deplorable,a filthy right wing extremist maga supporting Bible thumping gun toting intolerant racist fascist transphobic POS in "real life".
PLEASE don't disappear!!!!
Your writing is a beacon of hope and sanity for me and obviously for so many others here. It makes a difference. ( TOTALLY missed the goal of"as few words as possible, lol) Thank you, Chris. God bless you and your work .
Amen to all of it!
I’ll second that amen.
You write just fine, and from the heart. There's nothing in your post that needs to be changed.
Danny
Wow Sue! You said a lot of something amazing here. That’s how so many of us feel about Chris’ words!
Don’t forget there are many that are like you. We all act to a certain extent. It is great to be awakened though.
Yes! Perfect!
Amen.
Once a month I get a Chris bray notice and I am like “cool, open that first.” But it is just a subscription payment conflation, and I am like, darn… but it is the best money I spend.
Missed the brevity goal, but bullseye on profound. Or at least truth.
RNs are the best!
Well met, ma’am! Very well met!
Nailed it.
I know the feeling
I have an old college friend trying to convince me to read “The Christian Case Against Donald Trump” by Pastor Pat somebody-or-other. Same shit,
different day, another Trump-is-Hitler shouter. No thanks. He was already in office for 4 years and my life was much better than, groceries were affordable, my 401k was making money, and I felt safer and our borders felt slightly secure.
The Hitler figure who produced...peace. How strange our first Hitler era was.
I remember when that orange dictator felt that the states should be in charge of the "pandemic" response, because that was what the Constitution said - what a power hungry madman.
Orange Man Bad Bulimia will just get worse if he wins.
It's only bad if someone listens to them.
I mean them. Regardless you're right, no need to listen to them.
They can't quit gorging on Orange Man Bad "comfort food" and then barfing it out for all to see...and then doing it all again
Orange Man Bulimia. Perfect!!!
🎯
“Oooh, that’s a bingo!” https://youtu.be/O5s3Oj2cPgc
If you’re still looking, you might try “The Case for Trump” by historian Victor Davis Hanson, mainly because, well, Hanson. It’s not so much about Trump as why Trump. It was written in 2018, but the historical perspective is insightful.
Victor Davis Hanson is one of the best!
He updated it this year.
Agree!
Not a book I'd take to Nunavut.
Truth & Falsities; He who wins can change history books.
My question is; What is the truth? Majority of corporate grubberment Pubic educated students were educated/propagandised/brainwashed on false historic events no different to Tavistock MS media.
What is the truth of history? We have been brainwashed that civil history dates back to something BC. Yet there is information that civilisation pre dates > 200,000 years.
What is the truth about human history?
As Napoleon famously said, history is a passel of lies that people have collectively agreed to believe.
"What is the truth about human history?"
Depends who you ask. Or what you read.
The answer is, as always, "We'll never know."
Lots of disappointment out there. But there’s room for hope! Why don’t more Evangelicals vote? Many pastors of large Christian churches have been corrupted by the left. See Megan Basham’s book “Shepard’s For Sale” to see how. Basham is a culture writer for Daily Wire as well. Also many gun owners don’t vote. Ted Nugent tries in that area.
^^^This!^^^
My dear sweet 67-year-old neighbor, retired teacher, shuffles over with her glass of wine often, when she hears my wife and I on our patio. It doesn’t take long before she snaps into a rant about Trump. She is just regurgitating the bile she gets from her TV, which is always on. “Trump is a racist!” but she can’t give a reason why. “Trump hates women!” Blah, blah, blah. She goes into a trance and becomes another person. She cannot be reasoned with. Her two sons avoid her because of it. My wife and I try. She is a good person but her mind has literally been taken over.
I listen to am radio while I drive or work. Every news break is anti Trump propaganda bullshit. Every. Single. Story.
I don’t even like Trump. I tell my neighbor this and she scoffs and says bullshit. I insist I don’t but I can’t even tell her my reasons because my reasons would sound alien to her. But I have fought for unrigged elections for 24 years and I know that mainstream legacy media is the enemy of humanity. If the entire structure of every form of media is rabidly opposed to a man, you can bet I will vote for him.
Just like during the height of the Covid scam, if an author was censored on social media, I wanted to read everything he/she wrote.
I have a similar neighbor-lol, the sweetest old lady you could meet. One day I mentioned Trump’s name and it was like Bilbo Baggins changing faces - “I’d like to cut off his d*ck and put it where his head is!” I was just so dumbfounded I couldn’t believe she said it! 😅. Yep. It’s the TV all right. Can’t wait for the election to be over.
Mad cow disease from the mRNA injections.
Danny
That’s what my wife and I think. She was a lifelong Republican until Trump and she is multi jabbed even though me, my wife and her two sons tried to talk her out of it.
There's a great book that examines what our brains have been through: "The Indoctrinated Brain," by Michael C. Nels. He talks about the role of the mRNA injections among many other factors. Fascinating and illuminating read.
I had a similar convo with a dear, long-time, decidedly un-woke (but generally liberal) friend the other day. We were catching up nicely and then I said something like "yeah there really isn't a good outcome for this election, whichever way it goes" and suddenly, silence on the line. He then expressed in no uncertain terms what he'd like to see done to Trump, things I won't repeat here. I'm no Trump fan but was definitely taken aback. (To be fair, we moved on to other topics and then at the end of the conversation, he did apologize.)
I must admit that reactions like your friend's make me more and more a "Trump fan."
Right? I actually found myself starting to defend Trump.
Same with my mother-in-law. She tells my wife she's afraid of what Trump will do if he's elected. Bizarre. Hmm, maybe similar to what he did the last time (only, please God, no more covid. Please!). So, no wars. Peace. Affordable groceries. Sanity in international relations. Only this time, let's have domestic peace (get a real AG). And maybe this time send JD Vance out to talk to the press. Unfortunately, also, if he wins this time, there will be more blood and fire in the streets. And the deranged press will be even more loud and deranged. I ignore them but for those who feed off that sh*t it'll just mean their brains get further zombified.
Kamala was exactly the same during her interview with Brett. I noticed it when she went off about how Trump is going to kill his American followers. And was ranting about it. It occurred to me that she watches Rachel Maddow and gets her information from there.
propaganda works. But it’s not just that something is repeated so often that it seems like it must be true. It’s also that there is no other story to challenge it. That’s why censorship is so important. How many stories have you heard about trump’s random acts of kindness? Or clips from him clowning with the very people who now call him Hitler? Or his award alongside Rosa Parks?
Here's my prediction, watch for it!
One of them will write that Trump appeals to the worst in us.
gasp
Like
Someone was president from 2017 to 2021. I don't remember who that was. Most of what I do remember from that time is the endless horror of Pussy Hats abandoned by the railroad sidings as the trains pulled away. I also have another memory (or is it a fantasy?) of being able to pay cash for our groceries. Was that ever true?
I don't know if I believe you, Chris. I'd like to, but I have this sinking feeling that you are NOT superhuman and that like the rest of us poor suckers, you CAN'T LOOK AWAY.
18 days. Prove me wrong.
He won't be able to resist....lolol...exactly!
I want to slap her upside the head. Trump doesn't reach the ankles of any of those, when it comes to speech-craft. His only saving grace is his natural buffoonery and being blunt so that he is entertaining.
All her three examples were rather good at public speaking, among the best of their time. Is she so much an ignoramus she confuses their politics with their technique?
First US-Irak war was if I remember correctly also when "embedded reporters" became the standard. The father of a friend of mine explained why: "They'll never make the mistakes they made during Vietnam, when photographers like me could roam freely and actually document what war looks like and what people do to each other." And the he refused to explain further, nor would he open his private, padlocked, filing cabinet where he kept those pictures (and not just from Vietnam, the guy had been in Kongo and other places too) that papers refused to publish.
My point: Can the practice of "embedded reporters" have contributed to, or even caused, what we see to day from US corporate media that they are acting as a part of a one-party state? Journalists and photographers back then protested vehemently against the military having control over where they could go and who they could speak with, both in the US (if I'm not misremembering) and elsewhere, and it mattered not what the political colour of whatever publication they worked: they all opposed any kind of government-adjacent control of content et c.
Does anything of this hodgepodge of memory-ideas match your experiences from that time?
Conservatives in the UK are placing a lot of importance on Trump winning.....even our mainstream media has succumbed to TDS. But then it has a strong, skittle haired left wing bias, so no surprises there. Trump may be a deeply flawed human, but he's smart and sane.
Chris, Not overlooking your primary point, but observing that you were bored in your English class, and assigned extra work..... explains/proves that the talent you display is innate. Keep up the Good Work!! 👍
I’d love if you would make some more reading recommendations. I already plan to read all the books you mentioned in this piece!
Like!
Have you listened to Tucker’s interview with Mark Halperin? Great conversation on politics and the presidential race. At least go to about the two hour mark where he forecasts the reaction to a Trump win. He sees the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/57iLLLG5JX2mqquhBklyPK?si=ezM38MTJQUWJPKGc0y_E2A&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A5L2ON33kXa2b7laBpCAgOI&t=7246
Randy, haven’t watched that one yet, but will. Tucker also sat with Harmeet Dillon, who thoroughly investigated the ho and her legal record. “I prosecuted hundreds of drug dealers” in KH speak actually translates to TEN cases in 10 years in Alameda Co. Not only is KH a liar, she is also one lazy……..Can’t quite use the word since I talk to Chris about his language all the time but you can fill in the blank!
I watched that one as well (I confess to a man crush on Tucker 😂). Love Harmeet and am glad she is in charge of overseeing the election in AZ for the Republicans. She won’t let any sh*t happen without raising a ruckus.
“One lazy” switch/twitch/witch?
Rotate the "W" a quarter turn counterclockwise, draw a vertical line connecting the three points on the left and drop any letters before the newly created letter.
Harmeet is brilliant & a talented knitter/crocheted. Excellent interview.
It is a available also on YouTube and is riveting. Halperin is one of the last true journalists and is appalled at the disintegration of his profession. He still cannot wrap his mind around it.
Kelly was one of my favorite reporters/writers. He was killed when the vehicle he was riding in rolled over. Great loss for all of us, one of the few honest people covering that deep state war Bush launched to get even with Hussein for trying to assassinate his dad. And you're right about these totalitarians who now populate all of the msm, describing anyone who disagrees with them as Hitler, etc. They all can't be suffering from mad cow disease because of the prions they got from the mRNA injections: many are just insane naturally. My guess is that the uniparty members will use massive numbers of illegals/dead people/machine manipulations to gain votes, then dispute the election results, and refusing to certify the Republicans' wins. These writers you mention, and most all the rest of msm and most of the various institutions, will support all the chaos and we will be left with hoping some judges will adhere to the Constitution. Bill of Right, and stare decisis to overturn the many thefts. That's a pretty thin reed to rely on for any justice, as almost every judge and prosecutor, federal, state, and local, with "D" by their names, is not an officer of the court but are Democrat operators. It wouldn't surprise me if sometime in November/December that Biden resigns, collects all the pardons he and gangster family needs from President Harris, and the uniparty members refuse to seat Trump and many other "R"s. The "D"s are good at coup de tats, violent and otherwise. So, Chris, keep writing and we all should keep reading and praying for the Republic.
Danny Huckabee
What is with the Atlantic? Their headlines have been so insane this election cycle, I’ve been taking screen grabs of them for when I need a laugh. They are Repo Man-level darkly hilarious. Get a grip, bitches. Really.
They’ve all become the AIDS Walk ribbon bully from Seinfeld.
Maybe every day of our lives has been April's Fools Day and "Ground Hog Day", rolled into one, all our lives....but we didn't notice it until The Scamdemic?
What a depressing thought!
Good point
They always were!! You’ve just noticed it recently.
Chris,
You take issue with a recent David Brooks column. I’m curious if you mean this one? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/opinion/harris-trump-close-race.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
If this is the one you had in mind, what issues do you have with the piece?
I see two myself:
1. That Brooks downplays the fact that Kamala Harris simply isn’t a credible messenger for the change she is now claiming to represent. Many voters are too familiar with Democrats clothing themselves in moderate policy attire every four years only to abandon it once the election is over (I think we do not buy that Kamala Harris has suddenly become a moderate, given her record); and
2. That Brooks’s asserts that only the Republicans today present a threat to democracy. This is certainly not true — several prominent policy proposals from the Democrats threaten our constitutional system today, even by the expressed standards of the party in the 20th Century. The two most prominent in my mind are the embrace of censorship and the new court packing plan being advanced by prominent Democrats in the Senate.
With that being said, I see those threats as products of the same unpopular progressive orthodoxy that Brooks argues the party should abandon in this piece. So Brook’s prescription is still correct, even if he is guilty of omission in the piece.
For example, the party’s obsession with remaking the Supreme Court so it can be used as a policy making instrument arises, in my view, from the party’s stubborn adherence to a policy agenda that the American people and their representatives in Congress would reject. As long as Democrats cling to to unpopular progressive policy positions that have no chance of becoming law the proper way (through acts of Congress), the party will continue to look for ways around it, including their politicization of the Supreme Court and demand that it greenlight unconstitutional executive actions that allow progressive policies to backdoor into American life without popular support.
Likewise, the party’s concerning embrace of censorship also arises from the party’s unshakable adherence to policies it knows cannot withstand a vigorous public debate. Therefore, free speech (rather than the unpopular policies) become the problem, and censorship becomes their tool of choice .
Those would be my critiques of the piece, which otherwise I found to be insightful.
What are yours?
Chris, thank you also for this excellent Substack; I always look forward to reading your articles.
Will
I could go on and on about this, but let's try to just do a few examples.
Seventh paragraph: "Trump has spent the past nine years not even trying to expand his base but just playing to the same MAGA grievances over and over again."
This assumes, first of all, that Trump doesn't believe anything that he's saying, and political discourse is always just a game. He was talking about illegal immigration a few years ago, and he's still doing it. See, he's just "playing to the same MAGA grievances." Brooks is projecting his emptiness onto Trump, who is still "playing to the same MAGA grievances" because they reflect his understanding of a reality in which wage erosion and the decline of the middle class because of labor competition are actual problems. Brooks concludes that Trump is being morally and intellectually consistent, which is a huge failure in his framing. Why is he still saying the same things?
But he also doesn't notice that Trump is campaigning with a growing chorus of rivals, starting with RFK Jr., who's a Democrat and comes from a radically different ideological starting point. Trump is obviously and strategically expanding into new ideological spaces.
Then Brooks says this, just a few paragraphs below the one where he says the parties are locked into their ideological roles and not trying to expand their base: "Class is growing more salient in American life, with Hispanic and Black working-class voters shifting steadily over to the working-class party, the GOP."
How is there a sizable minority shift to the GOP if the parties are locked into the same messaging to the same people and not expanding their bases?
Your discussion of Democrats embracing censorship and rejecting debate, which I agree with completely, also speaks to the assertion Brooks makes, casually, that Republicans are a threat to democracy and Democrats aren't.
Speaking of Trump "saying the same things", there is a clip of Trump on Oprah's show in 1987, where she asked him about an ad he put in the paper expressing that Americans were getting screwed on trade. He said, "I'd make our allies pay their fair share". When he was president he attempted to do that in both trade and defence. So, I'd say that's sticking to principles that most Americans would agree with.
Clip here: https://rumble.com/v5jojgd-watch-the-moment-charlamagne-tha-god-realizes-that-dems-have-been-lying-all.html?start=474
Chris,
Thanks for this thoughtful response. I want to reread David’s piece before I respond and share what I interpreted his overall argument to be and why I am more sympathetic to it. If you will indulge me, I hope to do that and get a few thoughts over tonight.
I appreciate you engaging with me here, and hope I’m not distracting you from other writing more columns, because I know I’m not the only one who looks forward to reading them.
Have a great day!
Will
Post your thoughts -- happy to read them.
Chris,
When I think about great presidents, Abraham Lincoln sits highest on my list. He was an American prophet as far as I’m concerned. Lincoln led us into the bloodiest war in our history — against ourselves — knowing that we would make it out on the other side in tact and truer to our American values.
Ernest Hemingway once wrote:
“The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.”
I think what Hemingway says is true. Certainly it is true of Lincoln, who was undoubtedly very brave.
I mention the story of Lincoln for two reasons.
The first is because Trump was criticized this week for suggesting that slavery was not worth the cost of war. He suggested that Lincoln may not have been a great president because great presidents don’t fight wars they avoid them.
“Lincoln was probably a great president, although I’ve always said, why wasn’t that settled? You know, I’m a guy that—it doesn’t make sense we had a Civil War…. You’d almost say, like, why wasn’t that [settled]? As an example, Ukraine would have never happened, and Russia, if I were president. Israel would have never happened; October 7 would have never happened, as you know.”
Trump was wrong in his understanding of Lincoln’s leadership in the Civil War, and Trump‘s critics were wrong in thinking that Trump was expressing an idea that would have offended Lincoln.
When you read Lincoln’s first inaugural address, it‘s striking how emphatically he was trying to cut a deal with the south to avert war. He even appeared open to return Americans who had escaped from slavery back into it, if I recall correctly.
For Lincoln the unity of the nation the uncompromising principle that he told the south would be the redline of the negotiation. The south ignored him seceded anyway. The south’s fateful decision to cross Lincoln’s redline cost it slavery — as well the idea of independence in the end. But only in Lincoln’s wartime second inaugural address was it clear that Lincoln would take slavery away from the south as a spoil of the Civil War, perhaps knowing that a moral battle made for a more vigorous one.
Lincoln leadership example shows that an American president must prioritize compromise while still upholding strong principles and the unity of the nation itself.
That lesson is the second reason I bring Lincoln in the context of David Brooks’s column. Because its the argument I glean from the final paragraphs of his piece.
Brooks writes:
“The problem for Trump is that he is even better at repelling potential converts than the Democrats….
“The problem for the rest of us is that we’re locked into this perpetual state of suspended animation in which the two parties are deadlocked and nothing ever changes. I keep running into people who are rooting for divided government for the next four years. It will mean that America will be able to do little to solve its problems. They see this as the least bad option.”
I would argue that our biggest problem today is that Americans are so divided and polarized in how we see the other side that we have become blind to all the things we actually agree on and could leverage to move us forward.
You are right that Trump has expanded his coalition and gained ground with working class voters, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, black Americans, etc. But for whatever reason the gains he has made with those groups he has lost with others.
An American president needs the politics of addition in order be effective. After the failed assassination attempt against in Butler, Trump had the opportunity to realize the politics of addition. Instead he selected Vance as his running mate, which energized his base but closed off the opportunity to add voters and unite more Americans.
After Trump chose Vance and Biden was pushed aside, the Democrats could have had a held competitive primary process that included candidates the American people could see as credible mavericks to the unpopular party orthodoxy they despise (Joe Manchin or Bill McRaven are two examples). Instead, they caved into the party orthodoxy and coronated Kamala Harris, who now is trying to run as a moderate but is not viewed as credible.
Had either party chosen the politics of addition when the opportunity presented, they would have positioned themselves to win and more effectively solve problems for the country.
Instead both played the politics of addition and subtraction and we are looking at an election that once again reflects our our paralyzing division rather than solved for it.
Sorry for the long response and for being a day later than planned in getting thoughts over. Yesterday got away from me.
Have a great week!
Packing the Supreme Court.
We have a similar problem here in canada, the woke progressives want a bunch of insane rules and laws but they know they cannot get elected on their policies so instead they pack the courts with woke progressive judges and then they pay insane woke progressive activists thru a program called the Court Challenges program to bring lawsuits to have the court rule.
The previous conservative government killed the program but then woke moron Trudeau reinstated it
Hi Pat,
Thanks for sharing what you are seeing up north.
Here, what Democrats are advancing is even more malign than politicized judicial appointments, which unfortunately has become a political norm but at least still passes through a Constitutional process.
What prominent Democrats are proposing now, should they win power, is an expansion of the Supreme Court from its historic 9 seats to 13. Party leaders want to flip the the ideological balance of the from conservative to liberal with a five new Supreme Court appointments that they would control
.
A similar attempt to pack the court was tried before in American history. It was emphatically rejected by Democrats.
1937, President Franklin D Roosevelt was frustrated that a conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court was consistently ruling against key pieces of his New Deal legislation. In response, FDR introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 —known as “the court packing plan.”
The bill would have allowed FDR to add six of his own justices to the existing nine. Like today, the expansion was politically significant because two liberals occupied the bench already in 1937. With six additional FDR-appointed justices, any New Deal legislation that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 7-2 rulings could be favorably reversed 8-7 with the new justices in place.
FDR’s plan was killed by his own party — the Democrats — which had a supermajority in Congress at the time (control of both the House & Senate)
The Senate Judicary Committee did not mince words when emphatically rejecting his plan, which they saw as a foundational assault on our constitutional democracy. Here is what they wrote:
“The bill is an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country. . . . It is essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy that the judiciary be completely independent of both the executive and legislative branches of the government…
“It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.”
The Democrats talk a lot today about the unique threat to democracy that Trump presents. At the same time, they are perfectly happy to propose policies that party leaders have loudly sounded the alarm about in the recent past and rejected.
Below is a link to the new court packing plan. It is unsettling to hear Democrats running for Senate proudly campaigning on their desire and willingness to push it through.
https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-markey-colleagues-push-to-expand-supreme-court-amidst-crisis-of-confidence#:~:text=Schiff%2C%20would%20expand%20the%20United,the%20eyes%20of%20the%20American