So, I had an interesting run-in with some Trumpers today, and it's story worth telling. (Mute now if you're not into story time.) I was part of a panel at Harvard talking about the Helsinki summit. Afterwards, two middle-aged women had some, er, questions. /1
During the talk, I had said (in response to a question) that Helsinki was not going to move the needle on Trump's base support, not least because the Trump base is willfully ignorant and refuses to hear anything they don't like about the summit or about Russia at all. /2
After the talk, they wanted a debate. "Did you say I'm willfully evil?" one asked me. I said: "No, I said you're willfully ignorant." Much spluttering. (Both were immigrants, btw: India and post-Soviet region.) /3
Both did the standard Trump thing: talking at me in a fusillade of words punctuated with questions that they would not let me answer. This is a compulsion with Trumpers: they must - *must* - constantly explain to you why they *had* to vote for Trump. /4
There was the standard litany of phantom Trump successes, including - really - that Trump is "taking jobs away from foreigners and making them give them back to Americans." When I brought up foreign workers at Mar A Lago, they agreed: Bad. But Trump? Good. /5
Finally, I said: "Look, what you believe to be true is false. The things you think are facts are not facts. We can't go further here." This elicited lots of fast talking about why false things were true, and why Trump is generally awesome. /6
Finally, one of them said: "You should respect my view and not call me ignorant. That's not reasonable" I said: "You are not a reasonable person, and this is not really a discussion where I can respect your view. You think Trump is doing great. I think he's a disaster." /7
To which she said, and I quote: "Well, he's not as bad as Obamanation." I said: "Obamanation?" She said: "That's what he was, an abomination."
This was the person who had just implored me to be respectful and reasonable. I rolled my eyes and she left. /8
The other lady was nicer, and said that I was the only Never Trumper she'd met she thought was funny and engaging. (Hmph. Many of us are.) But I finally said: "These things you think are happening aren't really happening." /9
She said, out of nowhere: "Well, I supported Obama. But I couldn't vote for Hillary." I said: "That's irrelevant to what's happening now, isn't it?" She then launched into the Hillary Crimes Litany. I said, again: But that's not relevant *now*. We then parted amicably. /10
My point? These two people will never, ever change their minds. They are not accessible to reason. They demand agreement and respect, even when they don't give it and are themselves unreasonable. This is the cohort that neither the GOP post-Trump nor Dems will ever reach. /10
They were flummoxed when I said: "I don't respect that view. Your facts are not accurate. You are not reasonable." They were used to people deferring to them in a more polite way, I guess. (One of them did say it was kind of refreshing that I was honest with her. Yay, me.) /11
Still, it was a reminder that facts and reason are useless. I'm pretty hard to talk over, and these ladies were like being caught between two North Korean televisions. What they wanted, like most Trumpers, was to explain to you at length why Obama and Clinton are evil. /12
I think it solidified for me that these types of Trumpers are just lost. They're not going to climb down, change their minds, listen to new information. Trump really could shoot them on Fifth Avenue. There's no point in discussion, because they don't *discuss*, they *preach*. /13
No rational or fact-based politics will reach these folks. I hate to say that, because I believe in the power of reason and facts. But they're gone. Some of them are nice people, but dumb. Some of them are just bad people. But rationality isn't going to change much here. /14x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The same people who had an aneurysm about Lloyd Austin going AWOL for two days are going to defend Hegseth, the most reckless and unqualified SECDEF in history, to the bitter end. /1
You know better than this, @cdrsalamander, and I know that from talking to you. Your comments are in bad faith. But for others who are curious, I'll explain.
NWC's curriculum revision 50 years ago was to prevent another civil-military failure on the level of Vietnam. /1
VADM Turner was explicit about this, and it's been a guiding principle ever since to make sure that NWC graduates are intelligent strategic contributors in the room, instead of pure operators who have no idea how to advise or confer with civilians. /2
Sal is focused on about 30 minutes of a 90 minute seminar out of some 20 meetings. But as I told my students: You need to recognize what drives the arguments of the civilians in the room. If you don't, you'll be the guy sent out for coffee while the grownups talk. /3
The Israelis are calling this a "preemptive" strike. Whether you agree or disagree with this attack, these are not - from what we know tonight - "preemptive" strikes. The Israelis are using that word for a reason. Read on. /1
In tradition and international law, a "preemptive" attack is a spoiling attack, meant to strike an enemy who is *imminently* going to strike you. This is what Israel did in 1967, getting the jump on Arab armies that were about to attack. That's usually permissable. /2
What's going on right now are *preventive* strikes, which are usually NOT permissable in law or tradition. This is striking an enemy far in advance, because you believe time and situation is favorable to you. That, for example, is Japan striking the US in 1941. /3
I might have more to say later, but all the reviews of Carter's presidency emphasize his character, his success in the Mideast, and inflation/gas prices.
But left out of all that: His Cold War policies were abject failures and left America in a precarious situation by 1980. /1
Not only did the Soviets run wild during Carter's presidency, they hated him personally, seeing him as an unserious man giving them Sunday School lectures. Some of America's allies felt the same way, esp after Carter hosed the Germans on the neutron bomb issue. /2
When Carter finally became a born-again Cold Warrior in late 1978, he amped up multiple nuclear programs (which people mistakenly associate with Reagan) and in 1980 issued PD-59, a pretty extreme nuclear warfighting doctrine that convinced Moscow that he was completely nuts. /3