This level of un-self-critical unsophistication is really toxic. Vance is trying desperately to be worse than Mandel, in hopes of winning an R Senate seat. Good luck winning a race to the bottom against Mandel. He's cynical. But Dreher? He believes it. 1/ theamericanconservative.com/dreher/free-ky… 
Dreher should know better. He's not a baby. Dreher should be able to step back from his own view and see the shape of it and see why that's unacceptable in a free society. What is he asking for? 2/
He's asking that we just recognize the 'good people' (people like Kyle) and the 'bad people' (on the other side) and we use the law to shield the 'good people' - don't put THEM on trial! they are good guys! - from the 'bad' - who get no such legal protection if shot dead. 3/
The idea that Rittenhouse shouldn't even be on trial, since we should just see he is a 'good guy' and the other guys were 'bad guys' is legal-moral thinking worthy of a 5-year old, not a 50+ year old. Vance knows better but he doesn't care. Dreher seems not to know better. 4/
It's regression. Five years ago, if you'd asked Dreher a hypothetical he's know the right answer: suppose a 17-year old idiot takes a powerful gun to a protest march, looking for trouble; there is violence & he kills people but maybe they attacked him? Should there be a trial? 5/
But now his answer is: depends whether the kid is a 'good guy', meaning 'one of us'. If he is part of MY tribe there shouldn't be a trial.
That's nuts. I despair about how the era of Trump has ethically eviscerated cons like Dreher who aren't even Trumpers.
Argh. 7/
That's nuts. I despair about how the era of Trump has ethically eviscerated cons like Dreher who aren't even Trumpers.
Argh. 7/
I suppose Dreher would say: that's not what I meant. But then: what does he mean? 8/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
