Zyklon B

[M]ost people living in the United States today—certainly more than half—are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term.

My blood ran cold when I read those words. 

It was in the New York Times that I came across that assertion (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/opinion/trump-republican-party.html). That article linked to another article in Vox (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/4/1/22356594/conservatives-right-wing-democracy-claremont-ellmers), which in turn linked to the fons et origo of the quote, an essay by Glenn Ellmers entitled “‘Conservatism’ is no Longer Enough” in a publication of the Claremont Institute, The American Mind (https://americanmind.org/salvo/why-the-claremont-institute-is-not-conservative-and-you-shouldnt-be-either/).

In an earlier post, I pointed out that those entities known as “think tanks” are places where anything but thinking is rewarded. What the tanks spew out is propaganda in support of their political or economic bias. I recall reading several years ago about a miscreant being booted out of a conservative tank for deviating from the party line. I wish I had bothered to save the page.

The party line of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy (to give it its full name) was clearly stated by Ellmers in his essay:

Claremont was one of the very few serious institutions on the right to make an intellectual case for Trumpism.

Whether Claremont elsewhere was able to amass enough brainpower to make such an “intellectual” case is not important at the moment, as we focus on Ellmers’ article. Actually, one can dispose of the intellectual pretense of the piece by red-flagging two fallacies that its argument has at its heart: The “No-True-Scotsman” fallacy and solipsism. 

The “No-True-Scotsman” fallacy is an attempt to preserve the purity of one’s prejudices by defining out any examples that are contradictory (https://drnormalvision.blogspot.com/2011/06/drop-puck.html). Thus, Ellmers alleges that his political opponents do not share the beliefs and attitudes which he claims are those of “True Americans”: 

They do not believe in, live by, or even like the principles, traditions, and ideals that until recently defined America as a nation and as a people.

What are the beliefs of “True Americans”? Why those that Ellmers solipsistically has established as reality in his own little mind.

In truth, Ellmers does not bother to exemplify what separates the “True” from the “False” Americans. All discussion is conducted on a plane of miasmic abstraction and vagueness. He claims, 

[a]uthentic Americans still want to have decent lives. They want to work, worship, raise a family, and participate in public affairs without being treated as insolent upstarts in their own country. Therefore, we need a conception of a stable political regime that allows for the good life.

What in hell does that signify? Do Ellmers’ opponents not want to “work, worship, raise a family, etc”?

But somehow it all comes down to “[t]he U.S. Constitution no longer works.” 

So what to do?

Accept the fact that what we need is a counter-revolution. Learn some useful skills, stay healthy, and get strong. (One of my favorite weightlifting coaches likes to say, “Strong people are harder to kill, and more useful generally.”)

This counter-revolution (“true” patriots revolting against their own country?) is to prevent “the victory of progressive tyranny.” “See you in the gulag,” says Ellmers.

Need we point out that from the Trumpian chants of “Lock her up!” and “Hang Mike Pence” to the erection of a gallows on the Capitol grounds it has been the rightwingers who have threatened punishment and death? And it is Ellmers who brings killing into the equation.

*

And so when Ellmers ends his piece with the call: “It’s all hands on deck now,” my blood runs cold. What would ensue in the wake of a triumph by Ellmersian forces? How do you rule over an America where more than half the population are allegedly unAmerican and would stand as a threat to those “True” Americans who want to work and (need we be reminded) worship? Ellmers has gulags on his mind (better us, he’s probably thinking, than the other guys setting them up). But how are you going to contain 81 million people who voted for Biden?

Surely they'll come up with a better way of nullifying non-American Americans.

My blood runs cold.  

 

On the Brink of Extinction?

The New York Times Magazine has just printed a long article (1) on the fate of the Northern White Rhinoceros. There are only two of them left—Najin and Fatu—both females. Thus, sometime in the near future, there will no longer be any Northern White Rhinos.

*

  

In the United States we have male and female RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), derisively called that by many right-wing members of that political party. Here are two entries on Google:

The latter attack on RINOs is especially suspect, as Trump, after registering as a Republican in 1987, subsequently changed his party affiliation five times:

In 1999, Trump changed his party affiliation to the Independence Party of New York. In August 2001, Trump changed his party affiliation to Democratic. In September 2009, Trump changed his party affiliation back to the Republican Party. In December 2011, Trump changed to "no party affiliation” (Independent). In April 2012, Trump again returned to the Republican Party. (2)

One’s suspicion must be that Trump is hardly a person to adhere to a rigorously-held ideological position.

Yet Trump and his minions have been quick to tar other members of the GOP (many of them past leaders and standard bearers who have espoused long-held Republican policies) as traitors to the party. 

Now if you were good boys and girls and read the previous post on this blog—“See Who Salutes” (3)—you should be able to identify what we have here. That’s right, a classic case of “No-True-Scotsman.”

Labeling those they disagree with as RINOs (read “Traitors”) is an attempt by fanatics to exclude others from the ranks of the party by means of re-definition and, thereby, presumably to purify its soul. The RINOs are not true Republicans, according to the fanatics. Only those who blindly follow Trump down every manhole and through every sewer (4) are true members of the GOP, they scream. 

Since Hamlet’s original quotation has often been misinterpreted, I will offer a paraphrase:

It is more honorable not to follow the Trumpian mishegas than to observe it. 

***

(1)  

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/magazine/the-last-two-northern-white-rhinos-on-earth.html?searchResultPosition=6

(2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#:~:text=Trump%20registered%20as%20a%20Republican,his%20party%20affiliation%20five%20times.

(3)

https://drnormalvision.blogspot.com/2021/01/see-who-salutes.html

(4)

The GOP nominating convention didn’t publish a party platform. How the RINOs can be ideologically impure when there is no ideology—just the whims of DJT—is a conundrum I leave to others to deal with.

Drop the Puck

On Wednesday evening for the third time in the forty-year history of their National Hockey League franchise, the Vancouver Canucks were defeated (this time by the Boston Bruins) in the finals of the Stanley Cup playoff (they have never won the Cup, the ultimate prize in ice hockey). And for the second time in the Canucks’ Stanley Cup playoff history, after the defeat a riot ensued in downtown Vancouver. According to The Canadian Press, “Rioters burned cars, smashed windows and looted stores in the city centre for several hours on Wednesday. . . .The riot caused millions of dollars in damage, left at least 150 injured, including nine police officers.”

Who was to blame for the riot?

Again quoting The Canadian Press (via tsn.ca):

Goaltender Roberto Luongo said it was disturbing to watch images of Wednesday's riot.

"It was disappointing. Those were not the real Vancouver fans that were doing that," said Luongo.

"I think it was isolated groups. It was tough to watch that something like that happened to the city."

Other players echoed Luongo's comments that the team's devoted fans couldn't have had anything to do with the riot.

The responses of the Canucks players were following the line set down by the team’s management. General Manager Mike Gillis claimed, "Those aren't our fans who were doing that."

***

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking (1975)

*

Flew has given the name “No-true-Scotsman move” to the attempts by debaters to shift the boundaries of evidence to exclude from one’s side all examples that would reflect negatively on one’s argument. And it is a very popular ploy. As the philosopher Julian Baggini has stated:

One reason why the no-true-Scotsman move is so tempting is because none of us likes to think that we keep company with people we find abhorrent.