American Tribal Warfare: Red Tribe v. Blue Tribe

I often observe that American politics have become tribal.  It is an unfortunate human tendency to divide up into groups and then decide that some other group over there is really, really awful and an existential threat to your own group.  This is where I see politics today.  Sure, there are still real policy disagreements, but these can shift so much one has to wonder if people are taking a position based on real, rational evaluation or simply because the rival tribe has taken the opposite position.  Just look at shifting red/blue attitudes on Russia.  The Left hated drone strikes under GWB but have gone silent on them with Obama, despite Obama actually ordering more of them.   Republicans denounce Obama's executive orders on immigration as unconstitutional but welcome them from Trump.  Policy issues are no longer things to be solved, but are merely props to generate outrage and over which to score points in the left-right tribal warfare.

This post from Warden at Ace of Spades, which is  being greeted with cheers on the Right, is the best example I have seen in a while of political tribal warfare:

This same indifference that helped Trump carry the election has continued into the early days of his administration. With it comes a refreshingly freeing state of mind. Personally, I don't feel in any way responsible for Trump, nor do I feel compelled to defend him against attack.

Why? Because I voted for retribution.

"He's think-skinned and petty!" shrieks the left. "He takes everything personally!"

Good, I say. I want him to take attacks personally and deal out payback. I know I won't be the target, you will be.

"He's unpresidential! He'll destroy the integrity of the office!"

No, that's already happened. Remember, you elected a shit-talking jackass who takes selfies at state funerals when he's not giving stealth middle fingers to his opponents during debates. There is no dignity of the office, not after Clinton and Obama.

"He's a narcissist! He's got totalitarian impulses!"

Yes, he's basically a mirror version of Obama. Except now, he'll be working for what I want. The end justifies the means. You taught me that

....

I literally don't care what Donald Trump does because nothing he can do is worse than what they've already done.

Donald Trump isn't the bully; he only insults and abuses people in power who have attacked him. They're the fucking bullies. The left, with their smears, their witch hunts, their slanders, their insults, their riots, their violence, and their weaponizing of the federal bureaucracy.

There aren't any rules anymore because the left only applies them one way. And in doing so, they've left what once was a civil compact between the two parties in smoldering ruins.

I have no personal investment in Donald Trump. He is a tool to punish the left and roll back their ill-gotten gains, no more and no less. If he succeeds even partially in those two things, then I'll consider his election a win.

Further, I no longer have any investment in any particular political values, save one: The rules created by the left will be applied to the left as equally and punitively as they have applied them to the right. And when they beg for mercy, I'll begin to reconsider. Or maybe not. Because fuck these people.

Here is an example of the approving reception for this on the Right

We personally hope, as we’re sure that Warden does, that President Trump goes on to accomplish much greater things. All of our futures depend on it, after all. But even if all he does is to make the Prozis feel the pain that normal Americans have had shoved in their faces for 8 damnable years, if all he does is finally wake the limp wrists on our side up to the simple fact that it’s not wrong if you’re just turning the tables on the swine, using their own methods against them until they come crawling on their bellies, begging for peace, then we’ll take it as a solid win.

It’s wrong to kick somebody in the nuts, we’ve taught our Heirs that ever since they got old enough to potentially get in a fight, but it’s NOT wrong to do so if the dishonorable piece of shit facing you tries to do it to you first. And if he tries and succeeds, then you need to work on your technique and reflexes.

It’s never, ever wrong to use the enemy’s rule book against himself. He wrote it, not you, he made the choice when he deemed it acceptable to use his methods against you, when he showed up to a debate armed with a rifle, he made it OK to shoot him in the face with your own, and if you insist on resorting to limp notes of disapproval, then you’re the idiot, not him.

The other element I see in both statements is a strong flavor of the playground justification "the other guy started it!"  This is self-serving crap.   There is no good justification for violating the norms of rational civil discourse, or worse, for violating the rule of law.  None.  Every tyrant in all of history has justified their actions based on "the other guy started it".  Up to and including Hitler, who justified brownshirt tactics on the violence of communist groups who "started it".

I read blogs from the Left and Right in equal measure.  I have friends from both the far Left and far Right.  Hell, I have family from the far Left and far Right.  And I can tell you something -- every member of the Left and Right absolutely believe, without possibility of contradiction, that:

  • Their side loses too often because the other side use bare knuckle tactics and their side is too polite.
  • Their side does bad things only because the other side started it.
  • Matthew Slyfield

    The system is broken, irreparably broken.

    There is no way to fix it other than to burn the existing system to the ground and start over from scratch.

    However, that will involve much pain and suffering and likely not a little bloodshed and there is at best a 50/50 chance that what ever we build to replace the existing system will actually be an improvement.

  • J_W_W

    In the past 10 years, how many Progressives have lost their businesses and livelihoods because of having the "wrong" political views, how many Conservatives?

    You know this yourself, you have told stories of this blog about how you as a businessman were set up to be sued due to the insane progressive slant of California laws. It wasn't Conservative lawmakers setting you and your company up for a fall.

    On the gay marriage issue you fully supported the Progressives in letting people live their lives as they wished. And it was a noble cause. You also felt the knife in your back when you didn't use those earned rights to go after Conservatives, or just to simply allow people more liberty, revenge had to be meted out. Gay marriage wasn't a just natural right (your viewpoint) is was a dividing wedge... The losers couldn't just go home and sulk, they were tormented.

    It used to be that the saying "Republicans think Democrats are stupid, Democrats thing Republicans are evil." was true. Now Republicans are Sick and Tired of being told over and over and over how EVIL we are. This is the "screw it" moment. Conservatives, people by their nature slow to act, people generally primarily concerned with what is happening in a fairly small circle around them, are being attacked as racist, sexist, homophobic, islomophobic, etc. with it being made clear that they WILL NOT be forgiven and the attacks WILL NOT let up.

    These people are pissed (I as one of these people am pissed). All I want is to be left alone on many aspects of my life, and they want to politically judge me (and condemn me) for any and EVERY action I take, NO FACET OF LIFE is left unpoliticized. JUST LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!! Stop bullying me! And really stop bullying my kind good hearted incredibly gracious college age son for his skin color and his sex.... The way he or any other white man on campus is getting treated these days is terrifying....

    I've lost all hope that America can survive (part of this is the belief I now have that the left doesn't actually want it to).... And it doesn't matter how much you say who started it doesn't matter, because it does. You know who started it and you know who's driving politics to be an all encompassing factor of everyone's life, complete with lists of "those to be shunned". Hell, in Hollywood its not even acceptable to say "wait and see how it turns out" without being vilified (see Nicole Kidman). Its sure as hell not the libertarians, and its not the conservatives, who are driving division and driving fragmentation and driving hatred and driving intolerance and driving destruction....

    We did not start this, yet every time we ask the bullies to stop, they just come after us harder....

  • Mr. Generic

    Wake me up when the bombings start again: https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/

    Until then, this is all just talking about talking.

    The system isn't broken. We've had a good run of 25 years of mildly annoying crap thanks to the Soviet Union collapsing. And now we are experiencing the mildest form of social agitation. This isn't 1968 and the spawning of the Days of Rage. This isn't 1930 in Germany.

    This is 2017 after the election of a guy who appealed to blue collar workers in a handful of states that Democrats had thought were firmly in their control.

  • Selrahc Noone

    If I see your roof leaking I will do you the favor of setting fire to your house, because that is what you have told me is how you want to solve that problem. If your house catches fire from leaky roof I deny all involvement. 😀 There will likely be massive damage and property damage possible loss of life depending on if anyone is in your house at the time, but hey, you have a good 50/50 chance of building a house with a less leaky roof.

  • Nehemiah

    Civil discourse? Has a nice ring. Just feel the openness at a BLM rally or how about a pro-life person at the women's march last weekend? Of course you can go on any college campus and have a robust, free ranging discussion without fear of being shouted down.

    Civil discourse, my a**. What do you do when someone with an opposing view just puts their hands over their ears and shouts, na, na, na, over and over?

  • Mars Jackson

    For years politics has been looking more and more like sports. Republicans and Democrats look more like the rivalry between the Yankees and Red Sox, or Ohio State and Michigan than a serious discussion about what is best for everyone. To many voters have gotten wrapped up in being for team Democrat or team Republican rather than reviewing the policies of individual candidates and choosing the ones that might do best for the people. Just look at how many internet discussions turn into people raging about "libtards" or "Nazi republicans". The hyperbole resembles college football in the way it is echoed across the nation more than anything.

    If there is one great thing about Donald Trump it is that he is a disrupter. I believe that his ability to drive both Democrats and Republicans into fits may be the best thing to happen to the federal government. He will either do a lot of great stuff for the country, or congress, the supreme court , and the states will begin to fight him and help to role back the executive branches powers, which have become too numerous in recent times. For those of us who are independents, it's quite fun watching the parties tear themselves apart because they have built the path that led to the U.S having Trump as president, yet both are incapable of acknowledging their complicity in his ascendence.

  • slocum

    And the worse the tribal warfare gets, the more alienated I feel as a libertarian from both the red and blue teams.

  • Matthew Slyfield

    You are a fool.

    Your leaking roof metaphor is not appropriate.

    A leaking roof is reparable (unless the leak is ignored for a long time) but it is possible for a
    house to be so severely compromised that tearing it down and building a new house is the only viable option..

    Our government/political system has far bigger and more systemic problems than a leaking roof.

    Our government is on the edge of collapsing under it's own weight. If undisturbed, it could stand for a long time, but a small disturbance could push it over the edge at any time.

  • Mars Jackson

    I'm a right leaning, libertarian leaning independent, and I think that we may be arising at a period in history where the parties are in for a big shake up. Every year fewer and fewer people are registering for a political party preferring to register as independents. Donald Trump is the closest thing this country has seen to an independent candidate, perhaps in its entire history. I thing more and more people feel alienated from both parties, and especially at the federal level of government. I also thing a moderate, charismatic libertarian could really make substantial gains in a national election if the libertarians can find one. In other words, it may be discouraging looking at politics right now, but the future could be very bright.

  • jimc5499

    and if we slap them down then we are the ones who are violent.

  • J_W_W

    The missing fact here though is that sports fans conflict over Sports. In other areas of live sports fans generally get along rather amicably. After the game most fans shake off the loss and congratulate the other team and its fans, and move on.

    We are in a political situation where one sides team lost and now they want to destroy the other teams stadium....

  • Hal_10000

    The thing is that most people in this country are pretty reasonable. I am from a conservative family but work in academia. So I have to deal with people from both sides. And sometimes we argue, sometimes heatedly. But sometimes we find things to agree on.

    The problem is that the media loves the screamers. It encourages people to scream. Reasonable people yield the floor to screamers. It's entertainment. And so, here we are, a country of 300 million semi-reasonable people being controlled by a few million crazies and convinced that the crazies represent everyone they disagree with.

  • ColoComment

    If the federal government were not trying to restrict, manipulate and manage so many details of our 300 million plus lives that ought to be under our individual control & responsibility, I doubt we'd see this kind of vituperative division in the populace.
    With just a titch of hyperbole, it seems that virtually everything from the puddles in our backyard to what lights our houses to who's sitting on the commode in the stall next to us is subject, under pain of penalty, to the strong-arming "guidance" from nameless bureaucrats in D.C. who believe they know what's best for you and me better than we do.
    Numerous domestic social changes have been mandated nationally, not by discussion, debate, compromise and mutually acceptable decision-making by our duly-elected representatives in Congress who would reflect the [slowly] evolving social mores of their constituents, but by nine people on the Supreme Court or by one man (and his agencies) issuing orders and guidelines. That's not how this republic was designed to work, and it's why it seems to be falling apart.
    The left/Dems/progressives reach (via the Court & administrative agencies) for greater and broader control over what we may and may not do, may and may not think, may and may not say, and the right/Repubs/conservatives have dutifully tugged their collective forelocks & done little to nothing to rein them in. Ergo, Trump.
    I don't know of any government that has voluntarily reduced itself in size and reach: does anyone here know of one?

  • chembot

    "The other element I see in both statements is a strong flavor of the playground justification "the other guy started it!" This is self-serving crap."

    Of course, the other side of this coin says that unilateral disarmament is idiotic. Obama's chicago style thug-mode politics did grave damage to whatever little comity may have existed between the parties. It may be that the left needs to be beat with it's own tactics before we can all step back from the brink. I hope so, because the other alternative (one which I view ever more likely) is a violent break-up of the country.

    Certainly I see some justice in seeing large parts of Obamacare go out exactly the way it came in. Certainly I think that if they are willing to blow up the comity of the senate, probably permanently, by invoking the "nuclear option" out of political expendiency for confirming judges democrats should expect republicans to pay them in the same coin. In my view, that is not self-serving, it is merely an application of the golden rule.

    The real long term answer of course is to let the 10th amendment work as intended and defederalize most things and strip a lot of power from the supreme court. If states rights actually meant anything, New York and California would have no problem coexisting with South Carolina and Wyoming, the cultural values they enshrined in their legal systems would largely be isolated from one another. Good luck with that though. Fat chance that happens though. As much as I lament it, libertarian philosophy will never succeed because it seems to not take into account that the basic human desire is not necessarily for freedom but for meddling in others affairs.

  • If one side insists on weaponizing government, don't expect the other side to sit back and not choose their own weapons in return.

    Maybe Poli Sci professors teaching the students too stupid for real majors should ease up on the Alinsky and double down on the constitution.

  • John Say

    It is more complex than that.

    The left abuses words like violence and force - making words, thoughts, almost anyyhing into force, agression and violence.

    But the use of government to infringe on liberty IS VIOLENCE.

    Self defense is legitimate.

  • stan

    I don't give a damn what people 'believe' about who started what. I look at facts. Ted Kennedy started the nastiness with judicial appointments. Period. Not debatable. The news media is dominated by left-wing bias. Fact. Tea Party rallies were clean, peaceful and polite. Lefty rallies are nasty, violent, and rude. Undeniable. One side uses nasty slanders all the time. We all know which side. No legitimate argument about who does it.

    Krauthammer was right. And Pelosi just confirmed it.

  • stan

    false equivalence is ugly.

  • John Say

    I have been deeply troubled since the election for reasons related to this discussion.

    I am incredibly happy that Clinton did not win.
    I am not happy that Trump did.

    I am supportive of some of what Trump has done thus far, opposed to some. and prepared to wait and see on many things.

    I support the right of others to protest - even those things I agree with.

    But even when I agree with the protesters - I do not want to be standing next to them.

    It is not just about tit for tat, it is that far to many protesting Trump do not have the moral authority to do so.

    If you supported Obama's breaches of the rule of law - because you agreed with the outcome the only argument you have is "my form of tyranny is better than yours", and even though I might beleive that Trump is wrong, I do not want to be associated with you.

    Nor is it just about past support for "good" authoritarianism.

    I have friends across the political spectrum - more on the left than the right. I have friends who are wierd, different minorities, discriminated against, I have stood beside them and fought for their freedom to be who they are - for the differences they choose, and those they can't.

    I was very disappointed that so many of my gay friends turned into persecutors when the tables turned. I would have thought that those who had to hide who their were and pretend to be someone else - or suffer serious consequences often at the hands of government, would not be quick to force others to pretend to like them, to pretend to want to do business with them to pretend to be someone else - or suffer serious consequences often at the hands of govenrment.

    I am disappointed because for eight years republicans trying to thwart President Obama's progressive agenda were evil hateful hating haters, because elections had consequences and those who disagreed could just stuff it, because elections conveyed moral authority and certainty - and now the tables are turned, but somehow - winning an election is evil, now obstruction is good, and trying to do as you promised is evil.

    It is deeper than just hypocracy.
    It is somehow morally acceptable to villify and oppress your enemies when you have power, and twice as justifiable when you do not.

    Somehow Trumps election and subsequent actions are the appropriate consequence for progressives.
    I do not feel all that upset that the oppressors are now the oppressed.

    But I am upset that because of the left - I had the choice between evil and the lessor evil.
    That I am expected to oppose everything Trump, or I must be evil, and because to the extent that I see Trump as actually wrong, I see him as the natural consequence and punishement for the left - that is also being inflicted on me.

  • J_W_W

    Remember the Mainstream Media created a situation where only Trump could win the Republican nomination. I resent the hell out of them for that.

    So they can stew in their own bile for all I care.

  • mx

    Can someone explain to me exactly why "Make them live up to their values," as Warden cites, is such an awful thing? On either side I mean. If people profess values, and especially if they regularly preach those values in service of their preferred policies, why is it wrong to try to appeal to their better angels by holding them to those values (at least insofar as those values don't conflict)?

    I recognize that "make them live up to their values" can too often devolve into unproductive pointing and laughing of the "Rep. So-and-so talked about the Bible when he tried to get this law passed, but now look at him having an affair" sort. And I find that variety fairly useless. But the pure celebration of revenge over values here is pretty deeply troubling to me.

  • stevewfromford

    And who has made a sacrament of the identity politics that is currently pushing the American people into opposing tribes? Any thoughts that this will not end in violence if not resisted? Sometimes the other guy DOES start the sh!tstorm.

  • Todd Ramsey

    I find the protest marches against Trump's misogynistic, boorish treatment of women an excellent illustration of the red vs. blue mentality. The people protesting are the very people who claimed Clinton's impeachment trial was purely partisan and unjustified, after Clinton participated in a sexual escapade in the most power-abusive relationship imaginable...an unpaid intern fellating the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Conversely, many of the Republicans so eager to prosecute Clinton in the 90s are now willing to forgive Trump as "just one of the boys."

  • Q46

    "...a strong flavor of the playground justification..."

    Speaking of self-serving crap.

    You are complaining about civil war without guns.

    Would you prefer 'battlefield justification' - civil war with guns?

  • rxc

    "Numerous domestic social changes have been mandated nationally, not by discussion, debate, compromise and mutually acceptable decision-making by our duly-elected representatives in Congress who would reflect the [slowly] evolving social mores of their constituents, but by nine people on the Supreme Court or by one man (and his agencies) issuing orders and guidelines."

    That is the foundational goal of the progressive movement. To get rid of our current form of government and substitute something else that is more centrally organized. It is a feature, not a bug, of the progressive creed.

  • John Say

    There are two completely independent issues here.

    The media and the left are getting what they asked for.

    The fundamental question is "where do I stand" ?

    I am libertarian, bot progressive, not conservative, not authoritarian.

    I oppose some but not all of what Trump is doing - but not for the same reasons the left does.

    Regardless, I have no problem with the media and the left suffering the natural consequences of their own actions.
    I have a serious problem with my suffering the consequences of their actions.

    I am noting accross the web this is spliting libertarians and libertarain leaning people.

    MOSTLY, Trump is disempowering government - which I support.
    But he is also VERY authoritarian - which I oppose.
    But we were given a choice between two authoritarians. We were going to get authoritarian one way or the other.

    I voted for Johnson - I wish more people would have. I do not think libertarians are ever wining an election.
    But the more votes we pull the more influence we have with both major parties.

    Clinton purportedly won the popular vote by almost 3M votes - well over 4M votes went to Johnson.

    But if Johnson was not a choice and I had a gun to my head and had to vote for one of these.
    I would have held my nose and voted for Trump.

    I suspect that others felt the same and that is why he won.

    Thus far - there are things he has done that have ticked me off.
    But less than I expected.

    I am vigorously opposed to Sessions - I do not think he is a racist. But he is undoubtedly a big drug warrior, a strong proponent of asset forfeiture and opposed to reforming the crime code.

    Beyond that Trump has picked what for the moment appears to be an impressive cabinet.

  • jhertzli

    To the other commenters here: Please note that the Left lost this election, probably due to blowback from their overreach. Please also note that the candidate who imitated them ran behind his party.

    Do you sincerely want to lose?

  • marque2

    What misogynistic boorish treatment of women? Sersiouly you can build up a strawman against anything to knock it down and then claim the other side is hypocritial, but it only reflects on your hypocrisy.

  • CC

    A simple example, just a few weeks ago Obama implemented a cessation of the automatic granting of immigration to cubans arriving by boat (escapees). Not a word from the media, no protests.

  • CC

    Contra the claim that both sides are equally guilty (of course to some extent true): who has consistently supported and lauded bombers, rioters, black panthers, mob violence, shutting down Trump rallies, blocking streets, and now internet mobs trying to get people fired/close businesses? A handful of boycotts on the right (like of Target for their bathroom policy) and butt-load (31 Imperial gallons) from the left. Who took over the Wisconsin capital building and then had all the dem legislators leave the state to cause paralysis? Who boycotted the inauguration of Trump? Who just vanished to prevent votes in Congress? Who steadfastly supports kangaroo courts on campus targeting men? Who wants to censor halloween costumes? When did the Tea Party cause any violence? I'm sorry, but the screaming and wailing and violence is pretty much one-sided.

  • Old Salt

    So what will the standard be for the standard bearer's of rationality, and in theory, liberty? Or a better question, "what path will advance libertarian social and economic policies beyond clever parlor discussions?" If you are trying to make an argument for the rule of law then what is your basis for the discussion? Which law - the Constitution, its amendments and jurisprudence, or the ever-shifting morality of the political left whose champions could be made to debate themselves if a five year history if only their audio were spliced together. How consistent has the left been on any issue aside from abortion?

    I think quite honestly that the very important difference is that the Left is un/grounded in an ever-shifting morality that is at all times summed up by, 'the ends justify the means". The moral code as best I can figure is derived from inescapable omnipresent virtue signaling based on journo-list style collusive narratives doled out across the entire media spectrum in three act plays.

    The conservative right is most certainly not jubilant over Trump. Trump offends many of their core principles which have seen little alteration (for better and worse) since Reagan. The conservative right quite often points out Trumps flaws, and almost always frames their analysis on the law and to some degree free-market economics , (the actual law rather than brazen sculpted poetry). I don't think you should begrudge them a bit of smug satisfaction, had Trump lost they were facing torments bending towards a final solution or great leap forward.

    Not to mention, and as you have recently pointed out (years too late), the lefts fascination with nihilistic violence. I have yet to see a Tea Party activist drag a political opponent out of a car for a beating, and if you know of a progressive that has been targeted by a rouge constitutional conservative at a federal agency on the basis of their political philosophy - not the first time I made this point - I am waiting to stand corrected (almost forgot the sadly necessary caveat - frequent Marijuana use is not a political philosophy)

    The matter of degree matters. How many Americans will truly be negatively affected by temporarily halting Visa issues from a handful of countries? How many will continue to be affected by the ACA?

    In the end, if the Left seeks to check the speed of their hourly outrages they will be forced to read the constitution, consider the merits of dis-aggregating hyper focused Federal, Judiciary, and Executive power. In other words, and to address your valid concern, the solution for the left is to force the conservative right back into a box of their own making, to limit their power through the use of their own philosophical cudgel: States rights, separation of powers, and a limited judicial role.

    If however they continue to hyperventilate, impotently obstruct, burn, loot, and assault, they will ensure that the very long fuse of the conservative right is dangerously shortened.

    At any rate I am very sure Warden will calm down before they do.

  • ano333

    "The Left hated drone strikes under GWB but have gone silent on them with Obama, despite Obama actually ordering more of them. "

    This is just incorrect. This was one of the many bones of contention between Sanders supporters (the epitome of "the left", as you call it), and Hillary Clinton, since it was assumed Clinton would continue Obama's policy in this regard.

  • ano333

    He said on camera that he treats women in what is, to a normal person, considered a "boorish" manner. Were you in a coma back in October or something? Did you not see ANY of Hillary Clinton's commercials that used Trump's own words, talking about his treatment of women?

  • wreckinball

    Both sides do it. But they are not equal.
    Example, is the recent vulgar F-bomb laden women's march on DC and the Tea party rallies after Obama was elected.

  • marque2

    Treating women the same way as you treat men is what is suppose to happen. To do otherwise is sexist. So by definition Trump is not sexist. Where do you get your logic.

    Also he has done so much to advance women, first to have a woman lead a major construction project, First to let women become members at golf courses. First to have a woman lead and win his campaign. The crap you are saying is nonsense.

    Has he abused his power by coercing people under him to have sex with him? When you find that let me know, then I might agree. But then, as Clinton showed, that also makes one Presidential.

  • RobertRetyred

    "Trump is disempowering government - which I support.
    But he is also VERY authoritarian - which I oppose."

    It is difficult to disempower government without showing some signs of authority. 🙂

    If Trump passes the power back to the States (and individuals), he will be lessening DC's power over the nation, which would libertarian, and returning to the Constitution, as it was written.

  • John Say

    Ultimately Trump is not going to be judged - except by a few on principles, but on delivering a rising standard of living.

    If he can get growth back to 3.5% - he will be re-elected in a landslide and democrats will become a minority party.
    If it remains at 2% in 2020 the GOP will be in serious trouble.

    The good news for libertarians is that our principles work in practice - unlike progressives and conservatives.

    To get to 3.5% growth he is going to have to do things that are "libertarian".
    Such as disempowering government.

    But I fully expect he will concurrently do some very unlibertarian things - and we shall see what the net results are.

    This election was a bet by the people that Trump the unknown would be less bad than Clinton.
    I think that was a good bet. But it is not without risk.

  • mike

    If you are punched, and the punching continues are you unwilling to punch back? Do you like living?

  • mike

    Right.

  • mike

    But finally we have a President who is not a wimp. Things are happening, and I hope states take their power back so we can choose to live in freedom even though others chose for government to dictate details of their lives to them. If they want diversity, that is the most they can have. We want our freedom.

  • mike

    When they physically attack people on the street who are wearing a Make America Great Again hat it becomes a larger issue. And how about calling on people to kill cops? This is larger than let's all talk respectfully to each other, and accept that we have differences. That might have been something to consider in past decades, but this is now, and it is not like it was then.

  • mike

    Right. There is no comparison between the two groups.

  • mike

    You must be tough and authoritarian to disempower the federal government. Nothing less than a frontal attack will take back our freedom. Trump has what it takes, and when he is finished returning our rights to us, he will be happy at his success, and go no further.

  • mike

    I see no chance at all that people today could create a better, or even as good, a government than our Founders did. We save what we have, the original freedoms, not the mess the politicians have morphed it in to, and do our best to keep it. Nothing new created by people today leave people with freedom from control by those who lust for power. If you like freedom you had better do what it takes to keep our government, but get DC under control. They have gone hog-wild with no real push-back until now.

  • mike

    Right.

  • jdgalt

    I'm with Warden 100% (except that I do care what Trump will do, but the worst he can do will be better than anything a Democrat might do).

    If you believe the two sides are anywhere near equivalent, you simply have not been paying attention. The Right does not beat people up, burn their property, or try to get them fired or kicked out of college for disagreeing with them. The Left does all those things regularly.

    And the Left has George Soros hiring thousands of fake demonstrators to make it look as though their agenda had majority support. The Right has no comparable figure (the Koch brothers are small potatoes by comparison).

    I expect the violence to escalate, and for the Left to continue to be the ones starting all of it. But we will be ready, and they will not.

  • Ok then. How do we move forward?