Regarding immigration enforcement, do you think the US should be a "show your papers" state, where even a citizen out for a jog must carry proof of citizenship or risk being detained?
Many outside the Conservative cult are amazed how fast Conservatives bend the knee to a dictator and his henchmen. A billionaire is designated to look out for the poor. MSM and judges are targeted. A vaccine skeptic is in charge of health care.
Government workers are fired in error. European allies distance themselves from the United States. Putin is gleeful. The stock market is strained.
Glenn scoffs at the idea that Kamala Harris would have been the better choice as he shouts “Give us Barrabas”.
So here it goes-- Who decides if anybody is "presidential" enough to be president? Who "deserves" to be president? How is it that the people "made a mistake?" If you believe that political power is, at its essence, a consent of the governed, then Trump "deserves" to be president and there is no mistake, there is no presidential criteria except the one that is defined by the constitution. What McWhorter really seems to want is president from an aristocracy or from a meritocracy-- the former a group of people fit to rule and the latter from group of people who set of standards and confer merits/certificates upon others. If you believe that political rule should be from consent of the governed, then neither an aristocracy or meritocracy fits that belief. McWhorter is an elitist with respect to political rule, which is fine-- this is position many people who can't handle political differences seem to take.
One other point- if despite all the flaws of Trump, he manages to get elected twice-- what does that tell you about the political climate today? It tells you that the normal politician somehow is repudiated by the public. In the old days, these differences would be resolved through real conflict- coups, wars, etc. Trump may not be everything Americans want, but neither are the regular normal politician that McWhorter longs for.
So McWhorter's world of "shoulds" has been tried-- oligarchy, monarchy, politburo's etc-- these are systems of aristocracy, or rule of ideology, etc full of shoulds. The messy business of constitutional liberal democracy is hard for many elites, particularly academics, to handle intellectually.
I think John is just commenting about the current president, but he sounds like he wants to have a coup d'état--and that we should no longer accept public election results. Is that what he is saying?
- It turned the party of law and order into the party that condones beating cops on the steps of the capital. It’s hard to argue that you’re the “back the blue” party when you pardon a mob of rioters that tried to overturn an election.
- It turned the “facts don’t care about your feelings” party into an idiotic band of conspiracy theorists. Fedsurrections, cat-eating Hatians, rigged Dominion voting machines, Jewish space lasers… MAGA is a breeding ground for some of the most absurd ideas.
- It turned the party that once revered the constitution into one that thinks the executive should reign supreme. Pence drew us back from the brink of a constitutional crisis in 2020 (Ben Shapiro’s words, not mine) and nobody on the right cares. Now Trump is trying to override part of the constitution via executive order, is unilaterally dismantling departments established through Congress, and is brazenly defying court decisions. We’re hurtling towards another constitutional crisis and MAGA is cheering it on.
You seem to freely admit that Trump lost the election. Do you think Trump’s lies about ‘stolen elections’ has been good for the GOP?
Trump can be fairly amusing. While he was running in 2016 I made up a whimsical theory about how he became a presidential candidate:
"One evening Donald Trump was on his way to a comedy club to do his regular standup routine. But this evening something went wrong. Maybe he got lost, or he got turned around, but in any case instead of ending up on the stage of his comedy club he wound up on the stage for the presidential candidate debates. And not realizing what had happened he went ahead and did his comedy act anyway. And the rest, as they say, is history."
Glenn: Should Ibrahim Kendi be a best selling author and a professor at BU/Howard?
He obviously IS both things and he got them legitimately: a lot of people bought his books and he was appointed to his academic position by those with the requisite authority.
But do you believe he "should" be a best selling author and a professor? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you believe the answer is yes. And John is (correctly) making the same kind of argument about Trump.
P.S. For anyone interested, here is the full version of the argument for why I think John is right:
We should have had a competent Republican running against a competent Democrat (in all elections). Lacking that we should vote for our favorite, or the lesser of two evils. If we disagree with the winner we should speak up, or not. But if the winner makes new rules we should follow them. If we do not, the new winner should arrest us. (If they have time.)
Only a few BLM protesters participated in acts of violence. Thousands of BLM protesters were arrested. 3.7% of the BLM events involved violence or property damage. BLM protesters were overwhelmingly peaceful despite the protests being about hundreds of cases of police abuse.
It doesn't matter that only 3.7% of rioters were violent - the things that matter are: how much destruction they brought and how many is 3.7% in absolute numbers.
In Minneapolis–Saint Paul alone, the immediate aftermath of the murder of George Floyd was second-most destructive period of local unrest in United States history, after the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Over a three night period, the cities experienced two deaths, 617 arrests, and upwards of $500 million in property damage to 1,500 locations, including 150 properties that were set on fire.
Nationally, the BLM riots caused approximately $1–2 billion in insured damages nationally, the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history.
19 confirmed deaths.
Polls estimate between 15 million and 26 million people participated in George Floyd protests. So, 3.7% is between 555,000 and 962,000 people.
------------
You're literally repeating one of the most famous memes:
We watched a gallows put up to hang Mike Pence. People came with handcuffs and bear spray. A man defecated in Nancy Pelosi’s office. A Confederate flag, supporting a treasonous movement was brought to the floor. These events don’t seem to bother you.
Anyone committing violence at BLM protests should be prosecuted.
Edit to add.
“Polls estimate between 15 million and 26 million people participated in George Floyd protests. So, 3.7% is between 555,000 and 962,000 people.”
Math is not your friend. 3.7% refers to the total number of protests, not the percentage of people.
Do you seriously compare those childish gallows and defecating with lootings, arsons and killings, burning down businesses and destroying whole neighborhoods???
(Nobody was charged with setting those gallows and the FBI doesn't even know, and doesn't even bother to find out who and why put those gallows there).
And all these dangerous insurrectionists who wanted to overthrow the government and "would only be satisfied by refusing to certify Joe Biden" - most of those people owning guns, were so stupid that they forgot to bring their guns with them...
--------------
If you are really honest, you can watch the New Yorker's (yes, that New Yorker magazine!) video about what was happening on Jan. 6th inside the building and how polite and considerate those thugs were.
For me, the most striking thing was when "a rioter" put back the page fallen on the floor back into the binder.
Not only bad at math, but unaware of weapons brought to the Capitol.
At a Jan. 7, 2025, press conference viewable on C-SPAN, opens new tab, Trump amplified a similar narrative in response to a reporter’s question about pardoning rioters who assaulted police during the attack.
“There was never charges of insurrection or anything like that,” Trump said (47:09 timestamp). “But if there were, this would be the only insurrection in history where people went in as insurrectionists with not one gun… there wasn’t one gun that they found.”
However, court records show, opens new tab at least five cases where carrying or possessing a firearm was part of the indictment. A summary, opens new tab of the cases by the Justice Department as of Jan. 3 said 180 defendants were charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon, which includes firearms and other types of weapons.
Maybe I missed something, but this part of the conversation felt like manufactored disagreement. John agreed that Trump was elected and properly holds the office, but thinks the voters made a mistake. Glenn thinks that you can never claim that voters made a mistake. I'm with John on the general principle - voters can be critized for their choice of candidate - and the specific as regards Trump.
Glenn’s final remark is all that needs to be said, because it’s 100% correct. John shows contempt for the people. He thinks he knows better how we should live our miserable lives.
Trump has a lot of contempt for a lot of people. Yet strangely, I don't think I've ever seen him express contempt for the electorate, including voters who voted the other way.
Sure, he'll throw shit at the Dem party and it's leadership. But he wants to peel off Dem voters, and so they don't get targeted. Hillary Clinton was worse on this than even Trump, if you can believe that.
Nope. Trump won. Harris wasn't cheated. Those are facts.
John's claims that Trump "shouldn't" be President, that "voters made a mistake" are opinions, as are Glenn's claims that Trump should be President and voters didn't make a mistake.
Both agree that our system of government empowers the voters to make such mistakes.
The disagreement seemed to be over Glenn wanting John to (in a sense) bend the knee and John wanting none of that.
Nailed it, Mark! In his mind, John probably thinks, "No, he should not have been either -- we should just keep the position vacant until we can find someone as polite, refined and moral as I am."
John is more accepting of the fact - which he acknowledges - that Trump was elected President of the United States than 90% of the right would ever was of Biden after he won or would be be of Harris had she won.
Which is worse. 1. Is claiming Biden didn't win and implying the people's will was subverted because the system was cheated.
2. Is claiming Trump should not have won regardless if the election was legitmate, implying the people's will should be subverted or ignored because the elite know better.
The attitude it takes to espouse #2 is the reason Trump was elected a second time. The Biden years made it blatantly obvious that there is a class of people who think they get to tell everyone else how to live without any accountability or feedback.
1. Lying about millions of fraudulent ballots swinging an election only to turn around and organize fraudulent electors yourself? And then pressuring the vice president to use those fraudulent electors as a pretense to overthrow the election?
2. Or John thinking that the guy that did #1 is unfit for office?
#2 is the way our system and culture has always been. We are free to have our opinions about things like that (although that may be changing), and believing the president to be unfit (something a lot of the public has believed about a lot of presidents) does not imply that steps should be taken to overthrow him. (Although we do have a long history of oppositjon parties trying to thwart the political objectives, which is normal and acceptable.)
What Trump voters want is not acknowledgement that he won, but respect and acceptance and adultation from his oppoents, which has never been a part of our system.
We voters could choose Trump or Harris. That's it. Rather than just an emotional opinion, I'd like John to list 12 fact-based arguments to support voting for Harris.
McWhorter needs to read the Federalist Papers and Machiavelli to understand politics. Trump is no exotic being that McWhorter understands him to be. He’s just not the typical American elite politician.
Regarding immigration enforcement, do you think the US should be a "show your papers" state, where even a citizen out for a jog must carry proof of citizenship or risk being detained?
Many outside the Conservative cult are amazed how fast Conservatives bend the knee to a dictator and his henchmen. A billionaire is designated to look out for the poor. MSM and judges are targeted. A vaccine skeptic is in charge of health care.
Government workers are fired in error. European allies distance themselves from the United States. Putin is gleeful. The stock market is strained.
Glenn scoffs at the idea that Kamala Harris would have been the better choice as he shouts “Give us Barrabas”.
Conservatives have screwed the country.
So here it goes-- Who decides if anybody is "presidential" enough to be president? Who "deserves" to be president? How is it that the people "made a mistake?" If you believe that political power is, at its essence, a consent of the governed, then Trump "deserves" to be president and there is no mistake, there is no presidential criteria except the one that is defined by the constitution. What McWhorter really seems to want is president from an aristocracy or from a meritocracy-- the former a group of people fit to rule and the latter from group of people who set of standards and confer merits/certificates upon others. If you believe that political rule should be from consent of the governed, then neither an aristocracy or meritocracy fits that belief. McWhorter is an elitist with respect to political rule, which is fine-- this is position many people who can't handle political differences seem to take.
One other point- if despite all the flaws of Trump, he manages to get elected twice-- what does that tell you about the political climate today? It tells you that the normal politician somehow is repudiated by the public. In the old days, these differences would be resolved through real conflict- coups, wars, etc. Trump may not be everything Americans want, but neither are the regular normal politician that McWhorter longs for.
So McWhorter's world of "shoulds" has been tried-- oligarchy, monarchy, politburo's etc-- these are systems of aristocracy, or rule of ideology, etc full of shoulds. The messy business of constitutional liberal democracy is hard for many elites, particularly academics, to handle intellectually.
I think John is just commenting about the current president, but he sounds like he wants to have a coup d'état--and that we should no longer accept public election results. Is that what he is saying?
He doesn't sound like that and he wasn't saying we should no longer accept election results.
It is Trump supporters who by and large are the ones who will refuse to accept any election result if they lose.
Trump lost in 2020. What consequential behaviors over the next 4 years from 'not accepting the election' manifested from this, exactly?
Hmm, well…
- It turned the party of law and order into the party that condones beating cops on the steps of the capital. It’s hard to argue that you’re the “back the blue” party when you pardon a mob of rioters that tried to overturn an election.
- It turned the “facts don’t care about your feelings” party into an idiotic band of conspiracy theorists. Fedsurrections, cat-eating Hatians, rigged Dominion voting machines, Jewish space lasers… MAGA is a breeding ground for some of the most absurd ideas.
- It turned the party that once revered the constitution into one that thinks the executive should reign supreme. Pence drew us back from the brink of a constitutional crisis in 2020 (Ben Shapiro’s words, not mine) and nobody on the right cares. Now Trump is trying to override part of the constitution via executive order, is unilaterally dismantling departments established through Congress, and is brazenly defying court decisions. We’re hurtling towards another constitutional crisis and MAGA is cheering it on.
You seem to freely admit that Trump lost the election. Do you think Trump’s lies about ‘stolen elections’ has been good for the GOP?
John McWhorter said "He's a standup comedian".
Trump can be fairly amusing. While he was running in 2016 I made up a whimsical theory about how he became a presidential candidate:
"One evening Donald Trump was on his way to a comedy club to do his regular standup routine. But this evening something went wrong. Maybe he got lost, or he got turned around, but in any case instead of ending up on the stage of his comedy club he wound up on the stage for the presidential candidate debates. And not realizing what had happened he went ahead and did his comedy act anyway. And the rest, as they say, is history."
I think Trump should have stuck to comedy.
Glenn: Should Ibrahim Kendi be a best selling author and a professor at BU/Howard?
He obviously IS both things and he got them legitimately: a lot of people bought his books and he was appointed to his academic position by those with the requisite authority.
But do you believe he "should" be a best selling author and a professor? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you believe the answer is yes. And John is (correctly) making the same kind of argument about Trump.
P.S. For anyone interested, here is the full version of the argument for why I think John is right:
https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/the-return-of-donald-trump-a-tragedy
We should have had a competent Republican running against a competent Democrat (in all elections). Lacking that we should vote for our favorite, or the lesser of two evils. If we disagree with the winner we should speak up, or not. But if the winner makes new rules we should follow them. If we do not, the new winner should arrest us. (If they have time.)
"Should is what Jerry Weinberg wrote of as Lullaby Language. Glenn's exposition was pretty good. Turns out Jerry's chapter is even findable online. https://www.ayeconference.com/Articles/LullabyLanguage.html
Only a few BLM protesters participated in acts of violence. Thousands of BLM protesters were arrested. 3.7% of the BLM events involved violence or property damage. BLM protesters were overwhelmingly peaceful despite the protests being about hundreds of cases of police abuse.
A serial killer only spends 3.7% of his time on killings. He's overwhelmingly peaceful.
If only 3.7% of people named Theo are criminals, should you be locked up?
Your comment has no connection to the topic. It probably plays well in Conservative discussions.
BLM protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. The protest was about police abuse.
January 6th was about obstructing installation of a new President as required under Constitutional law.
BLM protests would have been eased with passing police reform laws.
J6 protesters would only be satisfied by refusing to certify Joe Biden.
BLM was a grift. GMAFB
J6 was an attempt to prevent a peaceful transfer of power
It doesn't matter that only 3.7% of rioters were violent - the things that matter are: how much destruction they brought and how many is 3.7% in absolute numbers.
In Minneapolis–Saint Paul alone, the immediate aftermath of the murder of George Floyd was second-most destructive period of local unrest in United States history, after the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Over a three night period, the cities experienced two deaths, 617 arrests, and upwards of $500 million in property damage to 1,500 locations, including 150 properties that were set on fire.
Nationally, the BLM riots caused approximately $1–2 billion in insured damages nationally, the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history.
19 confirmed deaths.
Polls estimate between 15 million and 26 million people participated in George Floyd protests. So, 3.7% is between 555,000 and 962,000 people.
------------
You're literally repeating one of the most famous memes:
"FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL"
https://x.com/CalebJHull/status/1298832317033705472
A CNN reporter is standing in front of a building engulfed in flames and CNN's chyron reads:
"FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS AFTER POLICE SHOOTING"
We watched a gallows put up to hang Mike Pence. People came with handcuffs and bear spray. A man defecated in Nancy Pelosi’s office. A Confederate flag, supporting a treasonous movement was brought to the floor. These events don’t seem to bother you.
Anyone committing violence at BLM protests should be prosecuted.
Edit to add.
“Polls estimate between 15 million and 26 million people participated in George Floyd protests. So, 3.7% is between 555,000 and 962,000 people.”
Math is not your friend. 3.7% refers to the total number of protests, not the percentage of people.
What's "the total number of protests"? What is one protest?
Do you seriously compare those childish gallows and defecating with lootings, arsons and killings, burning down businesses and destroying whole neighborhoods???
(Nobody was charged with setting those gallows and the FBI doesn't even know, and doesn't even bother to find out who and why put those gallows there).
And all these dangerous insurrectionists who wanted to overthrow the government and "would only be satisfied by refusing to certify Joe Biden" - most of those people owning guns, were so stupid that they forgot to bring their guns with them...
--------------
If you are really honest, you can watch the New Yorker's (yes, that New Yorker magazine!) video about what was happening on Jan. 6th inside the building and how polite and considerate those thugs were.
For me, the most striking thing was when "a rioter" put back the page fallen on the floor back into the binder.
https://www.newyorker.com/video/watch/a-reporters-footage-from-inside-the-capitol-siege
Not only bad at math, but unaware of weapons brought to the Capitol.
At a Jan. 7, 2025, press conference viewable on C-SPAN, opens new tab, Trump amplified a similar narrative in response to a reporter’s question about pardoning rioters who assaulted police during the attack.
“There was never charges of insurrection or anything like that,” Trump said (47:09 timestamp). “But if there were, this would be the only insurrection in history where people went in as insurrectionists with not one gun… there wasn’t one gun that they found.”
However, court records show, opens new tab at least five cases where carrying or possessing a firearm was part of the indictment. A summary, opens new tab of the cases by the Justice Department as of Jan. 3 said 180 defendants were charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon, which includes firearms and other types of weapons.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/us-capitol-attack-rioters-had-weapons-including-firearms-2025-01-16/
Maybe I missed something, but this part of the conversation felt like manufactored disagreement. John agreed that Trump was elected and properly holds the office, but thinks the voters made a mistake. Glenn thinks that you can never claim that voters made a mistake. I'm with John on the general principle - voters can be critized for their choice of candidate - and the specific as regards Trump.
If only everyone could be as smart and moral as you and John…..
Glenn’s final remark is all that needs to be said, because it’s 100% correct. John shows contempt for the people. He thinks he knows better how we should live our miserable lives.
Trump shows contempt for the over 50% (albeit very slightly over) of voters who chose a different candidate every day.
Trump has a lot of contempt for a lot of people. Yet strangely, I don't think I've ever seen him express contempt for the electorate, including voters who voted the other way.
Sure, he'll throw shit at the Dem party and it's leadership. But he wants to peel off Dem voters, and so they don't get targeted. Hillary Clinton was worse on this than even Trump, if you can believe that.
Michael. What are you implying? That Harris actually won the election, but got cheated….somehow?
Nope. Trump won. Harris wasn't cheated. Those are facts.
John's claims that Trump "shouldn't" be President, that "voters made a mistake" are opinions, as are Glenn's claims that Trump should be President and voters didn't make a mistake.
Both agree that our system of government empowers the voters to make such mistakes.
The disagreement seemed to be over Glenn wanting John to (in a sense) bend the knee and John wanting none of that.
I don’t even understand what you mean
"Should" Biden been President?
Nailed it, Mark! In his mind, John probably thinks, "No, he should not have been either -- we should just keep the position vacant until we can find someone as polite, refined and moral as I am."
John's TDS (i.e., his deep hatred for Donald Trump) has destroyed his rationality. Sad.
It’s destroyed his reputation. He’s actually advocated for Trump to be assassinated. He’s a lunatic.
John is more accepting of the fact - which he acknowledges - that Trump was elected President of the United States than 90% of the right would ever was of Biden after he won or would be be of Harris had she won.
Which is worse. 1. Is claiming Biden didn't win and implying the people's will was subverted because the system was cheated.
2. Is claiming Trump should not have won regardless if the election was legitmate, implying the people's will should be subverted or ignored because the elite know better.
The attitude it takes to espouse #2 is the reason Trump was elected a second time. The Biden years made it blatantly obvious that there is a class of people who think they get to tell everyone else how to live without any accountability or feedback.
Which is worse:
1. Lying about millions of fraudulent ballots swinging an election only to turn around and organize fraudulent electors yourself? And then pressuring the vice president to use those fraudulent electors as a pretense to overthrow the election?
2. Or John thinking that the guy that did #1 is unfit for office?
#2 is the way our system and culture has always been. We are free to have our opinions about things like that (although that may be changing), and believing the president to be unfit (something a lot of the public has believed about a lot of presidents) does not imply that steps should be taken to overthrow him. (Although we do have a long history of oppositjon parties trying to thwart the political objectives, which is normal and acceptable.)
What Trump voters want is not acknowledgement that he won, but respect and acceptance and adultation from his oppoents, which has never been a part of our system.
Can’t you ask John what he means my should? Defining that word should be fairly easy for a professor of linguistics. Pun intended.
We voters could choose Trump or Harris. That's it. Rather than just an emotional opinion, I'd like John to list 12 fact-based arguments to support voting for Harris.
McWhorter needs to read the Federalist Papers and Machiavelli to understand politics. Trump is no exotic being that McWhorter understands him to be. He’s just not the typical American elite politician.
McWhorter either doesn’t believe in democracy, the constitution, or he hasn’t thought through his position.