Jim Comey is a patriot. That I have disagreed with him on some big things, does not change that. Disagreeing is what Americans do – that’s self-government by people who care passionately about how we are governed.
But let’s assume for argument’s sake that I am wrong. Let’s say that, as Sean Spicer says, Comey is a grandstander who has intentionally politicized an investigation in order to undermine the president. He’s still not the Russians. “America First,” remember? Comey is an American who believes in America; Lavrov and Kislyak are Putin operatives who oppose America at every turn. Comey believes in freedom and the rule of law; the Putin regime believes in Soviet tyranny and the rule of Putin.
Comey is one of us. Lavrov and Kislyak are two of them.
Andrew C. McCarthy on Comey, Trump
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
"Comey believes in ... the rule of law."
Ummm, as commonly understood, maybe. Maybe not. ...given his reluctance to charge Hillary notwithstanding his enumeration of her violations of federal law.
I do like McCarthy & he's more or less my go-to guy on similar legal matters, but I wonder if he's not a victim of his own "willful blindness" in the case of Comey? This post of his is not up to his usual critical high standards.
*reluctance to recommend charging Hillary* to clarify and correct.
I expect McCarthy intends to include especially that decision on Hillary Clinton in "that I have disagreed with him on some big things."
McCarthy is drawing a distinction that Johnathan Haidt says only conservatives care about: the us/them distinction. Haidt is certainly wrong that only conservatives care about it; he's just blind to the ways in which liberal/progressives care about it. Still, in this particular sense -- the nationalist sense -- it is in theory a particularly conservative distinction to make.
Or was. I wonder if the real issue is that the split has become intense enough that even conservatives no longer see their ideological opponents in America as "us." If that's right, then the Russians are still "them," but folks like Comey are no longer any part of "us" -- in fact, they're not just a "them," they're "the real enemy."
Us vs them is a crude heuristic that (IMO) doesn't scale terribly well.
I'm not sure whether I view violent Antifa thugs or the more extreme of the Black Lives Matter twits who rail on about killing whites simply because.... #skincolor as more "us" (and thus, less my enemies) than Russians.
Frankly, none of the three are likely to do me any personal harm. The question of who is harming my country is likewise not all that clear cut.
I wonder if the real issue is that the split has become intense enough that even conservatives no longer see their ideological opponents in America as "us."
That's what TWANLOC means. And if Ymar's predictions are correct, all of this would be be necessary for the inevitable consequences.
Near enemy versus far enemy. (Although I don't think of Russia as an enemy, particularly. An adversary in some ways. Not a government I like or approve of, but you could say that about much of the world.)
The near enemy is always more dangerous because closer. The far enemy is just an enemy; the near enemy is additionally someone trying to harm the country from within. I put antifas and their like in this category because 1) they're a lot more likely to harm me directly than foreigners, and 2) they are harming our norm of free expression without having to fear violence and intimidation from roving gangs of thugs acting as political enforcers.
Seeing the mentality of Kristallnacht and secret police taking root here is a desecration. The worst a foreign enemy can do is attack the country, which is less dreadful a thing.
Often people see the apostate as the worst of men- the one who was one of you, but now is not, is a danger.
Also, just as the external challenges we face as individuals may be fierce, the most dangerous challenges we face are those we carry within ourselves- we are our own worst enemy, no? As Jaed says- it's the near vs. far enemy.
Ok, I have what may be a blindingly stupid question... why are we accepting that Comey v Putin is an either/or? "If you don't like Putin, then you must like Comey"... excuse me? I wasn't aware that those were our only options. Can I be opposed to Comey AND Putin? I'm fairly sure I can.
And the idea that if you "run down Comey" in front of the Russians that you are somehow then taking the Russians side... I'm sorry, this speaks VERY poorly for McCarthy's ability to construct a logical argument. I can complain about Person X to Person Y and still not like either of them. Even if Person X doesn't like Person Y and vice versa. That doesn't mean I'm picking sides.
And the idea that if you "run down Comey" in front of the Russians that you are somehow then taking the Russians side....
I have a somewhat oblique view to this. Certainly it's possible to run down Comey--or anyone else--in front of any audience without necessarily siding with that audience.
But Russia is our enemy (I say Russia is an enemy of civilization, but that's a different story); it's bad form to denigrate one of our own in front of out mutual enemy. Comey may be a piece of s*t, but he's our piece of s*t; we shouldn't be knocking him in front of Russians.
Of course that assumes, also, that the knock actually occurred. All we have for that is The New York Enquirer's deliberately unsubstantiated rumor about this.
Eric Hines
Let's say it IS true, for the sake of argument. "He's a sonufabitch, but he's OUR sonufabitch" is a fine sentiment. And Russia may indeed be one of the greatest foreign policy threats we have in the world (I actually disagree and worry more about the Chinese, but that's more a measure of degree than saying the Russians are not a threat). But that doesn't mean you have to stick up for him or even refrain from "running him down".
For example, let's go back to the Cold War. And say the Soviets ask Reagan why he fired Employee A (I cannot think a suitable historical example, so we'll just keep this generic). If Reagan were to respond that he fired the individual because they were disloyal and more interested in self-aggrandizement than in serving his office, then would you say that was inappropriate? Or somehow taking the Soviet's side? Or would you be more likely to characterize that as "blowing off some steam", or being blunt about why he canned that guy?
I'll be honest here, I'm hardly the biggest DJT fan you're likely to meet. But I believe that in order for criticism to be meaningful, it must be honest and fair. And I think it's dishonest to say that there's something disloyal about being blunt about why you fired a figure like Comey if the audience happens to be Russian. There are far better and more honest things to criticism the President about. This is a steaming pile of nothing.
We've been agreed on nearly all of it.
If Reagan were to respond that he fired the individual because they were disloyal and more interested in self-aggrandizement than in serving his office, then would you say that was inappropriate? Or somehow taking the Soviet's side? Or would you be more likely to characterize that as "blowing off some steam", or being blunt about why he canned that guy?
Yes. No. Neither.
The correct answer to such a question is, "It's none of your damned business," phrased however politic-ly or bluntly as suits the occasion.
Eric Hines
Well fair enough. I don't agree that such an answer is required, but that's the beauty of this country. We can actually disagree amicably.
Well... we USED to be able to. I think one of us is currently required to call the other a Nazi nowadays. At least, that what Facebook seems to tell me.
What's a facebook? Is that some sort of junior high yearbook?
Or is that what the kids these days are calling note-passing during class?
Eric Hines
Oh, and I was a fascist when I was in college because I was in ROTC. That square is filled, or that circle is squared, or something, if we can take fascist and Nazi as interchangeable in the context.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment