Here’s how Stoermer describes Liberal Nationalism and the role it plays in american politics:
There’s a belief system that combines two things — first, that change must happen through official channels (voting, courts, proper debate), and second, that this procedural faith is wrapped in American exceptionalism. The system isn’t just legitimate. It is sacred because America itself is exceptional.
Now here’s where it gets complicated. Klein says the project is “the American experiment.” Newsom builds on that. Kirk said the same things, but meant something completely different. Kirk’s American experiment would destroy Klein’s and Newsom’s — he wanted to dismantle multiracial democracy, restrict voting, and return to what he called the real Founders’ vision. That would end everything Klein and Newsom claim to value.
Yet Klein’s nationalism enables Kirk’s. By treating Kirk’s anti-democratic project as legitimate discourse within the American experiment, by claiming they share common ground, Klein validates extremism as just another voice in the great American conversation.
And I keep wondering: Does the white Christian nationalist movement understand something about liberal nationalism that we don’t? Do they realize that as long as they frame their goals in terms of the Constitution, the Founders, and the American experiment, individuals like Klein will always find common ground with them?
I found other notable liberal figures saying similar things while perusing twitter. Notably senator John Fetterman recently insisted that americans (sorry, I refuse to capitalize demonyms. Sue me) should stop calling Trump an autocrat and pleaded for toning down the anti-Trump rhetoric. To me this attitude plays right into MAGA’s hands. This is the kind of stuff that whitewashes bigotry and helps reactionaries move the Overton window further right.
I would venture that in a similar situation, on this side of the pond we would be out on the streets, striking the economy to a screeching halt. But in the US, there seems to be this nationalist bootlicking mentality that prevents people from even considering direct action, simply because they believe the system will somehow fix itself and everything will be honky dory in the end.
I can’t help but think the US of A was never truly the haven of freedom we were told it was. And as much as I appreciate the comparably stronger fighting spirit of the working class here, I’m not sure it will be enough to resist the rise of the far right here in Europe either, propped up by the ever influential american politics. I’m a pessimist, so please give me hope, or don’t. Thoughts, please?
Trump has shown how easy it is to evade prosecution. Trump has set an example to lower moral and professional standards, to amp up fraud and corruption that many people and businesses globally are eager to follow.
Yeah, all you have to do is be President, have a supine Congress and a subservient Supreme Court, surround yourself with loyal sycophants, corrupt the DoJ from top to bottom, and have the most-watched TV “news” as a propaganda outlet. Piece of cake.
Or you could be any pawn in this mix, a congressman, a judge, a parking lot lawyer promoted to DoJ, any of the sycophants or suckup journalists etc.
And it is in fact important that the president has set a certain tone and course, sending shockwaves through all government institutions. Do you mean to say that you are not seeing universities, law firms, tech corporations, etc follow the wind, affecting everybody? And of course it did not start with the president. It started with the American people who shall not be made to vote for a woman.
Allan Miller,
This is par for the course for many US politicians.
Kieths
If you had a real argument you would not need to assign a position to me. You would simply make a case for your preferred candidate or ideology and see if it will help bring people into your cult. So far only the fellow cult members here are following along.
Bill, exactly the case you demand has in fact been presented to you, repeatedly and in detail. To the point where we pretty much realize trying to talk to you is a waste of time. You WILL not see what you choose not to see.
colewd:
We’ve been over this already:
It’s the reverse. Your cult membership doesn’t show that the OBBBA is bad, but the fact that the OBBBA is bad shows that you are a cult member. It goes against your stated principles, yet you still support it because it’s your Dear Leader’s pet project.
It’s a conclusion, not a premise, and it’s just one conclusion among the many I’ve drawn:
Conclusion: Trump is a pathological liar.
Conclusion: Trump is an economic ignoramus.
Conclusion: Trump is a malignant narcissist.
Conclusion: Bill is a member of the Trump cult.
…etc.
Lol. “I’m not a cult member! You’re a cult member! So there!”
Trump’s lying is a perfect indicator of your status as a cultist, because acknowledging at least some of Trump’s lies — the less serious ones — ought to be easy for you, as they don’t involve policy. Policy is what you claim to care about. You haven’t acknowledged a single one of his lies. The closest you came was when you admitted that Trump’s “I ended a zillion wars” claim was “not well supported”.
Trump is a lifelong dissembler who has told literally thousands of lies in office, but for you, acknowledging even one of them is a bridge too far. That’s extreme, and it’s cult behavior.
colewd,
And that makes it OK? I thought you were all about ‘draining the swamp’? I thought Trump was a good pick because he was already rich and hence imagined incorruptible (pardon me while I laugh up my sleeve)?
A cynic might think greed was only OK in people who don’t like immigrants…
Allan:
colewd:
Allan:
This is just a variation of Bill’s “our guys aren’t so bad — everybody does it” shtick, as when he said of Trump:
Trump is just one of the boys, you see?
It’s popular on the right as a way to defend Trump. Take Mike Johnson, for example:
Madeleine Dean:
Mike Johnson:
In reality, Trump is the most corrupt president we’ve ever had, by far. Bill, do you deny that?
Um, apparently SCOTUS has determined that if the President does it, it’s not corrupt. All you need to do is get the legal definition of corruption changed in your favor, and there’s no limits. Accepting huge bribes is no longer corrupt, selling financial and other decisions to the highest bidder isn’t corrupt, bringing baseless cases against those who criticize you while dropping criminal charges against those who flatter you, that’s no longer corrupt either. So by current notions of corrupt, Trump isn’t particularly corrupt. I predict that if a Democrat can become President, SCOTUS will suddenly decide to reverse all these positions. NOT reversing them would be corrupt in their legal estimation.
I would predict that no, SCOTUS will not reverse these positions. First, SCOTUS *is* corrupt in the true sense. Second, Dems are expected to not abuse the legally available corruption, at least not too much. Their (Dems’) history of behaviour bears this out. Note that the absolute immunity decision was made while Biden was still president. Biden made no use of it, much less abuse it.
As I keep pointing out, in a normal country the party that attempts a coup gets banned. After Jan6 2021, Repubs did not get banned. Even Trump personally was not blocked from the ballot. Reasons include:
– USA has a two-party system. Ban one of the two and it becomes a one-party country, which is not a good look. This is why the Dems/Biden administration hesitated to be decisive.
– Americans have a strong irrational faith in “law and order” and “checks and balances” that Just Work™ despite all evidence to the contrary.
– Based on the above, the judicial system is free to continue to hand out partisan favours instead of rulings based on law. In such a system, obviously the party whose modus operandi revolves more strongly around partisan favours will keep winning even after the worst kind of legal atrocities such as a failed coup.
– USA is not a normal country. It is abnormal. This includes the people who vote. Nowhere else have I seen such a freakishly strong libertarian streak that gives rise to idiot movements like the Tea Party and MAGA, not to mention the inexplicable horde of lone shooters who usually do it for the mere publicity of it or just for the fun of it, hardly for any definable ideological reasons.
Allan Miller,
No. The system has improvement opportunities and hopefully they will see the light of day.
Not under the present administration.
The most egregious issue with Farage is the £400,000pa he earns from hosting a political radio show. Even in the run-up to elections this continued – several other MPs (on the Right) had similar platforms. I find it extraordinary that this is not outlawed. The MP’s salary of £93,000 should be sufficient- especially given that a disproportionate number were already millionaires when taking office. If the inability to leverage one’s position meant we didn’t get ‘the best people’, that seems a price worth paying if these [gestures wildly] are the best people.
Allan Miller,
How can any single administration solve the corruption problem? Like Farage many politicians in the US are getting rich in Washington. Books and podcasts included but the most egregious is the influence of special interests. The media in the US is part of the problem as they are incentivised by big business and big investors like Black Rock.
Not sure how you outlaw someone hosting a radio show. Politics has become a form of entertainment in both our countries.
colewd,
Not saying it can, but you are suggesting that moves are afoot, which is not in evidence. The Trump admin is the most corrupt I’ve seen [pauses for cry of ‘TDS!’].
You just make it a rule for sitting/prospective MPs. If they’re a DJ that’s OK. But a political show should be a no-no. We have strict rules about political broadcasts, though this one seems to have slipped through the net.
colewd,
Since you agree that corruption is a problem, how do you feel about Trump’s corruption? Does he get a pass? Are you OK with the Qatari jet bribe, for instance?
How about Tom Homan accepting a bag with $50,000 in it from undercover FBI agents? And the Trump DOJ quashing the investigation, and then refusing to release the video?
Slightly off topic, but my election forecaster predicts the democrats will win in New York, New Jersey and Virginia.
The same person who called the 2024 election for Trump.
Off year elections are tricky, because turnout is low.
And of course the biggie was what Trumps company made by selling crypto currency to billionaires. Even offering free schmooze meals for the biggest buyers.
Yes, Trump family crypto is probably my #1 pick. Shilled on Truth Social. I find it odd how Trump fans can be comfortable with that.
We’d be remiss not to mention Trump’s selling of pardons, of which there are multiple examples. One that stuck in my head is of a nursing home guy who siphoned off millions from his employees’ payroll taxes in order to buy himself a yacht and indulge in other luxuries. A sleazy dude, but his mom gave Trump a million bucks for one of his face-to-face Mar-a-Lago dinners and whaddayaknow — a few weeks later he got a pardon.
I’ve never liked the presidential pardon prerogative, and Trump’s abuses perfectly illustrate why it’s a bad idea. Unfortunately, it’s in the Constitution and isn’t going anywhere.
keiths,
Corruption is a problem and I agree it is not unique to either party.
In 8 years, Obama was caught in 8 lies. In 4 years, Trump was caught in over 30,000 lies. Bill’s conclusion: both sides lie! No difference he can see.
keiths:
colewd:
Priceless. You can’t bring yourself to say it, can you? Trump is corrupt. It’s obvious, but you can’t type the words.
Dude, you are a classic cult member. We’ve given you multiple examples of your Dear Leader’s corruption: the Qatari jet, the crypto scam, terminating the Homan investigation, selling pardons. There are many more. This is massive corruption, on a scale that no other president has even approached.
You say corruption is a problem. Why, then, isn’t Trump’s corruption a problem?
Are there any principles you won’t abandon for the sake of the Dear Leader?
keiths,
I don’t see any real evidence that he is at this point. My interest is not in an individuals corruption such as the Biden’s were involved in but in the system that has allowed corruption to be rampant thus taking away servicing the voters.
colewd:
Lol. Good — then you’ll be able to explain why all the things we’ve already mentioned, plus some yet to be mentioned, aren’t corrupt in your view.
Odd that when your Dear Leader is the individual whose corruption is being examined, you conveniently lose interest in talking about individuals and want to change the subject to the system.
The system is flawed, but the system isn’t responsible for Trump’s corruption. He was a liar and a business cheat long before getting involved in politics. And you voted for him.
keiths,
I have interest in discussing system issues not candidate issues 3 years from the next election. What is your purpose in discussing candidate issues at this point?
I think your information sources are not helping your credibility.
Uh, you mean like the judicial system, the DoJ system, the civil service system, the foreign policy system, the pardoning system, or really ANY system in the entire executive branch? Trump has corrupted them all. I can guess why you can’t imagine that firing all DoJ employees who ever did anything Trump didn’t like, might be corrupt. Why illegally appointing acting prosecutors to go after Trump’s perceived enemies might be corrupt. Why profiting to the tune of many millions off the Presidency might be corrupt. Yes, I can understand how you can’t see any corruption in any of these and hundreds more, which is (you may have noticed) an ongoing system issue right now, not a candidate issue. Can’t you see that your effort to change the subject only makes you look more brainwashed?
Those sources happen to be the daily news, a dozen different books, any reputable newspaper, things like that. But if your only “news” source is Fox News, of course you’re not going to be informed of any of this, so rather than question YOUR sources, you doubt the credibility of all other sources. That is classic cult behavior, of course.
colewd,
Keiths:
colewd:
Splutter! My pills! Inside pocket… croak…
You’ve literally just said it’s a ‘both sides’ issue. Yet you claim to be unable to see it on one side, making me wonder what on earth you’ve seen on the other. Where do I buy my $Obama? Has Biden given the jet back yet?
colewd,
Ah yes. We have to wait till the next administration. The guy in office has nothing to do with all this, and no purpose is served in pointing out his corruption: he’s not running for office.
Grok (and that’s the fiddled-with, Elon’s mini-me Grok).
That one can see none of this as legitimate criticism is extraordinary, and goes back to something I’ve said earlier – if you’re not particularly flawed, an individual flaw sticks out. But when you’re all flaw, some become bamboozled, unable to see the wood for the trees.
Allan Miller,
Where is the direct evidence of corruption?
I hear something grok pulled off the internet but what are its sources? If you accuse someone of corruption you should make sure your facts are solid.
Chat Gpt can only site hearsay and its sources are the media.https://chatgpt.com/share/690b8f0a-6694-800b-a10e-26d292b163e2
Here is documented evidence of corruption in the Biden family.
https://chatgpt.com/share/690b900d-28c8-800b-9423-8b0191e99a54
If you become an independent voter you will see the world more clearly at least it worked for me 🙂
colewd,
Haha. Gone off Grok now? Grok cited numerous instances. Shilling Bitcoin from the Presidential office is a fact. The Qatar plane is a fact. His golf cheating is not strictly corruption but points to a lack of moral fibre. Obfuscating payments to a porn star: fact.
You are so deep in the cult. It is weird. You cannot countenance any criticism of your hero. Absolutely remarkable, gold plated blinkers.
Here’s ChatGPT’s response to the same straight question I asked Grok:
colewd,
An independent voter that hates on Democrats and will not hear a word of criticism of a man widely considered corrupt, vain and inept?
Remember, I am not in the US. I’m very independent of your party system.
Trump’s impeachments and court history, including criminal conviction, has not been enough for you, so how direct does the evidence have to be? You’re an insane cultist, clinically incorrigible.
Allan Miller,
Now without facts you pivot to accusation that is clearly false. You are ignoring the fact that the last two candidates I financially supported were democrats.
Being charitable it appears you have selective memory loss as I would not want to accuse you of lying.
All this being said the Democrats had a good night last night with 3 important races. All is not lost.
Trump like the democratic mayor of San Francisco I supported gets things done. This is not a democrat or republican issue it is selection of a candidate issue.
colewd,
Does not make you an ‘independent’ on this matter. Your refusal to countenance any criticism of the man, and the invariant ‘but Biden’ defence do not bespeak of independence.
Call me a liar if you like; you still undermine your claim to independence continually. It is very odd to struggle to criticise someone widely regarded as what we Brits call a “wrong ‘un”.
It is neither a Democrat/Republican issue nor an issue of candidature. He is the incumbent. But somehow you think he cannot be criticised because there is not an election imminent? That’s nonsensical.
Allan Miller,
I am trying to let you guys know you look like morons that are TDS deranged. All candidates have strengths and weaknesses. There is no evidence of critical thinking here. I saw some evidence of sanity from you earlier but now you have gone full TDS 🙂
This site is supposed about discussion but you have turned it into a partisan site that hammers political opponents of the ideology you are stuck in. Based on discussions here TDS is more than a “lazy label”.
See, guys, colewd is just gathering material to giggle at with his fellow MAGA cultists and pedo-worshippers.
Actually, if this is what everyone else looks like to you, this tells us more about YOU than we ever wanted to know. It says nothing about us.
colewd:
Haha. Is someone a little grumpy after last night’s election results?
This conversation has lasted five months so far. What facts have you identified that we’ve gotten wrong? What arguments have we made that you’ve spotted flaws in?
Who really looks like the moron here?
colewd:
These aren’t “candidate issues”. Trump is the president, not a candidate, and he’s corrupt — the most corrupt president in American history. That’s a problem now, not three years from now.
Another example of a “now” problem: Trump posted this on Truth Social yesterday:
Trump wants to starve people for political purposes. Should we shrug and say “no biggie — we’ll get a chance to vote again in three years?” I personally think people should be able to eat now, not in three years.
How do you feel about depriving people of food for political purposes? Do you support your Dear Leader in this?
keiths:
colewd:
You don’t even know what my information sources are. That’s not helping your credibility.
colewd:
World leaders do too. Hitler and Roosevelt both had strengths, and they both had weaknesses. Yet in the judgment of historians, FDR was great and Hitler was horrible. Go figure. They should talk to you, who could set them straight. FDR and Hitler were basically the same, just like Obama and Trump. Strengths and weaknesses.
It’s been five months, Bill. We’re still waiting for you to point out our errors instead of making vague unevidenced references to TDS and biased sources. Meanwhile, you’re getting shot down on a daily basis. Who is doing the critical thinking here, and who isn’t?
We’ve tried again and again to get you to discuss the points we raise, but you either bail out or attack us instead of attacking our arguments. You’re free to post OPs, and you’re free to post comments. Like us, you’re free to express your opinions. We want discussion, but you’re the one preventing that from happening.
It’s easy to see why. If you tried to defend Trump, you’d fail. (Which has already happened on the rare occasions when you’ve actually tried. It appears that you’ve learned your lesson.) We have the receipts; you don’t. We have the arguments; you don’t.
It’s been your choice not to engage us. Want to surprise everyone? Start engaging. If we’re morons who don’t know how to think critically, that means you’ve spotted flaws in what we’ve written. Tell us what those flaws are. Give it your best shot.
My view is that he doesn’t deny what we’ve written, he denies our interpretation of what Trump has done. Trump is starving people for political purposes? No problem, they deserve it. Trump has turned the DoJ into a partisan arm of the executive? About time! Trump’s enemies deserve to die. Trump’s foreign policy is turning the whole Western world into our enemies? To quote Randy Newman (in his song Political Science): “They all hate us anyhow, so let’s drop the big one now.” Being governed by half of the Fox News personalities can only be a dream come true.
And if the overall standard of living is being lowered in the US, why is this a problem for those who matter? Who could deny that letting all the brown people starve who aren’t deported first would be an enormous national benefit?
colewd,
By adopting the mantle of the worst kind of MAGA cultist? Way to go, I guess.
Haha. Right back atcha.
Devastated I’m sure. One distinctive characteristic of the Trump cultist is the use of that lazy-arsed label ‘T…’ ah, but we’ve been here before haven’t we? A few times.
Is it TDS to mention his shilling of crypto? Cheating at golf? To criticise his tariff policy? Charging for access? Inflating his declarations? Taking a bribe? Going after opponents? Hiding porn star payments? Pardoning cop beaters? All those pesky fully documented facts. Or to avoid the charge, should we stay silent on his faults? After all, other people have faults too, yeah?
Allan Miller,
What is not TDS is talking about complain commitments and getting things done. What is TDS is acting like you have the moral ground over another person and taking all propaganda against a candidate on its face value. This is the opposite of critical thinking.
If you are a hard core socialist then just admit that his policies are not your cup of tea 🙂
colewd:
What are “complain commitments”, and why should we be talking about them?
Jesus, Bill. Of course we have the moral high ground over Trump. Look at Allan’s list. How many of those things do you think we’ve done, or would do if we were president? Trump is a bottom-of-the-barrel horrible and immoral person, and we aren’t.
You already know how this is going to go. We’ve done it many times.
Here’s the script:
colewd:
You are completely blind to irony.
Because only a hardcore socialist would be opposed to sexual assault, lying pathologically, corruption, weaponizing the Department of Justice, stealing top secret documents and lying about it, actively trying to hurt Americans who aren’t on his side of the political divide, depriving people of food as a political move, causing the death of 14 million people over the next decade by killing aid programs, etcetera. Right?
This is now the same argument that petrushka deployed early on: You just hate that his policies are successful.
Being in business with and the closest friend of a convicted pedo is neither policy or a success. Neither is six-time bankruptcy, a failed coup attempt, rigging elections and lying about it, not knowing what tariffs are etc. Everybody criticises (ex?-)Prince Andrew too, has nothing to do with his non-existent success.
colewd,
So anything other than enthusiasm is TDS.
What is cultism is refusal to believe any of these complaints have merit, despite all being a matter of public record. Inability to countenance criticism of someone widely vilified is not critical thinking. It’s cult-like. Wagon-circling. Nothing, but nothing, shouts “I’m in a cult” quite like playing the ‘TDS’ card when someone criticises your man.
I’m not a ‘hard core socialist’ though. His policies are a completely separate matter from his manifest failings. I didn’t see Reagan or the Bushes in anything remotely like that light. It’s not because he’s a Republican. (eta: many Republicans deplore him too.).
This is a political category error.
Generally speaking, there are policy patterns that distinguish conservatives from liberals. Conservatives tend to support lower taxes (Trump’s tariffs raise taxes), less regulation, smaller government, and above all the rule of law.!!!
Liberals are more or less the opposite, favoring policies that favor children, the poor, the elderly or the disabled – even if this means higher taxes and bigger government.
Conservatives tend to believe that, left to their own devices, corporations will behave in a manner that benefits the country, without a need for much regulation. Liberals observe that deregulating leads to antisocial practices, that trickle down economics has failed.
Now, it’s pretty obvious that Trump does not fall into either of these policy categories. He’s not really interested in policy at all, he’s interested in getting more power whatever it takes and whoever it hurts – conservatives and liberals alike. His authoritarian approach appeals to his oligarchs, and none of them really care about the Constitution, or the democracy, or the people.