Our New Secessionists

Item 1: “People now marvel how it came to pass that he should have been selected as the representative man of any party. His . . . efforts, imbecile in matter, disgusting in manner, have made us the laughing stock of the whole world.”

Item 2: “A tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism.”

Item 3: “He is evidently a person of very inferior cast of character, wholly unequal to the crisis.”

Item 4: “Heartfelt keening of shame and revulsion was heard throughout the land.”

These nuggets refer, of course, to the president. But which president? Items 1 and 2 refer to . . . whom? If you said “Donald Trump,” you are only half right. Item 2 does refer to President Trump. It is from David Remnick’s hysterical threnody in The New Yorker, published in the early hours of November 9, 2016. But Item 1 refers not to Trump but to Abraham Lincoln. And it comes not from some rabid secessionist but from the Salem Advocate, a newspaper published in Lincoln’s home state of central Illinois.

Items 3 and 4 are easy. Any woke member of The Resistance will guess that the “inferior character” must be Donald Trump. But it isn’t. The great orator Edward Everett was also referring to Lincoln. Item 4 comes to us from “Annals of Resistance,” a series of skirling anti-Trump dispatches in the Huffington Post.

It is not news that Lincoln, who won the election of 1860 with only 39.8 percent of the popular vote, was deeply unpopular. His popularity was in freefall until September 3, 1864, when General Sherman telegrammed the news “Atlanta is ours and fairly won.” Military triumph earned Lincoln a narrow victory over George McClellan in the 1864 election. He remained deeply unpopular, however, until John Wilkes Booth inaugurated the process of his beatification in April 1865. [Update: a reader questions my description of the 1864 election as a “narrow” victory for Lincoln. It wasn’t narrow in terms of the electoral college, but it was in terms of the popular vote. His percentage of the vote in Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Vermont went down and he lost “in all the big cities, including a trouncing of 78,746 to 36,673 in New York. In the key states of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, with their 80 electoral votes, only one half a percentage point separated Lincoln and McClellan. A shift of 38,111 votes in a few selected states, less than 1 percent of the popular vote, would have elected McClellan.”]

I think of Lincoln and his contemporary unpopularity because of the secessionist mood that is still, in some fetid redoubts, rippling through the country. Most colleges and universities are gigantic petri dishes for the production of this toxin, as are many elite organs of opinion. The New York Review of Books, for example, warned that with the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, “We are standing at the edge of the abyss. Our political system, our society, our country itself are in greater danger than at any time in the last century and a half.” Which is to say, since the Civil War.

Conservative commentators like James Piereson have been warning for some years about the “shattered consensus” threatening America’s political institutions. But members of “The Resistance”™ against Donald Trump embrace as a vocation the process of disintegration that Piereson anatomizes. In effect, they have declared war not just on President Trump, but on a united America.

The Civil War began not because of slavery, but because of Lincoln’s election. It was that event that precipitated the secession of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, followed shortly thereafter by Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

Today, the secessionist mood is defined not so much by geography—though there is always California to consider—but by a species of identity politics. If you went to Yale or Harvard, Swarthmore or Williams, if you work at CNN or the Washington Post, if you are a career civil servant, member of the entertainment industry, or part of the deep-state nomenklatura, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are deeply anti-Trump.

Someday, the sudden efflorescence of incontinent animus against Donald Trump will occupy an interesting section in the annals of psychopathology, furnishing, perhaps, a new chapter for Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. But for the moment, the political ergot is too freshly distributed into the metabolism of “elite” opinion to be described calmly. We can only stand by and watch, like an anthropologist at some savage ritual, while the natives rage.

As the months pass, however, and Trump’s achievements pile up the disjunction between the reality of his administration and the hysteria of his opponents becomes ever more glaring.

We long ago passed through the stage where the antics of “The Resistance”™ seemed merely comic to the stage where they are merely pathetic. What, after all are they resisting? The results of a free, open, democratic election in which their candidate lost. On the one hand, we have Trump’s judicial appointments, his attack on prosperity-sucking regulation, his emancipation of America’s energy industry, his enforcement of America’s immigration laws, his tax cuts, his strengthening of America’s military, not to mention his success in bringing unemployment down and economic growth and consumer confidence up. On the other hand, we have the repeated warnings not to “normalize” a supposedly “dictatorial,” xenophobic, racist reality-TV star.

The irony is, despite his sometimes provocative tweets and off-the-cuff remarks, Donald Trump is governing more “normally” than any president since Ronald Reagan. As his Chief of Staff John Kelly noted last fall, Trump’s agenda is to do “what’s good for America.”

In other words, he has no agenda, if by “agenda” you mean an unacknowledged script of ulterior motives.

Still, this is a dangerously unsettled moment. “The Resistance”™ may be ridiculous, but that does not make it any less malevolent or destructive. They and the permanent bureaucracy they support have essentially declared war on Trump. The astonishing and still expanding scandal that is FISA-gate was intended to consume first candidate Trump and then, when that failed, to hobble or destroy President Trump. Thanks to a dedicated band of commentators—including contributors to American Greatness—that protracted act of political sabotage seems to be unraveling before our eyes. It is difficult, still, to take its measure, but from this vantage, it appears to be shaping up as the biggest political scandal in America’s history.

To date, Donald Trump’s actions have been as patient and methodical as his rhetoric has been taunting and dismissive. He may rail against “fake news,” much to the irritation of its purveyors, but he systematically pares back regulation and, just last week, announced the biggest change to the civil service in decades, promising to “hire the best and fire the worst.” The swamp that Trump promised to drain is deep, malodorous, and self-regenerating. His new civil service initiative promises to plunge a gigantic catheter into the spongy center of the swamp in order to sluice away some of the accumulated detritus that has gathered there in fetid profusion.

The deep state has declared war on Donald Trump and a united America. Those of us hoping to make America great again should repay the favor and help the president wage war against the enemies of our excellence.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

316 responses to “Our New Secessionists”

  1. 158 years ago, the South correctly foresaw an impending national majority that with 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures would outlaw chattel slavery. The South did not wish that 3/4 to dictate any domestic issue to them, thus seceded, thus 600,000 Americans dead in a country with less than one tenth its present population before the issue was settled for all time.
    Today, Red States correctly observe that Blue States care nothing about the Constitution, unlike all the states of the Union in 1860, which took the Constitution very seriously. Blue States decide what the Constitution means on any given day by their personal politics, the words and the intent of the Constitution be damned. It’s WORSE than 1860.
    Any of us who have been through a divorce know from experience when the moment arrives that further discussion, further counseling, is a waste of time. That moment has arrived for these United States.
    Consider the words of Mary Boykin Chesnut, of Charleston, SC, early 1861:
    We separated North from South because of incompatibility of temper. We are divorced because we have hated each other so. If we could only separate, a “separation à l’agréable,” as the French say it, and not have a horrid fight for divorce.
    Get it done.

    • The idea that Trump cares at all about the constitution, a document he’s probably never read, is laughable.

      • So why don’t you share with us how any of his actions have been unconstitutional? I can certainly share many of the previous administration’s actions were.

      • You seem to have lost your way. This is not the Salon web site.

      • It is comments like this that so clearly display the ignorance of the writer as there is not a single thing that Trump has done that violates the Constitution. That means that the writer has no clue at all what the Constitution says. That also explains why the writer has no clue of the many ways in which Obama did violate the Constitution,.

      • And you, Mister nom-de-plume “Trapper John”, have actually read the Constitution?
        Hey, that’s [expletive deleted] great.
        Now, for example, tell us where in the Constitution there is a right to kill the most innocent and most defenseless?
        Article/Section or Amendment, please.

    • No the south left because Southern whites did not want an end to slavery. Period. The south could not accept that in a democracy, the majority rules. Just as red states today cannot accept the the majority opposes their priorities. Red states are circumventing the Constitution through voter manipulation, intimidation and gross gerrymandering. How to explain that Democrats won a majority of the 2016 House votes but were a substantial minority. Minority rule cannot last and that is what CONservatives want. Just as CONservatives lost the Civil War, you will lose this battle. Just as CONs have lost every battle for the expansion of Freedom and Liberty in our Republic. You run against history.

      • The point is that the South knew it had lost the votes to maintain Henry Clay’s Great Compromise. Slavery was likely to be ended very soon.

      • The south could not accept that in a democracy, the majority rules.
        Only a moron would make the above assertion with the presumption that that ends all questions regarding law in a Constitutional America.
        Our Constitution has quite a few checks and balances and super-majority requirements that intentionally prevent simple-majority rule. Now I know that you know that, and I also know that you choose to ignore that.
        My favorite Constitutional prevention of simple majority rule is the Electoral College, which people who think and write and vote like you go positively rabid over.
        After all, how terribly un-democratic it is for California to have 55 votes in the Electoral College, and Rhode Island 3!
        Best of all, people who think and write and vote like you never go apoplectic over the U.S. Senate, where California has 2 votes and Rhode Island has 2 votes.
        Do you now understand how moronic your position is?
        No? Yes, I understand, I can fix ignorance but only God can fix stupidity.

      • Phil, please. Southern whites? You mean Democrats did not want an end to slavery. Lincoln, a Republican, ended up freeing the slaves. Democrats are experts in changing history and accusing others of the very things they are doing like voter manipulation, intimidation and gross gerrymandering. When the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for decades that is exactly how they did it. Payback is a bitch. So quit your bellyaching.

    • I think the South’s decision to secede was irrational. Abolition was not even close to “impending” in 1860. The Republican position was to limit the expansion of slavery to the territories, not to ban it in the states. I would argue that it was the aggressive posture of the south as seen in the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott that caused the war, not anything Lincoln did.

      • Yes. Of course. Anything you disagree with is “irrational”. That’s exactly the point of view of those who think the 25th Amendment was designed to undo the election of November 2016. So you’re in good company.

  2. 500 years from now, some historian will commence research for a book on the Trump Era. He will dispassionately review tens of thousands of pages and arrive at the same conclusions as Kimball. He will be on the third re-write of his now-800 page tome when during a break he will accidentally come across this piece by Kimball. And he will weep.

  3. If we allow political opposition sufficiency to undue the single greatest symbol of our Constitutional Republic- the election of our President- then the experiment has failed and we begin a descent into the morass of special interest sovereignty.

    • I believe we have already begun descent into the morass of special interest sovereignty. Brought on by Dems and the deep state (but I repeat myself). When there a different laws, or enforcement thereof, for Clinton, Comey, Lynch, Power, etc., and one party cares more about illegals than American citizens, we are there. I just hope we can pull out of the dive.

      • I am getting to be a little older, so I have been watching things since Ronald Reagan was president. I am beginning to conclude that we are witnessing the slow death of the Democratic party. It is indeed a very slow death and my diagnosis of it’s cause is the Democrats’ hostility to capitalism and affinity for planned economies including communism. That philosophy was dealt its mortal blow in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the collapse of USSR and the decision of China to transition away from pure communism. With those philosophies destroyed, the Democrats then latched onto environmentalism, but then allowed that to morph into a form of state control (watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside).

        Each passing year they fall back and fight more desperately to hold onto their remaining believers. And today they are left with a bunch of rent-seekers and low information voters who only vote Democratic because “everyone knows it is the Democrats who are the virtuous ones” without even being able to define virtue.

        If Obama and Clinton’s malfeasance during 2016 and 2017 ever sees the light of day, many of the less low information voters will begin to understand that stealing elections and thwarting the will of the electorate is not virtuous and the Democratic party will lose another sizable chunk of their supporters. At that point, the Democratic rent-seekers will realize that no amount of money will buy them the votes needed to make rent seeking profitable and will cut off the flow of funds. After that the the Democrats will no longer have the means to lure the remaining low information voters to the polls and then it will be check-mate.

    • If we allow a man who has potentially colluded with a foreign adversary and who has potentially been involved in many criminal activities, such as laundering money for the Russian mob, to go on uninvestigated then we no longer live in a society governed by the rule of law. Mueller must finish and then we must survey what actually happened.

      • Are you referring to Sec. Clinton and her multi million dollar payments for Russian information?

      • WOW! All pure fantasy which you seem to have latched onto as if real. I bet you have totally ignored the real legal violations threatening the very foundation of this nation perpetrated by your buds in the Democrat Party with Obama and Hillary at the head of it all. Don’t come on here ranting about the rule of law with made up violations by Trump where real violations are summarily ignored. You have no credibility.

      • I hear you. When 0bama stopped the ABM system from going into Poland to make Putin happy I knew we were in trouble. Then he and Hillary did the Russian reset and asked businessmen like Trump to invest in Russia. Even with that 0bama made fun of Romney in the presidential debates about the ’80s wanting their talking points back when Romney tried to alert America to Russian malfeasance. Not to be undone 0bama met with Putin’s puppet and on a hot mike was heard telling Medvedev he would have more flexibility after the election. I was not aware of 0bama’s money laundering but it doesn’t surprise me. Kind of like the $6M Mark Warner made off his Russian investments.

      • I know you think he is. But you Trumpkins respond to any criticism of Trump with “what about Obama” which is pure deflection.

      • Congratulations, you have the most ignorant post I’ve seen in some time.

      • Shorter version ,” How could this clown beat Hillary”
        Fixed it for you.
        You’re welcome.

  4. William H. Seward was the leading member of the (new) Republican Party when he gave his famous “Irrepressible Conflict Speech” in 1858. He also spoke of a “higher power” that existed above the Constitution and which governed the souls of righteous men. These sentiments (and others) rendered him a dangerous radical in the eyes of many “moderates” who made up what was then the newly formed coalition of the Republican Party. Seward was considered too “unsafe” and was passed over in favor of the more conciliatory Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s comparative moderation did nothing to assuage the fire-eaters in the South however and, after the 1860 election, they went on to secession and the bloody conflict Seward had predicted and described.

    I feel this is where we are headed not. The Democratic Party now consists of a coalition based on the self-styled victimhood and insular hatreds of different client groups. Within each of these groups the most radical voices dominate. The present Democratic “leadership” (Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin etc) is much like James Buchanan and other northern “Doughfaces” of the 1840’s and 1850’s who surrendered to radical southern demands for the purpose of keeping men like Buchanan in power.

    The problem today is that there is no end game here. To use Black Lives Matter and “theorists” like Ta’Nehisi Coates as an example, we have to ask “Where is this going?” They are loud and acidly vicious (when they aren’t being pompous) about how irredeemably racist and criminal this country is and in particular, Caucasians. If we take them at their word then the only solution to their near-infinite racial, social and economic grievances is secession and partition. A demand for “more social programs” seems ridiculous since we have tried nearly everything under the sun to resolve these grievances and they (supposedly) continue to exist. The only answer would seem for them to demand an India-Pakistan 1947 Partition and get it over with.

    I don’t think that they want this and are happy being “angry” and indulging in vicious race-baiting for the promotion of their own careers. However the rhetoric of the racial Left and the Democratic leadership who depend on them for support is leaving less and less room for any solution short of an actual division of the country along racial, ethnic, gender or sexual preference (?) lines. It might be time for another William Seward to start pointing this out.

    • Yep. BLM and all that garbage is 97% aimed at promoting careers of perhaps 100 leaders, nationwide. If those people were to lose power then BLM and the rest would be gone in two years. And most of that leadership power comes from George Soros and the like: They COULD be deprived of that support.

  5. “The Civil War began not because of slavery, but because of Lincoln’s election.”
    Wow…What is worse? Equating Trump to Lincoln in any way, shape, or form OR Suggesting that Lincoln caused the Civil War. Hmmm…Roger, your mental contortions to prostrate yourself at the altar of Default Donny have caused you to tuck your head firmly into a crevice upon which the sun shall not shine. History will be Trump’s judge, but it will also be equally unforgiving to his apologists.

    • Don’t be intentionally obtuse. He compared only the popular descriptions of the two Presidents, one considered a great, one whose legacy (or lack thereof) is still being written, and their mutual initial unpopularity. He suggested that Lincoln’s election was the trigger that set off secession, not that it was the underlying cause.

      • Let me be more succinct…Roger Kimball is a Trump apologist who is attempting to sugar coat the bumbling and incompetence of the worst modern American president.

      • I don’t think he’s “apologizing” for anyone. He probably actually appreciates the job this President is doing, relative to his predecessor.

      • No, Trump never apologizes and neither do his acolytes…in this your are correct. However, in the real world people see a president who lies (over 2,000 times), cheats (he has refused to pay sub-contractors and taken loans he never intended to pay) and steals (from his students at Trump University). We see a man who puts his own self preservation and ego over the needs of the nation. We see a man without honor in our highest office.

      • You are free to disagree. This is a democratic republic. But if you post on this web site, you have to expect to be mocked.

      • Being mocked by fools is actually like a form of praise.

      • Hammy … that’s a little desperate! PS – I have relatives in Bloomer.

      • What real world? The world of jobs & the economy makes plain Odumbo didn’t have a clue about getting the economy going. That was shown that on his watch the economy never grew more than 1,8% in any year of his presidency

        It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the socialist Odumbo had no idea of how a market economy operates. After all, he never in his life has earned a paycheck that wasn’t gouged from the suffering taxpayer. Now, in contrast, the economy is humming along at a rate of better than 3%, owing to the slashing of government regulations & the unleashing of private businesses.

      • Obama kept the economy from crashing into a depression caused by the GOP in 2008. Your short memory shows you for a foll. The markets rose over 13,000 points on Obama’s watch. Take your Trump tin foil hat and hide until you get pounded in the midterms.

      • Hey Bobby, i have some Butthurt creme if you need it.

      • Joe…You keep it. You will need it for the 2018 midterms.

      • They’ve nothing to apologize for, if they believe he’s doing a better job than his opponent in the election would have done. I had to hold my nose to pull the lever for him, but to be honest, seeing what he’s accomplished thus far, I’d be MORE likely to vote for him if I had to do it over, not less.

        You do realize Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied as well, as did Obama, as did Bush Jr, as did Bill Clinton, as did Bush Sr. . . especially if you include (as the press is wont to do when they don’t like a President) things like mis-statements based on incorrect information, things that in later light turned out to have been wrong, etc.

      • Trump is in a whole different league of corrupt and most likely criminal behavior. That is why you held your nose when you voted…you knew he was rotten. You just hated Hillary more and now you are trying to justify your mistake like so many other Americans. I know all politicians spin the truth to serve their interests. Some also lie blatantly like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Hillary may also be criminally liable for past acts, but this “what aboutism” does not justify or excuse Trump. He has not sanctioned the Russians, not protected the 2018 elections, not put the needs of the country ahead of his own self interest and those of his inner circle. Mueller will expose the truth. Trump is trying to poison the well and place himself above the law.

      • I don’t feel I made a mistake. As more and more information becomes available vis-a-vis her campaign’s funding of the FusionGPS dossier, it’s use as the foundation for FISA warrants to surveil her rival’s campaign, Uranium One, etc. etc., it’s really hard to view her as any less corrupt or likely criminal in behavior than Trump.

        I’m not attempting to justify, or excuse anything. In fact, I still don’t like the guy. And I certainly don’t agree with all of his policies (the recent budget deal’s increase in deficit is a prime example) However, you need to understand that, regardless of CNN/WaPo/NYT failing to cover it, he has accomplished more of what he promised to than most of his voters expected, not less. That in spite of his frequent incorrect or off-the-cuff comments via Twitter, the people who voted for him see him doing what he said he would. And in spite of the anti-Trump hysteria over DACA, he’s doing something he didn’t HAVE to do. . .he’s not just giving congress a chance to fix it, he’s ASKING them to. He could have simply let it expire. Or, like DAPA, he could have waited for the almost certainty of a ruling that it was unconstitutional, on virtually the same grounds. But what do we hear from the left about it? Memes about how Trump is “cancelling DACA”.

        The reality is, there are two separate movies playing on the same screen at the same time when it comes to Trump. Those media outlets hostile to him from the outset have remained so, and have gone further, abandoning all pretense of journalistic integrity in the process. Those who voted for him have largely ceased following those sources entirely. Those sources which were neutral, or supportive of him, are reporting an entirely different set of events, interpretations, and so forth. So you have two sides of this nation, receiving two completely different sets of information regarding this Presidency. I have zero hope that you and I will reach any agreement on the subject, as you’re operating from a completely different framework of information.

      • But at least you will engage in an intelligent dialogue and realize the weaknesses of your own candidate. I respect that. I watch Fox News, read Breitbart, and listen to the robust conservative radio scene in Milwaukee. I understand that Trump supporters seem satisfied with his performance in terms of the courts and taxes. My concern is that his brand of divisive populist rhetoric, reckless self aggrandizement, and possible criminal acts have set our nation on the path to a serious constitutional crisis that would entail both a political and economic meltdown. I am hopeful that Bob Mueller’s investigation will clarify and alleviate those concerns, but they may simply be the spark that ignites a conflagration. Since so many people, as you have correctly noted, will not step outside their echo chamber, Trump’s attack on the FBI and Justice Dept. are reason enough for me to be skeptical about any of this ending well.

      • “Since so many people, as you have correctly noted, will not step outside their echo chamber, Trump’s attack on the FBI and Justice Dept. are reason enough for me to be skeptical about any of this ending well.”

        We agree on something. Not, mind you, on the characterization of Trump’s comments on the FBI and Justice Dept. as “attacks”. . . in most cases, his comments have been in response to information released by the Senate or Congressional Intelligence Committees, committees which are engaged not in attacks on the entire agencies, but on inquiries into possible criminal/unethical actions by individuals within those agencies. But we do agree that it’s difficult to see a road clear of all of this. We’ve been split into two camps. . . and I see Trump’s (or Obama’s, for that matter) contribution to splitting us up into those camps as miniscule when compared to the incessant hyperventilating of our press, and the seemingly universal eagerness of elected officials on both sides to fire off incendiary comments, with little regard for their impact on our society. It’s compounded by the decline in the ability of the American voter to discern opinion, from fact, innuendo, from data. . . .to engage in critical thinking.

        Perhaps the worst part, is the issues at play are so amazingly convoluted, with so much still unrevealed, it’s hard to see how anyone, regardless of political affiliation, can truly understand them. The inevitable result, is that instead of us KNOWING, based on FACT(S). . . .we start to simply decide, based on what we prefer to be true. Then, we seek out information to convince us that we made the right choice, engaging in mass confirmation bias.

        I don’t see a clear path out either.

      • Where exactly is the incompetence you are referring? It seems that things are moving exactly the way he has wanted them to as he had the most successful first year from a conservative’s perspective even better than Reagan. The title of “worst” will surely be held by Obama when historians look back.

      • Let’s see…his celebrating white power, protecting abusers and pedophiles, hiding his tax returns and debt obligations to Russia, leaving the TPP and failing to impose sanctions on Russia or protect the 2018 elections from Russian hacking.

      • The worst President ever, after just a year. No hint of hyperbole there!

      • No…He is by any objective measure. But I don’t expect you to be objective.

      • Scott Walker for president. The unions can go to hell along with that lesbian Tammy Baldwin

      • Walker tried and failed. Wisconsin will survive Walker like the country will survive Trump. Sometimes you need useful idiots to light our way to a better path.

      • Really. Walker got rid of corrupt, self serving public employee unions and their rotten political power. The left threatened his family and the families of Republican legislators who voted for the bill. And the Milwaukee attorney general harassed conservative groups, raiding their houses, taking their property and denying them due process. I live in New York but I follow politics all across the country. What the left did in Wisconsin was appalling. That’s how the left acts-violence justified by self righteousness and contempt for the values of middle America. Hopefully we can get rid of that damn lesbian Baldwin who supports unlimited immigration.

      • I live in Wisconsin Fred…your view is about as accurate as the North Korean view of America. Public Unions were not corrupt nor have they ceased to exist. Walker also attacked private unions, the University System, the DNR and coddled the NRA by passing more open carry laws. Walker’s family and the GOP were not targeted by anyone other than the same fringe wackos that targeted teachers on the right. John Chilsom’s investigation was based on Wisconsin and Federal law. His John Doe investigations resulted in uncovering GOP attempts to hide campaign money and illegally fund other campaigns through PACS. Finally, Walker and the GOP also illegally gerrymandered the state legislative districts, forcing them to redraw the area south of Milwaukee once and now putting the whole process on trial before the Supreme Court. Stay in New York and pound sand while Wisconsin returns to its blue state roots in 2018

      • My state is controlled by unions and people are leaving in droves. Unions are monopolies that seek to prevent others from entering the marketplace. Unions in my state have engaged in violent disruptions on construction sites. No man should be forced to join a union in order to work-period. Feather bedding, no show jobs, the inability to fire incompetent workers, outrageous wage and benefit demands that are bankrupting the state, union leaders embezzling member pension funds-give me a break. Gerrymandering in every state-blue and red. It’s been that way since the 19th century. Blue states do it too. I am not justifying it but politics is all about seeking and maintain power. Conservatives in my state are a distinct minority. Our governor publicly said there is no room for conservatives like myself in New York. As far as campaign money goes the Democrats do the same thing under the guise of unions and gay rights groups. Republicans with their help were gerrymandered out of three legislative seats to make room for black representatives. Finally the left in this state, as in other states, have engaged in violent tactics to prevent people from speaking on college campuses and have attacked people they disagreed with. I am a Jew and the left has become violently anti-Semitic on matters related to Israel. The left does not come out with clean hands on many issues any more than my side does. But I gave up on leftism many years ago. I am nearly 70 now and I saw what the left did on campus during the 60’s and how they have become anti-religious, anti gun ownership, contemptuous of traditional values, and have become hostage to identity politics-the politics of grievance, entitlement, self pity and victimization. They oppose immigration enforcement, law enforcement, they support forced unionization, oppose voter ID laws, energy development, want to force religious groups to provide abortion and gay marriage and use the courts to advance goals they cannot achieve the legislative process. Wisconsin is not a blue state; it is a purple state. It can go either way, My state is true blue and I have seen firsthand what the left can do if given too much power.

      • “The Civil War began not because of slavery, but because of Lincoln’s election.” What this attempts to elide is that it was the policy of the Republican Party to prevent the expansion of slavery to the West that made Lincoln unacceptable to the South. So *yes* Mr. Kimball, the Civil War began because of slavery. This article attempts to normalize the Southern Lost Cause ideology in a pointless if not dubious comparison between Lincoln and Trump.

      • Lincoln is still considered a great tyrant by those such as I whose family lost all five boys then in the family fighting to defend the South. The Constitution makes allowance for secession, but King Lincoln’s personal preference was that that stipulation of the Constitution should be ignored.

        Evidence that slavery was not the cause of the war is offered by what Southern soldiers were usually referred to: they were called “Johnny Reb,” not Johnny Slaveholder

        The Soviet Union was a country too large to be efficiently governed & consequently it split into 15 more manageable sized nation/states. The day is rapidly approaching for the shattering of the USA into a number of nations. The economist Harry D. Schultz suggested in his 1991 work, “Re-Making the World: Cutting nations down to size” that New England be a separate nation, as he thought both Texas & California should be.

      • You are assuming large elements of your argument, which is a logical fallacy called “begging the question.” The Constitution does not make allowances for secession in any non-controversial or non-arguable way. To assert that it does is “begging the question”. There is no stipulation in the Constitution that Lincoln ignored. There is only the Calhounian formulation of Compact Theory, which is a particular interpretation treated as established fact by Lost Causers. In fact, to the extent that there is any possibility of secession recognizable in the Constitution Texas v. White (1869) establishes that it cannot be unilateral (as attempted by the states in rebellion) but must be approved “by the states.”

        What Southern soldiers were referred to offers no evidence concerning the causes of the Civil War. To call someone a “Reb” or “Secesh” offers no claim about why the person so labelled was rebelling or seceding.

        The comment regarding the Soviet Union is irrelevant other than as a form of neo-secessionist ranting.

      • That Lincoln is considered a tyrant by the descendant of rebels is more an admission of bias than the announcement of meaningful evidence. The flat statement that the Constitution allows for secession is begging the question. You’re making a claim that requires evidence. Lost Causers are typically believers in Calhoun’s Compact Theory of the Constitution, but Compact Theory is not a simple fact of what the Constitution means – it’s an opinion. The only official pronouncement on the question was made by the Supreme Court in Texas v White (1869) and it was not favorable to Compact Theory.

        What Southern soldiers were called is not evidence regarding why they “rebelled” or “seceded” only that they did so.

      • But it was the very policy that you refer to which was one of the underlying causes of the war I mention in my prior comment. I seriously doubt the author was (regardless of the quote) attempting to state that the issues of slavery/states-rights/what-not had nothing to do with the war, and that it was Lincoln’s election that was the entire cause.

        And I suspect you’re smart enough to recognize that, but are choosing to nitpick semantics anyway, out of disagreement with his overall premise.

      • When someone writes “Slavery is not the cause of the Civil War” it is not a matter of semantics to call them on their Lost Cause ideology. The author made a categorical statement.

      • “The author made a categorical statement.”

        That I can’t disagree with. I doubt that he meant to (for the reasons I have described), and I suspect you realize that too. . .but of course I can’t prove either. After all, the Lost Cause ideology has been fairly well discredited, and I fairly certain the author knows that.

      • You may certainly continue to work as an apologist for the OP. As for the claim that “he didn’t mean it” I recognize no such thing. Lost Cause Ideology is, unfortunately, alive and well on the internet. When someone makes a straightforward statement like this I assume they’re smart enough to know what they’re saying and thus that they actually mean what they’re saying.

      • Well, I imagine you’re familiar with what happens when you “assume”.

      • Is this a meaningful observation coming from someone who assumes that the OP does not mean what they say when they say it in simple and straightforward language? Please.

      • No more or less meaningful, I suppose, than your observations. . .outrage over this author’s article, which do little other than prove his point about “the sudden efflorescence of incontinent animus against Donald Trump”.

      • You have attempted to respond to my claim first by excusing the OP, then by claiming that it’s irrelevant because it is tangential to the OP’s point. Now you’ve latched on to a convenient phrase that you seem to hope will do the job of refuting a point which you are unable to substantively address. I am not a mindless Trump hater; I am a mindful critic of the author of this article and your willingness to give a pass to a reductive and destructive poison in our social and political discourse. Cloaking Trump in the virtues of Lincoln is weak tea. Tossing out some Lost Cause Ideology (which has been a balm to more than one poster on this thread) is irresponsible and yet you continue to rush to the defense of the OP. Ask yourself why.

      • “You have attempted to respond to my claim first by excusing the OP”

        No. I described it as discredited. How soon your forget.

        “Now you’ve latched on to a convenient phrase that you seem to hope will do the job of refuting a point which you are unable to substantively address. ”

        What good would it do for me to further address a point which is false, and which I’ve demonstrated is false? You obviously want it to be true so bad that you’re willing to ignore what I actually SAID.

      • And you continue to misconstrue the difference between my criticism of the OP and your own points. The OP deployed Lost Cause Ideology. The fact that you described it as discredited is irrelevant if you excuse the OPs use of that ideology, which you have done – repeatedly – by continuing to pretend there is some other point. If you wish to concede my point that the OP’s use of Lost Cause Ideology is crap then we’re done here.

        This entire exchange was initiated by you rushing to defend the OP by accusing those calling him out for using Lost Cause Ideology as “deliberately obtuse”. If the irony were any heavier your computer would sink through the floor on its way to the center of the Earth.

      • Noting that the Lost Cause issue you seem stuck on is tangential to the point of the article is not excusing anything.

        Moreover, I’m not sure you even understand what Lost Cause ideology really is. What the author said doesn’t even really qualify, as his comment makes no attempt to portray the southern cause as heroic or admirable. . . which is central to the Lost Cause ideology. Nor in any of numerous descriptions of Lost Cause ideology I’ve read, do I find ANY reference to followers of that ideology claiming that the election of Lincoln was the cause of the war. However, it’s relatively common among civil war historians to this day to discuss if Lincoln’s election was the single event that triggered the start of states seceding. . . and thus the onset of war. Discussions on the topic can be found at countless related sites, like civilwartalk.com, civilwar.org, markedbyteachers.org (the last which, incidentally takes it as a given that Lincoln’s election DID lead to the outbreak of war, without embracing Lost Cause ideology).

        But by all means, keep hammering away at something that’s not central to the article, that you only appear to have a partial understanding of, and pretending I’m the one being disingenuous.

      • You conveniently leave out the crucial part of the OP’s construction that signifies Lost Cause Ideology: “The Civil War began not because of slavery…but because of Lincoln’s election.” Why did you attempt to leave that out?

        You felt it necessary to rush to the OPs defense when I pointed out that the reason *why* Lincoln’s election functioned as the trigger to the Civil War was precisely because of his position on slavery. At that point you offered that I and others were being “deliberately obtuse”.

        Is Lincoln’s election the trigger – obviously yes (as my initial post stated) but that cannot be separated from slavery as the OP attempts to do. Which line of Civil War interpretation is built on attempting to portray the Civil War as a clash of political and economic views aligned by section and (critically for your exchange with me) unrelated to slavery? Well, obviously since you’re so familiar with Lost Cause you know…but you won’t admit it. So your next obvious ploy is to disengage, dissemble, make a partial quotation or representation of what I’ve stated here, claim that I’m irrationally anti-Trump, claim that my point is irrelevant: anything but admit what you cannot seem to refute. The OP is using a vapid comparison of Lincoln and Trump in order to validate Trump by putting criticism of the two on the same plane, while, wait for it, throwing in some Lost Cause Ideology for good measure.

      • “You conveniently leave out the crucial part of the OP’s construction that signifies Lost Cause Ideology: “The Civil War began not because of slavery…but because of Lincoln’s election.” Why did you attempt to leave that out?”

        Because it doesn’t actually signify Lost Cause ideology on its own, for the reasons I stated in the immediately preceding comment. As an analogy, if I am bald, does it signify I am a member of a white power group? Not necessarily. I might be suffering from male pattern baldness, or a cancer patient, etc. etc. Something more is required, otherwise you’re making an assumption based solely on my appearance. Similarly, you’re making an assumption based solely upon a single statement by the author, absent all the context required to make a definitive judgement.

        “At that point you offered that I and others were being “deliberately obtuse”.”

        No, I offered that Bob from Wisconsin was being deliberately obtuse, which ought to have been clear based on that I was replying specifically to him when I stated that.

        “Which line of Civil War interpretation is built on attempting to portray the Civil War as a clash of political and economic views aligned by section and (critically for your exchange with me) unrelated to slavery?”

        I’ll answer that question, if you’ll demonstrate where the author attempts to portray the Civil War as a clash of political and economic views aligned by section. . . which is also critical for our exchange, as you’re continuing to emphasize a single comment as indicative of the author’s belief in Lost Cause ideology, in spite of my having shown that similar statements are in NO WAY uncommon w/r/t discussion of what started the Civil War, including by people who do NOT embrace Lost Cause ideology.

        So please, demonstrate where the author commented on the admirable struggle of the south, or how the civil war was about a clash of political and economic views, or the ending of a way of life. Be specific. Because if you cannot do so, you’re doing EXACTLY what I’ve previously noted. . . .entrenched yourself in a position where you’re arguing that a single comment confirms the author’s embrace of Lost Cause ideology, absent any of the necessary context required to make such a judgement. I already know you’re not going to be able to, because . . .as the entire comment is in fact tangential to the central point of the article, he immediately MOVES ON. Worst of all, you’re ignoring the author’s explanation of his own comment:
        “It was that event that precipitated the secession of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, followed shortly thereafter by Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina.”

        That is not Lost Cause ideology, that is established historical fact.
        So let’s compare this with entries from other mainstream history cites, shall we?

        from historynet.com:
        “With the election in 1860 of Abraham Lincoln, who ran on a message of containing slavery to where it currently existed, and the success of the Republican Party to which he belonged – the first entirely regional party in US history – in that election, South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860, the first state to ever officially secede from the United States. Four months later, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana seceded as well.”

        From enotes.com, in answer to the question “What event caused Southern states to secede from the Union, just weeks after it happened?”:
        “The event that caused the southern states to secede was the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States”.

        From ushistory.org:
        “The force of events moved very quickly upon the election of Lincoln. South Carolina acted first, calling for a convention to secede from the Union. State by state, conventions were held, and the Confederacy was formed. Within three months of Lincoln’s election, seven states had seceded from the Union.”

        “South Carolina responded to Lincoln’s election first, seceding from the Union on December 20, 1860.”

        u-s-history.com says:
        “Following the election of 1860, some prominent Southern leaders, Jefferson Davis among them, wanted to give the Lincoln administration a chance to sooth the sectional strife. However, South Carolina sized the initiative, having clearly warned that if the Republicans won the 1860 election then the state would leave the Union.
        A special convention, attended by Robert Rhett and other noted “fire-eaters,” was convened following the election and unanimously passed a resolution of secession on December 20, 1860.

        study.com notes:
        “As soon as the election returns were in, South Carolina’s governor and legislature called for a secession convention, which convened on December 17, 1860. It didn’t take long for the delegates to decide what to do. On December 20, they voted unanimously to leave the Union.”

        The basic Google answer to the question “What triggered South Carolina to secede from the Union?”:
        “Lincoln was elected president on November on November 6, 1860, and secession began just a few weeks later: South Carolina went first, on December 20, followed by Mississippi on January 9, 1861, and then by Florida on the next day. For the Southern states, secession from the Union was about saving slavery.”

        With this last entry, an example that both notes that Lincoln’s election was in fact the immediate cause, AND the notation that secession was about saving slavery. Obviously, the two notions are not mutually exclusive.

        How many more examples do I need to ram down your throat? Or are you just going to now declare that all of these history and education sites, and Google for that matter (one of the last places I’d expect Lost Cause to fester) embrace Lost Cause ideology as well?

      • You have provided multiple quotations to support a point that is not in dispute . Lincoln’s election was the immediate trigger to the wave of Southern rebellion. What represents LC ideology here is trying to divorce those actions from slavery, which the OP does with his clear and unambiguous statement “The Civil War began not because of slavery but because of Lincoln’s election.” Separating out slavery as a cause of the Civil War represents an attempt to ennoble a rebellion deeply enmeshed in the South’s “Peculiar Institution”. That is LC by definition.

        The fact that you used six quotations to support a point not in dispute announces your inability to contend with anything I’ve stated here. Your internet erudition illustrates that you can find facts, but you do not understand how they relate to the point in dispute. Even your Google quotation makes my point while vitiating yours – *I* am not disputing that Lincoln’s election triggered a wave of rebellion that was intended to preserve slavery in the South. The OP would have us believe that only the first part of that sentence is accurate while breaking out and discarding the significance of slavery as a cause of the war. You follow on as an apologist for the OP.

        Though you have attempted to evade these facts by alternately misquoting or partially quoting what I’ve said, declaring the entire point irrelevant, attempting to paint me as irrational, or drowning the thread in irrelevant quotes (as I’ve just shown) you have been unable to refute anything I’ve said. Your own efforts display that my points continue to hit home as you keep reaching for anything you can to confuse what you cannot refute.

      • “What represents LC ideology here is trying to divorce those actions from slavery, which the OP does with his clear and unambiguous statement “The Civil War began not because of slavery but because of Lincoln’s election.””

        Again you ignore his immediately following explanatory sentence, announcing” your your inability to contend with anything I’ve stated here”.

        ” Your internet erudition illustrates that you can find facts, but you do not understand how they relate to the point in dispute.”

        Your refusal to acknowledge those facts/quotes as anything other than irrelevant, and your refusal to address several points I have made, indicate you aren’t even TRYING to understand how they relate to the point in dispute, or that you’ve decided to abandon the point in dispute, and are now arguing simply because you’re incapable of admitting I’ve demonstrated your position’s erroneous nature. I did enjoy the rationalizing gymnastics you’ve done in order to dismiss the information I’ve provided, quotes which (rather than being irrelevant), effectively disprove your entire argument.

      • The facts/quotes were addressed. They are irrelevant because they repeat the same point over and over, which is that Lincoln’s election triggered the Civil War. This is not in dispute. Since you seem to have missed this on more than one occasion let me spell it out for you: The second and third sentences of this paragraph represent me directly responding to your use of the quotes as do the next two sentences: The issue is that the OP attempts to separate slavery from the causes of the Civil War in a manner consistent with LC ideology. None of your quotes address that point. What I have said here represents me not just asserting that your quotes are irrelevant, but demonstrating my claim to be valid. You have been incapable of doing this for even one of your statements.

        You have simply asserted that I am not trying to understand your points. You follow with another assertion that I’ve engaged in “rationalizing gymnastics” – but you can’t show this to be valid, because you literally cannot – it’s not accurate.

        Your attempt to apologize for the OP by reference to his “follow up sentence” fails, because that sentence – which does little more than note Lincoln’s election triggered the war and list the states in rebellion – does not in any way modify his categorical statement “The Civil War began not because of slavery…”

        Now, see if you can respond to any of this with something more than mere assertions. But you won’t. If you follow pattern your next statement will be to claim that what I’ve said here is also “mere assertion” – though you will not be able to demonstrate why.

      • Right, but you assume that the OP does not mean what he says. These are not equivalent. I’m holding the OP accountable. You’re giving him a pass.

      • It’s not nitpicking semantics when someone writes a categorical statement like “The Civil War began not because of slavery…” You’re acting as an apologist for an author who is repeating Lost Cause ideology. Disregarding the quote is willful ignorance, which you may be choosing to do because you *agree* with his overall premise. I think the author’s overall premise is drivel. There is no meaningful basis for comparison of Trump and Lincoln. The real significance of the article is the attempt to normalize Lost Cause ideology – to have it slip through unchallenged, and therefore assume the status of an uncontroversial fact.

      • “There is no meaningful basis for comparison of Trump and Lincoln.”

        And I think your premise, that he was comparing the Presidents themselves at all, is drivel. It’s patently obvious that, as I noted to Bob above, he was comparing negative statements made about them in the press, and their low initial popularity. In that context, I DO agree with the article. I would NOT agree with substantive comparisons between the two Presidents on almost any other basis.

      • Sidestepping the point that you are acting as an apologist for Lost Cause ideology is not a sign of much integrity. It also is ironic that you initiated your exchange with me by suggesting that I was behaving as an abstruse nitpicker rather than engaging with the substantive point of the OP. Negative statements in the press regarding Lincoln and Trump are an unremarkable point of comparison. Spend enough time in the archives and it’s readily apparent that all presidents are subjected to that kind of criticism. The point of doing so here is to offer Trump some of Lincoln’s gravitas by suggesting that since one of the greatest presidents in our history was criticized in the press we should either see Trump in a positive light or suspend our judgment until “history” has weighed in. I’ll restate my point – this is drivel. What matters here is that the OP is painting his vapid sketch using the medium of Lost Cause Ideology.

      • “Sidestepping the point that you are acting as an apologist for Lost Cause ideology is not a sign of much integrity.”

        Hilarious assertion, considering that just yesterday I noted in a comment to you that the Lost Cause school of thought has been pretty thoroughly discredited.

        “Negative statements in the press regarding Lincoln and Trump are an unremarkable point of comparison.”

        Which was pretty much my original position.

      • The fact that you claim Lost Cause Ideology is discredited and then go on to apologize for its deployment in the original post is a contradiction in your thinking – not mine.

        “”Negative statements in the press regarding Lincoln and Trump are an unremarkable point of comparison.”

        Which was pretty much my original position.”

        Then we are in agreement the original post is drivel. The main problem then is that in communicating that drivel the OP choses to deploy Lost Cause ideology, which we both agree is crap, but for some reason you choose to give the OP a pass on.

      • The fact that you agree Lost Cause ideology is bunk does not change the fact that everything you’ve done in this exchange has functioned as an apology for *someone else* who is deploying that ideology.

        I don’t think your “original position” was that the OP’s post lacked merit. That’s my position. I’ve already explained why I think the OP links the negative statements about Lincoln to those about Trump. It is to grant Trump some of Lincoln’s gravitas. When I say the comparison is unremarkable it means that this effort by the OP lacks merit because you could attempt to cloak *any* President in Lincoln’s reputation with this kind of rhetoric.

      • Perhaps what you’re saying might be true if the article was about the Civil War and its causes. It’s not. The entire topic you’re attempting to debate is a sideline to the point of the author’s article, not central to it. It’s like you’re trying to make the discussion about something besides his central point, in order to take issue with the article as a whole. In doing so, you’re providing a perfect example of the “sudden incontinent animus” that the author refers to (especially given that you seem incapable of moving on, and determined to be upset about it).

      • I have addressed the central point of the author multiple times. His point is entirely rhetorical – he’d have us reevaluate Trump on the basis of a vapid comparison with Lincoln. You have attempted to wriggle away from the OP’s deployment of Lost Cause ideology yet again, now by claiming that it’s tangential to the main point. Additionally you would portray me as “upset” – classic ad hominem as there is nowhere else for you to go.

      • I don’t NEED to “go anywhere”. You’re attempting to wriggle away from the fact that your issues with Lost Cause ideology ARE tangential to the point of the article, as you have consistently done from you started commenting here. You continue to insist he’s making some substantive comparison between these Presidents, when it’s plain to anyone not speaking from a position of “incontinent animus” that all he compares is negative press comments, and initial unpopularity.

        Effectively, what you’re doing is dismissing the entire article because you disagree with a position you believe he took on a tangential issue.

      • You continue to evade without engaging my actual points, which you also seem incapable of repeating without distortion.

    • You really have no handle on history. It very definitely was the election of Lincoln that set this nation ablaze. Once he was elected, the future was set and the Southern states knew it full well. Like Reagan said – It’s not that Liberals are stupid, it’s just that what they “know” just isn’t true.

  6. “Someday, the sudden efflorescence of incontinent animus against Donald Trump will occupy an interesting section in the annals of psychopathology, furnishing, perhaps, a new chapter for Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. But for the moment, the political ergot is too freshly distributed into the metabolism of “elite” opinion to be described calmly. We can only stand by and watch, like an anthropologist at some savage ritual, while the natives rage.”

    This. Yes.

    It is incredibly difficult to bear watching otherwise intelligent, thoughtful friends of mine consumed by said animus. Their consumption defies all attempt at logical debate, and dismisses all contrary facts.

    • Liberalism is, indeed, a mental disorder. There is no other explanation for their continual denial of reality in favor of their fantasy.

    • I don’t know. We never really came to grips with the child care-sexual abuse mania of the 80s. It seems we go through fits of mass hysteria periodically, each a little bit worse. Trump Derangement Syndrome masks a hatred of Republicans that is difficult to understand and bodes ill for the future.

      • You know the child care-sex-sexual abuse mania is a good way to understand the fear of this wave of white supremacy we’re supposedly seeing. It’s not really real, but it reflects some primal fear a lot of the country seems to be afflicted with.

      • I’m not sure it’s even as real as ‘primal.’ The fear of a wave of white supremacy may be simply a useful narrative.

        When Democrats need a line of argument they’re equally happy with a total fabrication.

      • I’m not sure you can really compare the two phenomenon. In the first example (sexual abuse mania etc), you have many cases of wrongdoing actually having occurred, that’s just now coming out (but in many cases, there’s substantial evidence that such abuse actually occurred). . . and the media is reporting on it. In the case of Trump, you have hyped up innuendo and implication, but no real solid evidence of wrongdoing, yet the hatred is no less pronounced for that fact. . and that’s largely (in my opinion) due to the fact that the media is continuing to report on it, complete with breathless reports on every new tidbit of information, even in the absence of credible evidence that Trump or his campaign did anything improper w/r/t the Russians.

      • I don’t accept that there were indeed many cases of wrong doing. Cases were based on testimony of children who still believed in the tooth fairy, and who were easily influenced by professionals eager to further their careers by uncovering abuse. I think it was the anxiety of so many mothers heading off to work and leaving young children with strangers.

      • I think I misinterpreted your original comment. I thought you were referring to two separate issues, a child care issue, and a sexual abuse issue (which I interpreted as the current sexual assault/abuse/etc issue). I was referring to the latter, not what you initially commented on. Sorry for any confusion.

  7. The polls say ……….CNN said……..Professor XYZ said today……Counter demonstrators attacked a Free Speech Rally today at….

  8. The comparison of Trump with Lincoln could only be made by a very sick and deviant mind.

    • Actually, it’s comparison of the division in America of today to the division in America back then.

    • Obviously, you can;t look beyond the very superficial to see the true purpose and meaning. so sad.

      • Actually even on the very superficial level it’s easy to to make the comparison. Both men were Republicans, populists, and despised even by people within their own parties. LongTom was just reacting emotionally.

      • Yes, being a Republican President, a populist, and having serious opposition within your own party is as common as having two arms, two legs, and a head.

      • A populist? He tells you that while promoting policies favoring the rich and corporations at the expense of the public. Just one of many examples, how does net neutrailty help us in any way? Less choice, less startup innovation.. those are good things? You’re in Trump Unicersity and loving it.

      • Yeah, you can chill out. You don’t know anything about me and you have no idea how I feel about Trump.

        Anyway, whether or not Trump’s actual policies actually benefit the people, he ran as populist. Once again, plenty of people would have made the same argument you are making about Trump about Lincoln, that he didn’t ACTUALLY represent the people, but he still ran as a populist. Pretty much every populist politician in history probably had someone ready to claim he was a fake who was really looking out for the interests of the wealthy.

      • And for that matter you don’t know how I feel about Lincoln. Comparing Trump to Lincoln isn’t necessarily a compliment to Trump.

  9. 1 The deep state is a fiction.
    2 The “resistance” to Trump is much more about his behavior and attitudes that his “accomplishments.” You want to argue for tax cuts, fine. But claiming that the Central Park 5 are guilty after then have been exonerated and actually proven innocent is one of a hundred incidents when his behavior and attitude are personally defective and deficient.
    3 Comparing him to Lincoln is evidence that the author of this piece is incompetent and not worth reading. He may think it is some neat trick, but to quote Slaughterhouse 5 “History will prove you an ass.”
    4 Waking up at 3 am and perpetuating a beef over an “overweight” former beauty queen and referring to her as “Miss Housekeeping.” Awesome dude, I’m really impressed at Trump’s “greatness.”

    • It is remarkable how you are consistently wrong on each point you make. The deep state has long proven its existence and your denial is delusional. The Resistance” is all about Trump’s policies and agenda to tear apart a piece at a time the Obama legacy. They have no interest in providing Trump with any kind of victory that would legitimize him. Fortunately, he achieves his victories in spite of their efforts. The comparison to Lincoln in providing the quotes that every know-nothing college student would say refer to Trump is enlightening given the mass perception of Lincoln. Historians have long stated that his assassination was the best thing that could have happened to him with regard to his standing in history because he would have been impeached just as Johnson was. And lastly, the impact of his tweets have exactly the desired effect as they manipulate the press and maintain a degree of chaos in which he gets done what he wants done without much notice.

      • I doubt that Lincoln’s long term fate was saved by Booth. Just like Trump and Reagan before him, history was on Lincoln’s side. The war was essentially over by the time of his assassination. Actually I believe it was won at Gettysburg and certainly after the fall of Atlanta. He had already saved the union, that alone guaranteed him a favorable place in the history books. Johnson was impeached because he misread the American people after the war, they wanted permanent lasting change in the south and Johnson, as a southerner, wasn’t interested to that much change. I do think his impeachment was wrong because I believe he acted within his rights as President. The constitutionally proper response to his behavior was the ballot-box in 1868, but the country was too impatient for that.

      • What history that says that assasination was the next thing that could have happened to Lincoln? That’s a remarkably unastute statement.

    • Wow ,you are quoting Kurt Vonegut?
      HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA!

    • So prove the “Deep State” exists.

      I am waiting……….

      btw, Fux news and BlackBart are not real sources…..

      Find some academic neutral source, and someone’s opinion is also not evidence, you have to have actual proof.

      Good luck foo

  10. I think the far right and those like Kimball actually wish for war.

    • Nah – go to the NYT’s, WAPO and other lefty websites. Their asking for it there. Heck they’ve been beating up Trump supporters at rallies, burning our universities down and one lib even shot a bunch of Rs trying to play baseball.

    • I think it’s just for a paycheck. One site has to outdo another in generating outrage, hence more clicks and more money. And readers clearly check their cognitive processes at the door, so the more outrageous the better.

    • A mind is a terrible thing to waste,but i am going to make a exception in your case.
      Have you considered euthanasia?

  11. Kimball is geting a lot of flak from the rabid left over this article , which indicates he is right on target.

  12. The 21st century Civil War began about 16 months ago. Some blood has been spilled. California wants to secede. New California wants to secede from California. NY is creating new law to protect the rich. Every time Trump supporters rally, their haters show up and cause violence.

    Meanwhile, the economy has shrugged off the fog of the Obama administration and middle class people are receiving a nice tax break.

    All in all, sounds like Pres. Trump is pushing all the right buttons.

    • A temporary tax break… be honest. And here in Texas, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso and the RGV would gladly separate from TX if given the chance.

      • Temporary? 7 years is a bit more than temporary. And of course if the Dems are in control at the time, they can end the tax cuts and take responsibility.

      • Some provisions end after 3 years, some after 5 and all except for cuts for the rich and corporations after 7. In the end the middle class will be paying more than what they would have without this massive debt expansion at the worst time in an economic cycle. Utter stupidity and conservatives no longer have any validity left when talking about the budget and debt. You are morally bankrupt.

      • No, I’m afraid you’ve been relying on Democrat talking points and not seeing the true value of what the new tax bill will do. I”m sure all the bonuses and pay raises and increased retirement contributions are meaningless to you.

        But I’m jazzed about business repatriating money and investing in their own businesses again.

        Sorry you can’t read the handwriting on the wall.

      • Businesses will not give pay raises very much. Bonuses because they are temporary. BTW 401ks are down since the tax bill went into effect. Not up. Only 50% of working people have a 401K and 80% of all stocks are owned by 1% of the population. Conservatives are on the wrong side of history and economics.

      • That would explain why 0bama who left office with a supposed 60% approval rating helped the Dems lose over 1000 seats from 2009 to 2016. History – which one? Yours seems a tad to the left.

      • See this is where you’re listening to talking points. As we see from the following: http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/02/news/economy/january-jobs-report-2018/index.html

        wages have been increasing and now with an ever growing labor market, wages will continue to rise. And that’s not even an assumption, this will occur as companies have to pay to keep their workers from leaving.

        Please don’t throw the stock market 2 week fall as proof that 401Ks are down since the tax bill. That was a much needed correction and most likely still more to come.

        50% of workers must mean a lot of middle class people, the type the Dems claim aren’t getting little benefit from the tax bill.

        And you can’t compare this tax bill historically because corporate taxes have never been shaved like this before. Yes, some of the money will go to enrich the executives (which will pay taxes), stock buybacks (which will pay taxes) but the bulk of the money will go towards reinvestment, expansion and more jobs.

        And the repatriation of money that’s been sitting idle for years. That money comes back (as Apple said they would do) and there you go, more taxes paid.

        It’s a total win-win. The major problem is the spending by Congress. Pres. Trump can demand cuts or spend like a madman but Congress always decides where our money goes.

      • A brief lesson in economics: if there is not an increase in productivity, every bit of wage growth will flow through to inflation. If you doubled the salary of every person in American, do you thi k you could buy twice as much stuff?

      • One major point in reinvestment in a company is to purchase new equipment which should be leading to greater productivity. Also because of the tightening job market, employers will have to pay their employees more so they don’t lose them.

        All of that money sitting in overseas banks, was not doing any good for the economy. Now it can come back, get taxed and be put to use.

        The tax cuts to individuals is minor compared to what the benefits will be to corporations.

      • Using the last repatriation as a proxy.. not for wages, as it was one time, but for how corporations used the money, the vast majority went to dividends, share buybacks, and mergers. With rates historically and profits historically high, other than some cases that would be the exception rather than the rule, if a project was economically viable, it would have been undertaken. Busting back stock? That’s an immediate rise in the stock price, and more management bonuses.

        The argument you make argument ‘sounds good’, but it is more political than economic.

      • The repatriation you’re referring to from last time was much smaller, and the money reinvested coming back was still subject to the old corporate rates. Now, with the $2-4 trillion sitting overseas, once that money is brought back, then there’s much more incentive with the lower corporate rates with this reinvestment.

      • It was smaller, but not nearly subject to the corporate rate. 5.25% isn’t ‘low’?

        “In the 2004 case, 9,700 companies were eligible to take part in a tax holiday that would bring the overseas cash back at a rate of 5.25 percent”

        And as I said, most went directly to shareholders.

        “According to one study cited, as much as 91 cents on the dollar went to share repurchases.”

        Empirical evidence is a far better predictor of outcomes than what the politicians say, which by the way, is the same thing they said last time. While it makes sense to bring the money back, the effects have been far oversold.

      • And as I wrote, reinvesting that repatriation would have still subjected the companies to the corporate tax structure that was in existence.

        There was an incentive to bring the money back, but no incentive to put that money to use as what we now have.

        Time will tell, but with the announcements made so far, certainly sounds like we will have different results.

      • Again a political statement masquerading as an economic one. There may be some marginal cases, but essentially an investment is profitable or not regardless of tax rates. And the effective tax rates for most multinationals were far lower than the 35% which is misleadingly reported. As Warren Buffett famously said:

        “SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.”Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.”

      • A political statement? Only in your eyes. As I said, time will tell.

      • Announcements like Apple? ‘Contribute 350bn to US economy over 5 years”. How much of that is net new vs business as usual? And what does ‘contribute to the economy’ entail? It not nearly the same as capital investment by any means. Answers are out there, and they are markedly different than what the conservative press has reported.

      • You’re basing your argument on assumptions from what happened in the past when the resulting rules were different.

        If you want to classify the hundreds of companies’ announcements what they are doing initially with the changes in the corporate tax rates as meaningless or frivolous or statements without facts, there’s nothing else I can write.

        Stay in your world of denial and hate and the rest of us will watch the GDP rise to heights that our esteemed economists said weren’t possible again.

      • Basic economic principles and empirical evidence is now ‘denial’ in Trump world. That about sums it up.

      • You haven’t shown any basic economic principles. Your ‘evidence’ from 12 years ago isn’t representative of what the new tax bill enables going forward.

        But not much else I can write besides, time will tell.

      • Does that mean that I’m part of 1% of the population? I am so proud!

      • The last analysis I saw was 87% of the corporate tax cuts weren’t passed on to workers. And every penny was borrowed. So we took out a loan to give corporations and the rich a trillion dollars. That’s money we owe, not them. No, that’s not meaningless to me.

      • Of course it’s not to people who’d rather see $3 trillion dollars parked offshore collecting dust than onshore at a demonstrably lower rate.

      • So something different will happen than the last time in 2004? Why?

        “The 2004 American Jobs Creation Act temporarily cut taxes on repatriated profits to 5.25 percent from 35 percent. About 9,700 companies took advantage of the tax break, bringing back $312 billion. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report found that the tax holiday “did not increase domestic investment or employment.”

      • Why not? I mean all they had to negotiate were the growing regulatory restrictions of the Bush White House and later the perils of O-care and that plethora of gov’t regulations telling business how they were supposed to invest it (“go green” comes to mind). I expect different results mister when a different environment prevails. Money always goes where it’s wanted and always leaves where its not wanted. There are a number of countries where that dictum prevails. Should I name some for you?

      • Matthew, whatever your reading can’t be true. The corporate tax cuts are just now occurring and there has never been a slash like this to my knowledge. So premature to say the money won’t be passed along.

        And letting companies keep their own money is a good thing. And one other thing that you may be unaware of, corporations do not pay taxes. The costs are just included in their price of good or service.

      • Do you support Ted Cruz’s effort to make it permanent?

      • Shush!!! You’re not supposed to ask such challenging questions.

      • They don’t end for corporations because the corporate tax- HIGHEST in the developed world- was uncompetetive and throttling US industry. Had been for years. Nevertheless your side can vote to retain the “temporary” tax breaks for the middle class or more likely allow there sunsetting. What does the middle class need “crumbs” for anyway fool.

      • Lol!!! Now your side is promoting fiscal responsibility: after your hero doubled a debt nobody thought possible of doubling.

      • I have always promoted fiscal responsibility. Now CONs have abandoned all pretense of ever having been fiscally prudent.

      • It’s a $2 TRILLION Deficit Party our kids get to pay for
        Enjoy your crumbs and try to not look ’em in the eye as you spend it

      • with property tax millage rates as much as 35/1000 is some of those cities, its easy to see why.

      • They are also where 75% of all economic activity in TX takes place. Abbott should want TX to be like Austin. Flush with cash. Amazing economy. World class education and research. Lowest unemployment in the state if not the nation. Been to rural TX much? Bordering on depression due to the past 25 years of Republican rule.

      • No, due to the feds not enforcing immigration laws and Obama’s war on the working class… that is already starting to change.

      • Been in the ATX for 25+ yrs…not everybody remembers the grakle roost & bad decisions by city council. Too bad Travis Co wants to be King Co, WA….going to move back to that rural TX. K

      • I agree with some of that. I got in ATX in 90. The attitude of if we don’t build it they won’t come predominated much of the Council for years. But that changed with Kirk Watson as mayor. Since Austin has been a dynamic growing economic machine resented by Republicans who despite their best efforts, can’t kill the city.

      • Yes but do people who work there live there? Take a look at any of those cities you speak of and they’re surrounded by thriving suburbs that are all but entirely conservative (and republican). Farm and ranch country never changes dude. Those who own stay, those who don’t either move to those suburbs and work in those cities or collect whatever dole one finds while living in those cities. Odd that you should cast aspersions upon republican governing (as opposed to ruling: that’s the dem modus operandi/ vivendi). With the republican ascendancy in Texas came a diversified economy and an economic miracle that produced almost as many jobs as the rest of the country combined during the Obama economy (blaming the previous administration for its economic shortfalls- FOR EIGHT YEARS- notwithstanding). Such indicates a tremendous ignorance of the State, its people and the dynamics involved be such political or economic.

      • No the Republican ruling party is killing the vibrant economies of the cities. The lack of support for education, infrastructure while wasting billions on the border is utter stupidity. And guess what? Those suburbs are not Trump country. And not that conservative. Anglos in TX are about to get a wake up call. And the Dan Patricks, Sid Millers, Ken Paxtons and Neil Bushes of Texas are in for a shock.

      • Lol!!! Sure they are Phil, just like the last time eh. I lived in Texas during the eighties only to find that it was one of the few places in America left out of the boom. I came back very early in this century to find Texas booming and still booming while everyplace else in America appeared to be collapsing. The difference proved simple Phil: the dems ran things the first time around where-as the repubs ran things this time around. You’re more than welcome to resurrect the late great Wendy Davis for another go around though. Other than that feel free to talk to the hand. The Texas economic miracle lives large in the hearts of many Phil including the 44% of hispanics that voted for Abbott. No one with a brain is going to buy what the dems are selling in Texas.

      • Have you even been to the state Phil? I’m constantly traveling from one end of this country to the other and back again and I can tell you that Texas is one of the few places where new infrastructure is going up all over while older infrastructure is being expanded for future use. However if your idea of infrastructure development entails a trillion dollar high speed train to nowhere you’re right, Texas lags behind.

      • Hey stupid. I live in TX. The roads are not great, Bridges are old. Schools are not great. The state keeps withdrawing more and more funding from localities causing property taxes to go sky high. So yea, I know alot better than you what is going on.

        Houston, Austin, San Antonio, the RGV, El Paso and Dallas all voted Dem. For economic purposes these counties are about 75% of the economy. The rest is tumbleweeds and depressed buildings. Go to Happy TX. Or Zephyr. Nacogdoches. Any place that is not around the urban areas is depressed.

      • Yeah right Phil, like you really live in TX. The state has the best highways in the country guy and you’re out here telling one and all that the place is a disaster? Get real dude. I live there too and I make my living driving the highways and byways of the USA friend and I’m here to tell you- to your face- that you’ve either never been away from where you were born or you’re the biggest *ucking liar on RCP. That’s straight up guy not to mention a non attribute you really have to work at!!! Been through all of those places you mention and they’re far from depressed (add San Angelo, Lufkin, Livingston, Victoria, Abilene and a host of others) and they all have vibrant agricultural and or ranching economies (other natural resources too e.g. oil and natural gas) You, preferring the diverse economies of the major cities, are simply unable to fathom an economy you’re unfamiliar with. And like I said those dem strongholds you speak of glowingly are all surrounded (excepting such places as El Paso) by solidly conservative (Republican) burbs. With the split in the cities it’s going to prove some time before the people of Texas trust people like you with the economic miracle the GOP brought to Texas. But don’t let me stop you. Feel free to keep selling. No ones buying but keep on selling dude.

      • Ha yea you live in TX… How’s your property taxes? Going down? Highways? What roads are you talking about? We suck. It took 20 years to build the interchange at 35 and 290 in Austin. Drive from SA to DFW? How long has that construction around Waco been going on? Decades. Yea you live in TX. BS.

        And those vibrant farming communities? Yea whatever. I live outside of Mason. Look it up dumb ass.

      • I really do have better things to do than argue with some clown who’s never stepped foot from the house. In fact I don’t know of anyone other than you who doesn’t. You really, really, really need to get out more often.

    • It is amusing to consider who will man California’s armed forces should it secede: Will it have battalions of S.F. queers in its infantry? Will its army be Spanish-speaking? How will the spoiled brats on campus react to being drafted? The same for Silicon Valley programmers?

      • Remember the Spartans new that your Gay Lover who will be fighting next to you will fight to the death.

      • California has the most active United States Military personnel of any state of the Union by far (185,000)
        We also have the most money – produce more GDP and federal tax revenue than every state of the Old Confederacy COMBINED (irs.gov), produce the most food (usda.gov) and have the companies & ports to trade in the 21st century economy.

        The real question is what are you broke AF dumb hillbillies going to do without the federal-to-state-outlay welfare we provide. Go look at national GDP. Now remove just California -OOOOOPS it suddenly goes negative when you remove the world’s sixth largest economy

        Bless your heart Cletus

      • I don’t agree with his insults, but on the other hand do you hold any objection to what the previous poster, the one he was responding to, wrote about Californians?

        If not, then you’re frankly just as bad.

      • Demon Leftie,

        You’re correct I’d be in a world of hurt if federal expenditures were cut off, but perhaps not for the reason you suspect. On 15 Sep 1966 I stepped off an aircraft at Saigon, a replacement lieutenant for the 1st Infantry Division. I made it through a year in exotic Indochina without acquir4ing a scratch, but evidence I’m as dumb as you reckon is offered by my voluntarily returned t6o ‘Nam as a captain in the 101st Airborne Division on 3 March, 1969.

        On 22 Jan., 1970 with less than six weeks to go in my second tour I was severely wounded in an engagement with North Viet infantry. As a consequence of my wounds I spent ten months & 3 days in the military medical system prior to being kicked out of the army. Determined to be more than 90% permanently disabled owing to my wounds I’ve been retired on the taxpayer’s dime for 48 years & counting.

        Your boy, Oh I’m dumb, had a solution for my continuing expense to the gov’t,; twice, in 2014 & again in 2015, military M.D.s advised me to submit to doctor-assisted suicide. The first guy, Nathan Evans, argued very aggressively that I should save the gov’t money by voluntarily croaking.

        Met with reluctance from me to heed his advice he asked, “Are you religious?” To my response of “Yes” he asked, “What faith?” To my reply of “Catholic” Evans snorted & turned his back to me.

      • Somehow you forgot to mention the tottering infrastructure problems your state is facing. Or where it plans on getting its water. What? No desalination plants??? Turns out California is currently losing its middle class – moe population leaving the state than is moving in. Seems Californians do best in a virtual reality.

    • The Left is chock full of bad karma. The Donald is the Scourge that has come to finally deal with them —- this time without mercy.

    • Pushing all the right buttons to make the budget deficit skyrocket you mean.

      • The budget deficit skyrocketing is all on Congress. They never stop spending, no matter who the President is. All Pres. Trump can do, is to grow the economy faster than it can be spent.

        Even if Pres. Trump gave them a budget with freezes, Congress will never follow through.

      • It’s called a VETO
        Or did they not cover that at Trump U?

        The Buck Stops Here, remember that?

      • Veto of what? No budget has been passed by Congress so you’re just a bit premature.

  13. We now have such a severely fragmented society that we no longer have a common reality which means we’ve become incomprehensible to each other. We’ve basically lost the capacity to communicate.

    Just consider how incredibly weird it is for a border state like California to declare itself a “Sanctuary State” which, in effect, tells people all over the world that once they make it across the border they’ll be protected and safe from deportation.

    Half the country, the democrats, consider this a wonderfully progressive idea. What would great liberal democrats from the past like FDR and JFK have thought of this though? They would have thought their Democratic Party has become insane and they’d be right.

    Our society is now sailing in uncharted waters. Never before has such a huge segment of our society been so detached from reality. Time will tell what fate has in store for us.

  14. The sentence that begins, “If you went to Yale or Harvard, Swarthmore or Williams…” is followed by this thought, although it would be unfair to hang it upon Mr. Kimball. “And therefore you are, deeply and permanently, an enemy of the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States, the most fundamental institutions of our common heritage, and of mine.” The fracture that is wounding us now, although because it does not have a neat physical (that is, geographical) dimension will probably not result in the kind of war that the fracture of 1861 produced; but it is more serious even than the (pre-patriotic) ejaculation of John Dos Passos in 1927, “All right we are two nations.”

  15. A founder of Home Depot exclaimed that Trump is actually doing what he promised, and the guy was amazed by it. Trump is genuine, even if twitchy, but he’s no more odd than any other president. It drives the left mad, gnashing their teeth, and howling at the sky. It is a thing to behold, indeed.

  16. I’ve seen comments by people who say they’re moderate leftists who don’t agree with far-left positions on things like identity politics or Sanctuary Cities or, far worse, a border state like California being a Sanctuary State.

    It’s the far-left that sets the agenda for the entire left though. That’s why we now have a border state like California as a “Sanctuary State” which, in effect, encourages illegal immigration.

    It’s also why so many of our wonderfully progressive universities have become such hotbeds of hate whitey fanaticism.

    “Controversial ‘Problem of Whiteness’ course reintroduced at UW-Madison”.

    I consider the left quite insane. How anyone can see anything positive about things like illegal immigration and anti-white racial hate is very much a mystery to me.

    • Moderate leftists are as helpful as moderate Muslims. Neither have done anything about the radicalism of their groups.

    • As I recall, sanctuary states and cites long predate the current immigration debate. They were originally established as a result of the US supporting murderous thugs in Central America in the name of anti-Communism.

      • “the current immigration debate” has been going on for at least 40 years. It’s just never ending. The 1986 amnesty was supposed to be a one time fix to permanently solve this endlessly grinding dilemma. Fat lot of good it did.

      • Political refuge from Communism has been a long-standing policy, but not economic refuge.

    • You guys seem to think that America is California for anyone who is not conservative. Kind of a silly thought. No one not in California, which is the majority of Democrats, can have a different thought or perspective apparently.

  17. What level of Racism,Bigotry, Homophobia, Misogyny, and other malodorous behaviour traits acts as a disqualifier in American politics? Every single intelligence chief testifying before Congress today confirmed the continued threat that Russian interference is playing in American politics. Yet the President rejected further sanctions recommended by Congress and hasn’t once spoken out publicly about this threat. So the question remains how can this writer defend a racist, a bigot, a homophobe , a misogynist and most importantly a possible traitor who refuses to confront the countries greatest threats and still call himself a patriot?

    • So far the “Russian threat” has boiled down to “we think they troll us online, they might have shared things the Democrats ACTUALLY wrote, and we’re pretty sure they’re running some Facebook pages.” Maybe, being one himself, the president isn’t all that worried about Twitter trolls?

      • With your intimate knowledge of Russian interference maybe you should have been testifying before Congress today. Or maybe you prefer Borscht over Chili.

      • Oh please, these are not reliable actors.

        FBI: “Uh…yeah, congress people, the Russians did bad secret stuffs. We can’t tell ya whut, ’cause it’s secret. Ya should trust us though, ‘casue it’s bad for the country if ya don’t”

        Congress : “Well that’s good enough for us.”

  18. Leftists constantly talk about how Trump is a White Supremacist Nazi who’s secretly working for Putin and Trump’s supporters are Nazis who must be fought by the “Resistance!”

    I’ve lived in Chicago all my life and have never met a white supremacist yet the left claims these deplorably evil racists are everywhere and simply must be stopped. Most of the people I work with are Vietnamese and Hispanic. I have infinitely more in common with them than with white leftists who are utterly alien and incomprehensible to me.

    The inability to transition to a new government after an election is a classic sign of a failed state. Half the country refuses to accept Trump as president. Is America now a failed state? Does America even still exist as a country? Can we coexist without a country or is it our fate to just tumble into the abyss as so many other societies have done?

    America was extremely fortunate to have avoided the raging insanity that ripped apart so many countries during the dreadful twentieth century. Has our luck run out?

    • What hyperbole. Yes, there are people at the pinnacle of the iceberg DC who’re doing what they can to unseat the president, but the vast, vast majority of ordinary Democratic voters seem to have accepted him just fine. They may not like him – just as you folks didn’t like Obama – but they’re not demonstrating or petitioning or snatching up rifles in an active effort to unseat him.

      Your post exemplifies to me the problem we face, when extremists on both sides of the political spectrum impute evil motives to the vast majority of ordinary voters who, for the most part, lead ordinary decent lives and fail to share in this manichean view of the country as being divided into two halves locked in an existential death struggle.

      • Tell that to Antifa, Black Lives Matter and the majorities in the states and cities that want to opt our of our system of duly passed laws, or even secede. . Your argument doesn’t wash.

      • The groups you cite are a tiny minority, just as the marchers in Charlottesville represented a tiny minority of conservative voters. And no, most Democrats have no desire to secede from the country – that’s something that certain folks on the right like to tell themselves in order to plausibly claim a justification for hating literally all of those 100 million plus voters.

      • If what you say is actually the case, why aren’t you (as I assume a more moderate Democrat), standing up against them and whatever influence they have?

      • How do you know I don’t, on the extremely rare occasions when I run into one?

        Maybe you run into lots of these people, but I don’t know any of them personally and only occasionally run into them online. When I do, I call them out.

      • 1) If you don’t run into them with any frequency, then you’re not living in a diverse enough location. And if you don’t seek them out in your near environs, it demonstrates your disinterest in learning anything about their point of view, or their reasons for it.

        2) As you say yourself, ‘you call them out’. If that’s your attitude, why do you think they’d be interested in expressing their views? ‘Calling someone out’ is not a productive way to start an informative exchange of ideas. It is more commonly a way of starting an argument.

        3) By the way, you haven’t answered any of the questions I asked you above.

      • As I pointed out elsewhere, Antifa / BLM activists are way too small a percentage of the population for anyone to be likely to run into them with frequency, even if they live in a leftist-dominated state as I do. Online is more likely – the Internet seems to attract people with fringe views and too much time on their hands. I don’t personally happen to know any alt right types either, though the boyfriend of one of my (normo)-conservative office staff sounds like one.

        I’ve debated with BLM folks online about the issue of white “reparations”, but when the discussion veers around to stereotyping and mindless hating of the opposing side, I don’t generally find it productive or a “learning experience” to engage with such people and have no problem “calling them out” at that point.

      • If you, as I give you the benefit of the doubt, are a more moderate Democrat, why isn’t your party doing its part to tamp down the extreme rhetoric of what you call its fringes? Why has your party sat by and watched without a peep while our former President destroyed the social cohesion of swathes of the American populaton? Why have your party supported the candidacy of a self-serving crooked consortium like the Clinton Oligarchy? Why has your party sat by and watched – and applauded – the former President and his administration break law after law in this country, and lie through his teeth in promoting his agenda? Why has your party applauded the mainstream media in this country, as they ‘report’ distortions and outright untruths as news? I could go on, but I’m not going to waste any more of my breath.

      • How much influence over public policy do you think BLM or Antifa have?

      • BLM had a great deal of influence with both Obama and Hillary. Both agreed with BLM that white racism was the cause of black social dysfunction. Both Obama and Hillary agreed with BLM that institutional racism and white supremacy are the greatest problems that America has and that America must overcome.

        Needless to say, I totally disagree with your belief that white devils like me are the cause of black problems in cities like Chicago.

        Does America even still exist as a country?

      • Well, they certainly had enough during the Obama Administration. Along with their funder, George Soros.

    • I agree with ‘more in common with new Americans than with white leftists’ but I share Mabele’s concerns expressed below: Most Democrat voters are accepting Trump just fine, though their personal concerns may temper any real approval. The ‘never Trump’ and ‘resist’ garbage is 100% the Democratic elite.

      Here’s a prediction: If more than 100 years of prison sentences are distributed as a result of the soon-to-start serious investigation of government agency sedition and general lawbreaking we’ll see even Democratic elites starting to rejoin the country. They are COWARDS and when they can no longer break the law with impunity most will decide to live their lives rather than jump to the ramparts.

      • Snide and untrue. If you mean to suggest that the Democrat and Republican elites are anti-Trump, you may have a point.

      • The NeverTrump movement was started by the National Revue magazine. They are not Democrats.

  19. “The classic cases of democratic states that have been failures have been states composed of radically different tribes or sets of people in which the possibility of accommodation under a rule of law will not work because one group can only understand by the other as a form of oppression.” Kenneth Minogue

    This above describes the current state of tribalism that will probably lead to another American civil war, 21st century style. Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables”, “irredeemables” comments in the 2016 election campaign set the stage.

    • I don’t think Hillary’s comment was appropriate, but I sort of think Sarah Palin’s comment about “real Americans” several years prior might also be included as one that “set the stage”, so to speak…

  20. Your problem isn’t the deep state, or The Resistance, or “urban elites”, or the Far Left – it’s the much more straightforward fact that despite your and his best efforts, Trump and his programs remain unpopular with about half of ORDINARY American voters.

    I’m an independent at this point who supports a number of conservative positions including limiting legal immigration, instituting E-Verify, lowering the corporate tax rate, and limiting / reforming entitlements. But, like a lot of independents and pretty much all Democrats, I find the current administration extreme and uncompromising in a lot of its positions and am highly unlikely to vote for Trump or one of his followers come the next election cycle. After all, my view is that the ACA needs to be reformed, not repealed without any viable replacement. And while it’s nice on a personal level to get an enormous tax cut, I’d rather have foregone it in light of the negative effect of exploding government debt on my son’s future.

    Kimball and a lot of other pundits on the right repetitively claim that they’re speaking for “all Americans” when it’s quite clear they’re not. Indeed, the more one reads these folks the more it’s clear that they understand ordinary people on the left as little as pundits on the left understand ordinary people on the right. Even sadder, that so few of them seem to even make a token effort to do better.

    • I recently read an article by Andrew Sullivan called “We All Live on Campus Now” about how the leftist insanity in our wonderfully progressive universities is seeping out and poisoning our whole culture.

      Does that concern you? Obviously not. You prefer spending your time squeaking about how evil Trump and his supporters are.

      As for Trump being unpopular, Trump won the election in spite of our wonderfully progressive msm and our wonderfully progressive ruling class elites running a nonstop hate campaign against him. I consider Trump’s victory quite impressive and his first year in office has been much better than I expected.

      David Brooks: Those of us trying to rebut Trump have the disadvantage that “Our Elites Really Do Stink”.

      • You can be opposed to left wing lunacy and Trump just like Andrew Sullivan.

      • Do not put words in my mouth. That is a big part of your problem right there. I do not think conservative people are evil, I have way too many conservative friends to ever believe that. My gripe is with people who assume bad character and bad motives based purely on political affiliation, rather than keeping an open mind till views have been expressed in a civil manner.

        It’s not difficult to see when reading these threads that most of the posters have made an assumption about the bad character of every ordinary liberal voter in the country without having ever talked personally to the vast majority of them. It seems to me the older I get that these sorts of dehumanizing preconceptions are what people need in order to justify their increasingly extreme views on how to deal with disagreement as a country slides into civil unrest.

        Based on my own associations I think most conservative folks are decent people, but I also get the impression that most decent people keep quiet nowadays and don’t tend to participate in forums such as this one, or the corresponding liberal ones for that matter. Which is a shame, because I think we need all the moderate voices we can find nowadays to drown out the mounting vitriol.

      • Very well put. Thanks for reminder that morality matters.

      • Sure, a libtard piggybacking on a supposed moderate. Not impressive.

  21. Comparing Trump to Lincoln? You have truly lost your collective minds.

  22. Mr. Kimball… is one sick puppy. He writes:

    “As the months pass, however, and Trump’s achievements pile up…”

    Wow… to compare ‘donald trump’… to Abraham Lincoln… is simply un-American. And Sick. It is far more likely that “trumpy’s ‘achievements’ will simply end up being a ‘pileup‘.

    Sick, mr kimball… sick.

    • Yes, I’m sure the left’s constant comparison of the President to Hitler is much more historically accurate. Let’s see:
      Republican gets elected, racist Democrats become unhinged? Check
      Millions sent to concentration camps and murdered? Not so much.
      Open talk of secession and assassination? Check.
      Invasion of neighboring countries? Nope.
      Trusting his generals and allowing them to win? Check. Wanted to be an artist? Probably not.
      Yup, comparing Trump to Lincoln is ridiculous, but comparing him to Hitler is totes accurate.

  23. The Democratic Party should change its name to the Hate Whitey Party. That’d be a much more accurate and honest name for what it’s become. How can anyone vote for such an appallingly racist and perverse party? That’s something I often wonder about.

    Even if it were proven that Trump is working for Putin I’d still totally support Trump because he’d still be infinitely better than anything on the hate whitey left.

    “Controversial ‘Problem of Whiteness’ course reintroduced at UW-Madison”.

  24. I agree with those who say that what happened here is simply that the left traded class for race. Instead of groups like rich landowners being labeled as the source of evil in the world, as happened in Mao’s China, our leftists cast white people as the devil.

    You don’t have to read much from leftist sites to realize that they consider white people evil. They also consider themselves evil but feel they’re much better than average whites because they at least are willing to endlessly wallow in white guilt and to dedicate their lives to fighting whites who aren’t interested in such a pastime. The left is insane.

    I recently read a book called “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa” by ILana Mercer. An excellent book. She also has some very good YouTube videos. I wish she were better known. She’s smart and articulate.

    I recommend reading ILana Mercer’s book and watching her videos, reading up on Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China and encouraging others to never vote for the leftist democrats.

  25. The unhinged Coastal Elites with TDS want to model America after Illinois. Crime. Corruption. High taxes. Failing schools. Crumbling infrastructure. Resident exodus. Nearing bankruptcy. Liberalism is a failed experiment. Learn from the Illinois example! Why is everyone moving to Texas?

    • Counties that voted for Clinton accounted for 64% of US GDP. That’s been going up for years.

  26. When can we look forward to Mad Dog Mattis tweeting Trump, “San Francisco is ours and brutally won!”?

  27. Lovely summation of the current state of affairs, Mr. Kimball. Still, it begs the seemingly insurmountable question: If few if any in the dominant, pervasive elite media complex will even entertain, fairly, the ideas you engage, how do we break beyond our own bubble to begin bringing in those who inhabit the other bubble who might be more on the fence, as it were, in their view of Trump and where the country is headed. I am constantly amazed at how much of what is going on in the world is filtered out by the elite media complex, and I constantly worry about the delusions that are being entrenched in minds of those others.

    • The main stream media noted the latest attack on our institutions, bit didn’t give it much weight beyond, ok, we’ve heard the Republicans side. Let’s hear the other side, then figure it out. As actual news organizations should.

  28. “Those of us hoping to make America great again should repay the favor and help the president wage war against the enemies of our excellence.”

    I’m in!

    Welcome to the Revolution!

  29. “The Civil War began not because of slavery, but because of Lincoln’s election. It was that event that precipitated the secession of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, followed shortly thereafter by Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina.”

    This is one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I have ever read in print!

    Has the Roger Kimball even bothered to read the contemporaneous documents of that era, e.g., the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” which was essentially the confederacy’s declaration of independence?
    Certainly the document mentions the election of Abraham Lincoln as one of the proximate causes of the confederacy’s treason. But it is explicitly clear that it is not because they don’t like his oratorical style or his home state or the way he wears his hat – it is because they perceive his election as the nail in the coffin for their beloved institution of slavery. EVERYTHING in the South Carolina document is about slavery! Grievances about the underground railroad, Northern abolitionists, and – yes – now the election of a man who is seen as deadest against the crime of human bondage.
    The civil war was about slavery. Period. One only needs to read what the Confederacy itself wrote at the time.
    Shame on Mr. Kimball for his ridiculous attempt at historical revisionism.

  30. “…We can only stand by and watch, like an anthropologist at some savage ritual, while the natives rage.” The “resistance” reminds me of the omnipresent “Red Guard” in China of the late 60s. Minus social media of course.

    • The “Resistance!” is very similar to Mao’s Red Guard.

      During China’s Cultural Revolution ( 1966/1976 ) Mao’s Red Guard destroyed an estimated 90% of China’s cultural heritage. Temples, books, art works and millions of lives were destroyed because the Red Guard considered their past evil and a dead weight around China’s neck holding it back from becoming a society where all would be equal.

      That’s pretty much how our left views our past which is one of the many reasons why I totally distrust the left. Does our left want a Cultural Revolution in America?

      They’re already working on it in our universities and would love to spread it to high schools, elementary schools and no doubt even kindergartens. The left is insane.

      “Inside a Public School Social Justice Factory”

      “Controversial ‘Problem of Whiteness’ course reintroduced at UW-Madison”

  31. Actually, the sort of people who love Lincoln and Lincoln’s philosophy are the descendants of the malignant and vile Yankee race. Lincoln would have been comfy with the modern Democrat party. Us Southern Secessionists are now Trump’s strongest supporters. How any so-called conservative can admire Lincoln the ultimate totalitarian statist is beyond me.

    • Whoa a neo-confederate, I really appreciate your honesty if it’s genuine. I disagree 100% because Lincoln preserved our union while not suspending his 1864 election against a coward, who had presidential aspirations by winning the troops. At least we can prob both agree on how interesting study of the civil war is to undertake.

  32. Fun writing, serious subject. I would prefer to see California and the swamp states regain their sanity, but I have no hope of that. So I all in favor of losing California before they and their ilk destroy the United States.

    • There’s about as much chance of the left becoming sane as there is of ISIS converting to Judaism. You’re certainly quite right that this is just not going to happen.

      You’re wrong to assume the problem is only California though. I see cars in Chicago with bumper stickers that say “Resist Trump!”. If these leftist fanatics were rational liberals ( Someone like the liberal professor Jonathan Haidt ) they’d be putting that energy into trying to save cities like Chicago from financial ruin and social breakdown.

      Last December I read an article in the Chicago Tribune about how gangs in Chicago are increasingly using high powered rifles against each other. Usually AR-15s or AK-47s. Over the past year and a half 140 people have been shot and 50 of them died. These military style rifles are so powerful that the people shot are just ripped apart. Even those who survive are probably often permanently maimed from these horrific wounds.

      The article ( a Dec. 27th editorial plus there was also an article about this ) said “If gangs are using rifles, it means ‘they are emboldened and no longer fear being stopped by law enforcement”. We can thank BLM and their white leftist followers for that.

  33. Mr. Kimball should learn a little basic U.S. history before he writes these articles. Lincoln won a narrow victory of McClellan in November 1864? Really? Lincoln won 55% of the popular vote to McClellan’s 45%. In the Electoral College Lincoln won 212 to 21. Lincoln swept every state but 3 – near Confederate Kentucky – and Delaware and New Jersey. Lincoln in comparison carried 22 states.

  34. Remnick will be spending a lot of time in his panic room, the putz.

  35. Fantastic piece. I am a chemical engineer, software developer, IT Manager, and cyber security program expert. I held a security clearance for most of the last 10 years. I would be happy to work for free anywhere the Trump administration might need help or in any media startup committed to honest journalism. Happy to relocate if necessary.

    Unfortunately, I think the real cancer in our democracy is identity politics weaponized by educational animus aimed at our founding ideals, which in turn actively impedes a shared/common culture. There’s no radiation, chemo, or surgery that will cure this illness.

    The only hope is maybe the next generation, so maybe we should volunteer to be school teachers.

    Someone smart should figure it out and lead…I’m happy to follow.

    • Last year Joe Biden said “We are living through a battle for the soul of this nation.”

      During the 2012 presidential campaign Joe Biden appeared in Virginia before a group of supporters, a number of them African-American, and said this of Republican Mitt Romney: “He is going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street. He is going to put y’all back in chains.”

      Since Biden is a democrat, leftists considered it perfectly acceptable for Biden to tell blacks that republicans would like to put them back in slavery. Leftists always consider it acceptable to stir up racial hate as long as it’s to their benefit. What a despicably evil thing to do.

      • You, of course, are not in any way “stirring up hate” by calling half the electorate “horrible people”.

        How blind to what they’re saying can a person possibly be?!?

      • max I think I know what you are trying to say but it’s like your in the wrong pew in the right church

        you are pointing out that politicians say hypocritical things like really.

      • I’m kind of curious, can you explain that one a little more?

      • I think he’s trying to point out hypocrisy but he’s inflating it’s meaning to larger issues that he has attitudes about. does that make sense?

    • Leftists say our society is becoming ever more culturally and racially diverse and it’s therefore critically essential to teach white kids as early as possible to deal with “diversity.”

      I grew up on the northwest side of Chicago in a neighborhood totally lacking in diversity yet I’ve never had the slightest difficulty dealing with all the different types of people I know from places like Vietnam, Mexico, Guatemala, Nigeria, Ghana, Iraq ( Assyrians ), India and many other places and I’d be willing to bet a great deal of money that there’s nothing at all unusual about this.

      White leftists say that the conservative white trash is racist but I don’t believe my situation is really any different than in other parts of the country where there are also huge numbers of foreign immigrants.

      White leftists just love to stir their big pot of anti-white racial hatred so that they can then present themselves as the “good whites” who will protect them from the “bad whites” ( white devil racists like me ).

      Leftists are simply horrible people. How it is that people who consider themselves so extremely intelligent can be so horrifyingly stupid and destructive is truly one of the great mysteries of our time.

      • Half the country is “horrible people”. Do you even realize what you sound like? What do you propose doing with these “horrible people”? Could they even be tolerated next door, as a separate nation?

        What about the rest of the world? Are they “horrible people” too? Most of the western democracies are governed according to Social democratic principles, after all.

      • Have you checked your white privilege today? I’m sure you’d agree that every white person needs to do that on a daily basis to remind ourselves that we have an unfair and unearned advantage over people of color.

        Naturally, the only fair thing for us to do is to vote for Big Brother leftists who will redistribute wealth so that each faction in our wonderfully progressive society is awarded the same amount of wealth and the same amount of equality. Once we’re all equal we’ll all be equally happy and all will be well with the world.

      • No, I don’t agree with that. I don’t believe in the whole “white privilege” thing and Ta Nehisi Coates is one of the most nauseating thinkers on the American Left nowadays in my view.

        And yet, I’m still not your ideological ally. Because you’re a hater, not all that different from Coates now that I think about it, except that your mindless hatred is directed at a different group of people who, for the most part, you’ve never met and studiously avoid judging as individual human beings.

      • Perhaps it’s true that you dislike Coates but your fellow leftists certainly do find him quite adorable which is one of the many reasons why I consider leftists horrible people.

        Coates is a national correspondent for the Atlantic who’s been given many awards. The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates is among 2015s 24 recipients of “genius” grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

        The recipients of the MacArthur Fellowship get a no-strings attached award of $625,000, which is paid out in equal quarterly installments over five years.

      • I don’t actually know any leftists that believe what you think they believe about so-called white privilege. And I only know ordinary leftists, as opposed to the ones who grant MacArthur Fellowships.

        But I’m well aware nothing will convince you. Haters gotta hate.

      • If you actually are the moderate you present yourself as, I suggest you stop calling people names. I’d be a start. But so far, you don’t sound like a starter. Rather, you sound like someone who’d rather shut down a conversation with anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

        Try it sometime. You might learn something that would broaden your viewpoint and lead to something you could agree with.

      • If you honestly don’t think it’s right for people to call others names, then you would have earned my respect by pointing that out to the person who started this particular portion of the thread with a comment that “leftists are horrible people”.

        As for my terming Max a “hater” in return, I think that’s demonstrably accurate. Honestly, after that kind of comment you’re going to try to tell me he DOESN’T hate tens and tens of millions of people, the vast majority of whom are folks he’s never met or even communicated with?

        Also, are you going to try to tell me that sort of a comment doesn’t represent an attempt to “shut down the conversation” with folks on the other side?!?

      • max your logic shall we say wanders a bit. all conservatives are not white trash and all leftists are not horrible people.

        I grew up.in Brooklyn and we all mixed together. I agree

      • Sorry if this comes across as rude, but I could give a flip about your or anyone else’s views about race.

      • I comment on many posts. It doesn’t mean I care about any particular opinion. Believe it or not, I don’t care about what you think.

  36. The profound ignorance of this article is evident from the outset.
    Trump can create his own facts, but you, Mr. Kimball, cannot.
    Lincoln won the 1864 election easily. 55% to 45%.
    His electoral college margin was even larger. 212 to 21.
    When you start to look at the evidence – please call me.

    • Apparently, you have misread what Mr Kimball wrote, and are in some ignorance of the atmosphere surrounding the 1864 election.

      Mr Kimball’s point in drawing a Lincoln/Trump parallel had very little to do with electoral statistics. His discussion centered on the unpopularity of both presidents during their terms, and the heavy resistance to them. Although I will point out that no agencies of the Federal government itself tried to overturn the authority of the man duly elected, which so far seems to be the case today.

      Secondly, when discussing Lincoln’s 1864’s elections: When you omit the fact that the states that had seceeded (the southern states, largely) didn’t vote in the 1864 election, you aren’t reporting fairly. The reason the popular vote percentages look so divergent, and the Electoral College was so heavily in Lincoln’s favor, was because only the northern states were eligible to vote. And the reason the Electoral College vote was so lopsided was because McClellan while winning nearly half the popular vote, won them in only 3 states.

      Lincoln remained deeply unpopular through most of his first term and the 1864 election swung his way very late in the game, and Lincoln believed he might lose until early September, when Gen’l Sherman telegraphed that “Atlanta was won”; as a result, northern morale lifted enough to send Lincoln to victory.

      So the election was a much closer-run thing than your raw figures suggest, and you do no one a service by reporting bare facts without context.

      • You do no one a service by describing facts that are not actually facts. Federal agencies are NOT trying to overturn the results of November 2016 except in the feverish minds of the Deplorables. Trump’s political problems are largely of his own making.

  37. I don’t recall residents of conservative parts of the country, congregants of evangelical churches or members of groups like the NRA or Tea Party being particularly pro-Obama. I even recall discussion of Texas seceding. Did that presage a civil war?
    If not, what’s the difference?

    And what exactly does it mean when Kimball asks folks to help the president “wage war against the enemies of our excellence?” The president already is commander in chief and appoints the leaders of the entire executive branch.

  38. Since Trump is President against the will of We the People, the second time it happened in 16 years, and since the election was deeply flawed by massive foreign intervention in his favor, he really shouldn’t be governing like he won by a landslide. Anyone who cares a whit about national unity can see that.

  39. Whoa you compared Trump to Lincoln. One of the most thick-skinned and intelligent presidents, to a thin-skinned emotionally retarded doofus? Whoa, how far editorials have fallen

  40. Trump’s living rent free in your attic Roger. He’s rattling around up there going through all of your belongings. You wish he would leave, but the harder you wish the longer he stays. He’s there when you go to bed at night and greets you every morning.

  41. Ah, the trolls are out in force again. A stuck pig’s gonna squeal.

  42. America no longer even still exists as a country. The inability to transition to a new government after an election is a classic sign of a failed state. Half the country intensely hates Trump and refuses to accept him as president. We certainly do seem to be a failed state sinking ever more deeply into civil war.

    I recently read a comment, apparently by a foreigner, who was gloating about the disintegration of America. He said we deserved it. The disastrous failure of the American experiment though is going to send shock waves all over the world and have a profoundly negative effect everywhere, even where he lives.

    Certainly one effect of this will be to totally discredit the idea that “diversity” is something wonderful which is a shame since for the most part it did work quite well.

    • you used to start with the question if america stil exists . now you state it doesn’t exist. what changed since last week max?
      well you right, America isn’t a,country, the United States is the country. we have transitioned to a new government.
      we follow the laws past. we have to shut up and like the moron that got elected?. there’s no freedom of speech?

      you hated Obama for 8 years straight
      we still exist.

    • The only thing shocking the rest of the world is that a third of this country could be seduced by a carnival barker like Trump.

      • Your hate whitey stupidity is why we no longer have a country. God only knows how much longer this rotting society can stagger along but it sure does not still exist as a country. Time will tell what fate has in store for this place.

  43. I started to read the column. But a sentence or two in, I became aware that the author was actually going to draw parallels between Donald Trump and Abraham Lincoln. I suddenly felt nauseous and stopped reading. No — there isn’t anything the least bit Lincolnesque about Donald Trump’s presidency.

    • Don’t want to be disturbed by a few inconvenient facts, eh?

      • Not at all. Which is why I can see Trump for the scumbag he is. Sorry you cannot

    • I am a #neverTrumper but I have to agree that the Democrats today are behaving much like the Democrats in 1861–they are attempting to undermine a legitimately elected president. Unfortunately for Trump supporters Trump is a Birther that attempted to undermine Obama and Trump is only president because the phony Benghazi investigation led to the email investigation.

      • If you think that is the *only* reason Trump was elected, you are sadly mistaken.

      • Even cr@ppy candidates like McCain get 60 million votes! The election was very close and Trump eked it out because Brett Baier’s fake news report that Hillary’s indictment was imminent and Comey had to “update” everyone on the email investigation…Hillary was in the lead before those two events.

      • Hillary’s *polls* were in the lead. Her supporters *believed* she would receive enough votes to secure a majority in the Electoral College.

        But that’s not what happened. I remind you that she won the popular vote. But that’s not how our elections are decided.

        If you want to blame her loss on FoxNews, go ahead. That tactic won’t help you win the next election, either.

      • He was installed not elected! Installed by Putin!!

      • The Russians are still meddling! Trump didn’t’t give them what they want, so now they’ll elect democrats

      • If by “undermining” you mean “opposing,” that’s true. But you could say the same about any president. The GOP vociferously opposed both Bill Clinton and Obama (some would call their behavior “undermining” a legitimately elected president — both popular and Electoral College). Dems vociferously opposed George W. Bush. What makes Trump different here is that he’s a pathological liar who lies several times every day and has marked authoritarian tendencies. He’s simply beyond the pale, which makes the opposition much more forceful. And of course a majority of the voters — if not the Electoral College — despise the man.

      • Only 32% of Americans are even registered republicans, the Independents are the biggest group. The real problem, is that too many Americans can’t or won’t vote! If Trump can’t bring them out, nothing can!

      • I think Trump’s election may be a wake up call, not just for presidential elections, but off-year elections and state and local races as well. The stakes are too high for mainstream Democrats and Republicans and independents to stay home

    • You mean he’s not a war criminal like Lincoln?

  44. Wake-up.
    This is now two countries. We didn’t destroy shitlibs 60 years ago. Massive mistake.
    Now, we either join them in the People’s Republic of Shitlibistan … or we secede.
    If another Dim becomes President ever again, it’s time for the bombing to begin.

  45. Ah, you censor comments that don’t fit your narrative. Greatness in action.

  46. America is too big and way too divide to be one country!! We are being saddled with a debt bomb that helps poor red states while stealing trillions from rich blue states!!! We already have $25 trillion in national debt. We should divide that debt into 50 separate debts, and then we can decide what states we blue states want in OUR union, and build walls around the poor ass redneck states!

  47. — Russia is already meddling in the midterm elections this year, the top American intelligence officials said on Tuesday, warning that Moscow is using a digital strategy to worsen the country’s political and social divisions. The Russians once again appear to be in Komrad Trump’s corner, and the Democrats a screaming TREASON to an unplugged microphone! Guess treason is a-OK as long as they help the republicans win!!

  48. The lefties on site seem to have moved the conversation off the subject of Kimball’s essay – the need for a focused response to the virulent attacks on Trump & Republicans. I agree with him. You have to be in the game in order to win. No reason to cede any ground.

  49. Why don’t we put dissolution to a vote? Divide the debt 50 equal ways, and dissolve the federal government, and fake president, at the same time!

  50. The very fact that the MSM hates Trump and opposes anything and everything he says or does is PROOF that he is taking us in the right direction.
    That trojan horse Obama wasn’t dare criticized by the MSM for he was a first class tool of those who would transform the United States into a third world country.