TWO TONS OF FUN.

Been following rightwing millennial outreach a bit. National Review got their "Collegiate Network fellow" (i.e., intern) Celina Durgin to write a corker about how all her coevals are stupid to vote for Sanders. Fave bit:

Now, I’m not an old fogey trying to patronize the youngsters. And I believe I apprehend the reasons for their support that go deeper than his “free-stuff” policies. What I am is a Millennial pleading with my peers: Please resist jejunely embracing the notion of “justice” that conceals radical political and economic transformation.

Well, I was young once, too, so I will resist senilely disdaining young Durgin's prose. But over at The Federalist we have a pair of striplings who bear further examination. Bre Payton and Rich Cromwell -- despite their tender years, both have been treated here before -- tell us "Why Sports Illustrated Isn’t The Right Place To Talk About Body Positivity" and if you're thinking it's because either feels his/her spank mag spoiled by fatties, no such luck -- they lack any such refreshing directness of purpose.

First they mention that "plus-size" model Ashley Graham's 2016 SI Swimsuit Issue cover is merely a variant among three, so "it’s almost like they were afraid that plus-sized model Ashley Graham wouldn’t be able to sell enough magazines on her own and got skittish. Way to embrace positivity!" Actually one of the cover models is pugilist Ronda Rousey, which ain't exactly trad cheesecake either -- but wait, that chiding was just a humorous feint; next they tell us they think Graham "looks smoking hot." They even use a gif of an appreciative Audrey Hepburn because millennial (or maybe they're trying to tell us Hepburn was gay, not sure which). Now who's the enlightened chubby-chaser, libtards?

But eventually they have to come up with something like a thesis. Here is their first try:

She’s a departure from the norm, and that’s not such a bad thing. On the other hand, there are a few sizes—15 according to our numbers—between size 0 and size 16. Don’t get us wrong, we think it’s great the magazine is using a model who looks like she eats lunch on the regular. But why does it always seem that whenever a publication or a company uses a woman who isn’t a size 0, they swing for the fences?

We mean we like a little junk in the trunk, but WHOOOOOA you-all are goin' for the gold medal of Giganta-Gal if ya know what we mean and we mean get yourself a radiator and join the Junkyard Band! Even though you are smoking hot [emoji].

A few backstage-at-the-school-play fumbles later, they try another one:

In a TED Talk last year, Graham told the women of the audience that most of them were considered “plus sized.” She went on to decry this as a bad thing, saying women should reject the unfair labels the industry was handing out.

Graham is right—most American women are considered “plus sized”—but what she failed to mention is this is largely because we’re losing a battle with an obesity epidemic. Most Americans (roughly two-thirds of adults including women) are overweight, and nearly a third are obese.

[Blink.]

So while it’s important for women to have an opinion of themselves that exists outside of the noise of the digital world, it’s not the best idea to encourage everyone to ignore a problem that shaves an average of 6.5 years from one’s life...

[Blink. Blink.]

But wholesale acceptance of anything and everything, every shape and size, disincentives us to work for something better. That’s where the body positivity movement — and focus on appearance — get it wrong. Yes, we are more than our appearance, but that doesn’t mean we should just tear open a package of cupcakes and sit down while reveling in our elastic waistbands...

What they're telling Graham, and for her own good, is: You're gorging yourself into an early grave, tubbo, and that's why true Americans should only whack it to waifs -- it's a public health issue. Well, if Payton and Cromwell are going to stick with this wingnut welfare racket, it's never to early to learn to endure public humiliation.

CULTURE OF COMPLAINT.

The title -- "Sanders and Trump Have Risen from the Wreckage of a Broken Culture" -- makes it look like yet another of those "I literally can't tell them apart" comparisons of the share-the-wealth Senator to the TV bully-boy. But National Review's David French doesn't explain the rise of the two candidates or what it means, and I'm not sure he was really trying. He mainly talks culture war. That's his usual hobby horse and it's even lamer than usual, but in an instructive way. He begins:

Pop culture can normalize radicalism with astonishing speed. Conservatives have long known and lamented the truth of Scottish politician Andrew Fletcher’s famous declaration: “Let me write the songs of a nation — I don’t care who writes its laws.” Artists and the media shape our cultural environment so profoundly that their progressivism has become the default, the air we breathe. Wherever the progressive current flows, the people will drift.

Taking his own Zhdanovite POV for granted -- that liberals have the Billboard 100 while conservatives have Congressional majorities -- I'm not sure what this political operative has to complain about. If you're getting the laws you want, why do you care what the art looks like?

Since its birth, the modern conservative movement has fought bravely to create its own counterculture, in hopes that at least some people could drift the right way, and eventually the current would be reversed.

"Fought bravely to create its own counterculture"? What could that possibly mean? Have they been woodshedding or workshopping their counterculture in a black-box theater at the Heritage Foundation? Before attempting to explain, French bitches about how hard it is for such as he to make how-you-call-the Culture:

But it’s impossible in one generation to either replace or match liberal-dominated institutions that have existed, in some instances, since before the founding of the nation. One doesn’t simply create a conservative Harvard out of thin air. Hollywood is the product of generations of artistic effort. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the major broadcast media are collectively immense institutions, governed by a set of shared assumptions and located in geographic regions where dissent is rarely heard.

This makes no sense. If you don't like Harvard, why not build up Bob Jones University and other Bible schools into the academia that you claim to desire? If you don't like Hollywood, why not make your own indie flicks? People do it all the time. And haven't you guys been telling us that the Liberal Dinosaur MSM is dead as the dodo, and pumping out conservative newspapers, magazines, and TV networks for literally decades? But French goes on whining:

The Right, by contrast, hasn’t truly had time to build institutions, so it has built celebrities.

OH COME ON.

It’s easier to make one man famous than it is to make Harvard --

Oh, well, if it was easier I don't see what else you could have done

-- so conservative culture is dominated mainly by a series of personalities, and those personalities are often defined and exalted not so much by the quality of their distinct ideas but by personal charisma, with particular emphasis on anger and “fearlessness.”

Long story short: The dog ate their manifesto, so instead of building a counterculture they built a living pantheon of radio shouters, bow-tie dicks, and other assholes, and now one of them is the Republican Presidential front-runner and it's someone else's fault.

... As William Butler Yeats wrote at another time of existential crisis, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.” We’re left with a world where “the best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

When a culture breaks, so does a nation.

Buddy, you don't know what culture is. Nor counter-culture. Those movies, books, videos, songs, etc. that you wish were promoting your values? You can have them -- all you gotta do is make them yourself. Don't waste time squawking about how Big Culture is against you -- or go ahead if it makes you feel better; avant gardists and punk rockers did it all the time, when they were the new kids on the block. But they also did work. That's the only way anything gets done. If Jasper Johns or Patti Smith just bitched about how they ought to be the next big thing, raised a bunch of money off that, and didn't use that money to make art but instead used it to bitch some more about how they ought to be the next big thing, you never would have heard about them.

I mean, holding the back of your hand to your forehead and moaning like Dr. Smith on Lost in Space isn't getting you anywhere -- unless you goal is to get some saps to pay you good money for it, in which case mission accomplished.

UPDATE. As is traditional at alicublog, comments are excellent. Yestreblanksy gives us the full provenance of that Fletcher quote, and it's so much richer than the looka-me-I-read-books use French put it to. MichaelNewsham posits:

If only there was a vast entertainment complex producing its own movies and TV shows, owning its own studios and broadcast and cable network, owned by a right-wing billionaire who also had an enormous chain of newspapers to help push his conservative productions without fear of the liberal MSM.

As I've been saying for years, Murdoch knows better than to throw good money after bad.

POINT/COUNTERPOINT.

From January, Victor Davis Hanson:

A few hours before delivering that State of the Union, President Obama met with rapper Kendrick Lamar. Obama announced that Lamar’s hit “How Much a Dollar Cost” was his favorite song of 2015. The song comes from the album To Pimp a Butterfly; the album cover shows a crowd of young African-American men massed in front of the White House. In celebratory fashion, all are gripping champagne bottles and hundred-dollar bills; in front of them lies the corpse of a white judge, with two Xs drawn over his closed eyes. So why wouldn't the president’s advisors at least have advised him that such a gratuitous White House sanction might be incongruous with a visual message of racial hatred? Was Obama seeking cultural authenticity, of the sort he seeks by wearing a T-shirt, with his baseball cap on backwards and thumb up? 

To play the old "what if" game that is necessary in the bewildering age of Obama: what if President George W. Bush had invited to the White House a controversial country Western singer, known for using the f- and n- words liberally in his music and celebrating attacks on Bureau of Land Management officers...

From the Grammys last night, Kendrick Lamar:


Kendrick Lamar Grammy Awards Performance 2016 from Jamie Apps Media on Vimeo.

Take a fuckin' seat VDH.

UPDATE. In comments, a very worthwhile reaction by dauwhe:

I'm the worst kind of music snob, listening only to Jazz for the last three decades. Curiosity lead me to Kamasi Washington's "The Epic," which bothered many of the critics, but on first hearing had me dancing around my living room in a transcendent state. Many of the same musicians contributed to Kendrick Lamar's "To Pimp a Butterfly." And so I ended up with a CD in my house with a parental warning (Thanks Tipper!). I'd never bought a rap album. I don't listen to the radio... Yet Kendrick Lamar blew me away. Staggering ambition, searing emotion, musical genius at the smallest and largest scales, and a dramatic political statement—I feel lucky to have experienced this music. I can only surmise that VDH did not listen, or did not recognize the profound humanity and intelligence of the music and its creator. His loss.

Yeah; it must suck to be so committed to an ideology that requires constant blinkers and earplugs.

NEW VILLAGE VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about the death on Antonin Scalia and the freshly-discovered tradition requiring Democratic Presidents to refrain from nominating SCOTUS replacements while the Republican Party is imploding.  Readers taking a hard de mortuis nihil nisi bonum line, please note that most of the jokes are on rightbloggers and their panic-stricken reactions.

I didn't have room for everything I would have liked to include. John Zmirak's proposed "Keeping [Scalia's] Court Seat Empty — for Years, If Necessary" is in, but I hadn't space for his wow finish:

In the meantime, of Justice Scalia, I feel sure that he is enjoying his reward, and I hope that the Catholic Church recognizes him soon. As they said of John Paul II, santo subito! Antonin Scalia, pray for us.

Shouldn't they work on Ss. Breitbart and Bork first?

FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

Dick Shawn and Barrie Chase dance to the Shirelles' "31 Flavors." 

Thanks to Norman Jewison Stanley Kramer, of all people! (And @benzero, who sent it me.)

•  Hey look, another wingnut doesn't like Between the World and Me. R.R. Reno's pitch at Catholic-con mag First Things is that "our liberal establishment is aflutter" (the sissies!) at Ta-Nehisi Coates because he is engaged in "an extended effort to keep the wounds of racism open. Coates is not glad for the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner or the other black men killed in recent years. But he cherishes their martyrdom." So, same old story: Why do these black people insist on cherishing their centuries-, decades-, years-, months-, weeks-, and days-old grievances? But Reno distinguishes himself with a rhetorical device:

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a lot more in common with Allen Tate than James Baldwin. Like I’ll Take My Stand, the manifesto Tate and his friends wrote to defend white Southern culture against absorption into the soulless materialism of Northern prosperity, Between the World and Me should be read as a nostalgic hymn to the writer’s culture—black America’s solidarity in fear and wisdom in suffering.

If you're of a charitable turn of mind, you may think this is Reno's version of (speaking of Jewison!) "You’re just like the rest of us, ain’t ya?" from In The Heat of the Night. But this is one of those terrible ideas that actually gets worse as it's teased out, e.g.:

The indictments of America (of which there are many) get aired again and again because they are an integral part of [Coates'] distinctive Afrocentric mythology, just as in Tate’s generation, a certain mythology about Northern aggression was part of a white Southerner’s heritage.

And:

[Coates] writes of being “haunted by the shadow of my father’s generation.” Malcolm X presides over his life in the way Robert E. Lee did for generations of Southerners, a symbol of dignified resistance and a refusal to allow defeat and subjugation to have the final word.

And:

Add the relative youth and fertility of immigrants, as well as rising rates of intermarriage, and we get an emerging social reality as threatening to the black heritage cherished by Ta-Nehisi Coates as to the culture dear to the Daughters of the Confederacy: One out of ­every four children born today has one parent not born in America.

It goes on and on, but I'll limit myself to one more (be warned -- it's a dilly):

Coates wants that to be true for his son. “Remember that you and I are brothers, are the children of the trans-Atlantic rape.” Never forget. Never forget. As Coates repeats this refrain again, I could hear in my mind the words of that other tenacious, desperate American effort to resurrect the past: “The South will rise again!”

Slavery = The Confederacy. Well, if you're the kind of person this is pitched to (it's a cinch Reno wasn't counting on any black readers), I suppose it's worth a try.

•  Speaking of the Confederacy, Ole Perfesser Glenn Reynolds explains why the youngs like Bernie Sanders to USA Today readers, who are probably wondering. Apparently there's a poll that shows millenials don't really like "wealth redistribution," so what the kids really want is that other lovable coot Ron Paul, only they don't know it, so they're only voting for Ben & Jerry's Stalin by accident. This is so ridiculous that I took the trouble to click through, and found Reynolds got the idea from Nate Silver. "Like Sanders, Paul drew more support from poorer voters than from wealthier ones in 2012, although that’s not true of libertarianism more generally," goes Silver's biggest howler. Libertarians dream of being wealthy cuz they're "makers" and deserve it, Sanders voters dream of justice for all -- same diff, really! There are some things sabermetrics can't figure out, apparently.

•  Re: the above segment, commenter Andrew Johnston finds that Silver is right about the makeup of libertarians, and suggests I did not think so. I should have been clearer that by "howler" I didn't mean Silver was wrong on that point, but that he was funny -- "that’s not true of libertarianism more generally" particularly: Contra Silver's wider point, there are all kinds of reasons poor folk will vote for a candidate, and what animates the working-stiff Sanders voter and the working-stiff Paul voter doesn't have to be the same thing, though I know the conventional wisdom in our Trump-is-Bernie era is that the rabble are all alike. Also, I found another vote for Sanders as the invisible Paul vote at Reason. "Ironically, implausibly," says Matt Kibbe, "Bernie Sanders has become the 'new' Ron Paul.." Well, at least he's half right on the adverbs. I guess Rand Paul must be the unloved son of the Hero, like Ron Reagan Jr.

"WE SURROUND THEM."

The saddest/funniest thing I heard from the Bundy gang holdouts' transmission from Oregon last night -- you can hear them screaming "Nazis!" at the FBI here -- was the guy crying, "Where's our 3-Percenters?... The Oath Keepers are all infiltrated with FBI agents."

Oath Keepers and 3-Percenters! Maybe they're all holed up at their wingnut separatist housing project in Idaho, telling each other how their old football injuries are all that's keeping them from goin' up to Malheur to kick statist ass.

But it's not like the true believers the Southern Poverty Law Center keep telling us about are the only ones who have misled the Oregon occupiers. No, these poor crackpots were conned by a regiment of ideological grifters who keep hinting that, if someone would just put his ass on the line, a grateful nation will rise to join them. I'm thinking of stuff like Glenn Beck's vaguely threatening "We Surround Them" shtick from 2009:

Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?  

If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different.  

Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all. 

We surround them.

Then there was all the "water the tree of liberty" talk from the Tea Party guys and the mainstream conservatives who egged them on, rubbing their hands as the Tea People told the "establishment" to fuck off and demanded candidates like Trey Gowdy and Ted Cruz, whose whole politics is about feeding the inchoate rage of their constitutents with hollow but aggressive gestures like Endless #Benghazi and Government Shutdown. These showpieces achieve nothing but at least the folks back home knew they were represented by fighters!

When scofflaw and patriot Cliven Bundy got up to his mischief in 2014, sending his minions to point guns at the feds who were trying to confiscate the government land he was using but not paying for, the brethren considered him a hero. Here's one of John Hinderaker's love poems at Power Line:

So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

That Bundy was stealing (and not because he was starving) and his soldiers were threatening law enforcement wasn't relevant to Hinderaker -- what was relevant was that Bundy was one of the oppressed white people who'd been hooting and hollering about taking their country back since the Kenyan Pretender occupied the White House, and he was making a stand.

Now Big Daddy Bundy is in jail and the FBI is forcing his gang's endgame. Let's just hope there aren't too many other dummies out there who took some of the same poison.

THE GOP DELUSION.

Donald "Big Pussy" Trump won by a landslide in New Hampshire and sensible people aren't the only ones disconfited --  long-term wingnut-welfare recipients are as well, but for different reasons (briefly: Trump jumped the line, cannot be relied on to destroy Social Security and Medicare, and by fear-mongering straight-up without recourse to traditional dog whistles has shattered the notion that Republican positions on minorities and immigrants have any more courtly or civilized basis than an appeal to naked animal hatred).

They express this discomfiture in a number of ways. First and foremost: Denial. "Marco's Moment Is Now," insists Michael Graham of The Weekly Standard. "No, not Saturday night’s debate: This is Marco's moment." (I am put in mind of  Max Bialystock getting Lorenzo St. DuBois to audition for Springtime for Hitler: "Wait, wait, this is Boomerang! This is Boomerang!")

Getting knocked-down in New Hampshire does not have to be the end of Rubio's run for the GOP nomination. It could be the real beginning. It's all up to the junior senator from Florida.

Graham may just be covering for his boss, who bet long on the thirsty childman. At National Review, Eliana Johnson speaks of "Marco Rubio’s New Challenges" rather than Marco Rubio's Collapse. There are other candidates for anti-Trump savior: At National Review, Jeremy Carl calls NH "Armageddon for the Establishment," because of Trump and the "less obvious" winner... third-place finisher Ted Cruz -- whom I guess you could say the Republican "establishment" doesn't like, if only because no one likes Ted Cruz. "Ted Cruz Might Be The Real Winner In New Hampshire" says Matt K. Lewis. "...The primaries are about to head South, which is Cruz country." Wow, a Republican who can carry the South! Now all he has to do is get people in the rest of the country to embrace Opus Dei crackpots.

For laughs there's "Jeb Bush Gains Some Steam After New Hampshire" (WSJ) and, my favorite, "Why Can't Kasich Win?" by Jay Cost ("Isn't the Kasich case at least as persuasive [as] the Bush case?" Now that I can believe!).

I don't like Trump either, and I am convinced someone other than he will be nominated. But with me, one has nothing to do with the other -- America has disappointed me many times and I'm sure will disappoint me again, so I don't think we're too good for nominee (or, God forbid, President) Trump -- I just think Trump will fall because the GOP has too much invested in getting one of their made men on the ticket, and they control the means of production. These conservative columnists, on the other hand, are writing rotisserie league campaign speeches; they write as if they believe their columns and blog posts, despite being read entirely by people who already agree with them, can actually affect the race. That's what makes them pathetic: They're putting on brave faces for a mirror.

UPDATE. Comments are (as is traditional here at alicublog) glorious, and I have to call attention to a burst of song from Ellis Weiner:

You’re standing onstage one night
While running for POTUS
Debating your foes because
It’s part of the gig.
Then Monday they take a vote
You’re handed your hat and coat
But this could be the start of something big.

It goes on below the fold.

HEAH COME DA JUDGE.

It may seem as if I'm picking on Mark Judge of culture-war catastrophe Acculturated, but look, it's a busy day and sometimes you just have to take the easy lay-up. His latest is about how men should be able to go out with other men -- no, he doesn't mean anything gay, though it does get physical -- when Judge hangs with his old school buds "it’s noticeable how physical our friendships still are, even decades after we graduated. At reunions we tend to fall back on the age-old male expression of affection—light punches on the shoulder, a bear hug, even playful wrestling after a few beers." (I would pay good money to see Judge's remake of Cassavetes' Husbands.)

Judge's plea is actually for Boy's Night Out, which leads me to ask: so who's stopping you? Like all culture-warriors, he thinks behaviors of which he disapproves reflect political ideologies:

Both feminists who hector men to spend every moment with them—making sure all activities are of equal time—and conservatives who argue that a man’s entire life should revolve around his family, are both presenting ideas that are harmful to men.

Hectoring men to spend every moment with you -- isn't that from Our Bodies, Ourselves (That Includes You, Larry)? And even the comedy strawmen that pass for conservatives here at alicublog don't think "a man’s entire life should revolve around his family" -- how then, for example, would married preachers ever get away to Bible conferences for anonymous sex with men?

Here are my two favorite parts of the thing, devoid of context because who gives a fuck:

Feminists of course will take this (like everything else) the wrong way—I’m mansplaining why women don’t feel stress, etc.—but it’s actually a compliment.

And:

The decision was instant and near unanimous: No. All it took to make the right call was a reminder of last year’s monkeyshines: the drinking, pick-up games, late night skinny dipping in the ocean, frank talk about women and sex. We needed to pick the insects and fleas off of each other, and that was best done without girls.

Readers Who Liked This also enjoyed "Why the ‘Conan the Barbarian’ Sequel Should Focus on Fatherhood," which amazingly exists but was written by somebody else.

NEW VILLAGE VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about Rubio's poor debate performance and the rightbloggers' rush to defend him. Not every one of the brethren is on board --  immigration hawks like Mark Krikorian, who calls him a "Merkel Republican," will never forgive him for the Gang of Eight thing -- but Rubio's PR crisis stirred a lot of them to embarrassingly transparent damage control.

This mildly surprised me; I had been thinking Cruz was their preference and that what was bad for Rubio, being good for Cruz, would to them be good in all. But then it hit me: when you remove the novelty candidates Fiorina and Carson (and I suspect they'll remove themselves sooner than later), you see the remaining GOP field is mostly not comprised of true believer conservatives, but of what pass for moderates in that party nowadays -- that is, Kasich, Christie, Bush, and Trump, who are all horrible monsters in their own ways, but not movement zombies mesmerized by rightwing paternosters as Cruz is -- and as Rubio is, too, when you look at what he actually believes.

So the hardcore types might be feeling a bit challenged. And, as I say in the column (which you should read!): Cruz may be everything conservatives want, but they know that he's creepy. This doesn't matter to them; it may even be part of what they love about Cruz; that damp, lizard-eyed devotion might say to them, "he will protect me from the gummint revenooers and blue helments when the End Times come, even if it means blowing up the world and sending us all to Jesus." But conservatives also have some dim awareness that not every American shares their particular kinks, and where they see a new Reagan others may see Grandpa Munster. So, they figure, cherubic Rubio might serve to lure the unbelievers unto the cause, like the cute kids in My Little Golden Book of Zogg.

They may not be wrong. After all, the liberal media seem to love Rubio too ("Marco Rubio Comes Back Swinging After Difficult Debate" -- New York Times). He's the people's choice!

Anyway, have a look and see what you think.

"DIVIDE" AND BONKERS.

The other day Obama went to a mosque and made a nice speech, to which Marco Rubio reacted with non-sequiturs:

“Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque,” Rubio continued. “Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims. Of course there’s going to be discrimination in America of every kind. But the bigger issue is radical Islam. And by the way, radical Islam poses a threat to Muslims themselves.” 

“But again, it’s this constant pitting people against each other -- that I can’t stand that. It’s hurting our country badly," Rubio said. "We can disagree on things, right? I’m a Dolphin fan, you’re a Patriot fan."

Rubio is clearly animated by a desire for Muslim-hater votes, and has no need nor perhaps the ability to explain, so it's left for intellectuals like David Harsanyi to tell us why being nice to Americans of all faiths is divisive:

Take this CNN headline: “Obama rebuts anti-Muslim rhetoric in first U.S. mosque visit.” What does it mean? In the piece, we learn that president reacted to “young Muslim parents whose children are worried about being removed from the country.” I know of no Republican candidate — or anyone of note on the Right; or anywhere else for that matter — who has ever suggested any policy resembling this. Not even Donald Trump. 

A president who wanted to bring people together would have dismissed this as a preposterous idea.

A president who wanted to bring people together would look at what Republicans like Trump have actually been saying -- that we need to keep Muslims out of the country because they are special contaminant -- and try to head off the next logical stage of this kind of racism, which our Muslim citizens, who are no dummies, are already worried about. That's why he went to the mosque: To let these Americans know that we are not yet that depraved, and let all Americans know that we need not become that depraved.

One more bit from Harsanyi:

Yesterday, Obama spoke about the evils of Islamophobia to a group that featured women covered, subordinated, and segregated from men. I’m happy he’s open-minded about that sort of thing.

Ha ha.

Well, at least they're not throwing bottles at them anymore. 

I could go on all day like this -- Harsanyi also asks why it's okay for Muslim ladies to be covered but Bob Jones no longer gets tax breaks, for example -- but there's no point: like all his sort, Harsanyi's just vamping with this shit, hoping some Muslim will blow something up between now and Election Day so he can rattle the bins for the GOP's Crusader constituency. There's something else the guys at the mosque have that I can relate to: A constant awareness that your future could be total fucked at any moment by ruthless madmen. 

RAND GOES DOWN BUT THE "LIBERTARIAN MOMENT" STRETCHES ON.

Rand Paul's out of the GOP race, and a bunch of people right and left are saying, hey, whatever happened to that "Libertarian Moment" thing that The New York Times magazine, Time, and others thought Paul represented, anyway?  I always knew that was bullshit, and thought Ferguson, Black Lives Matter, and the conservative "war on cops" freakout exposed that sham pretty decisively last year. But apparently not, if people are still yakking about it.

So, again: Most of the people you hear talking about the rise of libertarianism are traditional conservatives trying to get over with a new shtick. They're more interested in restoring the Constitutional right of rich people to take over public resources and make private profit from them, and in otherwise ceding the rich greater rights than the poor, than they are in your window-box of weed or, heaven forfend, your so-called right to abortion -- among libertarian deal-breakers, raw milk beats reproductive rights every time.  Check out Mark Ames' nice preemptive post-mortem on Paul at Pando from October, and scroll down to the 1999 speech Rand's daddy, Ron Paul, made in defense of Microsoft versus the regulators who were sizing up Bill Gates' monopoly practices ("This is a good time for Congress to reassess the antitrust laws"). Hell, check out the Koch brothers. Money talks and hackey-sack walks.

Also check out Veronique de Rugy at National Review, responding to her colleague Ramesh Ponnuru's dismissive take on the LibMo. de Rugy does the routine about how libertarianism is more cultural than political -- a favorite of folks who want obscure the essential conservatism of what passes for libertarian politics -- and then adds:

...I don’t care particularly about getting libertarian candidates elected. I do, however, care about Americans with libertarian instincts electing more pro-freedom and pro-market lawmakers like Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul or Representatives Thomas Massie and Justin Amash. They may not consistently call themselves libertarians but they are clearly putting pressure on their Republican colleagues and pushing them to be more pro-freedom, to adopt more free-market policies, and to be embarrassed by their overspending and big-government tendencies.

These three guys are best known for hollering about Obama tyranny every chance they get, and Amash recently distinguished himself by voting against federal water aid to Flint on the grounds that "the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to intervene in an intrastate matter like this one" -- though maybe he was just trying to get dehydrated citizens to explore raw milk. Plus he's really into the flat tax. Feel the freedom!

As for Rand Paul himself, he has his good points and his bad points; he's your basic ambitious Republican Senator, which is to say a potentially catastrophic grifter, and when he returns to the national stage in another political season who knows how much libertarianism he'll flash. Maybe he'll call for war against Iran, and be hailed for the bold political jiu-jitsu -- then, back to war with the EPA!

UPDATE. Though I had nowhere to put it in the main post, I'm re-upping this old thing about another popular favorite among conservatarians: Approving social safety nets only so long as they serve as corporations' no-cost health care plan. I mean, you can't have a post like this without some Megan McArdle.

A GLOWING RECOMMENDATION.

I don't have a lot of spare time and hadn't planned on reading Jane Mayer's Dark Money, which apparently treats the Koch Brothers, but as is often the case one review can make a difference:

Those who hate too much become like the people they hate, and so it is with Jane Mayer, whose Dark Money, a 450-page screed of unrelenting venom, portrays a vast right-wing conspiracy controlled by a small number of libertarian donors. Like the John Birch Society of days gone by, Mayer sees a cabal of dark forces that secretly dominates American politics. And like Joe McCarthy, people two or three degrees of separation from her villains are tarred with their brush. Fifty years ago Richard Hofstadter said that the Birchers and McCarthyites exemplified the “paranoid style” of American politics, but now it’s the Mayers who have debased American politics.

There's an inside joke embedded in this skein of spit: the Kochs' old man was actually a Bircher himself. Other than that, it's all rant. The reviewer, George Mason professor F.H. Buckley, tells us that Mayer's book "is politics at the level of Keith Olbermann, a long, unremitting, hate-filled sneer," and Mayer "is evidently a person whose mind has never risen above the arrogance and hatred peddled on the thoroughfares," a "monomaniacal bore," etc. The closest he comes to telling us how she might be wrong, though, is this:

Mayer’s world is one of dark forces and private venality, but what she doesn’t get is just how one seeks donor support. No one ever received a dime by saying they’d do the donor’s bidding. Instead, one tells the donors what one wants to do, and either gets or doesn’t get supported.

I wonder if Buckley's ever heard the one about the blind horse, the nod, and the wink. The best part, though, is this:

In reading her diatribe, I was amused to realize that I would have been dead-center in her sights, had I been important enough to be noticed.

Better luck next time, F. A few days ago the New York Times reported on some risibly faked plagiarism charges against Mayer. It looks as if Buckley's not the only one who doesn't want people to read her work, which suggests that it's very much worth reading.

I wonder if these guys know how obvious they are? Or are they just convinced that there's no point even trying to make it look legit?

UPDATE. In comments, mds: "I mean, sweet, tender Baby Jeebus on toast, they couldn't get some crank at Harvard or Chicago? They actually went with a guy at a university the Kochs have given tens of millions of dollars to?... We're talking Oscar the Grouch being outraged at accusations that the hand up his ass belongs to Caroll Spinney."

NEW VILLAGE VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about rightbloggers and the Iowa caucuses. This was interesting to write because, as I sort of mention in the column, while political reporters are by and large just hoping to get reads and keep their jobs, rightbloggers are more hubristic: they really seem to believe they can make a difference in national events by the perfection of their logic, the shrillness of their vituperation, or the capitalization of random words. Look at Erick Erickson, who demands purges at the drop of a hat, and all the political illiterates who talk electoral strategy from their Barcaloungers and make Mark Penn look like Clausewitz. In a way it's touching, and in the last ditch I guess I prefer them to working propagandists like George Will and Peggy Noonan, who may know a little more than the bloggers but use that knowledge to perpetuate ignorance because it pays. But then, some of our worst columnists used to be bloggers (latest installment: If I define "decadence" low enough, maybe someone else will help me obsess over it)...

Ah, screw 'em all. Anyway, here's my version of horse-race journalism, and I didn't have to stay at a Motel 6 in Keokuk to write it. My editor took out my joke about Ted Cruz' bad breath -- in fairness, I've probably cost them a fortune in lawsuits already -- but there are still few good ones left.

UPDATE. Just days after their big anti-Trump issue, National Review's Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponurru are already trying to adjust to life in the joint:

Through the Goldwater revolution, the party became newly oriented around limited-government conservatism, and eventually a better politician than Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, came along to represent the new dispensation and get elected president.  

Maybe Trump could serve roughly the same function. 

Sorry, laughed so hard I sprained something.

He could lose badly this year and yet give rise to a future GOP that takes enforcement of the immigration laws seriously, reduces low-skilled immigration, and does more to represent the less-schooled wage earner, while also rejecting fantasies of mass deportation.

I see a conference room session, like the old Erhard Seminars Training except everyone wears Trump clothing and thinks he's in charge and must assert his authority at all times or be crushed. The participants are all hoarse from screaming at each other. The sign outside the locked room reads REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION 2022.

Those gains would, however, come at a fearful cost that conservatives should strive to avoid.

Pssssh. Like they wouldn't take it if it meant more elbow room at the Big Trough.

UPDATE. Looks like Cruz came in first, and National Review is partying like it's November 8; on Twitter Lowry is thanking Mark Levin, Erick Erickson, and (get this) Glenn Beck, and declaring, "My tally of top four finishers in Iowa: Conservatism 60%, Trumpism 24%." If it had been Conservatism 57%, Trumpism 27%, of course, they'd all be hiding under desks while Il Douche goose-stepped up and down Main Street. I think Trump has a few kicks left in him, but as I said last month, he was never going to be the nominee; he is what he has always been, a symptom. When he goes dormant, the sickness will pop out somewhere else.

I'm not going to stay up to see if Bernie Sanders will pull it off; the arc of history bends toward justice, but it's long.

WHAT TO EXPECT TONIGHT.

Tonight's Trumpless Republican debate will be all about the remaining candidates trying to peel off Trump voters by showing America that, unlike him, they are true conservatives who believe in limited government, a permanent end to the Ex-Im Bank, and just kidding they will actually try to peel off Trump voters by being as offensive at they can without getting bleeped:

BUSH. (reading from card) "Boy, that Hillary, what a bitch, huh?"
PAUL. Was that supposed to be a joke? Try it in Spanish!
CHRISTIE. What Jebby said. I hate that fat bitch.
CRUZ. (murmurs into mike) Speaking of fat bitches.
CHRISTIE. What's that? What'd you say to me? You come over here and say that to my face, mister.
CRUZ. Is that your face? I thought there was a full moon out tonight.
KASICH. Muh muh muh muh muh.
CHRISTIE. No wonder nobody likes you, Ted. Jesus Christ. And you smell too. Folks, you should get a whiff of this guy from up here. It's like ten bums on a bonfire. (RUBIO laughs.) Whatcha laughing at, squirt? (points to him) This guy, you know he cries? Backstage I gave him a little pinch on the arm, like nothin', he went (scrunches up face) "Aiiee! Madre mio, no me gusta!"
RUBIO. Where'd you learn Spanish? Taco Bell?
BUSH. "No wonder her husband Bill is a warmonger." I mean whore! Whoremonger. I -- I have a Right to Rise...

You flip the channel to the Donald Trump Veterans for Something or Other Who Gives a Shit, and find Trump on a glossy 60s-style stage set, his name behind him in big letters like at the end of the Elvis '68 special; he and the audience are doing the call-and-response choruses to "What'd I Say?"; they've been doing it for ten, fifteen minutes, no one cares, a beach ball is bouncing around in the crowd, women have their shirts off, and Mike Huckabee is running around the stage in a loud, checkered suit like some deranged mix of Flavor Flav and Stubby Kaye, honking a Harpo Marx horn and yelling "IN THE END TIMES, TRUMP'S MY FRIEND TIMES, AIN'T WE GOT FUN!"

A DANGEROUS GUIDE FOR BOYS.

As a young'un, Marco Rubio got tagged by the cops for drinking beer in a park; when the story recently came to light, he laughed it off. Credit where due: I am in sympathy with anyone who has brownbagged his bottle, even if he later turns out to be a shit, as Rubio has. And though his team's "humorous" response is not actually funny, and implies the Washington Post reported his youthful transgression to attack him rather than to generate a more clickbaity story, at least it's dismissive.

That is how I would leave it, but for the gloss of Mark Judge, the artist formerly known as Mark Gauvreau Judge, at Acculturated, my favorite culture war/wingnut welfare cluster. Judge isn't satisfied with good news for Rubio -- he wants thinkpiece fodder! And so:

Rubio hit back with a fake ad revealing his other crimes—coloring outside the lines, double-dipping potato chips. The episode was a seemingly small political blip, but it inadvertently points to another problem: We need to stop trying to prevent our boys and men from being boys and men.

It's Routine 19 -- the feminaziation of our boys by libtards! But Judge doesn't know when to quit:

We need to let them feel passion and lust and adventurousness and act on it. We need to let them get in trouble, drive fast cars, and chase girls. The dark and dangerous part of them—us—that does these things is also the place that can call forth great leadership....

He seems to have upgraded "teenager drinking beer in the park" to the Scarlet Pimpernel.

The Rubio “story” in the Post reveals how our culture has become uncomfortable with male behavior. On one hand there are the liberals who seem to celebrate any kind of sexual expression except heterosexual manhood, which they aim to deride and ultimately destroy...

Guess Judge would be happier if the Post ran items like "How to Knock a Bitch Up" in the Sunday Comics.

Both left and right attempt to do the same thing: stamp out the shadow. The shadow is an idea from Jungian psychology...

Ugggh I'll spare you -- oh, wait, get this:

The shadow is crucial to psychic health, and particularly powerful in leaders (both male and female). Think of the classic Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk was literally divided into two people, one good and one evil. While the evil Kirk...

Urkel just called Judge a nerd. Eventually:

Rubio’s satirical response was fine, but it would have been better if he had embraced his shadow, freely admitting that as a young man he felt lust, the thirst for danger, anger, and even depression.

Jesus Christ, I would so love it if Rubio read this, felt inspired, flew Judge down for some intensive speechwriting work, and at the next Republican event answered his first question, "Sure, we're all against Obamacare, but what I really want to talk to you about tonight, America, is this: How you ever, when you were young and high on teenage angst and MDMA, made it with a girl who's into superstitions, black cats and voodoo dolls? Who'll make you take your clothes off and go dancing in the rain --  make you live her crazy life but she'll take away your pain? Like a bullet to your brain? Come on!"

YANKEE DOODLE DUMBASS.

I've been coming to this library for years, reading books, using the computers, and sometimes making withdrawals that I never returned. The Feds claim I took hundreds of books and owe thousands of dollars in fines on them, but you know what liars they are. Besides, these books belong to me by right; it says "public" library right on the door, doesn't it? And am I not the public? Also, this land here used to be Indian land, and my ancestors helped kill a lot of those Indians. Surely I should have this library if only as a prize for my great-great-great-great-grandaddy's service.

But these jackboots and lickspittles got a little pushy about the overdue books -- plus the tools I liberated from the department of public works, and that cop car my buddies hot-wired -- so my fellow patriots and I had no choice but to take possession of the library. The ease with which we took it I consider even more proof that this property belongs to us by right. And we thought the Feds must see it that way too, since they treated us respectfully, befitting citizens of a sovereign state.

Nonetheless we convened citizen grand juries to bring the sheriffs and deputies (so-called) and all federal agents to justice once the Rebellion came. But we planned give them a fair trial, notwithstanding their treasons, and if found guilty they would have been permitted access to a preacher and last words before they were hanged. We are not savages.

You may have heard that the people of the towns did not support our occupation. They wanted to use the library themselves, you may have heard, and they wanted the research that was being done here to continue. I am sure not many felt this way, but let me assure you that this library was liberated on their behalf and in their names, and that once the Rebellion came, anyone who swore the Loyalty Oath would have been able to borrow books on even friendlier terms than they had before my fellow patriots and I took it over. They would also have had access to that portion of the library that was already in my home, though on a limited schedule.

As for the so-called research, I hope our friends and neighbors know that it was never of any use to them. We went through that research and saw it was just a lot of gobbledegook, dead languages and so on, and Big Lies like global warming. Actually these so-called scholars were being used by the federal government as an excuse to keep the people from having full access to the facility. This is why we had commenced clearing out this research area, and planned to outfit these rooms with sofas and wide-screen TV as soon as our next shipment of provender came in, when the trouble came.

Already we see the Feds and their lapdog press trying to make out that our fallen comrade Crazy Zeke was responsible for his own death, just because he was fond of saying that the Feds would never take him alive and that he would kill anyone who tried. But I am sure the people know what he was really saying: Don't tread on me. I am also sure those of my comrades the press claim have run away are already busy arranging for my bail. Stay strong, brothers and sisters, and work for the Rebellion. The library is yours.

OTHER THAN THAT, PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING!

The current New Yorker cover, showing some prominent American presidents of years past agog at a Donald Trump speech, is gentle anachronistic satire, like the radio playing "Shoo Shoo Baby" in A Matter of Life and Death. Yet some media folks think they have to debunk it. At Mediaite, Joe Concha says:

In other words, if presidents like Franklin or Teddy Roosevelt or George Washington witnessed the kind of rhetoric offered up by Trump, the reaction would be horror, disgust, shame. To that end, wouldn’t it be interesting to see the cover reversed with Trump on the outside looking in at Washington, who was a slave owner since the age of 11? And just how well did our first president treat the 318 slaves he owned at his estate in Mount Vernon (Virginia)?

The Founders were hypocrites, see; at least Trump doesn't have slaves (and if he does they're probably in Qatar), so who are we to look down on him? I won't bore you good people by explaining what's wrong with this analysis -- instead, I'll mildly divert you with an even worse one by David Harsanyi at The Federalist. He begins:

It is not exactly surprising that The New Yorker offers us a pristine example of the smugness that permeates the Left these days...

I put a funny picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache on my Facebook page and nobody paid any attention, but let some elitists put their funny president pictures on fancy glossy paper in front of a bunch of boring "journalism" and suddenly it's a big deal!

As you might expect, Harsanyi isn't worried about Washington's slaves, and uses The Father of Our Country merely as a stick to beat his own enemies:

In a Politico podcast this week, Obama claimed that, “[The] Republican vision has moved not just to the right, but has moved to a place that is unrecognizable.” Funny, I felt the same way when I heard this State of the Union Address. But since we’re on the topic: What would George Washington have to say about a leading Democrat candidate who deploys calculated class war and diluted Marxist economic theories?

I imagine he would say, "What is class war and Marxism? Away with this strangely-dressed person, lest I forget my own Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior."

Harsanyi is particularly incensed by the Big Gummint sins of the Roosevelts  -- "[FDR] brandished executive power in ways that would almost certainly make a President Trump look like a piker," "[TR] embraced some of the ugliest pseudoscientific aspects of progressive racism and chauvinism," etc. But he is outdone, and at the same website, by one Julian Adorney. Adorney's essay is called "The Uncanny Parallels Between Donald Trump And FDR," but he's really frying bigger fish:

FDR may not have been Hitler or Mussolini. But the difference was one of degree, not of kind.

And it's hard to say which one's worse, as Adorney goes on to tell us about the Japanese-American internment camps and the S.S. St. Louis, but not about the Second World War, in which FDR unaccountably endeavored to destroy his fellow fascist Adolf Hitler. Maybe he was jealous!

I notice this FDR-as-Hitler shtick is getting popular with conservatives. Looks like Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism has trained a generation of wingnuts to spread the story of Adolf Roosevelt, in hopes of attracting swing voters. Good thing for these guys there aren't that many WWII vets left to beat the shit out of them.

UPDATE. Many spectacular comments, e.g.: Jay B: "I'm sure that conservatives were against Japanese internment at the time, when it mattered." (Find Yastreblyansky's comment on how Robert Taft wanted to deal with them, too.) Megalovanian: "Antifascism is the fascism of liberal fascism." And Gromet, on Adorney's "difference of degree, not of kind" thing: "FDR gassed my grandparents with Zyklon-W. Same kind of thing as Zyklon-B, just 20-something letters less in degree, so instead of killing them it employed them, fed them, and freed the world of fascism for them."

NEW VILLAGE VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about the National Review anti-Trump issue and the schism it reveals among rightbloggers. It's sort of like the schism in the Republican Party, only instead of quotes from some guy at a Trump rally we have quotes from people with websites and, in some cases, budgets, which do not necessarily make them more coherent.

UPDATE. In comments, Yastreblyansky refers to one of the NR "Against Trump" contributors I didn't quote, William Kristol. Kristol's rhetorical linchpin in this case is "in a letter to National Review, Leo Strauss wrote that 'a conservative, I take it, is a man who despises vulgarity' ...Isn’t Donald Trump the very epitome of vulgarity?" Yastreblyansky has the bad taste to remember what Kristol was saying about "vulgar" Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin some years back. It's amazing that someone so willing to say any goddamn thing as Kristol yet remains the wrongest man in the world.

FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

I like the Bob Luman version okay, but this one sounds lonesomer.

•   National Review has decided to stand athwart Trump, yelling "Stop!" -- which is rather ungracious of them because, despite their protests, he's their Frankenstein, his candidacy the logical evolution of their politics of demonization and dumbassery. Or maybe it's better to say he's NR's Shakespeare, a great popularizer, raiding their ancient classics to make blood-and-thunder crowd-pleasers. Nearly every shtick he pulls -- the superiority of the super-rich, peace through belligerence, xenophobia -- was previously promoted in the pages of NR, but writ fancy-like, to make it look respectable to dummies. Trump had the genius to realize that Republican voters, at least, no longer need all those pseud curlicues; why trifle with the coy racism of Mark Krikorian, for example, when you can hear about a Giant Wall Against Messican Rapists from a Man of the People, and roar along yourself?  In fact I'm sure that's one of the reasons National Review is going hard against him: when conservatism under Trump is reduced to its essence -- namely broadsides, ring shouts, and racial slurs -- what will happen to their editorial wingnut welfare? (The other reason, probably more important, is that Trump won't promise to destroy Social Security, which is a deal-breaker for the guys who pay their wingnut welfare.)

•   Should you venture into that National Review Trump thing and find yourself struggling, go straight to the Thomas Sowell part; while the other guys either sputter or rage or sputter with rage, Sowell is in approximately the same territory as the Major in The Magnificent Ambersons ("Sun... Earth came out of the sun, and we came out of the Earth..."), a place where Godwin's Law is not only broken but also strewn around in bits:

No national leader ever aroused more fervent emotions than Adolf Hitler did in the 1930s. Watch some old newsreels of German crowds delirious with joy at the sight of him. The only things at all comparable in more recent times were the ecstatic crowds that greeted Barack Obama when he burst upon the political scene in 2008.

Elections, however, have far more lasting and far more serious—or even grim—consequences than emotional venting. The actual track record of crowd pleasers, whether Juan Perón in Argentina, Obama in America, or Hitler in Germany, is very sobering, if not painfully depressing.

Perón, Obama, Hitler: An Eternal Golden Braid. Yeah, these guys will save conservatism.

THE PATTERN BECOMES CLEAR!

From the cacophony of their commentary, conservatives seem of late to be experiencing all the Kübler-Ross stages of grief simultaneously.  Jonah Goldberg, sent out to enforce wingnut orthodoxy in the face of the Trump-Palin challenge, is basically just going homina homina homina like Ralph Kramden caught in a harebrained scheme ("The problem is this implicit notion that if you are an 'establishment candidate' you aren’t a 'real' conservative. It may be true that if you are an establishment candidate you aren’t a populist" farrrt). The others have been telling each other Trump is Obama's fault so much that they seem at this point to bore one another.

So credit for initiative to Mario Loyola at National Review, who digs into history to get to the heart of the matter: It's not Obama who's to blame, it's that bastard FDR and his political equivalent in Europe, the Third Reich.

The Nazis succeeded in selling themselves as the solution to the workers’ plight. Of course, they were nothing of the sort. Hitler promptly led German workers from a bad situation into an infinitely worse one, a world war that ended in the destruction of whole cities, the deaths of 3.4 million German soldiers, and a record of crimes against humanity that will forever shame that people more than any other had organized Western civilization. 

What bears remembering here are the worries that led Friedrich Hayek to write his classic treatise, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek started his most famous work in Britain, and worked hard to finish it after the Anschluss joined his native Austria to Nazi Germany in 1938. He wrote it in English, for English-speaking audiences, to warn them that the road to the serfdom of totalitarian rule starts with the embrace of socialist policies. Hayek argued that replacing market competition and stable rules with heavy-handed regulations and arbitrary control of social outcomes leads inexorably toward tyranny. 

He saw the great English-speaking peoples committing the same mistake the Germans had made in embracing the socialist policies of administrative government 30 years earlier. He saw them sleepwalking down the same road to serfdom, and he wanted to warn them of the consequences. Though one book could hardly make a difference, his timing was impeccable. In the United States, the Supreme Court had just caved in to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which had dismantled just enough of the U.S. Constitution to make way for socialist policies and the capture of government by special interests.

Makes you wonder why Roosevelt sent us to war against Hitler, when to hear Loyola tell it they were basically after the same thing.  Bonus points for this:

My purpose here is not to compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, which would be preposterous and stupid...

Wait for it...

...but rather to show how dangerous it can be for working-class folks to lose trust in the leaders of mainstream democratic parties. The Nazi Party styled itself a workers’ party. Its opposition message was essentially the same as that of Michael Moore in movies such as Fahrenheit 9/11...

Maybe we should have a Godwin Challenge to check the speed with which columnists transition from citation of Godwin's Law to breaking it.