The striking thing about Harris's blog post quoted below, is that Harris wrote nothing to support his hyperbolic conclusion that a Trump presidency would be a monumental disaster in comparison to a Hillary Clinton presidency. Harris just seems to expect readers to believe it, because he does —
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/trump-in-exile2
Trump In Exile
Sam Harris OCT 13, 2016
It is a cliché, of course, to claim that a presidential election is the most important in living memory. But we arrived at that point in the 2016 campaign many months ago, when both sides declared their opponent unqualified for office. Unfortunately, this time the cliché is true, and one side is actually right. A choice this stark proves that there is something wrong with our political system.
Hillary Clinton is a terribly flawed candidate for the presidency, and this has allowed millions of otherwise sane Americans to imagine that she is less fit for office than Donald Trump is. Much depends on a majority of the electorate seeing through this moral and political illusion in the weeks ahead.
. . .
Hillary Clinton is a terribly flawed candidate for the presidency, and this has allowed millions of otherwise sane Americans to imagine that she is less fit for office than Donald Trump is. Much depends on a majority of the electorate seeing through this moral and political illusion in the weeks ahead.
. . .
This may be the most important presidential election in living memory, but you would not know it from anything Harris wrote later in his blog post. Sadly, Harris gives no indication that his melodrama is even worthy of consideration — despite his claim that this is 'the most important presidential election in recent memory'. Well, if Harris really believes that, he might have worked a little harder at making a convincing case — it should not have been that hard, given 'a choice this stark', as he put it.
Note that I am making no attempt here to defend Trump — I am pointing out that Harris has not given his insults substance, and so they are ad hominem attacks. Harris does provide some specifics about Trump's 'sexual predations', but they are useless as a point of comparison with Hillary Clinton, since, as Harris acknowledges below, Bill Clinton 'can probably match Trump indiscretion for indiscretion'.
According to Harris, Hillary is obviously massively better than Trump, but at the same time she lacks the character to leave a marriage to a Trump equivalent. I know Hillary's supporters love to dismiss this obvious criticism — since Bill Clinton isn't running for president — but it is pretty nonsensical to claim that Hillary's character is markedly superior to Trump's, while simultaneously making the claim that Hillary's character is such that she made a Trump equivalent her lifelong partner.
Well, at least Harris openly acknowledged that Hillary Clinton is 'terribly flawed' — but that phrase is a euphemism that amounts to a terribly flawed attempt at demonstrating objectivity. It has been well documented that Hillary Clinton's behavior has been criminal, so referring to her as 'terribly flawed' does not do justice to the terrible things she has done. You can read more about that here —
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/09/paul-krugman-and-hillary-clinton-birds.html
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/08/lying-about-hillary-clintons-lies.html
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/07/mediamatters-hillary-clintons-shill.html
 |
| The Clintons at Donald Trump's wedding in 2005. |
More from 'Trump in Exile' —
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/trump-in-exile2
. . .
To consider only one point of comparison: We have now witnessed Donald Trump bragging about his sexual predations in terms that not even Satan himself could spin to his advantage. He has admitted to repeatedly groping women, kissing them on the mouth without their consent, and invading the dressing rooms of teenage pageant contestants to see them naked. Every day, more women come forward confirming the truth of these confessions. Trump has even said that he would have sex with his own daughter, were she the offspring of another man. He talks about his libido as only a malignant narcissist can: as though it were a wonder of nature, a riddle no mortal can solve, and a blessing to humanity.
Such disclosures should have ended Trump’s presidential campaign. But as luck would have it, Hillary Clinton is married to a man who can probably match Trump indiscretion for indiscretion. Indeed, Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are both trailing serious accusations of rape. Whether or not the worst of these charges are true, these are not normal men. Each has lived for decades as a roving id flanked by a security detail. Each is the very avatar of entitlement. However, only one of these cads radiates contempt for nearly every other member of our species. Only one has made humiliating people—and women in particular—a central part of his brand. Only one lives a troubled adolescent’s fantasy of what a man should be, exposing a ruinous insecurity and moral emptiness every time he opens his mouth. Most important, only one of these men is running for president today. And, personal ethics aside, only one is dangerously unfit for the job.
While Trump’s attitude toward women should be disqualifying, it is among his least frightening traits when it comes to assuming the responsibilities of the presidency. His fondness for Vladimir Putin, the whimsy with which he has entertained the first use of nuclear weapons, his disregard for our NATO alliances, his promise to use federal regulators to harass his critics, his belief that climate change is a hoax, his recommendation that we kill the families of terrorists, his suggestion that America might want to default on its debt—any one of these sentiments should have ended Trump’s bid for public office within the hour. In fact, Donald Trump is so unfit for the presidency that he has done great harm to our society by merely campaigning for it. The harm he could do from the White House can scarcely be imagined.
. . .
. . .
To consider only one point of comparison: We have now witnessed Donald Trump bragging about his sexual predations in terms that not even Satan himself could spin to his advantage. He has admitted to repeatedly groping women, kissing them on the mouth without their consent, and invading the dressing rooms of teenage pageant contestants to see them naked. Every day, more women come forward confirming the truth of these confessions. Trump has even said that he would have sex with his own daughter, were she the offspring of another man. He talks about his libido as only a malignant narcissist can: as though it were a wonder of nature, a riddle no mortal can solve, and a blessing to humanity.
Such disclosures should have ended Trump’s presidential campaign. But as luck would have it, Hillary Clinton is married to a man who can probably match Trump indiscretion for indiscretion. Indeed, Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are both trailing serious accusations of rape. Whether or not the worst of these charges are true, these are not normal men. Each has lived for decades as a roving id flanked by a security detail. Each is the very avatar of entitlement. However, only one of these cads radiates contempt for nearly every other member of our species. Only one has made humiliating people—and women in particular—a central part of his brand. Only one lives a troubled adolescent’s fantasy of what a man should be, exposing a ruinous insecurity and moral emptiness every time he opens his mouth. Most important, only one of these men is running for president today. And, personal ethics aside, only one is dangerously unfit for the job.
While Trump’s attitude toward women should be disqualifying, it is among his least frightening traits when it comes to assuming the responsibilities of the presidency. His fondness for Vladimir Putin, the whimsy with which he has entertained the first use of nuclear weapons, his disregard for our NATO alliances, his promise to use federal regulators to harass his critics, his belief that climate change is a hoax, his recommendation that we kill the families of terrorists, his suggestion that America might want to default on its debt—any one of these sentiments should have ended Trump’s bid for public office within the hour. In fact, Donald Trump is so unfit for the presidency that he has done great harm to our society by merely campaigning for it. The harm he could do from the White House can scarcely be imagined.
. . .
Again, raising Trump's 'sexual predations' as an issue to support your description of 'a stark choice' is pretty ridiculous, when you are forced to acknowledge that the person you are defending married Trump's equal in that regard. If that supposed fact destroys any reasonable support for Trump, how will Hillary Clinton be able to function properly as President, being married to a Trump equivalent?
If Trump's attitude toward women is disqualifying as Harris wrote, then Hillary marrying the likes of Trump should also be disqualifying, and so Harris still has not provided a reason to think that Hillary is the lesser evil, despite his hyperbolic claim to the contrary — so far, all Harris has done is waste the reader's time.
And the last paragraph quoted above is too filled with unsubstantiated accusations to be worth unpacking — it functions as code to those who already agree with Harris, and share his bias, so it begs the painfully obvious question —
Who is Harris trying to convince by dropping a laundry list of unsubstantiated accusations?
Does Harris really believe that voters, who are honestly struggling to sort through all of the constant political corruption, would read that list, and say to themselves, 'Oh yeah, now it's obvious'?
Harris mentioning the use of 'federal regulators to harass his critics', for example, seems like a kind of psychological projection, given the recent IRS scandal with Lois Lerner — again, this does not defend Trump, but it certainly does nothing to defend the notion that Hillary is the obvious choice, or that you have fallen prey to a 'political and moral illusion', as Harris put it, if you do not vote for Hillary.
Or how about the claim that Trump believes global warming is a hoax? Is Harris really blind to the problems there, or does he believe that all voters are blind? Why would Harris bring up such a scandal ridden topic, as if it were a defining advantage for Hillary? It does not take much digging to find good reasons to be skeptical about the claims regarding global warming — like, say, the holes in the supposed 'settled science', or the problems with fraud in the research —
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2015/04/global-warming-zealots-and-intellectual-dishonesty.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424875/getting-rich-climate-extremism-ian-tuttle
http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/02/...audit-detailing-climate-change-researchers-double-dipping-with-taxpayer-funds/
https://www.google.com/search?q=Jagadish+Shukla+RICO
And how about the claim from Harris that Trump believes the U.S. might want to default on its debt? Well, it is not as simple as Harris would like his readers to believe. Here is an account of Trump's statements on the debt from NPR —
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/09/477350889/donald-trumps-messy-ideas-for-handling-the-national-debt-explained
One could try to argue from reading that NPR piece that Trump's statements were not practical, or even that they did not make any sense — but Trump did not suggest a U.S. default, as Harris wrote.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/16/closer-look-donald-trumps-comments-about-refinanci/
Trump: "No. I don't want to renegotiate the bonds. But I think you can do discounting, I think, you know, depending on where interest rates are, I think you can buy back. You can -- I'm not talking about with a renegotiation, but you can buy back at discounts, you can do things with discounts. … I would refinance debt. I think we should refinance longer-term debt."Is that why it seems to be 'a choice this stark' to Harris — because he cannot really tell what the choice is?
Back to 'Trump in Exile' —
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/trump-in-exile2
. . .
But hatred for both Clintons is now so blinding as to render Trump’s far more dangerous flaws imperceptible to millions of Americans. This is deeply disconcerting. Ask yourself, How would Trump appear if he were a malicious bully? The answer: Exactly as he does now. The man lies about everything, and yet he can’t even pretend to be a good person for five minutes at a stretch. How would Trump sound if he knew nothing about world affairs? One need only hear him speak to know. The truth is that Trump couldn’t have displayed his flaws more clearly during this campaign had his goal been to humiliate himself. And yet this hasn’t mattered to nearly half the electorate.
As many others have noted, there was a point in the second presidential debate when Trump’s campaign ceased to be a depressing farce and became the terrifying, national disgrace we now see before us. The crucial moment wasn’t when Trump threatened to imprison Clinton if he wins in November—it was the shriek of joy this threat produced in half the audience. That was the sound of our democracy unraveling. And there was Trump, the crazed man-child tearing at the threads.
If there is a silver lining here, it is that many of us now see how vulnerable our political system is to charlatanism, conspiracy theories, and populist unreason on both the Right and the Left. The role that the media has played, rendering us all moths to the Trumpian flame, will be scrutinized for years to come. The truth about us is sobering: We have been playing with our smartphones while hurtling toward the abyss…
Hillary Clinton will almost certainly be the next president of the United States. And, with any luck, she will usher in four years of exquisite boredom. Unfortunately, the toxicity of this campaign seems unlikely to dissipate. There will be a surplus of anger to be discharged—not just among disappointed Trump supporters, but toward them. Those who stood with Trump, as the wrecking ball of his ego swung dangerously through our lives, will likely find that their reputations have been destroyed. I will be surprised if we hear anything from Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani ever again. Trump himself should be forced into exile the way OJ Simpson was after he was falsely acquitted of two murders. In fact, one might say that a murder has been committed here—of the public good—by a monster of selfishness and self-regard.
After November, let the shunning of Donald Trump be complete.
. . .
But hatred for both Clintons is now so blinding as to render Trump’s far more dangerous flaws imperceptible to millions of Americans. This is deeply disconcerting. Ask yourself, How would Trump appear if he were a malicious bully? The answer: Exactly as he does now. The man lies about everything, and yet he can’t even pretend to be a good person for five minutes at a stretch. How would Trump sound if he knew nothing about world affairs? One need only hear him speak to know. The truth is that Trump couldn’t have displayed his flaws more clearly during this campaign had his goal been to humiliate himself. And yet this hasn’t mattered to nearly half the electorate.
As many others have noted, there was a point in the second presidential debate when Trump’s campaign ceased to be a depressing farce and became the terrifying, national disgrace we now see before us. The crucial moment wasn’t when Trump threatened to imprison Clinton if he wins in November—it was the shriek of joy this threat produced in half the audience. That was the sound of our democracy unraveling. And there was Trump, the crazed man-child tearing at the threads.
If there is a silver lining here, it is that many of us now see how vulnerable our political system is to charlatanism, conspiracy theories, and populist unreason on both the Right and the Left. The role that the media has played, rendering us all moths to the Trumpian flame, will be scrutinized for years to come. The truth about us is sobering: We have been playing with our smartphones while hurtling toward the abyss…
Hillary Clinton will almost certainly be the next president of the United States. And, with any luck, she will usher in four years of exquisite boredom. Unfortunately, the toxicity of this campaign seems unlikely to dissipate. There will be a surplus of anger to be discharged—not just among disappointed Trump supporters, but toward them. Those who stood with Trump, as the wrecking ball of his ego swung dangerously through our lives, will likely find that their reputations have been destroyed. I will be surprised if we hear anything from Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani ever again. Trump himself should be forced into exile the way OJ Simpson was after he was falsely acquitted of two murders. In fact, one might say that a murder has been committed here—of the public good—by a monster of selfishness and self-regard.
After November, let the shunning of Donald Trump be complete.
'Hatred for both Clintons is now so blinding' — really? In a piece filled with invective against Trump? Is this more psychological projection from Harris? How about the blinding hatred of Trump, including from Sam Harris?
And regarding 'the shriek of joy' when Trump threatened to imprison Clinton — perhaps there are people who understand that Hillary Clinton committed a crime, and they care about the rule of law —
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/07/mediamatters-hillary-clintons-shill.html
If you think Hillary Clinton is innocent, then — if you want to be convincing — you have to try and make that case. But attempting to pretend that others are simply craven, because they think Hillary should be imprisoned for committing a felony is not a convincing defense of your position that Hillary is the lesser evil.
Here is Sam Harris in a podcast complaining that people have accused him of committing an ad hominem attack against Trump. Harris spends several minutes addressing this accusation, and in attempting a rebuttal, he simply makes more emotional ad hominem attacks, by repeating his insulting, but empty denunciations — 'dangerously unintelligent', 'pathological liar', etc.
Harris does not seem to understand that calling someone a 'pathological liar', for example, in no way provides any indication that the person being denounced is actually a liar, never mind pathological — in the early parts of the podcast, Harris seems quite annoyed that anyone would not accept his list of adjectives and analogies as evidence to support his claims —
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-lesser-evil
And it should be stressed, that even if everything Sam Harris says about Trump is true, it still does nothing to defend his position that Hillary is the lesser evil, because Harris makes no attempt to convince anyone that Hillary does not possess all of the same bad character traits — Harris simply insists that Hillary's corruption is not as bad, and expects everyone to agree.
In the podcast, Harris and Andrew Sullivan actually have a long discussion about just how bad both Bill and Hillary are, in an attempt to do a real comparison with Trump, in order to show that Trump really is the greater evil. That conversation is quite odd, in that, at one point, Harris states that he found nothing shocking about the corruption revealed by the Podesta e-mails, stating something to the effect of, ' ... that is how the sausage gets made', as if corruption is intrinsic to the political process, rather than the product of corrupt individuals.
That should give you a sense of how convincing Sam Harris is at defending Hillary as the lesser evil. But certainly don't take my word for it — go listen to the podcast, if you have a couple of hours you can afford to waste.
And, again, notice that I have said nothing positive regarding Trump. I have no doubt that he has lied — just like Hillary — but this claim from Harris that Trump is 'pathological', and so Hillary is the clear choice in this regard, is indefensible —
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/08/lying-about-hillary-clintons-lies.html
And the duration of the podcast is even somewhat comical, at about 2.5 hours long — the conversation between Harris and Andrew Sullivan wandered randomly through a number of topics, as if anything either of them have to say is always important — and guess what one of their conclusions was — that Trump is a narcissist! Introspect much Sam?
Ah, yes, that 'Trumpian flame' — perhaps Sam Harris is the one who is fixated by it.
Here is a very polite video from a previous admirer of Sam Harris, that is devastating in its critique of the intellectual dishonesty Sam Harris displays in his denunciations of Trump. As I attempted to do with the Sam Harris blog post above, Odysee user 'Computing Forever' carefully tears apart (and in much greater detail than I did) the complete lack of substance Sam Harris provides in denouncing Trump —
For a more reasonable take on the significance of the 2016 election, consider this article by David Harsanyi at reason.com —
http://reason.com/archives/2016/11/04/this-is-the-least-important-election-of
... It certainly goes for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom possess the requisite talent, vision or charisma needed to destroy this country in a mere four years. Yet on Tuesday in Dade City, Florida, Clinton finally stated what many in her party (from the president to students to 96-year-old Roger Angell) have been saying for months: "I believe this may be the most important election of our lifetimes." For her, yes. For the rest of us, not so much.I almost wish the 2016 U.S. Presidential election was as important as Sam Harris thinks it is — that would mean it might be possible to solve some terribly difficult problems with the election of a single person. Now that is a political and moral illusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment