Trump Hates America
14 responses | 0 likes
Started by joj - July 24, 2019, 6:46 a.m.
Below is my attempt at a copy / paste from the NY Times.  A rare opportunity for readers on the Forum.

David Brooks is my favorite conservative, just ahead of George Will.

So apparently Donald Trump wants to make this an election about what it means to be American. He’s got his vision of what it means to be American, and he’s challenging the rest of us to come up with a better one.

In Trump’s version, “American” is defined by three propositions. First, to be American is to be xenophobic. The basic narrative he tells is that the good people of the heartland are under assault from aliens, elitists and outsiders. Second, to be American is to be nostalgic. America’s values were better during some golden past. Third, a true American is white. White Protestants created this country; everybody else is here on their sufferance.

When you look at Trump’s American idea you realize that it contradicts the traditional American idea in every particular. In fact, Trump’s national story is much closer to the Russian national story than it is toward our own. It’s an alien ideology he’s trying to plant on our soil.

Trump’s vision is radically anti-American.

The real American idea is not xenophobic, nostalgic or racist; it is pluralistic, future-oriented and universal. America is exceptional precisely because it is the only nation on earth that defines itself by its future, not its past. America is exceptional because from the first its citizens saw themselves in a project that would have implications for all humankind. America is exceptional because it was launched with a dream to take the diverse many and make them one — e pluribus unum.

The Puritans settled this continent with visions of creating a future city on a hill. They had an eschatological dream of completing God’s plan for this earth. By the time of the revolution it was well understood that America was the land of futurity, the vanguard nation that would lead all of humanity to a dignified and democratic future.

“I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder,” John Adams declared, “as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”

American life is so raucous and dynamic because people are inflamed by visions of creating a heaven on earth. As George Santayana put it, Americans often don’t make a distinction between the sacred and the profane. In building material wealth, they see themselves creating a country that will redeem humanity, that will become the last best hope of earth.

This sense of mission has often made Americans arrogant, and somewhat dangerous to be around. But it has also made us anxious. The country was built amid a wail of jeremiads: Providence assigned us a mission to serve the whole planet, but we, in our greed and sin, are blowing it! “Ah my country!” Ralph Waldo Emerson lamented, “In thee is the reasonable hope of mankind not fulfilled.”

But the American mission survived its failures. Herman Melvillesummarized the ethos in his novel “White Jacket”: “God has predestined, mankind expects, great things from our race; and great things we feel in our souls. … We are the pioneers of the world; the advance-guard, sent on through the wilderness of untried things, to break a new path.”

This American idea is not a resentful prejudice; it’s a faith and a dream. The historian Sacvan Bercovitch put it best: “Only ‘America,’ of all national designations, took on the combined force of eschatology and chauvinism. Many forms of nationalism have laid claims to a world-redeeming promise; many Christian sects have sought, in open or secret heresy, to find the sacred in the profane; many European Protestants have linked the soul’s journey and the way to wealth.

“But only the ‘American Way,’ of all modern symbologies, has managed to circumvent the contradictions inherent in these approaches. Of all symbols of identity, only ‘American’ has succeeded in uniting nationality with universality, civic and spiritual selfhood, sacred and secular history, the country’s past and the paradise to be, in a single transcendent ideal.”

Trump’s campaign is an attack on that dream. The right response is to double down on that ideal. The task before us is to create the most diverse mass democracy in the history of the planet — a true universal nation. It is precisely to weave the social fissures that Trump is inclined to tear.

Comments
By mcfarm - July 24, 2019, 9:09 a.m.
Like Reply

wow, I have rarely seen a more cobbled untrue bunch of gobbly goo thrown together since one of Obama's great speeches

By JP - July 24, 2019, 12:22 p.m.
Like Reply

Play it again, Sam.

By TimNew - July 24, 2019, 12:52 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - July 24, 2019, 2:21 p.m.
Like Reply

JP and Tim are right.

This is the same article that you posted here July 19, with that absurd title and reasoning, intended to put a silly, new twist on Trump's believe system to spin it into something which is the opposite of what he really represents. 

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/34901/

In between, you started this thread.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/35073/


joj,

Have you decided that your role here is to be a troll, trying to upset others that don't agree with your views?

I know that you are capable of posting quality posts because I've seen them in the past. It would be nice, if you could at least provide us with a few of those good posts in between your trolling.

By joj - July 24, 2019, 4:55 p.m.
Like Reply

I received feedback from the previous thread that the link to the NY Times article was not accessible since they charge for subscriptions.  That is why I posted it (copy/paste) again.  

David Brooks articulates the spirit of America better than I can.  I agree with all his points.  Neither you, nor anyone else responded to the points he made, which is pretty typical around here.  Don't like the message?  Change the subject.


By JP - July 24, 2019, 5:05 p.m.
Like Reply

"David Brooks is my favorite conservative..."

You keep using that word in connection with David Brooks, Sam.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Did the New York Times give you permission to distribute material that exists behind their paywall? 

By TimNew - July 24, 2019, 6:33 p.m.
Like Reply

I repondedto his points the first time you posted the article.  The link is in my earlier response in this thread as well as in MM's.


But, as is usual,  you don't like the answer?  you never got an answer.

By WxFollower - July 24, 2019, 6:37 p.m.
Like Reply

 I consider David Brooks to be more moderate (right of center) than conservative. I do like him. I wish there were more moderates around like him. In my view, this country could use more moderates to try to get us back together again.

By carlberky - July 24, 2019, 9:10 p.m.
Like Reply

joj repeated the post with the cut-and-paste because in the first one I pointed out that some of us do not have access to the Times.

By metmike - July 24, 2019, 11:38 p.m.
Like Reply

We were aware of that Carl/joj. The protocol for those cases is to respond in that same thread with portions of  the article......not to start a new thread with the same title and the same article and cut and paste the entire article.

Also, as JP noted, joj and MarketForum are in violation of copyright laws regarding posting the entire contents of an article without the permission of the source. MarketForum is a dinky site which is not likely to get sued for doing this but the NYT would have a legit case in going after us if it's paying customers were passing on this information to people for free here, thus stealing potential business from them, using their exclusive stories or articles  to benefit MarketForum or joj. 

We are at Lake Barkley in KY right now but when I get a chance I will post these rules.

I scolded Tim over the weekend for doing this very same thing.......cutting and pasting an entire article....in his case an Obama bashing editorial.

So whether you are bashing Trump, bashing Obama or copying an article about basket weaving, especially with pay walled material, please do not post the entire thing.

And if you have started a thread with an article, please use that same thread to respond to posters, who comment to you in that thread about that article ......don’t start new threads to respond.

By metmike - July 25, 2019, 12:35 a.m.
Like Reply

https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2018/03/articles/using-copyrighted-content-on-a-website-including-news-articles-and-videos-secure-the-rights/



https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/34963/

                By metmike - July 21, 2019, 7 p.m.            

            Tim,

I don't consider this one of your better posts.

Also, it's best with posts to include the link, along with the title/source, then, below that a few key points..........not the entire article.

I certainly get very long winded with my own post, using my own words............ but please try to avoid putting entire articles from other sources.

Using Copyrighted Content on a Website – Including News Articles and Videos – Secure the Rights!

https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2018/03/articles/using-copyrighted-content-on-a-website-including-news-articles-and-videos-secure-the-rights/

"The copying of any substantial part of a news article raises the same issues as posting pictures or video found on the Internet onto your site. Such actions diminish the ability to of the content’s owner to profit from its own content. If someone can read a story on a broadcaster’s website, why would they need to go to the site of the originator of that content – even where attribution to the originating site (and even a link to that site) is given on the broadcaster’s site?"


Uses That Are Normally Considered Legally "Fair"

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses

Criticism and commentary: For example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment would normally be fair use. A book reviewer would be permitted to quote passages from a book in a newspaper column as part of an examination of the book"


Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be

"The more material you lift from the original, the less likely it is that your use will be considered a fair use. As a broad standard, never quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, take more than one chart or diagram, include an illustration or other artwork in a book or newsletter without the artist's permission, or quote more than one or two lines from a poem.

Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, copying 200 words from a work of 300 words wouldn't be fair use. However, copying 2,000 words from a work of 500,000 words might be fair. It all depends on the circumstances"

By metmike - Aug. 20, 2019, 6:40 p.m.
Like Reply

Tim,

I apologize if it appears as if I'm picking on you again. The lib side is convinced that I do the same thing to them.

By TimNew - Aug. 21, 2019, 4:38 a.m.
Like Reply

Oh heck, I'm not that thin skinned.  You had an opinion about an article I posted, and by forum standards, posting an entire article without some sort of source is wrong.   I've pointed that out myself a time or two.

It's a recent exampleof you, as moderator,enforcing forum standards,regardless of the slant/opinion.

By metmike - Aug. 21, 2019, 11:44 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Tim,

That's one of the many things that I like about you.

I actually intended for that message to go on to another thread in a discussion with joj and messed up but will transfer it now.