RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/06/once-again-stop-talking-progressives-bruce-thornton/

Anyone who regularly comments on current political affairs will eventually end up repeating himself. Usually that’s because politicians and pundits keep making the same errors of thinking, and displaying the same lack of critical self-awareness of those mistakes. Some, like Capote’s Holly Golightly, are true believers who sincerely believe all “this crap” they believe, and “can’t be talked out of it.”  Or they are conscious liars who don’t care that their ideas and beliefs are incoherent or pernicious, as long as they win them more power and privilege.

That truth is a commonplace. But as novelist André Gide once said,  “Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again,” in the hope that somebody will be listening, since using the dishonest, politicized words of progressives helps to spread the malign concepts and ideologies like a virus, infecting the body politic.

Recently columnist George Will called this phenomenon “semantic infiltration . . . the tactic by which political objectives are smuggled into discourse that is ostensibly, but not actually, politically neutral. People who adopt a political faction’s vocabulary also adopt — perhaps inadvertently, but inevitably — the faction’s agenda.”

Will’s example is the “woke” economic term “stakeholder,” a synonym for “stockholder.” Extending a “stakeholder” to include anybody and everybody whom a business even slightly affects is to indulge a false analogy, the logical fallacy favored by those who are up to no good or smuggling their ideology into an argument––which, as Will points out, is exactly what the “stakeholder” metaphor does: “Stakeholder capitalism violates fiduciary laws that require those entrusted with investors’ money to employ it ‘solely in the interest of’ and ‘for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to’ the investors.”

Most of us can cite a whole catalogue of scare-words and question-begging epithets, like “racist” and “sexist,” used not to communicate precisely but to demonize a political enemy or advance a dangerous ideology under cover of invective.

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/06/30/when-small-people-like-cassidy-hutchison-have-big-moments/

Anyone who has spent much time in the room with major politicians or C-Suite executives can tell out-of-school stories that would curl your hair.

The bad conduct and off-the-wall statements attributed to Donald Trump by 20-something former White House aide Cassidy Hutchison before the Jan. 6 House Select Committee, if true, are not excusable – but also not all that surprising.

One quickly learns that world-changers are generally big personalities who break eggs, occasionally dishes, and frequently, the rules.

Sometimes, along the way, they blurt out-of-the-box ideas and are talked down from the ledge by wise counselors whose job it is to steer them away from their worst impulses – and help build on their best.

And sometimes, small people like Ms. Hutchison who also get to be in the room, but lack that skill or insight, think instead that they can make themselves bigger by eschewing the loyalty that is supposed to come with access, and bringing those big personalities down based on what they’ve witnessed.

Rarely, when there is conduct that somehow crosses the line – or as has been the case over the last few years, a line newly established – they succeed.

More commonly, they only succeed in making themselves look smaller and wrecking their own careers. Yes, they will have 15 minutes of fame and may be remembered fondly (or otherwise) within the confined and insular worlds of politics or business. But for the most part, they will be shunted aside as the world moves to the next big story, often by the very wreckers (read: Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney) for whom they are briefly useful fools, and the sycophants tweeting plaudits about their “courage.”

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/donald-trump-show-cassidy-hutchinson/

Since it debuted in 2016, The Donald Trump Show — the televised meta-commentary from hell we’ve all been living in — has been through many reinventions. Its first season was a tautly plotted election thriller that managed to make the impossible seem possible; its middling stretches were a darkly comic take on The West Wing. It even proved later on that it could continue without its main character, introducing a new president, Joe Biden, who ushered in elements of slapstick humor and cringe comedy.

Now, with last night’s episode, The Donald Trump Show has veered into Kiefer Sutherland territory.

The testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson before Congress was one of the program’s most dramatic moments yet. Just when you thought Trump had finally been written out of the script, there he was again, chewing the scenery and possibly drenching it in ketchup. The writers, via Hutchinson, introduced a side of Trump that we’d never seen before, not just chaotic but violent and even dangerous. Per Hutchinson, Trump once slung his lunch at the wall in a fit of rage and tried to choke his own Secret Service agent.

Or did he? This is the great thing about The Donald Trump Show going all the way back to the James Comey arc: it never lets you get too comfortable. No sooner had Hutchinson testified than — plot twist! — a source told reporters that the Secret Service had denied the allegations. The writers have thus put two very different and sympathetic characters on a collision course: the twenty-five-year-old civil servant and the head of the former president’s security detail. One of them has to be lying…or both? With plotting this devilish, who can be sure?

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/hillary-clinton-trashes-clarence-thomas-sotomayor-disagrees/

A few mornings ago, Cockburn caught Hillary Clinton on one of the CBS morning shows. As it turned out, she was on to discuss the recent Dobbs decision, and she had some choice words for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

“I went to law school with him,” she said. “He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I’ve known him. Resentment, grievance, anger…women are going to die, Gayle. Women will die.”

Clinton is entitled to her opinion (though who is she to call anyone else resentful?) but her sentiment on Thomas’s statements has been contradicted by none other than Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Thomas’s ideological opposite on the Supreme Court. Here’s what Sotomayor said two weeks ago in a speech to the American Constitution Society:

I suspect I have probably disagreed with him more than with any other justice; that we have not joined each other’s opinion more than anybody else. And yet, Justice Thomas is the one justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name… He is the first one who will go up to someone when you’re walking with him and say, “is your son okay?” …He is the first one that when my stepfather died, sent me flowers in Florida. He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution, about the people who work there, about the people.

The point is that while Sotomayor disagrees with Thomas, she still sees him as a good man doing what he sees as right. And while Thomas has become the mainstream media’s biggest target since his controversial Dobbs opinion, her comments seem far more informed than those of her fellow birthing person.

The question should be asked: who knows Thomas better? Someone who might crossed paths with him at law school decades ago? Or someone who currently works with him every day? Cockburn can only suppose the latter.