This blog celebrates the erotic side of spanking as long practiced by one married couple. We don't spank for punishment or discipline or any reason other than to supercharge sex. Getting our bottoms toasted sexually arouses us. It's that simple. Bogey and Bacall
John Hawkins: You did a podcast you that was very interesting. It was called, “The one thing that’s saving us from a civil war.” And I thought you made an interesting argument in it. Do you want to talk about that a little?
Matt Walsh: Yeah. Well, actually I think there’s maybe two things. …I think we are arguably as divided culturally as we were in the run-up to the Civil War. And so people notice that and say, “We’re going to have another civil war!” I think the thing though that will prevent that from happening the way that it did in 1861 is, for lack of a better term, just kind of laziness. Not that I want there to be a civil war, but the fact is people don’t have the energy for it despite the fact that we seem in this country to hate each other on both sides.
There are these deep divisions. But, at the end of the day, we still want to be home watching Netflix & have our air conditioning. That’s why most of our strongest disagreements happen online. Every once in a while you’ll see an explosion of rage and violence on a college campus or in a riot, but then people just go back to their homes. I think the environment in the first civil war, it was quite different than it is now. Where you had people that these were just living simple lives. They were living on their farms, a lot of them were very poor, desperate and not as satiated and comfortable as we are.
Then also the other factor more practically speaking is we don’t have quite the same geographic lines that they did back in the 1860s. Obviously, liberals tend to live in cities and all of that, but you don’t have that just kind of demarcation that you had back in the civil war — North versus South. We all kind of live interspersed with each other. So I think that also prevents a civil war.
Democrats’ assaults on the Trump presidency roll in like the ocean’s tides. But one has landed on the beach recently that deserves to go under the microscope. It is the notion that Donald Trump is a dictator.
Most prominently, there is House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who is maxing out his 15 Warholian minutes of fame.
When Attorney General William Barr refused to appear before the committee—after being ridiculed and slandered by Senate Democrats the day before—Mr. Nadler unloaded: “The very system of government of the United States, the system of limited power, the system of not having a president as a dictator, is very much at stake.”
The Trump-as-dictator theme caught on. Days later, when Mr. Trump tweeted that special counsel Robert Mueller shouldn’t testify before Congress, Bernie Sanders went straight for the D-word: “Sorry, Mr. President, you are not a dictator.”
Last Friday, after Mr. Trump vetoed a congressional resolution related to funding a border wall, New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez raged, “If a Democratic president acted in this way, Republicans would be calling him or her a dictator.”
This is progress. We’ve moved on from Trump-is-Hit- ler to mere dictator, which is discussable.
Politicians tend to speak in pompous boilerplate, but Mr. Nadler’s dictator denunciation includes a Freudian slip, to wit that what is at stake in the standoff between President Trump and the Democrats is “the very system of government of the United States, the system of limited power . . .”
When in the past 20 years has a national Democrat invoked “limited power”?
Congressional Democrats are weeping crocodile tears for checks and balances. They are trying to hide from public view unprecedented ideological differences between the Trump presidency and the ascendant progressive edition of the Democratic Party.
America’s political left is impatient for power. It is frustrated it hasn’t been able to achieve its agenda on issues like health-care nationalization or climate policy through the normal legislative process, so it is trying to force it—by redesigning the political system to give itself power long enough to impose what it wants. In short, by dictating policy change.
To get there, the left is pushing to abolish the Electoral College and expand the Supreme Court. As power grabs go, these are pretty naked.
Abolishing the Electoral College would eviscerate the role of 50 diverse states in picking presidents. In a perfect world, the left would rename the country the Uniform State of America.
Sen. Kamala Harris opted Wednesday for packing the court. “Moderate” Pete Buttigieg was there ahead of her.
For many, Mr. Trump’s ascension to the White House was like a political kidney stone. Please let it pass! Two years later, that the visceral animosity hasn’t abated suggests it has become entirely a political tactic to stop what this presidency represents on substance.
Exhibits A and B are Mr. Trump’s signature domestic achievements—the tax bill and deregulation. To the left, the positive effects on job creation are irrelevant. The two measures are ideologically anathema.
A tax cut broadly redistributes decisions about the use of national wealth. Deregulation devolves decisions about the design of American life to hundreds of millions of individuals.
To the Democratic left, distributed political authority like this is inefficient, unpredictable and “messy.” No more revealing or efficient phrase exists in our politics today than “Medicare for All.”
Or in a famous variation, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”
Some on the left, privately, might even use the D-word to describe their system but would precede it with “benevolent.” Still, it’s the D-word.
Democrats will persist in making the election all about Donald Trump, and this president likely will accommodate them. But Jerry Nadler’s paean to a government of limited power is a crock. His party’s left wing is intent on a historic power grab over the next two elections, with power thereafter indeed limited—to them. Standing against that is the current, decentralizing presidency. This reality makes the personality issue a footnote.