Is Clinton the "Law and Order" Candidate?

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

Two pieces I ran into today show us just how hostile a political landscape we now inhabit.

First, Tammy Bruce argues that the various anti-Trump riots aren't animated by leftist sympathy so much as orchestrated by leftists:

Make no mistake -- these supposed anti-Trump riots are not organic nor are they natural; they are the result of leftist organizing using paid stooges. Fox News reported in March a Craigslist ad posted by Bernie Sanders supporters offering $15 an hour to protest at a Trump rally in Wisconsin. They would also provide shuttle bus transport, parking if you needed it and ready-made signs. [links dropped]
In a sense, it is good news that these protests don't reflect any widespread tendency towards violent conduct. Indeed, they will probably benefit the Republican nominee, making him look like a voice of calm amid the storm. Too bad that nominee is Donald Trump, who the Washington Post notes, is ignorant at best of the law he may be charged with executing and (as I suspect) contemptuous of rule of law at worst:
The fact that Mr. Trump has not filed such a motion [regarding alleged bias by a judge hearing a case against him] says a lot about his attitude toward the rule of law and stable political processes -- more, in a sense, than his bigoted attacks on the judge themselves. When things don't go his way, Mr. Trump's first resort is not to use options for redress the system provides; it is, rather, to blame his problems on an enemy and whip up public hostility against him, in crude ethnic terms, if it seems advantageous. One implication of Mr. Trump's words, that he is the one with a bias, against Americans of Latino heritage, is bad enough; possibly worse is the ominous signal his behavior sends about how a President Trump would deal with any sort of opposition he might encounter. [links dropped]
So we have a candidate who will seek to intimidate opponents (but who might preserve political institutions she thinks can benefit her) versus one who doesn't know or care about our institutions. As bad as Clinton is, I think that under her, at least our institutions will suffer less damage than they will under Trump. Furthermore, at least Clinton won't be mistaken as an ally by Americans who value freedom and are suspicious of the left, whereas Trump apparently is, in large part due to the efforts of the left.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: I highly recommend the post "Contra Trump" at Value for Value. 

6 comments:

Jacob Zeise said...

I sympathize with Trump on this one. This is a strange feeling for me (I support open borders). Is it really racist to suggest membership in La Raza Lawyers risks bias toward a guy with such a bad immigration policy? I'm not saying Trump is right, I'm saying I don't see the charge of racism is justified.

Gus Van Horn said...

Jacob,

First, it is different to say, "This judge is unfit because he is a member of a racist organization," than, "This judge is unqualified because he's Mexican." The first is a legitimate complaint and the second isn't. That said, I was posting about a different issue, which was how Trump has reacted to the possibility that the judge is biased.

Second, since many people who follow this blog seem to be confused about my position on immigration, I will state that, while I think people should be free to live wherever they wish, so long as they are not criminals or combatants, I think we do need citizenship reform. And we need to phase out the welfare state altogether.

Gus

Jacob Zeise said...

I accept your point about how Trump chose to handle this. While I disagree with the intimidation, I don't see that as different than the way Clinton has handled such things in the past; neither in principle nor in severity. On the other hand, Clinton most certainly would also use the methods provided by the courts.

Also, from what I can tell Trump's position is not that ALL Mexican judges are incapable of remaining impartial (a racist position), but that this particular one is. I don't know if that's true, but that argument is not completely without merit. And it is one he's made; in the Jake Tapper interview Trump was pressed on this issue and responded by saying something to the effect of, "Curiel is a member of a society that is pro-Mexican," which appears to be a reference to La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, a group that has ties to the National Council of La Raza.

Gus Van Horn said...

Jacob,

Fine, but again, my focus here is not on whether Trump is actually a bigot, not that that wouldn't be a big problem.

Gus

Jacob Zeise said...

Thanks for responding.

On a different subject, have you already written about citizenship reform? I'm interested to know your thoughts on that subject.

Gus Van Horn said...

I have not written anything other than off-hand comments about that because I have not thought enough about the subject to feel comfortable doing so. Also, the issue of ending the welfare state is far more important for reasons I have already discussed.