Tags
D/S/Cs, flyover country, joe biden, Leftists, Never Trumpers, normal Americans, President Trump, progressives, pronoun antecedents, Republicans, Tara Reade, The Constitution, the left coast
Among the things I so enjoy about producing this scruffy little blog is the informed and civil discourse of readers that take the time to comment, not only on my wretched scribblings, but on the comments of other readers. At SMM, we expect, and almost universally receive, civil, intelligent and interesting discourse. I don’t imagine for a second I know everything or am incapable of error. As I’ve aged, the lesson that continues to mercilessly pound me is how very much I don’t know, will never know. When I make mistakes—readers are sufficiently kind to point them out—I always do my best to make corrections. However, finding one’s own errors is difficult business, which is more or less the topic of this little missive.
I always teach my students to put some time between a final draft and publication. This is so because when we try to proofread something we’ve just finished, our brains trick us. We don’t see what we actually wrote, we see what we think we wrote, what we intended to write. My favorite illustration of this is a student who misspelled his name in the header of a paper. I dutifully marked it in red, and when I handed it back, he demanded to know why I marked his name.
“You misspelled it,” I replied as I continued to hand out papers.
“I did not misspell my own name!” he indignantly replied.
I paused, and with a slight grin, said: “Take a look.”
His expression changed from anger to amazement as he muttered: “I misspelled my own name…” to the general merriment of the rest of the class, which gave me yet another opportunity to explain the importance of putting time between completing something and proofreading it. I routinely proofread my work at least three times prior to posting it, putting time between each reading, but even that doesn’t guarantee I’ll find every error.
But the primary issue of this article is that of pronoun use and generalities. Regular reader Doug, in responding to Tara Reade And Joe Biden: Rules Are For The Little People observed:
Ha.. yeah, Mike.. the old ‘us’ and ‘they’ of it all. If the ‘us’ is normal does that not mean the ‘they’ are either abnormal.. or.. dare I say this, some level of deplorable?
And what happens to the us.. that’s not the ‘us’, nor a member of the ‘they’? I am feeling a bit displaced.. and alone. Wait.. can I be a member of the ‘those’?
Doug was referring to terminology I have adopted as a generalization, a shorthand for more complex issues. One must always write for readers new to the site, while not repeatedly over-explaining for regular readers. Some acronyms—FBI, CIA, ASAP, etc.–are so common as to be immediately understood. Others require a bit of explanation, whether spelling them out when they’re first used in an article, or perhaps the context in which they’re used makes them apparent.
While the casual reader might think my general political philosophy conservative, I’m actually a constitutionalist. That alone might be confusing. I have thrice taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I’m no longer a police officer, nor am I any longer in the military, but having been active duty, I’m in the inactive reserve, though I’m outside the age for call up in anything but the most dire national emergency one can imagine. I took those oaths seriously, and particularly as a police officer, my daily activities were governed by the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, I judge the law and political policies on their adherence to the Constitution. I vote for politicians based primarily on who, by their records and statements, is likely to do the least damage to the Constitution. By this, I’m sure you can infer that I believe all politicians will do some damage to the Constitution, and that’s pretty much the case, though I’ve thus far been pleasantly surprised by President Trump.
I believe all politicians must be viewed with at least some degree of skepticism, and the media must be viewed with virtually nothing but skepticism. The media doesn’t always lie, but when they do, it’s virtually always to the benefit of the Left, and to the detriment of Normal Americans, which requires explanation.
I don’t automatically identify all Republicans and like-minded thinkers as “us,” nor do I automatically identify Democrats and like-minded thinkers as “them.” What do we call the Left these days? They used to self-identify as Liberals, until too much of the public caught on and began to think that a dirty word. They latched onto “Progressive,” because who can be against progress? They’re big on trying to define the terms of any debate. But again, too many Americans have come to realize the kind of “progress” they espouse will turn us into Venezuela, and they don’t think eating zoo animals for mere survival to be the kind of bold, new future into which they want to march.
On the Right, most Republicans are content to be called Republicans. After all, that was the party of Abraham Lincoln, and one can’t do much better than that. However, in constantly trying to define the terms of every debate, Leftists have coined a number of terms that have stuck, primarily due to their reflexive use in the media, which is actually the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. There are Neo-Conservatives, which means Nazis, racists, white supremacists, LGBTQWERTYphobes, women haters, Muslim haters, and haters of everything in general. There are Republicans, which means Nazis, racists, white supremacists, LGBTQWERTYphobes, women haters, Muslim haters, and haters of everything in general.
There are Never Trumpers, which means Nazis, racists, white supremacists, LGBTQWERTYphobes, women haters, Muslim haters, and haters of everything in general, but also, and most importantly, useful idiots. There are Deplorables, which is pretty much everyone that does not believe and praise everything the Left does, says and thinks, and the list goes on and on and evolves as necessary for temporary political advantage.
The Democrat side is somewhat less complicated. Progressives, to be sure. Liberals, never in the classical sense. But circa May, 2020, the Democrat Party is nothing like the Democrat Party of 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. The 2020 Party platform will be far closer to the pseudo constitutions of Communist dictatorships than to the US Constitution. While many members of the Democrat Party have always had socialist leanings, until recent years, they were careful to keep them under wraps, at least until they seized power and could act on them. Communists too have always been welcome, but until recently, had to keep an even lower profile. The number of Democrats taking an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution without blatantly lying has continued to shrink until now, one might reasonably think them a minority in the Democrat Party, and a constantly shrinking minority at that.
I have therefore taken to calling Americans that support the Constitution, that do not see it as an obstacle to their political policies, but rather a limitation on the powers of government and an affirmation of the rights of The People, “Normal Americans.” These are the people that believe in American Constitutionalism and the rule of law. They believe in small government, limited by the letter of the Constitution, which can be read and easily understood by the average citizen. They are the Americans who know that if we don’t take care of America and Americans first, we not only won’t be able to take care of others, but eventually, not even ourselves. They believe in national sovereignty and know money is a finite resource. They are compassionate, kind and generous people, and they spend their own money, not the tax dollars of others, to help those in need. They want mostly to be left alone, and they expect politicians to understand, always, they are the hired hands of the people who have an even greater obligation to obey the law than anyone else. We hire them to set an example. At the very least, they ought to obey the law like anyone else.
I have taken to calling those that follow leftist philosophy “D/S/Cs,” for Democrats, Socialists and Communists. I suspect the majority of that Party would fit within the generally understood limits of socialism, while a somewhat larger portion of the remainder are something that traditional Democrats, people that actually love America and Americans rather than seeking to fundamentally transform both, might recognize. And the smaller portion, for the moment, are communists, though they still feel at least somewhat compelled to travel as socialists rather than reveal their true beliefs. In any case, I suspect in using this acronym, I’m being truly inclusive, which they ought to appreciate. If a given Leftist isn’t a socialist, or at least doesn’t want to be identified as one, they can embrace the “D,” which leaves the “S” and “C” for the remainder.
When I write: “Normal Americans think,” I’m sure rational people know I’m generalizing. Not only would it be ridiculous to try to include all of the gradations of political thought within that general term, it would be tedious, make my prose unreadable—even more than usual—and would not clarify anything. We can all understand what the term generally encompasses, and further understand it’s necessary to eliminate unnecessary verbiage that would not, in most circumstances, add anything to understanding.
In the same way, when I write: “D/S/Cs think,” readers can come to the same understandings. Terms like “Flyover Country,” while intended to be derogatory by those that coined it, do generally describe a common way of living and thinking, and an easily understood, general set of political beliefs. In the same way are the terms “Left Coast,” or “the Coasts,” generally understood.
In the use of pronouns, antecedents are important. They’re the proper nouns that tell us to who or what the following pronoun refers. If we say, “Bob went to the beach and he had a great time,” “Bob” is the antecedent that allows us to know who “he” is. Done properly, the pronoun is specific, referring to one person or one group.
Providing generally descriptive and useful names for political groups and philosophies is a bit more difficult, but I trust, gentle readers, you know to who, and what I’m referring when I refer to “Normal Americans” and “D/S/Cs.” Or is it time for another correction?
I thought that was all fairly self-evident, though I had to think about dsc’s for a minute, first time..
I propose ‘country we allow you to flyover, for now.’ 😉
Dear mobisuwolf:
How about “country that we allow you say we allow you to flyover, for now”?
We’re gonna need a bigger acronym.
Mike-Fantastic again!
Dear nwjahn:
Thanks! Are you one of them? Or is it like Steve Martin wrote in “Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid” when he said: “Only they know who is them”?
Your ball, your bat, your baseball diamond. You can “term-a-lize” to your heart’s content, Mike. Although………………
1. T’were I a Democrat I might object to your D/S/C reference as presuming my Democratic ideals are part of the same crowd, per your assign, as Socialists and Communists… to which I may abhor as political ideologies. The same could be said for those persons who actually favored the other two ideologies.
2. To my original remark that spawned all this… your use of “normal” Americans pretty much implies other Americans who fail to measure up to your ideology are.. not normal. Whether you want to bury your meaning into some altruistic personification.
3. Your longer paragraph that outlines what it means to you to be a Constitutionalist is implying that “not normal” Americans don’t believe in anything you outlined. I’ve not found that to be true at all.
4. I see you’ve modified the term “deplorables” as used in context by Hillary when describing right wing racist neo-whatevers, to prefer a broader Conservative embracement of the term to enhance a greater negative assertion for effect.
Do you need to make any corrections? Of course not. It’s your blog… and who cares what I might say. But there is one thing you mentioned that I will take notice on…
The Constitution might be “easy” to read.. but it’s the interpretation of it that will vary with each person who reads it. Hence the reason we have SCOTUS. Also… no one person or group of persons can “damage” the Constitution. It remains the will of the people… not Constitutionalists, DS/C’ers. deplorables, half-wits, dim-wits.. it’s the will of the people… that will keep it as is, or change it. Conservatives or Constitutionalists are not the Knights Templar protectors. That’s the job of all Americans.
I’ve made those same oaths and pledges to protect and defend the Constitution in my past as well and I do take it just as seriously. But I did not pledge to defend and protect the Constitution, the way I prefer it was written, and defend it according to those I assign as its enemies.
Doug, my clever master of sophistry. I never cease to learn
from you. You enlarge the Overton Window–as the great
Hillary did–by “contextualzing” it.
Hillary said:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half
of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.
Right?” Well, which”half”? The “racist, sexist, homophobic,
xenophobic, Islamaphobic..”
Then, the next step: who are these?
My friend Bob does not want his daughter to
wrestle a “girl” possessing testicles who wrestled as a boy
last year, but has not been defeated since identifying as
girl (and ended the wrestling careers of several girls).
Bob is now”–phobic” and thus a “deplorable.” It is so
easy now. He is not “normal” as Mike would no doubt
suggest, but a deplorable.
I learn at your knee, Doug.
Doug, you sure sound like a democrat who is objecting to being lumped in with socialists and commies, while at the same time advocating for a living constitution that clearly leads to dictatorial government under the guise of socialism or communism (to justify ruling over everyone for the good of the working class or for the homeland).
“The constitution is the will of the people”. That’s an incredible oversimplification. It can only be legitimately modified when a supermajority of citizens and politicians vote for a specific change. That’s very different from a simple popular vote, and was done purposefully, to protect minority rights and to avoid factions (defined by Madison in Federalist 10). The current embrace of mob rule is the cause of much of today’s problems.
I don’t recall suggesting “the will of the people” was a direct vote of the people. We have a republic.. not a pure democracy… as defined by the document itself. The document starts out “We, the people…”. What’s so complicated to understand? Mike himself suggested the Constitution was an easy read (although comprehending what is being read is not so easy…. apparently).
Ok.. I’ll bite.. where’s the mob rule thing?
Doug,
I’m a neophyte at this game, but, re your rebuttal point #1, I’ve been told
that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck,
then it probably is a duck. I have learned from you that simple denial
is the proper defense–put the burden on them.
I get it. One more trick for my bag, oh Master.
Dug
I’ll leave you to the audience you are trying to impress.
Doug, I think Dug is pointing out that you seem to be conceding my point that you’re part of the DSC, but just don’t like the label of socialist or commie. It’s okay that you’re going to vote for Biden. It’s a free country, for now. Just be honest about it.
I’ve never been anything but honest in who/what I represent. Not sure how my “honesty” or lack there, of matters anyway. I have said all along… I’m old school Republican; I want zero to do with Trumplicanism. While you folks feel the need to classify, quantify, and objectify fellow Americans as being some sort of universal “enemy” to be feared by assigning to them an assortment of traditionally “un-American” political ideologies.. I am pointing a direct finger at Trump as being the the greatest clear and present danger to the future of the nation existing right now.. which a perfect example has been his response to this pandemic.
I am here to point out that for me… Trump’s politics are neither here nor there… as it’s his persona, inexperience, social immoralities, bullying deflections, and behavioral deficiencies that are so outside traditional American presidential norms. Let Pence take over his agenda if that alone is truly what is important to your own politics. I don’t care. Trump is the danger… not his political agenda.
Your so-called D/S/C labeling and fear mongering is nonsense and not a threat to a damn thing. And quit the damn belly-aching about the Second Amendment. That’s the NRA trying to save itself and still be relevant. The Second Amendment isn’t even being debated much less being threatened.
Time to worry about being Americans first… and your biases second.
You feeling picked on by family, friends, isolated because of the politics you believe in? Look harder… and try a slightly bigger picture than your own trigger finger… the “enemy” dislikes Trump… not your personal politics. The Congressional GOP is starting to swing that way.
Dear Doug:
Regarding the Second Amendment, every D/S/C candidate for the Presidency, and most D/S/Cs in the Congress are very much for any kind of gun control measure they can pass, or at least push. Many of those that are not particularly vocal on this issue are mostly silent because they know how radioactive trying to destroy an unalienable right is.
Normal Americans would not be so concerned about the Second Amendment if D/S/Cs did not so blatantly state their malign intentions, and do everything they can to act on them. A case in point was D/S/C Senators actually threatening the Supreme Court when they were considering a New York case.
And yes, D/S/Cs hate Donald Trump with a deranged and unhealthy passion, but they care little more for anyone that does not think and act as they see proper.
Doug, Trump’s a “clear and present danger”?! You fool!!! We now know for certain that Mike Flynn was framed by the Obama administration, both to undermine Trump and likely to coverup their illegal spying operations that go back at least until 2012.
We know that Mueller’s entire investigation was illegitimate. There’s ample proof that the DOJ knew that the Steele dossier, the basis of the investigation, was garbage well before it even began. It was their insurance policy to stop Trump.
The peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next is a cornerstone of our republic. It’s a bloody miracle, historically speaking. Obama tried to prevent his election, his holdovers continued to attack Trump after he took office, and in the last few days both he and Comey have sent public messages to their few remaining holdovers in government encouraging them to continue the resistance. And this is all public record, with more likely to come. But, yes, by all means, focus on Trump’s style.
Hence the divide, Phil. All one has to question is why was all the alleged Obama subterfuge was necessary when the vast majority of America never thought Trump would win in a heartbeat… even Trump himself, as he admitted? But to my point… why is it that when Trump is criticized for anything… out comes the Obama comparisons? My issue is completely regarding Trump and his demonstrated failings as President. What does Obama have to do with that?
I am quite sure my being a “fool” would be a description that many Trump supporters would have regarding my opinion of their Dear Leader. But I also lay claim to being an American.. like you, Phil. If you feel better living inside this Trump-induced chaos that’s your right. I personally think Americans like you and me can do much better.
Reblogged this on kommonsentsjane and commented:
Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.
For your information.
kommonsentsjane
Dear Kommonsentsjane:
Thanks for the reblog!
Pingback: KOMMONSENTSJANE – Generalizations | kommonsentsjane
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
Dear gds44:
Thanks for the reblog!
Oh.. hey, Mike.. I was at the local grocery store today and I realized another unfair Trump supporter stereotype.. they don’t wear masks and they enjoy the righteous indignation stares from other mask wearers.
Another observation on that trip… there was a father with his obvious under-aged daughter walking in the store.. both no mask. I had a passing thought.. can I call Child Protective Services? I gave the both of them wide berth.
Doug:
Pray, how were you able to discern the individuals you cite were “Trump supporters”? Did you interview them? Ask for their voting history?
The mainstream media makes such assumptions — to their eternal shame. Are you in that category?
Those questions you just asked of me I also concur are important to ask yourselves when stereotyping Liberals, et al. Stereotyping is a human natural instinct for survival but because humans have little reason to use that instinct directly for survival doesn’t mean we just stop using it. The question becomes as to how deeply we, as individuals, wish to assign a particular stereotype we might interpret, to use to cause harm or affect a personal agenda. Comedy uses stereotyping. Mike’s Sunday jokes as the expense of Liberals is a typical use of humor in stereotyping. Stereotyping has “caused” political correctness when it’s race-based or gender-based to be offensive.
Absolutely no question Trump supporters come in all shapes, sizes, religious, and gender persuasions… just as non-Trump supporters do. Where I live, you can poll 10 random people off the street or in Walmart and I would be 75% correct in picking out which were Trump supporters. In a big city with a much larger population sampling I would not be able to do that. But I live in an area with a larger number of off-the-grid folks who tend to have strong issues with governmental, political, and media dominating their lives or trying to control their freedoms.
So my remark about the not-wearing-of-face-masks being a Trump supporter thing…. well, it is after all an act of defiance to the imposition of authority, is it not? Not too many Liberals think that. I mentioned it all all as more tongue-in-cheek. I got a list of ’em.
Dear Doug:
We think of stereotyping as essentially lying, perpetuating false misconceptions about others. Where, exactly, pray tell, have I said anything false about the Left? I have, in fact, pretty much used their own terminology, and merely repeated the things they’ve said about normal Americans.
No.. “we”, those that know better, don’t think of stereotyping as lying.. as their origins typically are from some factual interpretation, albeit generally falsely pushed as being all inclusive in reality. Also.. I don’t recall saying you said anything like that, other than the humor you might include on your Sunday humor presentation tends to assign Liberals as ALL believing one way or the other. Some of that was pretty funny actually… as stereotyping is a source of humor.
Personally… it matters not what I say… I just tend to find the continued petty divisiveness appalling when up against a pandemic of the magnitude of Americans dying and national leadership not fit to lead us through it…. or the damaged economy. Here’s the thing… the country is not yet suffering enough to come together. Maybe we will be lucky and it won’t reach that point… and we can resume languishing inside the Trumpian divide.
Until then… I prefer to take notice on the general decline of America at the hands of imbeciles… and look for the day when we can think about America and not ourselves. But, that’s just me.
dear Doug, I just love this:
Personally… it matters not what I say… I just tend to find
the continued petty divisiveness appalling when up against
a pandemic of the magnitude of Americans dying and national
leadership not fit to lead us through it…. or the damaged economy.
Here’s the thing… the country is not yet suffering enough to come
together. Maybe we will be lucky and it won’t reach that point…
and we can resume languishing inside the Trumpian divide.
Until then… I prefer to take notice on the general decline of
America at the hands of imbeciles… and look for the day when
we can think about America and not ourselves. But, that’s just me.
i admired your trollian stamina, Doug, and mock self-abnegation.
Divisiveness, pettiness,damaged economy, suffering, etc, is all
because of the “trumpian divide,” as though it is Trump’s very
presence that brought all this. Goodness!
Thus: blow nonsense hard enough and long enough to prevail, to
get the last word, by God. Trollian rule number what, Doug?
I learn at your knee.
Dug
Also sprach Zarathrustra
Ah,Doug, I see we trolls must be literate…or feign? Auf Deutsch?
I learn at your knee.
Dug
Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch.
Literacy is in the mind of the one who must prove they have it.
Knowledge it self is not power. Power comes from knowing how, and when, to apply what you already know.
dear Doug, I just love this:
Personally… it matters not what I say… I just tend to find
the continued petty divisiveness appalling when up against
a pandemic of the magnitude of Americans dying and national
leadership not fit to lead us through it…. or the damaged economy.
Here’s the thing… the country is not yet suffering enough to come
together. Maybe we will be lucky and it won’t reach that point…
and we can resume languishing inside the Trumpian divide.
Until then… I prefer to take notice on the general decline of
America at the hands of imbeciles… and look for the day when
we can think about America and not ourselves. But, that’s just me.
i admired your trollian stamina, Doug, and mock self-abnegation.
Divisiveness, pettiness,damaged economy, suffering, etc, is all
because of the “trumpian divide,” as though it is Trump’s very
presence that brought all this. Goodness!
Thus: blow nonsense hard enough and long enough to prevail, to
get the last word, by God. Trollian rule number what, Doug?
I learn at your knee.
Dug
Hiya Mike!
It has been a while since I have taken the time to write any comments, and for that I apologize. Busy driving truck all over this Beautiful country, delivering much needed supplies to Americans and D/C/Ss alike.
I really love your writings and am very glad you have the fortitude to allow people like Doug to freely expose themselves for the people they are.
The Constitution is indeed easy to read AND understand. Put simply, in today’s words, it states:
That which does not harm any person or any persons’ property without their permission, is my Right. No government, local, State, nor Federal, shall ever be able to change that, no matter how many voters they get on their side.
As far as Doug goes, he is a bit more intelligent and articulate than the average Commie, but he is still sticking with Alinski 100%.
So much for upholding oaths I guess.
Anyways, pleasure to read and comment as always. Thank you for all your work.
Ryan H. Aka NunnyaBiddness
Dear Ryan H:
Hey there, and welcome back. Thanks for your fortitude and dedication in keeping America running.
I’m glad to have Doug, and anyone else, expressing their views, so long as they do so civilly. It’s that kind of reasoned debate that benefits us all, and is very much what the Founders intended.
Thanks for your kind comments, and be safe out there!