Brad Thor: Trump is an Extinction Level Threat to American Democracy

 

bradthor2Best-selling spy novel author Brad Thor just gave a remarkable interview on the Glenn Beck show in which he passionately explained why Donald Trump represents “an extinction level” threat to American democracy. I’m in full agreement. Here are Thor’s remarks, as reported by Lori, a journalist employed by the Beck organization. Everyone should read this.

“I think Trump is an extinction-level event potentially for our republic, for democracy. This is one of the greatest crises our nation has seen since the Great Depression, since World War II — is a potential Donald Trump presidency. It is a disaster for liberty,” Thor said. Glenn doesn’t often struggle to have his voice heard, but Thor’s passion overwhelmed the conversation.

“Listen, Andrew Sullivan, who I’m not a big fan…I don’t agree with a lot of stuff Andrew Sullivan writes…he wrote a brilliant piece recently in New York Magazine, and he said, “Democracies end when they are too democratic.” And he looked at Plato’s republic and some of the thoughts Plato had on democracy, and how, when there are no values, when anything is possible, when everything goes, that’s when a tyrant steps in and takes control of what Plato calls an “obedient mob.” It’s exactly what Trump has done. It is a brilliant, brilliant piece of writing. And I encourage everybody to read it,” Thor said.

Thor’s intensity surprised Glenn. “I’ve never heard you like this, Brad,” Glenn said.

“I’m terrified,” Thor answered.

Glenn reminded Thor of when he rang the bell about Barack Obama, but never said anything like an “extinction-level event.”

“Listen, I believe it was somebody at National Review that used that exact term, and it resonated with me…”

You can read the entire exchange, or listen to the audio, at Beck’s website.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 187 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    I heard this morning he would be on but missed it – thanks for posting – I will read it in full – are you in agreement with this take on it? His opening statements are pretty extreme, but he is an intense writer and novelist.

    • #1
  2. MBF Member
    MBF
    @MBF

    I’m about 90% certain I won’t be voting for Trump (100% not Hillary), but this is absurd. One of the main factors I still hold out that 10% possibility is that Trump might be the easiest President to impeach and remove from office in the history of the nation. His base of support in the Capitol is tiny, and not at all committed to him personally nor ideologically. If he gets out of line in a real way, he’s gone.

    • #2
  3. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    So tell me, how would Hillery or Bernie be better? I keep reading all these articles about how terrible Trump would be as president and for our nation. But no alternative is given except for Clinton or Bernie. Frankly, I’d rather take my chances with Trump than to have a known killer and traitor who plays nice with Islam and Communists in the White House or a card carry Communist.

    • #3
  4. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    If I can put a slightly different spin on it:

    After 8 years of Barack Obama…

    …our two major party candidates are likely to be Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton…

    …within each party there are whispers of dissident factions running Bernie Sanders and Mitt Romney as third party candidates…

    ..and the Libertarians sound like they might nominate a guy who thinks Jews should be forced to decorate Nazi wedding cakes.

    When you think about all that has happened up to this point ,and the response being what it is from the major two parties, and to the extent there is dissent, these are the next three options being offered, it seems like the extinction-level event has already occurred and we are watching the fallout spread.

    • #4
  5. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Silly.

    Trump would not do as much lasting damage to America as we could expect from Hillary.

    • #5
  6. Carey J. Inactive
    Carey J.
    @CareyJ

    In other words, the problem with government “by the people” is that it’s by the people. If we could just get rid of the those troublesome people, the elites could make any old deals they want, and no one would bother them.

    • #6
  7. Carey J. Inactive
    Carey J.
    @CareyJ

    MBF:I’m about 90% certain I won’t be voting for Trump (100% not Hillary), but this is absurd. One of the main factors I still hold out that 10% possibility is that Trump might be the easiest President to impeach and remove from office in the history of the nation. His base of support in the Capitol is tiny, and not at all committed to him personally nor ideologically. If he gets out of line in a real way, he’s gone.

    And if the GOP has anything to do with it, they’re gone in the next election.

    • #7
  8. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    Celebrity does something to people….

    • #8
  9. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    Carey J.:In other words, the problem with government “by the people” is that it’s by the people. If we could just get rid of the those troublesome people, the elites could make any old deals they want, and no one would bother them.

    Unfortunately for the elites, it is the people who provides the wealth that keeps them in business.

    • #9
  10. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    This needs to be a post, and if this tripe keeps getting written, I may even write it.

    However, here’s the comment form:

    You are exaggerating.  And I would take the NeverTrump people much more seriously if they would stop doing that.

    If Trump is a Republic Ending Candidate, so is Clinton, and we should take up arms now.  But no one is talking about that.  Ergo, no one actually believes this.

    Here’s where I’m sitting.  After 7 years of Obama, I’m having serious conversations with philosophers as to whether teaching Thomas Aquinas is hate speech, and you’re worried that petty tyrant might win the White House?

    We should be so lucky.  He’ll tyrannize a few people, sure, but he thinks Thomas Aquinas is a brand of bottled water, so he’ll leave us alone.

    With Hilary, we’ll have everyone older than John Rawls declared samizdat, and then they’ll throw anyone who disagrees with her onto the banned books list, too.

    • #10
  11. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    Ah, Sabrdance you say it so well.

    • #11
  12. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    awiens-0

    • #12
  13. Damocles Inactive
    Damocles
    @Damocles

    Note:

    Clever personal attacks are still personal attacks.
      [redacted]
    • #13
  14. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Sabrdance:This needs to be a post, and if this tripe keeps getting written, I may even write it.

    However, here’s the comment form:

    You are exaggerating. And I would take the NeverTrump people much more seriously if they would stop doing that.

    If Trump is a Republic Ending Candidate, so is Clinton, and we should take up arms now. But no one is talking about that. Ergo, no one actually believes this.

    Sabrdance,  go read Docjay’s post.   Yes, Docjay ended his seven-month absence with a post to push back against the excesses of the NeverTrump crowd.   You will probably enjoy that post, as I did, but I would like to see you write your post anyhow.   I expect it would be less crude and more enlightening than Docjay’s.

    • #14
  15. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    It was funnier when Bill Murray said it:

    • #15
  16. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Carey J.:In other words, the problem with government “by the people” is that it’s by the people. If we could just get rid of the those troublesome people, the elites could make any old deals they want, and no one would bother them.

    You are of course aware that the Founders feared democracy as much as monarchy. That they designed our system of government specifically to avoid being governed by the passions of the mob. That a democracy can be every bit as destructive to liberty as any tyrant?

    Of course you are, so why are you surprised at this idea?

    • #16
  17. RyanM Member
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Kay of MT:So tell me, how would Hillery or Bernie be better? I keep reading all these articles about how terrible Trump would be as president and for our nation. But no alternative is given except for Clinton or Bernie. Frankly, I’d rather take my chances with Trump than to have a known killer and traitor who plays nice with Islam and Communists in the White House or a card carry Communist.

    Kay, I think this is a reasonable position, and it is one that I hear repeated often.  But think about it this way.  It might theoretically be said that Bush was “worse” for us than Obama was.  I partially disagree with that assertion, but we’re being hypothetical, here.  The logic is that Bush was a republican.  He didn’t really govern as a conservative, though.  Many of his policies were actually big-government solutions akin to what liberals would do.  Yet, there was this massive backlash that essentially gave rise to Obama.

    I think Sal said it on another thread, that conservative is the only thing that can possibly save this country, and that Trump will destroy conservatism.  Hillary and Sanders might possibly be worse for this country in the short-term, but they don’t destroy conservatism.  If anything, they strengthen it.  That preserves the one thing that this country really does rely on, and the idea is that long-term damage is far worse than short-term damage.

    • #17
  18. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Brad Thor is just as nutty as Glenn Beck.  From that same interview:

    He is a danger to America and I got to ask you a question and this is serious and this could ring down incredible heat on me because I’m about to suggest something very bad. It is a hypothetical I am going to ask as a thriller writer.

    With the feckless, spineless Congress we have, who will stand in the way of Donald Trump overstepping his constitutional authority as President? If Congress won’t remove him from office, what patriot will step up and do that if, if, he oversteps his mandate as president, his constitutional-granted authority as president, I should say.

    If he oversteps that, how do we get him out of office? And I don’t think there is a legal means available. I think it will be a terrible, terrible position the American people will be in to get Trump out of office because you won’t be able to do it through Congress.

    • #18
  19. RyanM Member
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Jamie Lockett:

    Carey J.:In other words, the problem with government “by the people” is that it’s by the people. If we could just get rid of the those troublesome people, the elites could make any old deals they want, and no one would bother them.

    You are of course aware that the Founders feared democracy as much as monarchy. That they designed our system of government specifically to avoid being government by the passions of the mob. That a democracy can be every bit as destructive to liberty as many tyrant?

    Of course you are, so why are you surprised at this idea?

    I feel like I’ve said this way too many times for it to be a surprise to anyone around here.  Think about the time of our founding.  Think about those debates between Burke and Paine.  Our country was established almost as an ideological counterpart to the direct democracy that the French employed.  Our founders were witness to the tyranny that democracy fashioned, but they still opposed monarchy.  The importance of the United States is that our form of government is neither of those things.

    So yes, Carey, to answer your question – one problem with government is when it is directed by populism.  That doesn’t mean that the alternative is not “by the people,” but that the people understand the danger of not limiting themselves.

    • #19
  20. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Ryan : I know how frustrating it is to feel like no one has been listening. I have four kids.

    Get over it or get used to it. But quit complaining about it.

    • #20
  21. RyanM Member
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    MJBubba:Silly.

    Trump would not do as much lasting damage to America as we could expect from Hillary.

    MJ, see my comments, numbers 17 and 19.  I mean this in all sincerity; does that not make sense to you?  I’ve been trying to express the same concept in many different ways – of course, people are free to disagree, but I’m sensing that many folks simply aren’t seeing what it is that I’m saying.  (though, in fairness, I’m certainly not the only one saying it)

    • #21
  22. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    I have friends that went to marriage therapy. The wife said : he is not listening to me.

    the therapist said : no. He’s not obeying you. There’s a difference.

    Substitute “obeying” for agreeing

    • #22
  23. RyanM Member
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Annefy:Ryan : I know how frustrating it is to feel like no one has been listening. I have four kids.

    Get over it or get used to it. But quit complaining about it.

    Anne, I’m not complaining about it at all.  I was sincerely asking MJ if what I was saying made sense.  I know that very often gets used as an insult, but given my propensity for taking the long way around to make points, I’m actually asking about it in all sincerity.

    You see, I can always write more …

    • #23
  24. RyanM Member
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Annefy:I have friends that went to marriage therapy. The wife said : he is not listening to me.

    the therapist said : no. He’s not obeying you. There’s a difference.

    Substitute “obeying” for agreeing

    :)  Nowhere did I use the word “agree.”  I think you’re on the defensive when I’m not attacking…  it makes for a funny stance.

    • #24
  25. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    I’ve seen you in several threads with a “have you not read a word I’ve said” type plea.

    It’s rough. I know. We all think we have the answer and if we can find the magic words or get people to listen, they’d all be on board.

    we are listening. We STILL disagree.

    • #25
  26. Al Sparks Thatcher
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    I think that Hilary poses the same risks.  Even though she’s not as bombastic as Trump, well she’s actually just plain shrill while trying to be bombastic, she won’t be constrained by the constitution either.  She’s seen what Obama has been able to do, and she’ll follow her own agenda the same way Obama has.

    MBF: One of the main factors I still hold out that 10% possibility is that Trump might be the easiest President to impeach and remove from office in the history of the nation

    When the presidency was less dominant amongst the three branches, making it so hard to remove the incumbent made more sense.

    It might be time to reduce the super majority needed to convict a president and vice-president in the Senate (6/10’s instead of 2/3rd’s?).  In addition, I think that all other federal office holders, especially the Supreme Court and members of the cabinet, should be removed from office by a simple majority of the Senate after impeachment by the House.

    • #26
  27. Carey J. Inactive
    Carey J.
    @CareyJ

    RyanM:

    Jamie Lockett:

    Carey J.:In other words, the problem with government “by the people” is that it’s by the people. If we could just get rid of the those troublesome people, the elites could make any old deals they want, and no one would bother them.

    You are of course aware that the Founders feared democracy as much as monarchy. That they designed our system of government specifically to avoid being government by the passions of the mob. That a democracy can be every bit as destructive to liberty as many tyrant?

    Of course you are, so why are you surprised at this idea?

    I feel like I’ve said this way too many times for it to be a surprise to anyone around here. Think about the time of our founding. Think about those debates between Burke and Paine. Our country was established almost as an ideological counterpart to the direct democracy of the French revolution. Our founders had just witnessed the tyranny that democracy fashioned, but they still opposed the monarchy. The importance of the United States is that our form of government is neither of those things.

    So yes, Carey, to answer your question – one problem with government is when it is directed by populism. That doesn’t mean that the alternative is not “by the people,” but that the people understand the danger of not limiting themselves.

    “The people have spoken … the bastards.” – Dick Tuck, Mo Udall, and various other losers.

    • #27
  28. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    “There ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys, there’s only you and me and we just disagree…”

    • #28
  29. RyanM Member
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Annefy:I’ve seen you in several threads with a “have you not read a word I’ve said” type plea.

    It’s rough. I know. We all think we have the answer and if we can find the magic words or get people to listen, they’d all be on board.

    we are listening. We STILL disagree.

    Again, I don’t say “have you not read a word I’ve said?” because people disagree with what I’m saying.

    I say it when someone incorrectly states an argument that I’ve made.

    For instance, if I spend a week saying that my favorite color is blue, and then, in response to your assertion that my favorite color is green, I say “have you not been listening?” I am not complaining about the fact that you disagree.

    You are not, in fact, listening.  That is fine.  If your mind is made up, you are not obligated to listen.  But don’t be shocked that I point it out when people go around making nonsensical arguments that rely on misrepresentations of my positions.

    • #29
  30. RyanM Member
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Carey J.:

    RyanM:

    Jamie Lockett:

    You are of course aware that the Founders feared democracy as much as monarchy. That they designed our system of government specifically to avoid being government by the passions of the mob. That a democracy can be every bit as destructive to liberty as many tyrant?

    Of course you are, so why are you surprised at this idea?

    I feel like I’ve said this way too many times for it to be a surprise to anyone around here. Think about the time of our founding. Think about those debates between Burke and Paine. Our country was established almost as an ideological counterpart to the direct democracy of the French revolution. Our founders had just witnessed the tyranny that democracy fashioned, but they still opposed the monarchy. The importance of the United States is that our form of government is neither of those things.

    So yes, Carey, to answer your question – one problem with government is when it is directed by populism. That doesn’t mean that the alternative is not “by the people,” but that the people understand the danger of not limiting themselves.

    “The people have spoken … the bastards.” – Dick Tuck, Mo Udall, and various other losers.

    “the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.”  -some guy who doesn’t understand that a random quote is not an argument.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.