Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Brad Thor: Trump is an Extinction Level Threat to American Democracy
Best-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
I kind of binge read his Scott Harvath series. I would say that the last couple of those books has gotten a little more conspiratorial. For example Hidden Order overdoes the federal reserve conspiracy theories.
Initially, the character just went after bad guys with no involvement in politics, despite his working directly for the president. But his world view has been creeping more and more into the series, and I find some areas of it off base.
RYAN : ” 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 ”
annefy:
I understand and fear popularism. I can pontificate on Federalism and usually claim a few converts – while drunk.
I understand your point. But for some of us it’s personal this time. I have neither the time, the luxury or the good scotch to discuss the finer points.
HRC is my nightmare CIC and I will sell my soul to all that is holy and conservative to prevent it
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Trump voters don’t make more of an effort to associate nevertrump with Brecht’s poem “The Solution.” If you’re going to make the point about nevertrump’s supposed disdain for the people it would seem a good comparison to make.
That’s a perfectly legitimate point… I’m a pretty big hater of Hillary, myself. My comment was in reply to the argument being made, yet again, that Hillary is a known evil and Trump is at least a wild card, so logic dictates that even russian roulette is better than holding a fully-loaded gun to your head. My point was that the analogy misses the big difference; namely, that Trump is running as a “conservative” and Hillary as a liberal. That’s where I’m repeating myself – not that people can’t disagree that Hillary is worse, but that you need to go beyond the immediate, and acknowledge that my position on Trump is based on conservatism, not just the next 4 years.
Everything worth reading that Sullivan wrote was a quote of Plato or some other philosopher.
Thor said nothing original except that Republicans would be too spineless to impeach him. If Thor thinks common outrage today could somehow motivate the GOP to defy Trump’s procedural victory, why could that outrage not motivate Republicans later?
If Trump was immune from impeachment, it would be because his lawless acts suited Democrats.
Every valid criticism of Trump is as dangerous when manifested in Clinton. She is just as lawless and ruthless. Trump is better at inciting crowds, but Clinton is better at procedural manipulations and has a large network of allies in DC and beyond.
The only aspect that could possibly make Trump more dangerous is if he somehow weakened the Right’s popularity for years to come. Well, guess what… the Right has already fractured, regardless of whether Trump or Clinton wins.
Thor’s one good point is that NeverTrumpers need to offer an effective plan. Until they do, only Clinton or Trump can win.
If the GOP defies its own procedural rules (which enabled Democrats to vote in Republican primaries) to deny Trump the nomination, that won’t be the end of pre-election troubles. Defying democracy at this late stage might similarly kill the GOP.
I don’t want Trump. I might not even vote for him to stop Clinton. But Thor does not make a strong case for NeverTrump.
Trump is running as a republican. He can’t even define conservatism.
… this is the argument that we’ve been having. That is what makes him different than Hillary.
No, it’s not quite that. It’s that he changes the ideological lines upon which American politics is fought from progressive v. conservative to left v. right. Right wing and conservative are certainly not synonymous, as Trump has amply demonstrated. Trump will remake the GOP (the only viable vehicle for political conservatism) in his own image. The Trumpist GOP will be right wing, but not conservative. Basically Trump has the potential to remove constitutional conservatism from our national political debate in the near and medium term.
My point is that Trump is not conservative and he holds no power to destroy conservatism
Unless of course like idiots we cede that power to him.
This is just wishful thinking. The nominee defines the party.
Like it or not, Trump is the face of conservatism for a whole lot of people, not just liberals, the mass of non-ideologues that make up our country. You can keep insisting this isn’t the case or that it’s illogical, but it’s true.
What is CIC? It would be nice if people quit talking alphabet.
Commander-in-Chief.
Sorry Kay. Commander in chief. I hate acronyms. Am on my phone and was being lazy.
CFCP is a good acronym to describe Glenn Beck.
It’s true that a President is the face and voice of his party. That affects the party’s image.
Again, that ship has sailed.
And because Trump styles himself as an indepedent pragmatist who agrees with Democrats on many issues and methods, he would probably receive Congressional Democrats’ votes on left-leaning actions and be resisted by Republicans on his most outrageous oversteps. That’s not to say Republicans would stop his lawless decrees, but they could fight for their own elections by publicly criticizing and resisting him.
As for remaking the party in his image: how? Did every Republican march lock-step behind Reagan, Bush, or GW? No. On common interests they rallied and on uncommon interests they quarreled.
Trump would use the bully pulpit as he uses media (both pro and con) now to direct and slander. But other politicians would be as free then as now to object to specific and general faults.
If he is likely to bully journalists and try to ban outlets of expression as President, well, so is Clinton.
That’s on you. And me. On us. No one. I repeat no one. In my life – not even HRC supporters – think Trump is a conservative.
If I remember correctly, Paul Ryan joined Ricochet once or twice to offer his thoughts.
Since this idea that Trump will “remake the party in his own image” is a common claim, may I suggest that Rob and Peter invite Ryan back?
Perhaps it would reassure many people to hear Ryan state plainly that he and many of his colleagues are not, nor will ever be, Trump’s lapdogs.
That would be a real good opener for White House-Congressional relations.
“Hey you, we are not your lapdogs!”
“So what kind of dog are you? Surely not a working dog….”
Oh, the pearl clutching! How can you sleep at night? And who more qualified to give us political advice than “the new Salman Rushdie.”
Anyhow, try to get some rest and feel better in the morning.
If one equates American Democracy with a smug corrupt political class who cannot conceive a world where they have no influence and may have to own up to their policy failures, yes, I tend to agree.
Fortunately , the rest of American Democracy will do just fine. These extinction level events are much more localized than the old ones.
French bulldogs. Fighting dogs that always surrender.
Yeah, take two aspirins and call DocJay in the morning. ?
It would worth it to see Trump get elected just for the pure pleasure of the spectacle of all these delicate, panic-stricken flowers eat their words. “Oh, I guess our democracy survived Trump after all.” Better yet, “I knew all along that Trump would work out OK.”
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
HEADLINE: Rocket Psychologist Impressed by Thriller novelist’s Answers to Kook Lunatic’s Questions
Everybody calm down. President Trump won’t destroy America and neither will President Clinton (II). I don’t know why the apocalypse holds such attraction.
I am confident Republicans before Trump defined the party and they weren’t conservative either.
Promoted to the Main Feed for all to see that Ricochet is a virtual reality pearl clutching asylum.
Note:
Vulgarity, personal attack.Sal, you and I are two of the most handsome, bright, and humble guys on Ricochet.
We can find better posts than this [redacted].
Brent, I flagged your offensive comment. There’s no need to call Sal handsome.