Snowflakes and Anarchists

 

shutterstock_514962364All over the country, young and old citizens are hysterical, angry, and violent following the election of Donald Trump. Even the snowflakes at colleges, who abhor any idea that they disagree with, have joined the fray. Law enforcement is calling for assertive and pre-emptive action to stop anarchist gangs who have been roaming the streets and have been hired to foment disruption and violence. People are predicting attacks on minority groups such as Jews, Arabs, LGBTs, and blacks.

The country known as the United States of America has gone mad.

One is tempted to suggest ways to deal with these groups—the snowflakes and the anarchists—to reassure the first group and discourage the latter. Unfortunately the members of the second group are paid mercenaries and since no one has suggested a way to stop their funding sources, the violence will likely continue. We could try to throw them in jail, but someone will likely bail them out.

Using rational arguments to placate the snowflakes is probably a waste of time, too. I’ve found that sensible explanations bounce off irrational people like a rubber ball thrown against a brick wall. They are so infused with emotional brain chemicals that there is no room for clear, practical thought.

So then what do we do?

Donald Trump is publicizing his first steps, and they are encouraging to those of us who have waited for years for conservative policies to be enacted. There is talk of revoking and replacing Obamacare; dealing with illegal immigration; throwing out the executive orders—you’ve heard about the potential actions. And in typical knee-jerk reaction, the snowflakes and anarchists will protest, declaring it’s all immoral, autocratic, and abominable.

Why do I care how these groups feel?

Only because there are lots of ways they and the Democrats could make it more difficult to implement the conservative agenda Trump is pushing. People will drag their feet… they will spread more lies and rumors… and there could be more disruption and danger. I’m less concerned with those protestors being injured than I am innocent people who are caught in the chaos, including law enforcement.

So I suggest that the Trump administration meet them where they are: In their self-centered, narcissistic cocoons.

Answer, them the age-old question: What’s in it for me?

Now don’t misunderstand—I seriously dislike pandering to any of those people. I don’t want to make the changes easy for them; I couldn’t care less. I don’t even want to give them detailed explanations for the changes; they don’t care. But I think that a major public relations effort, using every type of social media, could eventually defuse the disorder. Let me give you a couple of examples:

Repeal and replacement of Obamacare: Maintain the requirement to accept pre-existing conditions; reduce premiums and deductibles; allow selling insurance across state lines (competition brings down costs). To learn all the reasons for its repeal, go here.

Immigration: Arrest and incarcerate, or send home criminals; present design for a wall (in whatever form it takes) and explain how this benefits Americans; repeal benefits (which tax payers finance) in the states; CA is one example.

Repeal EPA regulations: Reduces costs of producing energy, which affects the pocketbook of every American

A major media campaign using every social media outlet available will be a key strategy. Eventually people will realize that they will individually benefit from the changes Trump makes, and be more amenable to his actions.

So here are my questions to you:

To deal with the paid anarchists, how do we help law enforcement pre-empt violent demonstrations and arrest those who break the law?

To deal with the weeping masses, how should the Trump administration develop and publicize “bullet point” changes that will demonstrate how the public will benefit?

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

There are 135 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    We are far beyond reasoned response. Snowflake reactions bear no connection to reality. And fiddling around with what are, in the Big Picture, micro-adjustments, won’t help. Anything Trump does will be Hitlerian in the eyes of those critics who have already decided that Trump is Hitler.

    I don’t think the government can be tackled with a frontal assault. Rolling back the regulatory state is well-nigh impossible.

    We need to flank the government, and the protesters. Tell them that we will treat them like adults, if they choose it. Here is the choice:

    If they like their Big Government, with its Obamacare and protections and regulations, then they can keep it.

    And if they’d like an option, then they can choose, on a case-by-case basis, a simpler approach: Adulthood. Citizens should be able to choose to put Social Security payments in an indexed fund. Citizens should be able to choose a Flat Tax. Their call.

    Similarly, citizens should be free to choose their own health care option, free from all government oversight and regulation. They can do this by signing their informed consent to be bound by a contract with a doctor or dentists or insurer or hospital – and be able to choose to be exempt from all third party intrusion in that relationship.

    In other words: we can flank Big Government by marketing a Freedom Option. To my mind, this will sway all those critics who can be swayed.

    • #1
  2. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Susan Quinn: Repeal and replacement of Obamacare: Maintain the requirement to accept pre-existing conditions; reduce premiums and deductibles; allow selling insurance across state lines (competition brings down costs).

    The pre-existing condition requirement brings with it the freeloader problem (people only getting insurance when they’re sick rather than in case they get sick) which engenders the requirement for the individual mandate. These cannot be separated, so either keep all or get rid of all. There is no middle ground here.

    Insurance can be sold across state lines provided the policy meets the requirements of that state’s insurance regulations in which it is purchased. Forcing a ridiculous state like Washington to accept the same product as is sold in another state like Alabama is a national solution rather than a federal one. What this really advocates for is a national minimum standard and disallowing states to set their own standards. Plus, if you live in NY and buy a lower cost insurance plan from UT what benefit is it to you if every provider and the entire network is in UT?

    I don’t know what the right answer is, but I recognize snake oil when I see it.

    • #2
  3. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    The King Prawn: Insurance can be sold across state lines provided the policy meets the requirements of that state’s insurance regulations in which it is purchased.

    This is why I want people to be able to opt out of the regulation. I can get a Concealed Carry permit from Utah. If an insurer in Utah is willing to insure me, and I want to pay for the product, why should we not be able to do business?

    Arguably state regulation restricts interstate commerce, and so is unconstitutional.

    • #3
  4. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    iWe:

    The King Prawn: Insurance can be sold across state lines provided the policy meets the requirements of that state’s insurance regulations in which it is purchased.

    This is why I want people to be able to opt out of the regulation. I can get a Concealed Carry permit from Utah. If an insurer in Utah is willing to insure me, and I want to pay for the product, why should we not be able to do business?

    Arguably state regulation restricts interstate commerce, and so is unconstitutional.

    Ultimately governments get to govern. How they do so is a reflection of the people who empower them.

    • #4
  5. TKC1101 Member
    TKC1101
    @

    Can we stop and take a breath?  Did anyone see the movie “Wag the Dog”?

    First, let me ask a question.

    How many actual people are as distraught as the ones we see on television?

    We know the riots are engineered, they were before the election and the same people are there post election. It is a media show.

    Is it possible what we are seeing is the media chasing a story and blowing it all out of proportion?

    Mass hysteria has happened , but this one seems to occur conveniently in front of camera crews.

    Just add a touch of skepticism to how widespread this is.

     

    • #5
  6. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    The King Prawn: Ultimately governments get to govern. How they do so is a reflection of the people who empower them.

    Who are they governing? People who live in the state? People who work in the state? Parties who offers goods or services in the state?

    I could see a Federal Freedom Act being imitated by states who want to attract and encourage a more capable and responsible citizenry.

    • #6
  7. Tim H. Inactive
    Tim H.
    @TimH

    The King Prawn:Insurance can be sold across state lines provided the policy meets the requirements of that state’s insurance regulations in which it is purchased. Forcing a ridiculous state like Washington to accept the same product as is sold in another state like Alabama is a national solution rather than a federal one. What this really advocates for is a national minimum standard and disallowing states to set their own standards.

    Being a big proponent of federalism and states’ rights, I’m open to your argument.  But I don’t see letting a citizen of Washington buy his insurance from a company in Alabama as “forcing … Washington to accept” anything.  It’s the citizen doing it, not the state.

    • #7
  8. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Ignore them. Let them foul their own nests.  Make it clear not one penny of Federal aid is going to go to any city or university damaged by their temper tantrum.

    They lost. The rest of us in the vast majority of the country move on to the job at hand.

    • #8
  9. Dana Gould Member
    Dana Gould
    @danagould

    I agree that the country seems to have gone mad.

    However, the vast majority of protesters aren’t paid anarchists but naive and emotional  young people who have been in an enclosed media loop for far too long and have had their world view unceremoniously shattered. They’re traumatized. Yes, they quite mistakenly think that everyone who opposes them is evil and the only way to move forward is for everyone in the country to silently agree to their agenda.

    As a Democrat and social progressive who understands that our country is diverse, I am trying to bridge this vaaaaaaaaast cultural divide. Maybe we could start to give our political and cultural opponents the benefit of the doubt before labeling and dismissing them.

    I have begun to think that, yes, maybe not every Republican or conservative is black-hearted and evil. And maybe, just maybe, not every Democrat or social progressive is a hysterical, uniformed snowflake.

    I can tell you, their are not protesting Trump’s tax plan. They are protesting a big, scary world they don’t understand. You can dismiss it, but a little empathy from both sides is long overdue. Culturally overdue.

    As for civility, it goes both ways. Steve Bannon, one of the President-elect’s chief advisors is famous for, among other things, coining the charming phrase, “libtard,” yet many on the right, who decry our lack of civility, remain silent.

    Let us all use this time to try and soften our rhetoric and empathize with our political opponents.

    • #9
  10. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    TKC1101:Is it possible what we are seeing is the media chasing a story and blowing it all out of proportion?

    Mass hysteria has happened , but this one seems to occur conveniently in front of camera crews.

    Just add a touch of skepticism to how widespread this is.

    @tkc1101, you are absolutely correct, but there is one slight little problem–it’s working, with a large swath of the citizenry, very unfortunately. If you happened to see the Leslie Stahl interview on 60 Minutes last night, in which Mr. Trump and his entire family handled themselves most properly and appropriately, you saw the apparently incurable media bias in full force and effect, in that the only violence she asked about was the alleged, and I use that word advisedly, violence against the groups who are, to use the word she must have used one hundred times, “afraid” (she never did say afraid of what, however), and not one mention of these rent-a-thugs beating up people, and beating one man to death. One would think that the media might be willing, in its own self-interest, to taste just a tad of the good old crow pie, but if last night’s interview is any indicator, one would have to say the message that We The People thought we sent them just went sailing right over their “pointy little heads”, to recall a little Spiro Agnew history. In my frustration, I have to ask: what will it take?

     

    • #10
  11. TempTime Member
    TempTime
    @TempTime

    TKC1101:Can we stop and take a breath? Did anyone see the movie “Wag the Dog”?

    First, let me ask a question.

    How many actual people are as distraught as the ones we see on television?

    We know the riots are engineered, they were before the election and the same people are there post election. It is a media show.

    Is it possible what we are seeing is the media chasing a story and blowing it all out of proportion?

    Mass hysteria has happened , but this one seems to occur conveniently in front of camera crews.

    Just add a touch of skepticism to how widespread this is.

    Yes. This.  Bears repeating again and again until it is processed and understood.

    • #11
  12. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    Susan Quinn: Immigration: Arrest and incarcerate, or send home criminals; present design for a wall (in whatever form it takes) and explain how this benefits Americans; repeal benefits (which tax payers finance) in the states; CA is one example.

    And publicize the crimes that these people have committed, naming names. Make people understand that in each of these cases, deporting them is the right thing to do.

    • #12
  13. Trinity Waters Member
    Trinity Waters
    @

     

    Dana Gould:I agree that the country seems to have gone mad.

    ….

    Let us all use this time to try and soften our rhetoric and empathize with our political opponents.

    Firstly, the country hasn’t gone mad, it has begun a God-blessed return to sanity.  The rioters on TV are a distinct and now properly disenfranchised minority.  Those acting out on the streets are just as brave and pure of heart as were the Occupy Wall Street anarchists and as are the racists of Black Lives Matter.  How do they have time for all this “protesting” and still eat?  Because the funding streams exposed during the campaign are still malevolently active.

    Soften?  The days of reaching across the aisle are emphatically over, and if any olive branches are to be proffered they will of necessity have to be from the left.  Empathy has cost too many lives and a grave decrease in freedom.  In general, the supporters of freedom who gathered around Trump are in no mood to let them exert power over us, or tempt us with seductive language about inclusiveness or fairness, or any of the other bromides they’ve used to acquire power.

    That the Progressives fundamentally disagree with the notions of patriotism, personal freedom, religious non-interference and rule of law sets them apart from civil society as it was formed here in the USA.  When they decide to return to adult society, we may listen to them, but will have our guards firmly raised.

    • #13
  14. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Tim H.:

    The King Prawn:Insurance can be sold across state lines provided the policy meets the requirements of that state’s insurance regulations in which it is purchased. Forcing a ridiculous state like Washington to accept the same product as is sold in another state like Alabama is a national solution rather than a federal one. What this really advocates for is a national minimum standard and disallowing states to set their own standards.

    Being a big proponent of federalism and states’ rights, I’m open to your argument. But I don’t see letting a citizen of Washington buy his insurance from a company in Alabama as “forcing … Washington to accept” anything. It’s the citizen doing it, not the state.

    Because it is the state government that determines what qualifies to be sold as health insurance within the state.

    • #14
  15. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Dana Gould:I have begun to think that, yes, maybe not every Republican or conservative is black-hearted and evil. And maybe, just maybe, not every Democrat or social progressive is a hysterical, uniformed snowflake.

    I can tell you, their are not protesting Trump’s tax plan. They are protesting a big, scary world they don’t understand. You can dismiss it, but a little empathy from both sides is long overdue. Culturally overdue.

    My phrasing of it lately is “folks is folks.” Both sides are reading way too much into the outcome of the election.

    I agree with your call for some empathy, but what is the next step when kindness and understanding are rejected?

    • #15
  16. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Dana Gould: I have begun to think that, yes, maybe not every Republican or conservative is black-hearted and evil. And maybe, just maybe, not every Democrat or social progressive is a hysterical, uniformed snowflake.

    Indeed.

    I remarked on another thread on the same topic,

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    Fred Cole: There’s real fear out there about Donald Trump and what he’ll do.

    I think it’s worthwhile to recognize that many who claim to be afraid aren’t Sorosbots, lunatic crybabies, or self-indulgent brats with nothing better to do who are using this as a cheap excuse to feel morally superior to everyone else. There are reasonable, competent people who, because of their worldview, are sincerely afraid.

    How much of this fear is warranted, though, and is the warranted fear best expressed through activities that include destructive rioting? Obviously, even on Ricochet, there’s some disagreement about how much Trump pandered to the majority’s fears, and how much was exaggerated by the media:

    David Carroll: I’m sorry, @fredcole, I don’t see your “fearmongering about minorities” characterization as reality, but a myth ginned up by the press.

    I think there’s something about the conservative mindset that would like it if telling off folks on the other side with, “The only reason you’re unhappy or afraid right now is because you’re silly, misinformed, and self-indulgent – in short, the only problem with your life is that you’re you. Now grow up,” would always snap them out of it.

    Unfortunately, the pitfalls of “easy love” don’t guarantee that “tough love” has no pitfalls.

    • #16
  17. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    iWe: Arguably state regulation restricts interstate commerce, and so is unconstitutional.

    Nothing arguable about it.

    • #17
  18. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    The King Prawn:

    Tim H.:

    The King Prawn:Insurance can be sold across state lines provided the policy meets the requirements of that state’s insurance regulations in which it is purchased. Forcing a ridiculous state like Washington to accept the same product as is sold in another state like Alabama is a national solution rather than a federal one. What this really advocates for is a national minimum standard and disallowing states to set their own standards.

    Being a big proponent of federalism and states’ rights, I’m open to your argument. But I don’t see letting a citizen of Washington buy his insurance from a company in Alabama as “forcing … Washington to accept” anything. It’s the citizen doing it, not the state.

    Because it is the state government that determines what qualifies to be sold as health insurance within the state.

    You are assuming the answer.  Assume that that is the State government’s job, and you are right.  Don’t assume it should be and all of a sudden you have freedom breaking out all over the place.

    • #18
  19. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    IRONY ALERT: During yesterday’s anti-Trump protest in downtown Santa Ana, one sign read, “No rapists in the White House.”

    • #19
  20. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Isaac Smith:

    The King Prawn:

    Tim H.:

    The King Prawn:Insurance can be sold across state lines provided the policy meets the requirements of that state’s insurance regulations in which it is purchased. Forcing a ridiculous state like Washington to accept the same product as is sold in another state like Alabama is a national solution rather than a federal one. What this really advocates for is a national minimum standard and disallowing states to set their own standards.

    Being a big proponent of federalism and states’ rights, I’m open to your argument. But I don’t see letting a citizen of Washington buy his insurance from a company in Alabama as “forcing … Washington to accept” anything. It’s the citizen doing it, not the state.

    Because it is the state government that determines what qualifies to be sold as health insurance within the state.

    You are assuming the answer. Assume that that is the State government’s job, and you are right. Don’t assume it should be and all of a sudden you have freedom breaking out all over the place.

    Is it not the state government’s job to govern within its own borders? If the people of a state want to be stupid through who they elect they are free to do so.

    • #20
  21. Six Days Of The Condor Inactive
    Six Days Of The Condor
    @Pseudodionysius

    @dana-gould, the healing has begun over on this thread.

    • #21
  22. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    Tim H.: Being a big proponent of federalism and states’ rights, I’m open to your argument. But I don’t see letting a citizen of Washington buy his insurance from a company in Alabama as “forcing … Washington to accept” anything. It’s the citizen doing it, not the state.

    Additionally,how does this not fit in to the interstate commerce clause?  I thought commerce across state lines was constitutionally protected?

     

    • #22
  23. Typical Anomaly Inactive
    Typical Anomaly
    @TypicalAnomaly

    Dad Dog:IRONY ALERT: During yesterday’s anti-Trump protest in downtown Santa Ana, one sign read, “No rapists in the White House.”

    Just a really efficient protester who made a sign that would work no matter the outcome.

     

    • #23
  24. goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    I read the press release Moveon.org put out the day after the election calling for action all across the country. Isn’t there some sort of law about inciting violence? I’m not sure I blame the kids as they’re doing it on a lark, and, in many instances, getting paid to boot. The organizers are the pros who are responsible. It seems to me the FBI should be investigating.

    • #24
  25. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Dad Dog: IRONY ALERT: During yesterday’s anti-Trump protest in downtown Santa Ana, one sign read, “No rapists in the White House.”

    Had a conversation with a Bernie supporter Thursday about the election. College grad applying to Med School. When I mentioned Bill Clinton’s string of rapes, I got a blank stare. Never heard about it. Didn’t believe me. I told him to google “Clinton rapist”.

    • #25
  26. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Susan Quinn:One is tempted to suggest ways to deal with these groups—the snowflakes and the anarchists—to reassure the first group and discourage the latter. Unfortunately the members of the second group are paid mercenaries and since no one has suggested a way to stop their funding sources, the violence will likely continue. We could try to throw them in jail, but someone will likely bail them out.

    Using rational arguments to placate the snowflakes is probably a waste of time, too. I’ve found that sensible explanations bounce off irrational people like a rubber ball thrown against a brick wall. They are so infused with emotional brain chemicals that there is no room for clear, practical thought.

    Susan you almost had me at “rubber ball”. I almost read it as rubber bullets. Old line cops are very simple people.

    The vast majority of the protestors are not violent. They may be rude, but rude is not the same as smashing windows, setting fires, and throwing things at police officers. This phase will pass and the protests will die down. Eventually most of them will realize that they have other things that they need to do, like finish school, after all one does not want to throw away all that effort that it took to remain in college for six years.

     

    • #26
  27. Dad Dog Member
    Dad Dog
    @DadDog

    Kozak: College grad applying to Med School.  When I mentioned Bill Clinton’s string of rapes, I got a blank stare. Never heard about it. Didn’t believe me. I told him to google “Clinton rapist”.

    Yeah, that’s sort of what I figured to be the case, as well.  What increases the irony is that these peeps — college- and grad-school educated — see themselves as being so well-informed, so hip.  Life in the Liberal Echo Chamber.

    • #27
  28. Tim H. Inactive
    Tim H.
    @TimH

    The King Prawn:

    Isaac Smith:

    You are assuming the answer. Assume that that is the State government’s job, and you are right. Don’t assume it should be and all of a sudden you have freedom breaking out all over the place.

    Is it not the state government’s job to govern within its own borders? If the people of a state want to be stupid through who they elect they are free to do so.

    I agree, actually.  But I’m not convinced the state government can restrict things you purchase from out of state.  I do suspect that this falls under the restriction on interstate commerce.

    I don’t remember the details right now, but I have a hazy memory of there being some federal law that has allowed the states to carry out this restriction, since it otherwise would be a violation of the Constitution.  If that’s the case, then it would be something easy in principle for the Republicans to fix.  Politically, it has a lot going for it, too.

    But on things that don’t involve interstate commerce or the few other restrictions on their rightful power, I agree that we should let California, Massachusetts, and the rest go nuts, as long as the rest of us don’t have to play along.  Unlike the federal government, the states are not inherently of limited powers.

    • #28
  29. Tim H. Inactive
    Tim H.
    @TimH

    PHenry:

    Tim H.: Being a big proponent of federalism and states’ rights, I’m open to your argument. But I don’t see letting a citizen of Washington buy his insurance from a company in Alabama as “forcing … Washington to accept” anything. It’s the citizen doing it, not the state.

    Additionally,how does this not fit in to the interstate commerce clause? I thought commerce across state lines was constitutionally protected?

    No, it’s just that the regulation of that commerce is delegated to the federal government.  In my last post immediately above, I mention that I thought there was a federal law that allowed the states to make this restriction.  If so, it can be repealed.

    • #29
  30. Dana Gould Member
    Dana Gould
    @danagould

    Trinity Waters:

    Dana Gould:I agree that the country seems to have gone mad.

    ….

    Let us all use this time to try and soften our rhetoric and empathize with our political opponents.

    Firstly, the country hasn’t gone mad, it has begun a God-blessed return to sanity. The rioters on TV are a distinct and now properly disenfranchised minority. Those acting out on the streets are just as brave and pure of heart as were the Occupy Wall Street anarchists and as are the racists of Black Lives Matter. How do they have time for all this “protesting” and still eat? Because the funding streams exposed during the campaign are still malevolently active.

    Soften? The days of reaching across the aisle are emphatically over, and if any olive branches are to be proffered they will of necessity have to be from the left. Empathy has cost too many lives and a grave decrease in freedom. In general, the supporters of freedom who gathered around Trump are in no mood to let them exert power over us, or tempt us with seductive language about inclusiveness or fairness, or any of the other bromides they’ve used to acquire power.

    That the Progressives fundamentally disagree with the notions of patriotism, personal freedom, religious non-interference and rule of law sets them apart from civil society as it was formed here in the USA. When they decide to return to adult society, we may listen to them, but will have our guards firmly raised.

    Thank you, Trinity Waters,

    Your post proves, ironically, that common ground still persists. Your mind seems to be as closed off, your willingness to empathize with those who hold an opposing viewpoint, seems as cloistered and wanting as the “children and fascists” you look down your nose at.

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