Possibly in response to my recent piece -
Donald Trump - The Test of America's Intellectual, Moral and Spiritual Substance (substack.com)
— a friend in another forum, clearly making an effort to take a balanced view, made the following assertion:
"Ridicule of the ‘Conservative Trump No’ position from the right is no different than the vacuous ridicule/dismissal brickbats that characterize most of the anti-Trump criticism from the left, i.e... hot air without substance."
I responded as follows:
I couldn’t disagree more.
Hardly "hot air without substance”, thoughtful criticism from the right applied to the so-called "Conservative Trump No position" - that terminology in my view being a complete oxymoron embraced by those who claim to be conservatives but are Never-Trumpers - is, in my view, mischaracterized here as "ridicule", a term that implies unfairness, venom and lack of substance.
In fact, this criticism of faux conservatives - my criticism - is based on what I consider reasoned argument - conservative argument - that, in my opinion, is built on facts, rooted in reality, absolutely sound and, by conservative standards, unassailable.
The substance of the argument is that the issue at hand is not the personal character or personalities of these two individuals - Trump and Biden - but the present and future welfare of the country - that being the essence of conservatism.
Imagine two men whose identities were completely unknown. Nothing about them, their past history, their personalities, their character, their party affiliation, was known to the public. One - Candidate A - was responsible for the conditions in the country that prevailed from January 20, 2017 to January 20, 2021, and the other - Candidate B - responsible for the nation's condition from January 20, 2021 to the present.
Now assume an election wherein these two, whose identities were still completely unknown, were running against each other. The electorate had to choose between Candidate A and Candidate B based solely on the record of what each had done for the country during the referenced periods.
Is this not truly a no-brainer?
How would you vote?
Who would vote for Candidate B?
What kind of argument could be made for a vote for Candidate B?
What could one reasonably and fairly observe about the intellectual, moral and spiritual substance of a voter who would choose Candidate B over Candidate A?
How would a thoughtful, fair-minded person characterize such voters or their arguments against Candidate A?
If a man is labeled a fool because he demonstrably is a fool, has he been "ridiculed" or done any kind of injustice?
Right vs. wrong, truth vs. lies, light vs. darkness, justice vs. injustice, good vs. evil.
Take your pick.
If you can be fooled, you will be.
These are the times that try men’s souls…
Torquemada