Uncategorized Archives | Justin Stapley

Flash Back: Understanding Never Trump

This in-depth essay on the Never Trump movement was first published in 2016 on Justin Stapley’s first blog Never Tyranny.

There are fewer things that have been more misunderstood in the discussion of the unusual 2016 election cycle than the Never Trump movement. Even those who claimed to be a part of the movement either don’t fully understand it or used it as a vessel for venting frustrations instead of as an apparatus for unity in the face of the Trump candidacy. An explanation of the movement’s genesis, its continued endurance, and its relevance may help clear the mists of rhetoric.

One of the most significant failures of those who derided the Never Trump movement was their inability to see outside the prism of identity and resentment politics. Because modern politics too often teaches activists to hitch their wagons to individuals and to identify their stances, not with enduring principles, but with transient characters of charisma, it is difficult for many to comprehend a position which stood independent of such concerns. A large number of the arguments that were used in an attempt to bully and coerce Never Trump conservatives to fall in line behind Donald Trump failed to do so, primarily due to this political disconnect.

To understand Never Trump is to understand the difference between identity politics and principled politics and the contrast between being reactionary and being conservative.

Conservatives who considered themselves Never Trump were assaulted consistently with accusations of being sore losers, country-club activists, the resentful “establishment,” and even traitors and Islamists for “enabling” Hillary Clinton a near victory by refusing to vote for Trump. To understand why these attacks did not affect Never Trump conservatives is to realize they are operating on a different plane of political thought.

Despite what many pundits suggested, Never Trump was a loose collection of various fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, constitutionalists, foreign policy hawks, and libertarians. Their beliefs and principles did not exist in a vacuum but existed, often intensely, previous to the 2016 election cycle and continue to this day. Their views are personal ideological determinations that were often reached after intense self-introspection and earnest soul searching. For many of them, their principles are synonymous with the heart and soul of their political activism. To many of them, voting is a sacred responsibility that constitutes an effective self-endorsement of a candidate and his policies. In reality, they were Never Trump before the term was invented because their stances and positions did not match his reactionary rhetoric.

Because Never Trump conservatives viewed politics through the prism of self-determined principles instead of identity politics and because they viewed their opposition in terms of ideological disagreement instead of partisan fealty, they were less concerned with “handing the election to Hillary” as they were with the survival of the principles, policies, and ideas they believe will actually save the country. In their estimation, allowing Donald Trump to carry the banner of Republicanism without clear objection to his demeanor, tactics, and policies is a concession that will have resounding consequences and make it nearly impossible to communicate their positions effectively in the future without being tainted by hypocrisy.

Certain pundits, such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, know enough about the complexities of the various wings of the Republican Party that they probably recognized this inconvenient truth. That is why they adopted the tactics of the left, which they have attacked for so long, and sought to marginalize, categorize, and trivialize the Never Trump movement. By willfully ignoring the multiplicities of the Never Trump movement and merely labeling them as the newest manifestation of the hated “establishment,” they sought to trivialize the movement while also adding fuel to the flames of resentment politics which propelled Trump to pre-eminence in the first place.

Despite continued attempts to declare the Never Trump movement dead going back as far as early May, the movement endured (and many still call themselves Never Trump today). The reason for this is simple. Every time Trump spouted his inflammatory rhetoric, every time he declared something that flew in the face of constitutional principles, every time he pushed divisive beliefs, and every time his supporters presented a “with us or against us” ultimatum they only fueled the strength and conviction of the Never Trump conservatives because they witnessed first-hand the type of politics they do not want to be associated with their own beliefs.

One might ask if all of this is true then why do victories for the Never Trump movement seem to be so few and far between? Why did Trump get the nomination in the first place? Why is Republican Leadership far less concerned with the 16 million who voted against Trump than they are with the 14 million who voted for Trump? Why did Trump win the general election?

The answer to this is simple: the Never Trump movement lacked cohesion and faced an inability to coalesce around a single strategy to defeat Trump.

From the beginning, the loose collection of activists that we call Never Trump had been an uneasy alliance of disparate groups who, at best, agreed only on a nucleus of shared ideals. The threat of Trump was down-played for so long and organization against him required such different political affiliations to be created that active resistance fell short. These factors were compounded by the fact that the Never Trump movement gave in to the compulsion to communicate their opposition in terms of the identity and resentment politics which they were organizing to resist. All of these circumstances explain why the Never Trump movement was thwarted, why Trump came out of the primary season and the general election as a victor, and why Party Leadership and Radio pundits have chosen to ignore Never Trump as a disorganized non-threat.

But Never Trump didn’t go away. This is the truth that Trump’s supporters, Trump’s enablers, and Trump himself refuse to see…in many ways, those who called themselves Never Trump are the future of the Conservative Movement. It is the inclusiveness, discourse, and cohesion against improbable odds that can create a political apparatus that will at last gain the ability to wage an effective insurgency against progressivism and socialism. It is a culture of freedom coalesced around a movement of hope that will save our country from ruin, not a culture of hatred and fear circled around the false promises of a single demagogue.

Join 6,862 other subscribers

Scientific Creationism

If science can accept as likely the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, why can it not accept as plausible the existence of an evolved form of being somewhere in the universe with the ability to design and create other life?

Intelligent life can be defined as living entities able to create things that would not naturally be a part of the natural world. Humans are intelligent because we have crafted from the elements such items as computers, skyscrapers, airplanes, etc. This proves there are creators in the universe…us! So not only is it plausible, but it would seem highly likely that there must be a form of life somewhere that are also creators and that have developed higher capabilities of creation — possibly even the ability to create worlds and life upon them.

Moreover, how can we possibly place a heavy burden of proof upon this assertion? You could travel back in time five hundred years, and bring every iota of knowledge about the supercomputer with you. They would burn you at the stake no matter the logical ground you stand upon. They were less evolved. They wouldn’t be able to comprehend what you were trying to teach them or explain to them. So it would be if there was a creator of this world, of this galaxy, of this universe. We are not evolved enough to comprehend such a being or his knowledge.

The Theory of Evolution takes the route that because microevolution exists, macroevolution must exist. Well, I will take the same track. Because micro creation exists, macro creation must exist.

Get Updates When I Publish More

Join 6,862 other subscribers

The Same Old North Korea

President Trump is making a big mistake in thinking North Korea is behaving any differently than they always have.

North Korea’s goals for developing nuclear capabilities have been consistently three-fold: to provide a smokescreen for their human rights violations, to create leverage for pushing American interests off the peninsula, and to gain legitimacy in the international community by forcing recognized powers like the United States to deal with them face to face.

North Korea is voicing a willingness to suspend their nuclear program in exchange for summit meetings, the possibility of lifting sanctions solely based on nuclear detente with no mention of their human rights violations, and the possibility of American troops leaving the peninsula. This does not suggest anything other than that an American president has approached them with the willingness to give them what they have wanted all along.

The ultimate goal of Kim Jong Un remains the ultimate goal of his predecessors: to perpetuate their regime’s absolute dominance of the North Korean people and to set the stage for reunification with South Korea under their terms and their banner.

All the same reasons which made the Iran deal a horrible idea, all the same reasons which made the thawing of relations with Cuba an awful development, and all the same reasons which have made the general policies of appeasement devastatingly consequential mistakes also make the suddenly squishy relationship between Trump and North Korea a very horrible development.

I wish President Trump’s advisers could be more effective at carefully explaining to him that Kim Jong Un has offered nothing he has not offered before, though it appears unlikely Trump will listen to them regardless of the approach. The President will likely refuse to understand that a willingness to meet even a single North Korean demand without immense and verifiable action on behalf of Kim’s regime is tantamount to surrender. The President is determined to believe he’s making great strides towards ending the threat of a nuclear-armed North Korea, but the reality is that Kim Jong Un is playing him for a sucker.

Above all else, I wish President Trump’s supporters would speak up and not allow him to make the same mistake in North Korea that President Obama made in Iran.

Flash Back | GOP Tax Bill: Trump’s Opponents Are Surrendering the High Ground

This article was originally published in 2017 on my old blog, the Millennial Federalist.

Any honest observer who can convince themselves that Donald Trump maintains the high ground in political discourse, in any way, shape, or form, desperately needs a dentist appointment to examine their Kool-aid stained teeth. Nevertheless, whatever high ground many of his opponents may have enjoyed is being surrendered in the discourse over the GOP tax bill.

The GOP tax bill has kindled the ire of many in the anti-trump world (of which I’m actually a part of), ostensibly on ideological grounds but more because many have adopted the political stance that anything or anyone associated with Trump must be horrendously evil. But, this should not be how anyone looks at the world, and it definitely shouldn’t be how anyone should look at this tax bill.

The GOP tax bill is based on traditional fiscal conservative ideas, imperfectly yes, but the foundational principles are still there. The bill has nothing to do with the ideals of Trump’s quasi-conservative cheering section, and it is designed by Republicans who would have tried to pass something very similar even in a world where Donald Trump had stayed at the top of that escalator.

By trying to throw traditional conservatism under the bus by passing it off as a product of President Trump’s faux-conservatism, many critics are betraying their own hypocrisies and partisan directed gaming of the conversation. There is nothing radical about tax breaks from a party that has always stood for tax breaks. There is nothing extreme about trying to ween the government off of the tax payer’s hard-earned money when that has been part of American conservatism going back to the founding.

If Trump’s left-wing critics are not willing to discuss the actual ideological differences between their approach and conservatism’s approach to government, and instead engage in dishonest talking points designed to lead the uneducated by the nose through identity and resentment politics, then they betray themselves as no different than the “basketful of deplorables” they claim to resist.

On Government Subsidies

When the government intervenes in what is supposed to be a capitalist free market, an artificial bubble is often created. This leads to one of two outcomes. Either the government continues to pump money into the market to keep the bubble fed, or the bubble bursts and brings collapse to that market and can even lead to a broader recession. Therefore, in principle, I oppose government subsidies with very few exceptions.

Of course, my stance, which some might consider libertarian, will raise objections. One such objection is that withholding all subsidies can also create market volatility. There are, for instance, certain private sectors of extreme national interest value which, if allowed to proceed at the whims of the market, could flounder and create adverse problems to the safety of society at large. There are also those who believe a truly capitalist nation would be a heartless nation. Those who believe this assert that subsidies provide fairness in what would otherwise be a cruel world.

The first objection requires an admission on my part that we do not live in a black and white world. Nor can we ignore present realities. I would concede that if all government subsidies were to end at this moment, the economy could collapse. I would also acknowledge that in an intricate and enmeshed global economy such as we now have, allowing any portion of the market to falter or collapse could have disastrous and unforeseen ends. I also recognize that there are specific markets, such as energy, defense, and infrastructure, which provide and sustain the basic needs of society. These sectors may need subsidies to be maintained.

For the reasons listed in the previous paragraph, I would say that while most subsidies remain against my principles, I would not dismiss out-of-hand all official intrusions into the market without weighing each case distinctly. However, I would still like to see a government which confines itself to its basic duties. While conceding the reality of the situation, I still believe the government should not avail itself of every excuse to manage the economy.

Short Post | Strong Passions, Divisive Rhetoric are Nothing New

The nostalgia surrounding our founding fathers sometimes leads us to forget they had political disagreements, even extremely divisive ones, with each other. Alexander Hamilton wanted a strong central government, even going as far as voicing a desire to make George Washington a king.  The provisions of the Constitution initially horrified many founding fathers. Some even claimed they would take up arms once more if ever the national government tried to gain the powers to tax.  In fact, the Constitutional Convention would have ended in complete disgrace if James Madison hadn’t crafted the Great Compromise, which still took enormous amounts of debate and the crafting of the Federalist Papers to garner support from the people to pass.  

Strong passions, robust debate, and divisive rhetoric are not new. In fact, they have been present from the beginning.  Sometimes we look at the founding of our government as some grand happy event, where everyone got along, and compare that to the politics of today. This leads us to talk about how horrible it all has gotten.  Really the only thing that has changed is an absent willingness to craft compromise.  The primary purpose of our form of government, to create an environment where the passion of politics can wage conflict without the contest of arms, hasn’t changed. This purpose is still being accomplished.

The Riddle of God and Theology

The belief in the existence of God is a fundamental idea found deeply reservoired in the human heart. This belief has been found in every culture, preached in every language, and has endured through time as all other philosophies have faded. Yet, when placed against the tests of reason, logic, and science there is no satisfactory proof.

The great riddle of theology is that God, the idea of God, and the belief in a God is fantastical, illusory, and whimsical when put under the microscope of thoughtful consideration and yet it remains altogether evident.

Flashback 2016 | Brexit

(Brexit was originally posted on Justin Stapley’s 2016 blog NeverTyranny)

As of late, there has been much discussion about the Brexit vote and what it means for the Presidential Election here in the United States. Many claim that it is a victory for Nationalism, Protectionism, and a sign of growing Isolationist tendencies across the world, and also that it is indicative of a wave which Donald Trump can ride to victory in the November elections.

Proponents to this claim point to anti-migration fervor and ‘Britain First’ messages connected to the Brexit vote as starkly similar to the message that Donald Trump brings to Americans, and claim that voters are likely to vote along similar themes and surprise the pundits who are down-playing Trump’s chances.

But, not only is drawing comparisons between the voter revolt that led to the Brexit vote and the Nationalist movement that has ushered Donald Trump’s candidacy a gross over-simplification, but it willingly ignores the fundamental differences in what happened with Brexit and what’s happening with Trump.

Brexit had little to do with Nationalism and Protectionism, and far more to do with Sovereignty and Capitalism. In fact, Brexit will make it easier for Britain to participate unburdened in a Global Economy. The sovereignty of economic choice was a major factor in the Brexit issue. It is now much more likely for Britain to make a trade agreement with the United States now that Britain is unfettered from the European Union. It is now much more likely for Britain to remain a Global Economic force unfettered from the failing Euro.

If there is anything to take from the Brexit issue, it’s that Donald Trump’s ego knows no international boundaries. The bizarre victory lap he took after the Brexit vote will perhaps be remembered as the biggest oddity of his pre-convention candidacy. It not only demonstrated his gross misunderstanding of international affairs, but provides the biggest evidence for his ever growing narcissism.

The only thing more scary than the vehemence of this new Nationalist movement embodied in Donald Trump is the infancy with which it understands the ideological history of what they claim to believe. Donald Trump has tapped into many things that Americans are correctly frustrated about, and because Trump gives voice to these frustrations, many of his supporters do not realize that the solutions of Nationalism and Strong-man politics offer solutions which are extremely different than the traditional solutions of American values and ideals.

Our problems will be solved by the proper application of Capitalist values in a nation that moves to regain it’s Sovereignty, just as the Brexit has opened the door for the proper solutions in Britain. Trump’s movement may seem to aim the arrow in the right direction, but his rhetoric and proposals still misses the mark entirely.

Dystopian Society

I once took an English class about writing on Dystopian Societies.  When I took the class, a lot of people asked me in the world that class would be about. Initially, I told them that dystopian is the opposite of utopian and the class would large be reading and discussing novels such as Brave New World, Hunger Games, etc.  As I a began the class, however, I realized that calling a dystopia the opposite of utopia is not entirely accurate. 

The word utopia was coined by a priest named Thomas More who published a novella in 1551.  He created the word to purposefully have a double meaning.  When pronounced in latin the term utopia means “good place”, or essentially “the perfect place”.  But, he derived the word from two Greek words meaning “no place”.  This double meaning implies that a utopia is a perfect society which does not, and cannot, exist.  This is where the term dystopia comes into play.  The word dystopia means “distanced from good”, or “distanced from perfection”.  This is a different meaning than “opposite of perfection”. 

Nearly every depiction of a dystopian society in literature is a society that attempted to create a utopia, but has unraveled over several generations because of the inherent imperfections in humanity, thus distancing itself from the perfection the society attempted to obtain.  A dystopia is an attempted utopia where the inherent weaknesses of humanity have festered into new, and often worse, evils and degradation in human society.  Therefore, the study of dystopian societies is not the study of utopian opposites but the study of how attempts to create a perfect society out of imperfect individuals is doomed to distance that society from the perfection it seeks.

Settled Science?

Settled science is not true science because it thwarts the very nature of honest and aggressive scientific inquiry.

Progressivism has always claimed scientific authority as the underlying justification for its political endeavors, applying the conclusions of scientific study to the betterment of the nation and the furtherance, or progress, of society. At first glance this seems a reasonable and admirable goal, but after further inquisition a conundrum presents itself: can science be used as a basis for political certainty?

Science, by definition, is the process by which we challenge what we know by using empirical and measurable methods to either confirm previous conclusions or dispute them. Everything considered a scientific law or theory is built upon scientific inquiry, the application of the scientific method. In essence, it could be argued the highest form of science is that which questions with boldness what is considered beyond doubt, because every inquisition serves a purpose of either further solidifying conclusions or unearthing weakness in the hypothesis. This is why those we memorialize as the greatest scientific minds in history are those who questioned unanimity and challenged consensus.

So, back to the question at hand: can science be used as a basis for political certainty? I believe it cannot and it should not, because it creates the false premise that certain things are settled science. Settled science is not true science because it thwarts the very nature of honest and aggressive scientific inquiry. Settled science turns the scientific method on its head, dictating a conclusion and searching data to support what has been concluded, viewing an alternative hypothesis as scientific blasphemy. Settled science is not science at all, but a quasi-scientific dogma. Science cannot be a dogma and remain true to its empirical methods because it is, by its very nature, constantly changing, updating, evolving, and bettering its laws and theories.

If science cannot be used as a basis for political certainty, is it useful to political discussion? Yes. Scientific data is extremely useful as it informs our socio-economic and political considerations. Legislation and executive actions become more effective when grounded in the empirical data that science affords us. Science can inform our decisions to great benefit, and we should use every tool at our disposal to provide for the common welfare of our nation.

I would contest that the progressives “marching for science” in recent years are not using science as a tool for discovery but are instead pushing the dogmas beneficial to their cause. If you march for science, you march for the scientific method, for the importance of open inquiry, and for the tradition of challenging unanimity and consensus. If you march for political agendas that cannot be questioned without being accused as a denier, if you march pushing a speculative conclusion that climate change data presents a cataclysmic threat, if you march declaring no one can question the consensus convenient to your cause, you are not marching for science.