Presidential Pardons - when would you call it corrupt?

[Dill]

(01-20-2021, 06:43 AM)hollodero Wrote: And the political discourse - it also devolves to people just entrenched and increasingly unable to even try to understand each other. Which also is a "both sides" issue, albeit possibly also not an "all sides do equally bad" issue. One sees it here, and in the media, and pretty much everywhere. And in such a climate, Trump is the fitting candidate, that does not have to unite, seek compromise or dialogue, like it used to be necessary, but just rely on loyalty of R voters and enthusiasm of an increasing number of deeply frustrated (and similar adjectives) people that are the Trump base. That's what I was trying to get at.

I agree that we are currently in the situation described by the bolded--with the corollary that "both sides" don't do it equally. I agree Trump was wholly relying on the loyalty of R voters in practice, though not always in theory. Sometimes he or the elements of his campaign touted how his improved economy helped minorities whose ancestors came from shithole countries.


Over the last three years a number of books have been written addressing our current political divisions. Among them are many seeking or calling for "common ground" and trying to "listen" to the other side. So far as I can tell, those authors are wholly "liberal." I am aware of no exceptions.

There are a surprising number of "conservative" books considering how the Republican party devolved into the party of Trump, which are to some degree about listening to Trump supporters, but not the other side because the authors realize that the other side is not really responsible for their own party's moral debasement. (Charlie Syke's How the Right Lost Its Mind would be an example of the latter.)

Trump never had to "seek dialogue" and the like for sure, but that was never really a formula for winning and holding power. I still think of his win as a kind of freak event, dependent more on depressing the Hillary vote than really rallying a majority of the nation. 

Biden, visibly backed by many leading "traditional" Republicans (Go Dick Cheney!), is definitely looking to "seek compromise or dialogue." Daytime Fox commentators have had some positive things to say about this--I just heard one distinguish him from "the socialists and Marxists" because he makes his religion so visible. Another thinks his pandemic policy will ultimately be good for the country, despite his canceling pipelines and re-joining the Paris Climate Agreement.

So I think we are definitely back to the norm of one side (including many old-style Republicans) consisting of pragmatic compromisers and unifiers facing of against another side led by some whose power depends upon the refusal of compromise.  

I should add that everyone has base values/ideals which he or she would be unwilling to compromise. E.g., I would not want to compromise with the Klan or Nazis on racial policies. In order to keep some contemporary Americans refusing compromise, one has to convince them that any and all compromise starts them down a slippery slope to atheist, totalitarian SOCIALISM.  Compromise is a "trick" to get us there. So of course the totalitarians want everyone to listen and "dialogue," and refusing their dialogue is necessary. This is also articulated with conservative religious beliefs, which encourage pride in remaining faithful through "persecution" at the hands of non-believers, and never changing one's mind no matter what the other side's arguments and evidence.