The Left becomes a cult rather than gather support to oppose Trump

Summary: Much will depend in the next four years on America’s ability to resist Trump. The Left could play a large role, but its response so far suggests that it will not be able to. Two recent articles show why this seems likely. Also, see the fascinating rebuttal posted at Lawyers, Guns, and Money!

Left Wing politics

People often characterize a political movement by looking at the odd and foolish among them, and examine their reactions to events for insights to the movement’s core beliefs. That’s foolish. Instead look to the best of them. For examples on the Left, look at Lawyers, Guns, and Money. See Erik Loomis’ (Asst Prof of History at the U or RI) essay “Dumbasses of America“, which illustrates why the Left has lost so much of its influence in America, and might be unable to effectively resist Trump.

“The genre of “let’s talk to idiotic white voters who support Trump even though he will decimate their lives” is already more stale than bread baked on November 8. However, it does lead to the occasional special anecdote that truly sums up the stupidity of many white people.

Many of these “idiotic white voters”, or their parents, voted for Democrats in the past — and can again in the future. Turn to another post to see what the Left finds objectionable in them: “Trump Voters. Again.” by Beth Spencer (aka vacuumslayer, an an artist). She comments on “I’m a Silicon Valley liberal, and I traveled across the country to interview 100 Trump supporters — here’s what I learned” by Sam Altman. Here are the excerpts from the interview, and Spencer’s comment.

“You all can defeat Trump next time, but not if you keep mocking us, refusing to listen to us, and cutting us out. It’s Republicans, not Democrats, who will take Trump down.”

Spencer: “In other words, “we’ll vote for someone we dislike and even find unfit for office out of spite.” INCREDIBLE.” Is it incredible that people will not vote for a party whose key people mock them and refuse to listen to them? No, it is not incredible. It quite natural. It’s politics.

Read more


See the Left’s mad response to Team Trump (they’re plutocrats, not fascists)

Summary:  How much Trump accomplishes will depend in part by how effectively the Left opposes him. A few on the Left have seen the essential element for success, but overall their early responses suggest that the Left will remain dysfunctional. Perhaps a few years in the political wilderness will bring new insights to them. But they are some hopeful signs out there…

The Left’s response to Trump is fantasy, making effective resistance impossible.

Trump as Hitler

To see the Left’s (broadly speaking) response to Trump, look at the social scientists writing at Lawyers, Guns, and Money. It suggests that the Left will be incapable of mounting an effective defense. For a start, there is refusal to accept the election result (as they predicted Trump would if he lost).

“In other words, by taking full advantage of various combinations of judicial skullduggery, journalistic malpractice, and foreign intrigue the GOP has pretty much flat-out stolen two of the last five presidential elections …”
— “The fraud against America” by Paul Campos (Prof of Law, U Co – Boulder).

How will they follow-up? By doubling-down on the tactics that failed in the election. Such as accusing Trump of being another Hitler (as was Bush Jr. and Obama). See “Do Something” by Erik Loomis (asst prof of history, U RI).

“We have two choices in the Trump era. You can fight back. Or you can live your everyday life and acquiesce. People have long wondered how the German people let Hitler take over their nation. We are living how it happened. Too many people just decided to put their heads down and go on with their daily lives. You must not do that.”

I respect Professor Loomis and his work, but this comparison of Trump with Hitler is absurd for two reasons. First, Hitler did not just walk into Berlin. He took power in 1932 after 12 years of development. The Nazi party was founded in 1920. Hitler staged the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 and published Mein Kampf in 1925. This is unlike anything in Trump’s history.

Second, there is little basis for these claims. Experts have debunked claims that Trump is like Hitler and that he is a fascist. Trump’s appointees are neither revolutionaries nor fascists. They have standard conventional backgrounds and typical conservative (often right-wing) views; most are either rich, CEOs, generals, or elected or appointed officials of the Federal government. They look nothing like the experienced revolutionaries that Hitler brought with him into the Chancellor’s office.

Read more

Climate change sinks the Left, while scientists unravel mysteries we must solve

Summary: Climate change appears on the FM website (about geopolitics) because it shows how America deals with highly politicized and complex challenges. 150 posts later, somethings are clear. Climate scientists are moving the frontiers of knowledge (as shown in this post) and skillfully coping with the various audiences involved in this vital public policy debate. The Right has, as usual these days, slowly collapsed into ignorance (the comments on conservative websites like WUWT are horrifying). The Left’s reaction is more interesting, and the first subject of this post.

Over the top Climate Change drama
Over the top Climate Change drama



  1. The Left liquidates itself
  2. We listen to climate scientists & learn
  3. For More Information


(1)  The Left liquidates itself

It’s sad to watch the Left liquidating their reputation with hysteria about climate change. They can chant “the facts have a well-known liberal bias” and claim to be the “reality based community” — but it all goes away as they abandon the IPCC’s work, declare belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming the touchstone of truth, and label any who disagree “deniers” (even eminent climate scientists).

They seek to advance their goals of increasing the government’s revenue (carbon taxes) and regulatory power, but have instead mirrored the Right’s epistemic closure.– becoming ineffective and powerless.

Look at this post to see this in action: “Hot” by Erik Loomis (Prof of History, U RI) at Lawyers, Guns and Money. Loomis misrepresents the global temperature data, not mentioning there has been no statistically significant change in the global surface air temperatures since 1996 – 2000 (depending on the dataset used). He quotes Phil Phait (astronomer; propagandist at Slate): “making you think there’s a pause in warming when no such pause exists”. For 4 years climate scientists have discussed the pause (dozens of citations here); in recent years they have moved to analysis of its causes and probable duration. Yet poor Phil and others still rant that these scientists are wrong.

While pitiful, it gets worse. Their propaganda — exaggerating the IPCC’s odds of severe warming, and it effects — has decoupled many of their followers from reality. They become doomsters. See the comments to Loomis’ post:

  • “Nobody contests that the planet is f**ked, and there aren’t many solutions to it, and even fewer good ones. There are two solutions that real, flawed humans will be able to take — mass murder, and large-scale geoengineering.”
  • “On the contrary, literally millions of people contest this, and some of them have devoted enormous sums of money to convincing other people of it and to buying off politicians who might do something to stop the ongoing f**king of said planet.”
  • “Solving carbon emissions is simple {simplistic crackpot thinking follows}”
  • “Humans can personally adjust their carbon output to prevent any problems.”
  • “No, it isn’t a debatable point at all. We’re f**ked.”
  • “As long as the majority of people vote for death, then death is what we’ll get.”

Personal experience in the comments on the FM website prove these people unreachable by any combination of facts and science.

(2)  We listen to climate scientists and learn

Let’s look at how actual climate scientists discuss these issues. The truth is out there, if we wish to see it.

In the excerpt below Nielsen-Gammon describes some of his points of agreement with Curry. This nicely shows, roughly, the area of general agreement among climate scientists today. Laypeople can learn from this. People who get their information from climate activists will learn even more from this. Read the posts to see their equally interesting disagreements.  Red emphasis added.

Yet, we’re in the middle (or perhaps the end, or perhaps the beginning) of a hiatus in the rise of global temperatures. The evidence seems to be mounting that natural variability is more important than the IPCC reports had previously contemplated, yet the IPCC’s confidence in anthropogenic global warming grows stronger.

Read more