Historian Victor Davis Hanson on why he supports Trump

Historian Victor Davis Hanson on why he supports Trump


>>WHAT HAVE WASN’T YOU DONE, WHAT STRIKES ME ABOUT YOU, YOU WERE ONE OF FIRST. INLY TECHIALS TO SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP. YOU IN YOUR WRITINGS, IT WAS GRADUAL, BUT, WHY WAS THAT? WE HAD NOT SEEN A RIGOROUS PUSH BACK. WE DEPLORED HIS TACTICS. BUT AT THE TIME HE TOOK A PART THE CONTRADICTTION. WE WERE LOSING WITH BOB DOLE, AND McCAIN AND ROMNEY 46, FRENCH, 43, EVEN AS WE DID WELL. ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE. SO, TRUMP SEEMED TO BE ONLY ONE THAT WAS UNCONCERNED WITH WHAT THE ESTABLISHMENT. BY THAT NOT VAGUE, WHAT UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR SAID. HE SPOKE TO THE PEOPLE IN A WAY THAT WAS REFRESHING. OTHER STRANGE THING. HE DIDN’T BUY INTO THE NEW DEMOGRAPH, THERE ARE 6 TO 8 MILLION PEOPLE, WISCONSIN. NORTH CAROLINA. MICHIGAN, OHIO. PENNSYLVANIA. THAT EITHER DONE VOTE REPUBLICAN, OR THEY DONE VOTE AT ALL, I CAN WIN THEM BACK WITH NATIONALIST. STRONG JOB. I LIKE THE DEPLORABLE MESSAGE, PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT WAS CRAZY. I THOUGHT HE WAS JUST, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT DANGEROUS, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT HE WAS, AT THIS POINT, WE’RE IN A POINT OF NO RETURN.>>A POINT OF NO RETURN. YOU SAID EXISTENTIAL THREAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN?>>WELL, I MEAN IF WE’RE SAY WE’RE THE TYPICAL CONSERVATIVE AMERICA, YOU AND I AM 65 MILLION THAT VOTE FOR TRUMP. WE HAVE THE NFL, NBA, SILICON VALLEY, APPLE, GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, ROCKEFELLER, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WE HAVE CABLE TV THE MAJOR NETWORKS, WE HAVE NPR, PBS, AND PROGRESSIVE CULTURAL MOVEMENT. MARK: ACADEMIA.>>WE’RE SURROUNDED. WE THINK THAT THESE INSTITUTIONS DON’T HAVE AS MUCH CLOUT AS THEY HAVE, THEN WE GET SHOCKED EVERY 4 YEARS THAT MESSAGE SURROUNDED US, WE DON’T HAVE A MECHANISM FOR BREAKING THROUGH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, GETTING A MESSAGE, THE IRONY THAT MESSAGE OF FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, LIMITED GOVERNMENT IS WHAT THEY THREE THRIVE ON — THRIVE FOR. THE CIRCULAR OCTOPUS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, WE DON’T GET — WE YOU AND I, CONSERVATIVES, TRADITIONALS, WE HAVE SAFE SPACES, IF I COULD USE THEIR WORD, WE RETREAT TO, FOR THEM IT IS 24/7 RELENTLESS ENTERTAINMENT, EDUCATION, POLITICS, MEDIA, THIS IS OVERWHELMING. MARK: DO YOU THINK IN PROGRESSIVES, YOU KNOW, THEY WROTE ABOUT THIS, THEY BASICALLY NEEDED TO DEVOUR SOCIETY, ALL MAYOR MAJOR INSTITUTIONS, DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED?>>I DO, IF YOU TOMORROW, MARK LEVIN GO TO STANFORD, YOU GIVE A LECTURE ON GLOBAL WARMING, I DON’T THINK YOU WILL BE ABLE TO FINISH IT WOULD BEING INTERRUPTED. IF I GO TO STANFORD OR HARVARD, YALE, GIVE A LECTURE ON VALUE OF IN– I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FINISH. I THINK IF I TOUGH I THINK IF T TOUGH I THINK IF TOUOUGH I THINK IF TOUCHGH I THINK IF TOUCH SOMEONE ON A SHOULDER, THEY FILE ADD SEXUAL HARASSMENT SUIT AT ME, I WILL NOT BE GETTING DUE PROCESS, THAT IS THE SOCIAL CHAOS WE LIVE IN. IN. I AM TALKING ABOUT REFINED SOCIETY. I DON’T THINK DUE PROCESS, FREE SPEECH, REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, EXIST IN AMERICAN LIFE. MARK: YOU HAVE ALREADY — YOU ARE SAYING, YOU HAVE SEEN, I AGREE, FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA GRADUALLY? IS IT PICKING UP SPEED NOW?>>I THINK IT IS, I DON’T WANT TO BE PESSIMISTIC IN A SENSE, I ADMIRE YOU, AND PEOPLE AT FOX NEWS, SOME OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, REALLY BRAVE VOICES, THERE ARE IN ACADEMIA SAYING, I’M GOING TO SPEAK OUT REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES. ROMANS AND GREEKS BELIEVE THAT PLUCKS LUXURY AV PLUCKS LUXURY -V PLUCKS LUXURY — SO SOMEONE FROM INNER-CITY COULD HAVE AN IPHONE WITH MORE COMPUTING POWER THAN 6 IBM MAINFRAMES. I THINK THAT IS GREAT. BUT WE DON’T GET WITH IT IS SOME COLLECTIVE GRATITUDE OR SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT. WE GET THAT KEYIA — KIA IS NOT AS GOOD AS TODAY’S LEXUS, I DON’T LIKE THE LACK OF GRATITUDE OR TRASHING OF THE SYSTEM OR OR ANCESTORS THAT GAVE US THE SYSTEM. MAYBE THE UNIVERSITY CREATED AN ARROGANT, IGNORANT COD ARROGANT, IGNORANT OOD ARROGANT, IGNORANT OFD ARROGANT, IGNORANT OF YOUTH BUT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG. MARK: FREEDOM IS A TREMENDOUS THING, BUT THIS GIVES OPPORTUNITY FOR VERY EVIL PEOPLE TO USE FREEDOM TO DESTROY FREEDOM, IS THAT WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE TRYING TO PREVENT. THEY INVESTIGATE THIS — CREATE THIS REPUBLIC, THERE IS A CONSTANT ATTACK AT THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REPUBLIC. PRESIDENT WINS THE ELECT PRESIDENT WINS THE ECOCT PRESIDENT WINS THE ECONOMY THAT I WANT TO GET RID OF IT, THEY WANT TO GET RID OF OTHER ASPECTS SEPARATION OF POWERS, THEY KEEP BUILDING UP A FOURTH BRANCH, AN ADMINSTRAIF ADMINITRAIF ADMINISTAIF ADMINISTRAF ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THAT IS WHAT THEY DO.>>I THINK THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FRAMERS WERE UP TO, THEIR MODEL IS NOT A CONSTITUTION RALLY COLLY CONSY CONSTITUTIONALREALM. THIS IS RADICAL DEMOCRACY TO ANY GIVEN DAY, 51% OF POPULATION DECIDE THE LAW, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, YOU TOP KILL SOCK RAHTIES ON SUNDAY OR YOU CAN DO IT IT HAS BEEN STEADY, WE WENT FROM PROPERTY QUALIFICATIONS, MODERATE PROPERTY TO DIRECT ELECTION OF SENATORS, THERE WERE ARGUMENTS FOR THIS NOW IT IS ABOLISHES THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, AND ENLARGES SUPREME COURT, PACKING IT, AND ENLARGES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAYBE A THOUSAND MEMBERS, WHY PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA SAY WHY DOES WYOMING GET 250,000 PEOPLE GET ONE SENATOR, WE 20 MILLION GET ONE, LET’S TURN THE SENATE TO HOUSE, THE LONG-TERM PROJECTRY GOVERNMENT MANDATED. THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED WITH CIVIL RIGHT. WE HAD TRUE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, THEN, THEY WERE EXPECTING THAT EVERYONE WOULD BE EQUAL, HUMAN NATURE BEING WHAT IT IS, IT IS NEVER GOING TO BE THAT WAY. CONSERVATIVE POSITION IS, WE’RE NOT EQUAL BUT POOREST PERSON WILL HAVE A GOOD LIFE. IF HE IS IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY AND A CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. BUT THEY SAY, NO, NO. WE DON’T REALLY CARE WHAT POVERTY OR WEALTH CIRCUMSTANCE WE WANT — WANT — IANT — IS T — IS WE WANT EVERYONE TO BE EQUAL WE WANT EVERYONE MAKING 20,000 A YEAR, AND POOR MAKING 50 AND SOMEONE MAKING A MILLION. MARK: EQUALITY IS THROWN AROUND ALL OF THE TIME, WE KNOW WHAT FOUNDERS MEANT. OF JUSTICE. THEY DONE MEAN EQUALITY OF ECONOMICS, THAT WOULD BE ABSURD, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. HUMAN BEINGS, WE PRIDE OURSELVES OWRK UNRK UNIQUE HUMAN BEINGS AND INDIVIDUALED, CREATED BY GOD, ONE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER, BUT IN CIVIL SOCIETY WE ARGUE THAT THE LAW IS THE LAW, EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED AS BEST AS WE CAN EQUALLY IN FRONT OF A COURT, IN FRONT OF THE LAW. BUT THIS NOTION OF RADICAL. REALLY IS A EUROPEAN IMPORT. WHICH IS ALIEN TO OUR FOUNDERS.>>IT IS. IT HAS SOME PRECEDENCE IN ANCIENT WORLD. ARISTOTLE A CRITIC OF THIS, HE ASSUMES HE CAN BE EQUAL IN EVERY OTHER ASPECT, PLATO SAID THAT PROJECTRY OF DONKEYS AND DOGS IN ATHENS HAVE TO VOTE. BUT, YOU ARE RIGHT, IT TAKES UP SPEED, IT BIFURCATES, WE THOUGHT WE WERE SAFE, ANGLO-SCOTTISH TRADITION WAS MORE. AND EUROPEAN MODEL IS ONE THAT PROGRESSIVES CHOOSE. WE’RE BORN TO CHAINS, THAT CHURCH, COMMUNITY, FAMILY, DUTY OF GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OFF THOSE CHAINS, AND LET EVERYONE BE LIBERATE, AND THEN WE’LL BE HAPPY. WHICH IS OUR COLLECT OF COLLECTV WHICH IS OUR COLLECT OF COLLECTE NIGHTMARE. WE’RE HEADED TO A RADICAL SOCIETY, AND ASPECTS THAT TRANSCEND POLITICS. MARK: ADVANCE THIS NOTION, OF POPULISM. WHEN THIS IS AUTHORITARIANISM, PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY HAVE DEMOCKTIZE SOME PROGRAM, SOME ISSUE, WHEN IT IS NOT DEMOCRATIZED AT ALL. THEY ARE NOT INTELLECTUAL ELITES, THEY LIKE TO THINK THEY ARE, WHO ARE THEY? WHY ARE THEY ELITES? BECAUSE THEY ARE ELECTED? THEY ARE MEMBERS OF UNION? I NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHY THEY ARE SO ELITE?>>THEY THINK THEY WENT TO A PARTICULAR — BRANDED LIKE CATTLE, THEY THINK THAT IVY LEAGUE BRAND WILL ALLOW CERTAIN PRIVILEGES. BUT YOU LOOK AT SILICON VALLEY, WITH A GATE KEEPER THAT DECIDE WHAT IS HATE SPEECH, WHAT IS NOT, THEY CONTROL THE EXPRESSIONS OF 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET, BECAUSE THEY ARE MORALLY BETTER THAN WE ARE, YOU TURN ON PUBLIC TV OR CABLE TV YOU GET ANGUISH ABOUT THESE PEOPLE ARE YOU KNOW THE DEPLORE DEPLORABLES, THE CLINGERS, I THINK THEY USE WORD EAST GERMANS, I HEARD THAT SAID, I THINK THAT JOHN McCAIN CALLED THEM WACKO BIRDS, THERE WAS A REAL CONTEMPT FOR PEOPLE THEY DON’T FEEL THAT PROPERLY KNOW HOW TO USE THEIR FREEDOM, AND THEIR ECONOMIC CLOUT, THEY TOO SPHEUP STHEUP STUPUP STUPID STUFF, THEY BUY JET SKIS, THEY GO SNOW MOBILING AND THEY POLLUTE THE UNIVERSE. THEY CAN SAY, YOU KNOW WE’RE DOING IT FOR YOU. AND THROUGH OUT HISTORY, WE HAVE SEEN THESE PEOPLE, THEY HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON, THEY ARE ALL EXCUSED OR NOT SUBJECT TO THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THEIR OWN IDEOLOGY. MARK: I WANT TO ASK BUT RAMIFICATIONS. YOUR INSIGHT INTO THIS ELECTION THAT JUST OCCURRED. WHAT YOU THINK OF THE RESULT, AND WHY YOU THINK WE GOT THE RESULT WE DID. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ALMOST EVERY WEEK NIGHT YOU CAN WATCH

49 Replies to “Historian Victor Davis Hanson on why he supports Trump

  1. The media said over and over
    "HE HAS NO PATH"
    What can I say to that?
    HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHA
    AAAAALL THE WAY INTO 2020 and beyond!!
    Drain the swamp and give us our country back.

  2. The well educated "elites" also may have appreciation of culture but when their human demonic appetites ( which we all have) get control of their soul then they set up the systems so they can indulge them free from censure They recruit the lawyers and Psychopaths to protect them

  3. Mark why are you afraid to interview Douglas Brinkley? As America's most qualified historian he edited The Reagan Diaries and now has a new book in print (July 2019).

  4. Personally, I'll go with this:

    "Victor Davis Hanson's defense of President Donald Trump is entirely unconvincing

    'Trump may have acted and sounded crudely, but beneath his uncouth veneer was an uncanny assessment of the politics of his invective,' ­Hanson writes

    It’s always a perilous thing for historians to turn their attention to the present, as they have known with varying degrees of clarity since the days of Thucydides.

    Historians try to see the bigger picture behind (and obscured by) the news of the day – and the rest of us rely on them to see ­clearly. “When you discuss the past, you are a seer,” wrote a friend to one such historian, roughly 2,000 years after ­Thucydides. “When you discuss the events in [my newspaper], you are a blind pygmy, same as I.”

    This has not deterred award-winning historian Victor Davis Hanson from writing his new book, The Case for Trump, in which he lays out a multi-point defence of President Donald Trump only two years into the first term of the Trump administration, when several tenure-defining scandals and investigations are still ongoing and shocking headlines appear in the news almost every day.

    The core of that case has an elegant simplicity. In Hanson’s view, American political life has a pendular motion: when it swings (or is allowed to swing) too far in the direction of weak-willed ­accommodationist ­liberalism, it naturally swings back it in the direction of tough, ­uncompromising Reaganism.

    In many ways in The Case for Trump, Donald Trump himself hardly matters; he’s merely the person who happens to be leading the Republican Party when the pendulum swings back their way. This sentiment is key to the book and runs throughout; this idea of Trump as essentially a random political winner in a game of musical chairs.

    Hanson’s programme on every page is to downplay and trivialise as many of Trump’s countless aberrant behaviours as possible, characterising them as the kind of trivia only effete snobs could possibly find objectionable.

    At virtually every turn, ­Hanson uses euphemisms and little-kid vocabulary: gross ­violations of personal and ­social norms become “ethical dilemmas”; six decades of lying, cheating, fornicating, stealing, defrauding, blackmailing and bullying become “personal foibles”; endless, almost uncountable lies, become “fibs”.

    “Trump’s strange orange hue, his combed-over thinning and dyed yellow hair, his ‘yuge’ tie and grating Queens accent made him especially foul tasting to the coastal elite Left,” Hanson writes.

    The strong implication of The Case for Trump is that these things – the booth-tan, the obvious ­baldness, the body-length necktie worn in a futile attempt to disguise morbid obesity, and so on – aren’t just the extraneous little details of Trump-dislike, but its core and summary.

    This isn’t true and it’s the book’s biggest weakness, a flaw repeated so often it almost becomes a lie itself.

    “Trump may have acted and sounded crudely, but beneath his uncouth veneer was an uncanny assessment of the politics of his invective,” ­Hanson writes.

    “Critics repelled by Trump’s boorishness, of course, must disagree.” There is no “may” about Trump sounding and acting crude, but the implication that if his critics would only look past such things they’d seen something uncanny or even praiseworthy isn’t just wrong – it’s howlingly insulting.

    Plenty of Trump’s many, many critics don’t give two bits about his “uncouth veneer”; they’re angered instead by the steadily growing amount of documentary evidence amassing that his campaign and administration have been fraudulent and criminal from the beginning.

    Even in the short span of time between when Hanson filed his manuscript and when it appeared in book form, dozens of new and dire scandals have erupted around that administration; the “case” for Trump is not and never has been about a Queens accent. Hanson invokes “gentrification and the gospel of good taste” as the foremost engines of Trump criticism and claims they blind such criticism to Trump’s alleged accomplishments: “success in reworking Nafta, in prodding Nato members to keep their budgetary commitments, and in recalibrating long overdue asymmetrical relationships with Turkey, Iran and the Palestinians,” and so on.

    Hanson’s The Case for Trump is built entirely on a combination of willful blindness, canny stage-dressing and a weird kind of aggrieved cultural defensiveness

    It’s a key sign of Hanson’s rhetorical fancy-dancing that Trump himself would hardly understand these descriptions. His “reworking” of Nafta was a carefully presented repackaging of minor details in a working arrangement; his “prodding” of Nato members (over nonexistent slacking on “budgetary commitments”) took the form of embarrassing public gaffes and name-calling; and the “recalibrating” of relationships with nations such as Palestine was also regarded as the haphazard discarding of decades of careful diplomacy without much thought being put into it.

    Every issue, from ­immigration to industry regulation to the economy to election integrity, has suffered at the hands of the Trump administration. And while all that damage was being done, equally important intangibles were being trashed on a nearly daily basis.

    Hanson’s The Case for Trump is built entirely on a combination of willful blindness, canny stage-dressing and a weird kind of aggrieved cultural defensiveness.

    When the historian grumpily reports that Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that coverage of the Trump presidency in its first 100 days was 80 per cent negative, he’s simply refusing to consider the most obvious explanation."

  5. I would ask him about President Abraham Lincoln's events and interactions with the Media before the Civil War Broke out? Nice research paper?

  6. BORG,? resistance is not futile LEMMING, ? so if you jump im supposed to fallow . hah ! I choose ..liberty ,freedom and the constitution in all its glory, if you love it dont leave ..but leave it if you want to change it .. how many times do you let them lie to you. before you can't or wont stand for them any more their becoming transparent even though they did not want to be .. Thanks to real news and the people who truly love AMERICA I beleive i'm going to love being a republican

  7. Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College and if that ever happens we will be under Tyranny and lose Our Constitutional Republic. Pure Democracies are no more than Extreme Socialism and Marxism and Communism. The Rich still have their money and control over the people. Just like the Ultra Leftist Extremist Democrats. Sanders Warren Castro Harris Booker and even Biden because Barack Obama laid the foundation for this.

  8. In a Free Market Society we are Equal under the Law. Not one size fits all. Free Markets and Capitalism offer opportunity for all. Jobs, Education, on the job training which brings people out of poverty. Entrepreneurs and creative thinking create innovation and progress. So everyone cannot be economically the same. Socialism fails at every turn because the Government cannot sustain the basic needs and healthcare for all people. Socialism takes the money from the individuals who earn it and owners who profit from their creativity and give it to everyone else. Soon their is no more incentive for business or for people to enhance their lifestyle for those that work and the Government runs out of money.

  9. The only reason why I wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with his analysis is the overwhelming nationalism and absence of international solidarity

  10. Just because he speaks calmly doesn't mean it's not mostly BS, alleging that the Democrats are trying to "get rid of separation of powers", you have to be an idiot to believe that this isn't what Trump is doing & accusing the Dem's in doing it is again just a blunt lie!

  11. It’s not the progressives as much as it’s the democrats and the democrats gone radical. Part of the progressives hate the democrats and they I hope will vote for Trump…

  12. Talking about the institutions in the western world compared to the rest of the world is like comparing heaven to earth.

  13. Falling for the government enforced all equal cutts off God's blessing to individual Anonymous charity. A Blessing of Abraham. Now as a society,your little self made Babylon equates to,God as your enemy !

  14. It is pretty easy to know what happened, Dewey and his bunch knew that they needed the federal government to be in charge of the public school system. Dewey knew that he had to take God out of the family, after all we now know that we made ourselves , evolution, we don/t need God any more. This isn't my idea you can read for your selves what Dewey wrote for the whole plan. They did a good job and then no God in government and no God in the churches. It has destroyed the family and almost destroyed us all. Trump has put the brakes on for a while. If anyone is interested in more just let me know, I would be happy to expound more.

  15. These two men are extremely intelligent. This is TV I wish more people would watch, an intelligent calm exchange of ideas based on facts logic reasoning and examples from history. ☀️

  16. He defines the establishment as the universities and the NY Times. He doesn't mention Wall Street or Petroleum or Fox News. His view is extremely myopic.

  17. This is the usual trash reactionary argument coming from a guy who knows some history but didn't learn much from the last 100 years

  18. I’m almost 60 and immigrated in the mid sixties, American “culture” is definitely changing and the Internet has changed that with the youth who are influenced by other cultures overseas without knowing their own origin story or history and the respective cultures abroad.

  19. One of the best things about ilustration Is that no one Is the owener of the truth one person whit the enough information can and should challange the elites and authority whether Is a university professor or a polítical system

  20. Many highly accomplished intellectuals can be bigots and racists! The only difference is that guys like the guest professor have the ability to wrap things that are simple in the most complex ways!!! What a beauty: a Fox News loyal viewer, a Trump supporter and climate denier who believes most Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists!

  21. Why does the left get to own our education system? who allowed this INFILTRATION OF MARXIST in our schools and what did the CIA or FBI do about this infiltration?  Why do republican cave to SO DAM easy! there should be laws that no schools should indoctrinate and any teacher should be fired ASAS jailed even if indoctrinating to either side of the political spectrum!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *