Ideology vs. Pragmatism

Words, whether coined by an individual or of more organic origins, begin with certain definitions, but as time progresses their meanings and connotations change.  What does ideology bring to mind?  How about pragmatism?

Ideology, according to Dictionary.com:   1) the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.  2) such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.  3) the study of the nature and origin of ideas; a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.  4) theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.”

A more succinct definition from Merriam-Webster: “the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party; a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture; a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica gives us some historical background, including reasons for the word having both negative and positive connotations:

Thus ideology has been from its inception a word with a marked emotive content, though Destutt de Tracy presumably had intended it to be a dry, technical term. Such was his own passionate attachment to the science of ideas, and such was the high moral worth and purpose he assigned to it, that the word idéologie was bound to possess for him a strongly laudatory character. And equally, when Napoleon linked the name of idéologie with what he had come to regard as the most detestable elements in Revolutionary thought, he invested the same word with all of his feelings of disapprobation and mistrust. Ideology was, from this time on, to play this double role of a term both laudatory and abusive not only in French but also in German, English, Italian, and all the other languages of the world into which it was either translated or transliterated.

Pragmatism also seems marked by contradictory usage.

Pragmatism, school of philosophy, dominant in the United States in the first quarter of the 20th century, based on the principle that the usefulness, workability, and practicality of ideas, policies, and proposals are the criteria of their merit. It stresses the priority of action over doctrine, of experience over fixed principles, and it holds that ideas borrow their meanings from their consequences and their truths from their verification. Thus, ideas are essentially instruments and plans of action.

Achieving results, i.e., “getting things done” in business and public affairs, is often said to be “pragmatic.” There is a harsher and more brutal connotation of the term in which any exercise of power in the successful pursuit of practical and specific objectives is called “pragmatic.” The character of American business and politics is often so described. In these cases “pragmatic” carries the stamp of justification: a policy is justified pragmatically if it is successful.

Two definitions:

Pragmatism: “1) a practical approach to problems and affairs tried to strike a balance between principles and pragmatism; 2) an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief.”

Pragmatism: “action or policy dictated by consideration of the immediate practical consequences rather than by theory or dogma. 2) the doctrine that the content of a concept consists only in its practical applicability; the doctrine that truth consists not in correspondence with the facts but in successful coherence with experience.”

Did you catch that last definition?  Truth consists not in correspondence with the facts but in… coherence with experience?  What exactly is the difference between “facts” and “experience?”  Are we entering the realm of relativism here?  Certainly there is a flavor of “the ends justify the means.”

Often people and groups who claim to be “free from ideology” and pragmatic, practical, and action oriented, are in fact some of the most ideological, impractical, and disconnected from reality.  These folks, like the atheist who claims to be completely rational and only influenced by empirical facts, but is actually very closed minded in their faith, they routinely ignore and deny facts that don’t match their preconceived notions.

Advertisements

Feminists: Treating the image of history’s most important and holy woman with disrespect empowers women!

If you thought the recent women’s march was bad…

US feminists are being one-upped by the vulgarity and blasphemy of the Argentine feminists.  International Women’s Day was just marked in the US by encouraging women to protest “inequality” and stay home from work or otherwise shirk responsibilities, not by staging a “bloody fake abortion on a woman dressed as Virgin Mary.”

Feminists in pink masks pretended to commit an abortion on a woman dressed as the Virgin Mary outside a northern Argentina cathedral as part of an International Women’s Day protest last week…

Meanwhile, in Buenos Aires, participants in an International Women’s Day march tried to set the city’s cathedral on fire. They attacked a lone man who held a Vatican flag and tried to defend the cathedral.

Or maybe those US feminists are still in the running:

At the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. in January 2017, a protester carried a sign depicting Our Lady of Guadalupe as a bloody vagina.

Yet again these “ladies” show their priorities.  How does insulting an important female holy figure further female “empowerment?”  Perverting and insulting the image of the Virgin Mary doesn’t exactly translate into empowering or respecting women.

Obamacare Repeal vs. Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood is reaching its claws into our government representatives yet again. They’re probably working overtime to make sure any pro-life measures, like defunding PP, are stripped from the new healthcare law.  We expect this from Democrats, but even some of the Republicans are vowing they won’t vote for the bill if it includes language to remove government subsidies of PP.  Here is their treachery:

“I don’t think it makes sense to have the defunding of Planned Parenthood linked to this issue at all,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), according to The Hill. “If the House Republicans want to bring it up, it should be in a separate bill. I would oppose that bill, but it further complicates the negotiations to have it included in this bill.”

***

 

In February, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) announced she would not be voting with fellow Republicans for an Obamacare repeal bill that defunds Planned Parenthood.

“Taxpayer dollars should never be used to pay for abortions, but I will not vote to deny Alaskans access to the health services that Planned Parenthood provides,” she said.

“‪It’s illogical for any senator to claim she does not want tax dollars being used to fund abortion, while at the same time insisting that the federal government continue to lavish money on Planned Parenthood,” Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, a policy advisor for The Catholic Association, tells Breitbart News.

“As long as Planned Parenthood continues to perform abortions, and especially as long as abortion is their core business, they should not receive the hard-earned money of American taxpayers,” she adds. “Any tax money redirected to Comprehensive Community Health Centers from the abortion giant will only enhance and increase medical services for low-income women.”

Members of the pro-life base of the GOP have stood by for years as GOP congressional leaders have explained they would need to wait for a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican president in the White House to eliminate taxpayer funding for the nation’s largest abortion business. With Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress and a Republican administration now in place in the White House, the expectation is that goal will finally be realized.

***
Liberal Republican members of Congress, however, have placed their support for Planned Parenthood ahead of their party’s attempts to pass other legislation in the past.

Murkowski joined Collins and former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) in 2015 to try to remove a provision to end Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding from the Obamacare repeal bill.

In 2011, Collins received a personal “thank-you” letter from Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, who expressed her gratitude that the Maine senator voted to continue funding her abortion business

Pro-life groups are analyzing the prospective new law.  Life Site News wonders: Will Trump’s Obamacare replacement REALLY defund Planned Parenthood?  Life Legal Defense Foundation lists some of the changes and their interpretation:

House Republicans have finally unveiled the American Health Care Act (AHCA) to replace the so-called “Affordable Care Act,” aka Obamacare. Life Legal has been sifting through the bill to determine how it would impact federal funding for abortionists, especially Planned Parenthood.

1. The AHCA places a one-year ban on all payments to “prohibited entities,” which are narrowly defined as non-profit abortion providers that receive more than $350 million in federal taxpayer funding annually—i.e., Planned Parenthood. This means that, for one year, the nation’s largest abortion provider would not receive Medicaid reimbursement for any of its services. Medicaid reimbursements account for the lion’s share of the $550+ million Planned Parenthood receives each year from U.S. taxpayers.

2. For AHCA purposes, any insurance plan that offers abortion coverage is not a “Qualified Health Plan,” meaning federal tax credits cannot be used to purchase plans that include abortion coverage. The Los Angeles Times reported that “virtually all health plans” in California would be ineligible for purchase with tax credits, pursuant to a state law requiring any plan that provides maternity coverage to include abortion coverage.

3. Small businesses can no longer receive expense credits for plans that include abortion coverage.

THE GOOD: •Planned Parenthood would lose approximately $490 million in federal funds, which represents about 38% of its total annual budget.
•No taxpayer funds will be used to pay for insurance plans with abortion coverage.
THE BAD: •The Planned Parenthood funding ban is only for one year. Also, other abortion providers will continue to receive state Medicaid reimbursement for abortions.
•Individuals and small businesses can still buy out-of-pocket abortion coverage.
THE UGLY:
The Republican-controlled Senate may not have enough votes to pass the AHCA with the pro-life provisions intact. House Republicans want to try to get the bill through the Senate using the budget reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority of 51 votes. However, two of the 52 Republican senators—Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine—said they will not vote for any health care legislation that restricts abortion coverage. Unless one of them changes her mind, no pro-life bills or amendments are likely to pass the Senate during this term.

Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins sounds more optimistic: “while pieces of the bill may be negotiable, the White House has assured me that the portion stripping Planned Parenthood’s tax dollars is not one of them.”

Who would trust their health care to a group that doesn’t know anything about medicine? Try the U.S. government. For years, they’ve been funneling billions of dollars to an organization that can’t even answer basic questions on pregnancy: Planned Parenthood.

In an interview that should have been embarrassing for any group (let alone one trying to defend its half-billion dollars in taxpayer funding), Tucker Carlson asked questions that should have been easy for any “expert” in women’s health to answer. “You work for the country’s biggest abortion provider,” Tucker said to Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens. “If you can hear the heartbeat of this thing, this fetus, what is it?” he asked. “Is it a piece of tissue or is it a separate human being?” Well, she replied, “I think that’s up to each individual to decide.” Surprised, Tucker tried again. “This is at the core of what you do — you’re the biggest abortion provider in the United States. It’s not like you haven’t thought of this,” he pressed. Laguens paused and said again, “I think that’s up to each individual to decide.”

And this is an organization that’s supposed to be on the cutting edge of women’s health? A group that says “feelings” — not settled science — define human reality? Unfortunately, this is the kind of “create your own truth” thinking your tax dollars make possible.

***

Meanwhile, in a deft move, President Trump has offered to keep the cash flowing to Cecile Richards’s group. There’s just one condition: Planned Parenthood would have to stop performing abortions. In a revealing reply, Richards called the idea “obscene and insulting.” No, what’s obscene is a group that destroys more than 330,000 innocent unborn children a year — in large part because our tax dollars help them keep the other side of the business afloat. Carlson touched on the organization’s obsession with abortion in his sit-down with Laguens. “[Why is abortion] so important to Planned Parenthood that you’re willing to forgo half a billion dollars a year in federal subsidies?” he wanted to know. She stumbled through a response about not being “bullied.”

Was Jesus a nice guy? Or was he a troll?

Was Jesus just a nice guy?  Some Christians seem to think so.  They are very concerned with being proper and polite.  They immediately disavow anyone who is discovered to have a less than pristine past, even, and perhaps especially, those who have been allies in the culture war.  Apparently for fear they be tainted by association or some sort of holier-than-thou position, they quickly throw said offender under the bus. So much for “there but for the grace of God go I” or Jesus’s treatment of say, the woman caught in adultery. This attitude seems a far cry from Jesus’s relationship with sinners.

Or was Jesus a troll?  Blogger Fencing Bear at Prayer (by day a tenured professor of Medieval Studies at Chicago University), thinks Jesus was likely seen as a troll during his lifetime (and perhaps if we paid attention, he’d be viewed that way today too).  She has recently written some controversial things, for which she has of course been attacked.  Her worst offense? Defending Milo: “I have said over and over again, much to the ridicule of many of my academic colleagues and the journalists who have gotten wind of my blog, that the reason I love (yes, love, in the Christian sense of profound charity) Milo is because he tells the truth.”   Unsurprisingly, she also describes herself as a “Catholic catechumen.”

It’s hard being a Christian. On the one hand, there is the image that everyone has from going to Sunday School, of Christians as goody-two-shoes…

On the other hand, there’s Jesus. Jesus drank with sinners. Jesus ate with tax collectors. Jesus made friends with women of ill repute. Jesus wandered about the countryside gathering crowds and scaring the authorities.

Jesus was a troll.

Think about the day he announced himself to his village. He stood up and read the Scriptures for the day:  “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

And then he gave the book to the attendant, sat down, and said:  “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

And all wondered and said, how could it be, wasn’t he Joseph’s son? At which he replied: “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country.”

And the people rose up against him, and drove him out of town.  This was only the beginning of his trolling.

***

Jesus knew they all hated him, both the Pharisees on the Right, who tried to live purely according to the Law, and the scribes on the Left, who were functionaries of the Jewish state. And he denounced them regularly in his preaching as hypocrites and fools.

“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

And then he marched into Jerusalem, straight up to the most holy place in the city, and vandalized it.

“It is written,” he said, “‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of thieves.”

Authorities on both the Right and the Left were not pleased.

You know the rest of the story.

Jesus so enraged the holders of power in his community that they trumped up charges against him, trying to get him to blaspheme so that they could invoke the death penalty against him.

When Truth speaks to Power, Power bites back. Hard.

But what Power does not know is that Truth will prevail. Because Jesus’s kingdom is not of this world.

People who value the Truth are the ones who don’t gloss over this side of Jesus, because this Jesus is just as true as the one who said “to turn the other cheek” — it seems a contradiction, and for some, it’s easier to focus on the nice Jesus and forget that this other part of Jesus exists.  But this is God we’re talking about here, so we shouldn’t be too surprised by qualities that are both complex  and difficult to understand.

Mathew Kelly writes in Rediscovering Jesus, that Jesus was a radical:

What does radical mean?  It means to get to the “root” of things.  Jesus was interested in getting deep down to the root of things.  He was interested in what was essential — not the fluffy periphery, but the core, the center, the heart of things.  He wasn’t burdened with the need to be liked by people.  He wasn’t moved by desire for expediency or convenience.  Instead, he simply allowed truth to reign supreme.

Truth is radical.

People who love the Truth, love Jesus.  Those who don’t know Jesus, but pursue the Truth are seeking God, whether they know it or not.  If you seek Truth long enough, it will lead you to Jesus.

I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life –  John 14:6

 

A Day Without [Feminist] Women

One is tempted to say “good riddance.”  The only impact they’re likely to make unfortunately is to hurt other women who are forced to take the day off to watch their kids who can’t go to school because so many teachers took off that schools had to be closed. Many of these women will be of lower incomes who cannot afford to miss a day of work or pay for extra childcare.  It’s also possible that some of the women who strike today will lose their jobs — tomorrow may be a repeat DayWithoutJobs (as it was for those immigrants who decided to take the day off without permission).  I’ve seen several comments saying this could actually help businesses weed out the crazies – ‘ah, they’ve identified themselves; that makes it easy to pick who’ll be in this next lay-off!’

According to protest spokeswoman Cassady Findlay:

the action is aimed at highlighting the effect of women on the country’s socio-economic system and would demonstrate how the paid and unpaid work of women keeps households, communities and economies running.

“We provide all this value and keep the system going, and receive unequal benefits from it,” Findlay said.

Findlay said it is important for white women to be in solidarity with minority women… “It’s when women of all backgrounds strike and stand together that we’re really going to see the impact.”

Unlike the Women’s March, Wednesday’s protest focuses on the absence of women, who are being steered to local rallies and community groups and away from work or shopping in stores or online. Organizers also are asking women to wear red to signify love and sacrifice.

What exactly do they mean by “unpaid work”? Homemakers and stay-at-home moms?  So you’re going to not bother to feed your children today?  Let the kids run in the street so you can lie on the couch snacking and binge-watching Netflix?  Let your home become a pigsty?  This proves what exactly?  How is this supporting any cause?

Most families do appreciate the women who help to run things and take care of them.  Ask most men and they’ll express gratitude for what their wives do (and insist they’re very happy they don’t have to do those things!).  Sure, sometimes women are taken for granted in domestic settings, but how often does anyone, female or male, get praised to high heaven for the work they are expected to do for their jobs?  The unequal benefits women supposedly receive for their work is a feminist propaganda point that has been disproved so many times it’s like beating a dead horse at this point.  Feminist Christina Hoff Sommers goes over the facts again here.

How about about wearing red to signify love and sacrifice?  Sounds nice doesn’t it?  But how does spitefully refusing to do your jobs (whatever they may be) and ignoring your responsibilities prove your worth  or demonstrate love and sacrifice?  Selfish whining, self-importance, and grown-up (sort of) versions of temper tantrums sound like the opposite of love and sacrifice to me.

Despite platitudes about solidarity among women, let’s not forget that women of all backgrounds aren’t actually welcome in this protest.

It’s being billed as “A Day Without a Woman,” but apparently only pro-union, pro-choice, anti-Israel women who can afford to skip work need apply… Like the Women’s March, however, the event is embedded with political messages that many women may find objectionable.

The Day Without a Woman manifesto includes strong support for unions, a “living wage,” “fair pay” and “solidarity with the sex workers’ rights movement,” without explaining what those policies entail.

One of the group’s premier partners is Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, which effectively shuts out pro-life women, said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America.

“Does Planned Parenthood, a main sponsor of the Women’s March, approve the closing of schools and putting unnecessary burdens on women, especially working mothers who rely on a regular school schedule?” said Ms. Hawkins. “Are they OK with children from low-income families who will go hungry on Wednesday? Women’s empowerment shouldn’t rely on putting other women and children in precarious situations just to make a point.”

Aside from the slew of parents complaining about school closures, there have been plenty of other criticisms.  One writer claims that ‘A Day Without a Woman’ is a strike for privileged protesters:

Make no mistake, March 8 will mostly be a day without women who can afford to skip work, shuffle childcare and household duties to someone else, and shop at stores that are likely to open at 10 and close at 5. As for wearing red, what is the dress code, exactly? Are you supposed to wear your pink pussy hats, too?

***

A Day Without a Woman seems especially poised for unquantifiable results, given the diffuse nature of its platform.

 Any male who complains about having to pick up the slack left by striking/boycotting women can count on plenty of eye-rolling invocations of the popular refrain “I Drink Male Tears.”

Meanwhile, for the millions of women who have no choice but to show up and meet their responsibilities on March 8 (and every day), it will be business as usual.

Which, when you stop to think about it, is kind of the point, isn’t it? At least it should be. We are nearly half the labor force now. We are just as important in the workplace and to our families’ fiscal welfare as men. All things being equal (which is what we’re after, right?), we are too essential to play hooky.

That’s why the idea that women should take a day off en masse to make a political point is both self-defeating and vaguely insulting. It’s meant to highlight how crucial we are, but its very premise also suggest the opposite: Women are expendable. A Day Without a Woman plays into the idea that we entered the workforce not to support ourselves and our families but to combat boredom or to boost our self-esteem. For all but a very few affluent women, that’s never been the case.

Demonstrating yet again that they don’t actually care about real women, their children or their families, privileged feminists Strike and March and Protest to end imaginary wrongs. They don’t even have concrete objectives or policy suggestions to end these supposed injustices, much less notice or care about the true injustices in the world today.

Marine Le Pen, Savior of France?

This is a very different type of I’m with her: Marine Le Pen as Joan of Arc.  She gave a speech standing in front of a statue of St. Joan of Arc and inspired supporters to create images like this one:

1487722008717

Despite recent legal challenges (which illustrate France’s free speech problem), Marine Le Pen “remains in the lead in polling for the first round of the French presidential election, three points ahead of centrist Emmanuel Macron.”  She’s certainly got the opposition scared.

French President Francois Hollande has admitted that “There is a threat” that she might actually win and that he would “do everything” in his power to stop her.  He also vehemently opposes her desire to sever France from the EU: saying “it was his ‘last duty… to do everything to ensure that France is not convinced by such a plan’ of taking the country out of the EU.”  First Brexit and now maybe Frexit?

Although The Spectator is no friend of Le Pen (saying her “victory would be the worst crisis for half a century”), they nevertheless had some interesting observations in their article: The French election is now Marine Le Pen vs a collapsing French establishment.

Is France on the brink of a political revolution? Already, four established candidates for the presidency — two former presidents and two former prime ministers — have backed out or been rejected by the voters, and another, François Fillon, is on the ropes. The campaign is being taken over by outsiders …What kind of shake-up might it be — socialist (the least likely), liberal with Macron or nationalist with Le Pen? Or can the outsiders still be beaten by an electoral system designed to keep them out of power? … the two-round ballot, designed in the 1820s to prevent hotheads … from winning elections. It gives voters and politicians a second chance, not so much to reconsider their own choices as to react against the choices of others. In the first round you vote for the person you want; in the second you vote against the person you fear.

This evolved historically into what was called ‘republican discipline’: in the first round there could be a range of competing candidates of all shades, but in the second round all loyal republicans, from the mildest liberal to the reddest communist, would vote for the candidate best placed to beat the enemy of the republic — usually a royalist or authoritarian nationalist. … The crucial question in this election is whether the republican reflex still operates. If not, Marine Le Pen could win.

***

France is the most anti-capitalist country in Europe.  There are benefits. Many British people have happy memories of French hospitals, schools or trains. But one does not need very right-wing views to see the accumulating disadvantages. The highest taxes in the developed world, especially on businesses. Chronic unemployment, worst among the young and ethnic minorities. Slow growth, including among small companies afraid of the burden of regulation incurred by getting too big. Crumbling infrastructure. Anyone who arrives at the Gare du Nord must see that something is amiss. People in France do too, and have done for years. Even in the 1980s President Mitterrand lamented national ‘moroseness’. Bookshops have long been piled high with works by economists, politicians and academics warning that France was in accelerating decline. Young people emigrate, over 200,000 to London alone.

On top of this chronic malaise has come the tension between republican secularism and Islam, sparked off three decades ago by a row about girls wearing headscarves in a provincial secondary school. It is a fraught mixture of cultural difference, social deprivation and historic mistrust, but none can doubt its brooding presence, hugely inflamed by a series of terrorist attacks. Had I risked forgetting this, I would have been dramatically reminded a few weeks ago when in a quiet street in Paris I walked into a 25-man military patrol in full combat gear.

None of these observations is unique to France. Characteristic of France, however, is the seeming inability of the political system to do much about them, even over many years. Here we come back to the ‘stalemate society’ problem.

 

***

So is France in crisis? … many voters really have lost faith in the established parties and see change as coming from outside the system. The main embodiment of disillusion is Marine Le Pen. Her Front National continues to grow in rust-belt regions and those with high levels of immigration, largely by attracting disaffected working-class voters. It is probably France’s largest party, supported by nearly a third of the electorate.

Le Pen has laboured since taking over from her father in 2011 to convince voters that the Front National, though still radical, is no longer ‘anti-republican’, and indeed is the staunchest upholder of republican secularism against Islamic encroachment. The message is that voting for her is not a betrayal of the republican heritage so central to France’s self-image.  She has added to her nationalist agenda vehement denunciation of the European Union as a foreign capitalist plot.

***

Le Pen will surely win through to the second round of the election, and it is quite possible that she will head the poll in the first round on 23 April…  Brexit and Trump have created a sense that the unthinkable is possible, which could further weaken the taboo against voting for her. But it will mobilise her opponents too. I cannot believe that enough moderate voters will stay away from the second-round poll to let ‘the fascists’ win. ‘Republican discipline’ should still rally support for whoever polls best against Le Pen, which at the moment looks likely to be Macron.

Nevertheless, few now rule out a Le Pen victory completely, and if Macron’s campaign runs into serious trouble, all bets are off. Every new scandal or terrorist incident plays into her hands. If she did become president, France would face a genuine crisis, the worst for half a century. There would certainly be strikes and violent demonstrations by those who would see themselves as defending the republic against fascism. How she could form a viable government or win a majority in parliament is unclear. We would see a conflict between the Fifth Republic’s powerful president and its parliament under a constitutional system that one liberal critic has called dangerous even in the hands of a saint. The consequences for the euro, the EU, western security and Britain’s relations with one of its closest allies would be dire.

[above emphasis mine] — Sounds like the author is saying is that the establishment, pro-immigration, pro-globalization, pro-EU folks would throw a fit and try to sabotage her at every turn if she were to win the election.  They would paint themselves as defenders of the innocent against “fascists.”  Sounds familiar.  Where have we seen that before?