Free Stuff From Daddy

I’ve been wondering for the past couple of years about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that seems to afflict a lot of Americans (and maybe not just Americans). I don’t understand it. Why can’t they just get over the fact that She Lost? Why can’t She just get over the fact that She Lost?

But something I read yesterday seemed to maybe put its finger on the problem:

Politico then suggests that the Trump-fueled anxiety is due in part to “political theory,” positing that America – without a monarchy like the UK, tends to lionize the President as “national consolers,” and that people assign “an almost parental role to the presidency.”

And daddy is acting strange…

“Authority figures represent the parent, [so] President Trump seats in the seat of parent for all Americans,” said Baum-Baicker. “So now, my ‘father figure’ is a bully, is an authoritarian who doesn’t believe in studying and doing homework. … [Rather than reassurance] he creates uncertainty.”

I don’t think Britain’s QE2 has ever been a “national consoler.” She’s a figurehead, and she plays the role to perfection, and us Brits are going to have a collective nervous breakdown when she’s gone. She’s irreplaceable. She’s like one of those lightbulbs that you can’t buy any more, because they stopped making them in 1940. There’ll never be anyone like her.

The real comparison is not with the Queen, but with the British Welfare State which got set up post-WW2. It was actually a Nanny State. It provided services for everyone: doctors, schools, pensions, social security. Margaret Thatcher got rid of quite a lot of it, but much of it still remains. And it’s gradually metamorphosed into a bullying Nanny State, or just a Bully State.

For a lot of people, mostly on the Left, the state is a parent. It’ll provide security just like Mummy and Daddy once did. They look to the state to do everything, provide more or less everything. And while there were US presidents who felt the same way, and played the role of indulgent parent, a lot of Americans felt safe.

But Donald Trump isn’t an indulgent parent. Donald Trump is one of those parents who tells their children to get a job, and learn to support themselves, and stop relying on Daddy. I bet he told daughter Ivanka one day that if she wanted any more shoes and handbags, she was going to have get herself a job, and earn the money herself to buy those things. And I can imagine that when he did that, she probably threw a fit, and cried for weeks. But I’ll bet that he didn’t relent. I bet he stuck to his guns. And now Ivanka is a successful businesswoman in her own right. And she probably is because he made her become one.

And now that Donald Trump is playing Daddy to the American people, a lot of them are reacting just like I imagine Ivanka did: they’re throwing a fit, and calling him an “authoritarian” and a “bully” and even a “fascist.” They’re probably the names that Ivanka called him when he stopped giving her Gucci handbags. So he’s probably been through it all before. And now he’s telling the American people what he told her: get yourself a job, start earning your own living, stop relying on free stuff from Daddy. And the American Left have now been throwing an Ivanka tantrum for two whole years. And they’re being led by politicians who are themselves Ivankas. They have the same sense of entitlement to free stuff from Daddy. Hillary Clinton saw the US presidency itself as something she was entitled to, that was hers by right. And she’s been throwing a tantrum ever since she wasn’t given it.

America is not on the brink of civil war. It’s no more on the brink of civil war than the Trump household was on the brink of civil war when Ivanka stopped getting free Gucci handbags from Daddy. She was never going to kill Daddy, or oust him from his role as paterfamilias. And neither are all the Ivankas in US politics. Ivankas like Madonna. Ivankas like Bruce Springsteen. Ivankas like Hillary Clinton. They’re all full of hot air.

And while the Clintons and the Pelosis and the Feinsteins and the Antifas are hogging the headlines, maybe lots of Americans have been quietly doing what Donald Trump told Ivanka to do: they’ve been getting themselves jobs. And maybe many of them are very glad of it, just like Ivanka probably was.

I’m probably being very unfair to Ivanka. She probably never was a spoiled child like I’m portraying her. She probably never threw any tantrums. She probably never got any Gucci handbags either.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Free Stuff From Daddy

  1. Furtive Ferret says:

    I think that pretty much nails the mind set of the socialists: an ideology for the weak of mind, thought and deed that perpetuates a supplicant victim class who develop a sense of entitlement to other people’s money.

  2. wobbler2012 says:

    The “Daddy” analogy is perfect Frank, I hadn’t considered this but it makes a lot of sense.

  3. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    The all knowing all seeing state – paternalism, whether we consent or not, in return for some citizens receiving some of the money taken by the kleptocracy, refunded through the tax and welfare systems. The Iron Law: government cures are worse than the illness.

    I was however encouraged to note the Canberra Times published my anti-prohibitionist letter verbatim – must have been a slow news day.

    https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/shorten-s-doctrine-relies-on-something-for-nothing-principle-20181014-p509lt.html

    State should butt out

    Comment on the relentless hyper-regulation of smokers provoked a predictably dogmatic prohibitionist response, failing to address the issues while engaging in a shrill attack on “addicts”.
    The threshold issue remains: by what moral authority does the state presume to control the informed voluntary lifestyle decisions of citizens?
    It is an issue of ethics, and the limits of state coercion, not of “public health”, also relevant to other tax and ban targets of wowsers such as alcohol, “junk” food, sugar, gambling, and similar panics.
    The outlandish claims that “there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke” and “the dose and duration of exposure is irrelevant” ignores toxicology, and relative risk. If true, tobacco smoke would be the most toxic substance known to humanity, worse than cyanide gas, or eating a plutonium sandwich.
    Tobacco prohibitionists bizarrely describe obscenely punitive taxes, presently over 800 per cent or $1007 a kilogram, with more increases planned, as “helping” smokers.
    That is but one example of the prevalent “we know best how you should live” mentality, forcing smokers to pay for their own persecution.
    Choose not to smoke, if that is your preference. Do not arrogantly presume without consent to dictate the lifestyles of others.
    Prohibitionists and the state lack standing or moral authority to interfere in individual lifestyle choices, and distort free markets, while creating deadweight regulatory costs.
    They should butt out.

    M. Jarratt, Weston

    • waltc says:

      Good job

      • Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

        Thanks very much WaltC – I tried to be slightly humorous with the plutonium sandwich reference. The po-faced prohibitionists lack a sense of humour, none that I can detect anyway. Now I predict chief local prohibitionist Dr Cheroot will have an attack of apoplexy. How dare others ignore their meddling injunctions! They are modelled on Cartman from South Park – respect my authorita [sic].

        • Rose says:

          Very good letter. The terrible thing is none of this is real, it didn’t grow by itself, it was deliberately engineered and could happen to anyone for any contrived reason at any time and the targets don’t know whats happening until it breaks over their heads.

          I don’t know if you’ve read these.

          If you smoke, you stink.’ Denormalisation strategies for the improvement of health-related behaviours: the case of tobacco
          2011

          “mechanisms through which smoking bans can contribute to denormalisation is by reducing the general visibility of smoking. One study finds an association between the frequency with which youth observe smoking in different locations and the perception that smoking is socially acceptable; the authors conclude by recommending smoking bans specifically as a means of reducing the social acceptability of smoking (Alesci et al. 2003).

          Smoking bans in bars and restaurants also help undermine the association between smoking and exciting life-styles promoted by tobacco marketers (Hammond et al. 2006). Thus, smoking bans help establish non-smoking environments as the ‘norm’ (Brown et al. 2009).
          In addition, introducing smoking bans can in itself express and promote a negative attitudetowards smoking and contribute to its denormalisation. As Glantz suggests, ‘clean indoor air legislation reduces smoking because it undercuts the social support network for smoking by implicitly defining smoking as an antisocial act’
          (Glantz 1987}

          The ways in which such bans are communicated can contribute further to these effects. For example,Chapman and Freeman emphasise that smoking bans on flights are announced in a way thatemphasises that smokers are addicts:”
          http://www.academia.edu/1094210/_If_you_smoke_you_stink._Denormalisation_strategies_for_the_improvement_of_health-related_behaviours_the_case_of_tobacco

          And my personal favourite, painful reading , but the various headings show how we were deliberately conspired against and by whom.

          Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry
          2007

          THE SPOILED IDENTITY OF SMOKERS
          Smokers as malodourous
          Smokers as litterers
          Smokers as selfish and thoughtless
          Smokers as unattractive and undesirable housemates
          Smokers as addicts
          Smokers as excessive users of public health services
          Smokers as employer liabilities
          https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25.full#ref-27

          These days pure evil leaves a paper trail.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Where can I buy a plutonium sandwich? They sound rather yummy.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Excellent letter to the editor!

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        Also excellent reply by Rose! Proof that smoking bans were designed to persecute smokers. These memes still resonate today if the astroturf online antismoker comments championing bans… This should be shared far and wide!

  4. waltc says:

    This is the famous Life of Julia video Obama released in his campaign against Romney (sorry, can’t find a version w/o commentary) in which Our Heroine is supported by government literally from cradle to, if not grave, retirement. And talk about Daddy, along the way she has a son, though no husband, but Daddy Givernment helps him too and the cycle continues

  5. Pingback: In Loco Parentis | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.