Which Side Are You On?

I’ve unfortunately felt constrained to ban a number of regular commenters who have insisted on maintaining that the opposition to genocide in Palestine—as manifested in college campus demonstrations—is simply the expression of “leftist brats”, or that these demonstrations are somehow equivalent to the previous BLM and Antifa excesses. As commenter mistcr pointed out early on, the big difference is plain to see: These almost uniformly peaceful demonstrators are being arrested. They are not being protected, as the anti-Trump demonstrators were. That’s a dead giveaway that their protests are not supporter by the ruling class.

Are most of these young demonstrators Leftist? I would at a guess say, Absolutely. But there’s a much bigger problem here, and it’s addressed by the Gallup Organization. Because I can’t copy everything I’d like to from the Gallup page, I’ll first provide a snapshot from Simplicius:

SIMPLICIUS Ѱ @simpatico771

Gallup Poll showing US change from majority approval (Nov. 2023) to majority disapproval (March 2024) of Israeli military action in Gaza. https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx…

2:46 PM · Apr 26, 2024

Bear in mind, this sharp change of direction has come in the face of relentless pro-Zionist narratives flooding the MSM. Major outlets—the NYT and others—have even provided written guidance to reporters banning the use of certain words and phrases from being applied to Israeli actions—words like “genocide”, which the International Court of Justice did see fit to use.

A further breakdown of the results shows that “conservative” opinion, while also but slowly shifting, remains very much on the wrong side of genocide and in a decided minority. That very obviously gives the lie to the narratives that I’ve had to ban. The most visible demonstrators may well be Leftists in general, but they reflect a strong majority of national opinion. This should be troubling to anyone who claims to be “conservative.” Genocide is not the type of issue one should lightly accept as part of your brand. If the most active dissenters from ruling class policy are Leftists, then “conservatives” need to find a way to show that they are on the right side for the right reasons.

Let’s break this down a bit more.

First, for the “conservative” brand to be identified with the wrong side of an issue like genocide issue will likely destroy the credibility of the brand for decades to come. It doesn’t matter whether that identification is not explicitly asserted. Anyone who doesn’t understand that perception—including the complicity of silence—matters greatly isn’t thinking straight. Same absolutely goes for the concerted Israel Lobby assault on the First Amendment, the effort to just shut Americans up. You’ll see why I say that further down.

Second, the reason that the majority view is as strong as it is, is because self identified Independents have shifted strongly against Israeli genocide. Newsflash to GOPers: You can’t win elections without Independents. You can’t afford for them to stay home out of disgust—you need them to turn out and vote GOP.

Third, for “conservatives” to identify with the over the top Netanyahu mandated Zionist crackdown on Americans—yes, including on Leftist youths—snipers on rooftops on college campuses, brutal arrests of non-violent professors, riding down protestors with horses, all enabled by governors like Greg Abbott who traveled direct to Israel to receive their marching orders, is very bad for the “conservative” brand. Those young Leftists may eventually grow up—both age wise and wisdom wise. But they will recoil at voting for the people who supported a genocide or who supported brutal crackdowns on free speech mandated by a war criminal. This is a big issue, and people will remember which side you were on.

Check out these further snapshots and read the details at the link:

Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza

Approval has dropped from 50% to 36% since November

Bear in mind that events around the world are changing rapidly. Getting things right is not something that “conservatives” should dilly dally about.

Lastly, I want to highly recommend this video discussion between Danny Davis and David Sacks. Sacks is refreshingly articulate and informed and the two cover a lot of issues—mostly Ukraine and Neocon war mongering but also a bit on the Middle East. Trump supporters will be interested in his take on the Congressional vote on war funding. I have definite reservations about what he’s saying, but it gives pause for thought.

David Sacks on Ukraine: 'Tragic Disaster' or 'Wise Sage'? You be the Judge

I’ll transcribe the closing segment because I believe it will be special interest to many readers here, but the entire hour is well worth your time—very strong discussion.

DD: Let me ask you just one final question before we let you go. In the event that Biden doesn't win and Trump does—you said that you think that he supported that [war spending] package out of tactical reasons politically, and how it was going to calculate to go into the election. If he wins, though, do you think that he would do anything different than Biden would in a second term?

DS: Well, I think the advantage of Trump is that he has fresh eyes on this conflict and he's not saddled with needing to defend all of Biden's previous decisions. So there's a kind of reset. You're not in the grip of this sunk cost fallacy and he's simply not as passionate about Ukraine as Biden. So the hope is you get a reset, and then Trump can chart a new policy as opposed to what Biden may well do in his second term--which is Double Down. It's hard for me to imagine Trump sending in troops, for example, under any circumstance. Why would he want to take that on? And of course Trump in various interviews--like that CNN Town Hall where the moderator Caitlyn Clark kept pressing him, 'Whose side are you on, are you on Ukraine's side, are you on Putin's side?' and Trump basically said, 'Look, the side I'm on is I want people to stop dying.' He very deftly reframed that issue. And then there was a report that recently when he met with Orban that at least Orban said afterwards that Trump had told him that he couldn't wait to turn off this the spigot of Ukraine funding.

But who knows? I mean Trump is different things at different times. I will say, the only thing that concerns me a little bit about Trump is--I think that his instincts are in the right place I think that he wants to end the war but--his personnel choices have not always lined up with his own policy views or policy instincts. I mean his first Administration was chock full of Neocons like John Bolton! John Bolton and Nikki Haley and Pompeo, and there is a pretty strong rumor that Pompeo may be back as maybe Secretary of Defense. So I get a little worried--not about Trump per se but about the people who might be sitting around the table advising him. And and I think this is why this VP pick is going to be very important. It's going to be a signal of the direction where Trump wants to lead the party.

DD: Do you have any ideas who it might be? What's your guess?

DS: Well I don't know but there's a pretty wide range of options to choose from. I guess the point I'm making is that if he chooses a Neocon that's a pretty bad sign. On the other hand if he chooses somebody whose policy instincts are more in line with his own--which is clearly what I think he should do--then I'll feel a lot better about, let's say, a personnel upgrade in the second term.

I will add this to what Sacks says about the importance of the VP pick. It’s unfortunately not enough for Trump to pick someone who’s not an outright Neocon or “whose policy instincts are more in line with his own.” In my view he needs to pick a strong personality with real convictions who won’t be swayed by inside the Beltway “experts”. Someone who’s smart, tough, and informed. In other words, not some pretty faced governor or other. Something more like a Cheney to Dubya, only not on the Dark Side. So I’m not sure how wide a range of options for the VP pick there really is.