As Biden, who would you hire from those who have served in Trump's Presidency?

[LetterRip]

I'd definitely hire Jim Mattis - seems a competent and moral individual who served with honor and distinction.
I'd definitely hire Jim Bridenstine - he has done a superb job at NASA.
Fauci of course.

No other names come to mind at present.

[Grant]

Maybe Elaine Chao.  Just to screw with Cocaine Mitch or butter him up.  She'd probably refuse.  Plus she probably would need to be cleared of the charges against her. 

Maybe Sonny Perdue.  It would butter up David Perdue.  It would also piss off Bernie and crew.  He probably needs Bernie more than he needs David Perdue.

Maybe HR McMaster.  But I don't think the Biden administration wants to go that way with national security policy.  Biden is a notorious dove/chicken. 

[Ouija Nightmare]

The biggest problem with the outgoing ones is they lack competency. Their only skill set is sucking up to Trump, For the most part it’s good riddance.

A good litmus test would be anyone who resigned or fired out of a greater sense of duty.

As for the Trump appointees that have been embedded with lifetime appointments despite being unqualified, there’s a bunch of research in Utqiaġvik that desperately needs staffing. They’re also deeply understaffed for judiciary.

[yossarian22c]

I can't think of any others than you state LR. Trying to think through those who resigned in protest or were fired for not being yes men. Because if you didn't resign in protest of something Trump did or were fired for standing up to him then you probably aren't qualified to serve. Fauci gets a pass because Trump wanted to fire him but couldn't because Fauci was more popular than he was.

[msquared]

Krebs.  If Trump wanted him gone for telling the truth, Biden should want him back.

[Seriati]

He should try to get Bob Barr to stay on.  You guys may think that's crazy, but Barr has made clear (despite propaganda to the contrary) that he intends to serve the law, not Trump, and he has.  Barr's first priority has been to restore professionalism to the DOJ, and keeping him on would be a signal to those on the right that Biden is serious about working with them.  Barr's too honorable to undercut any actual Biden policy, so he'd pretty much run a clean DOJ with Biden's policy.

It'll never happen of course.  Too much riding on ensuring the DOJ gets back under partisan control, where crimes of Democrat's conveniently can never be investigated, while spying on Republicans always seems to meet a "threshold" to be "legally authorized." Nope, Biden is going to appoint a hack, no doubt about it, and the media is going to applaud the hack while they undercut justice.

[TheDeamon]

I guess that would be a very clear signal to me that Biden is trying to heal the country and working towards the center if Barr is allowed to stay on as AG.

It'd be near impossible for the Trumper's in particular to naysay anything Barr does during the first part of the Biden Admin.(latter parts are another matter: See: Comey and Mueller)

But also agreed it is highly unlikely to happen. Too many Dems have staked out claims that Barr is not acting as the AG, but as Trump's personal lawyer, and Biden allowing him to stay on would "validate" what he's been doing as AG.

[DonaldD]

LOL.  That's about as serious as suggesting they keep Javanka on.

Barr has perverted his position to assist Trump politically on so many occasions that he's had had career Republican bureaucrats resign in disgust at his actions.

[Seriati]

Lol, DonaldD, as always, you provide nothing of substance and a whole lot of partisan falsity.  It's a narrative the media and the DNC like to share that Barr is a partisan hack, but they know it's not true, it's just passed along to fool the naive and excite the base.

Biden knows Barr is harmless, and that it would look like some kind of enormous concession to the "Trump" supporters to keep him in place.  But Biden would have to be serious about the DOJ being a non-partisan organization to do it, and he's not remotely interested in that result.

[Aris Katsaris]

Lol, DonaldD, as always, you provide nothing of substance and a whole lot of partisan falsity.  It's a narrative the media and the DNC like to share that Barr is a partisan hack, but they know it's not true, it's just passed along to fool the naive and excite the base.

Biden knows Barr is harmless, and that it would look like some kind of enormous concession to the "Trump" supporters to keep him in place.  But Biden would have to be serious about the DOJ being a non-partisan organization to do it, and he's not remotely interested in that result.

I've no opinion on Barr, as I've not looked into him but "The Caesar's wife must not only be honorable, but also look it."

If Barr is currently believed to be a partisan hack, he'd be a bad choice even if the accusation is false.

[yossarian22c]

Lol, DonaldD, as always, you provide nothing of substance and a whole lot of partisan falsity.  It's a narrative the media and the DNC like to share that Barr is a partisan hack, but they know it's not true, it's just passed along to fool the naive and excite the base.

The DOJ under Barr interfered with sentencing on a case involving Trump's friend.

Barr has said the following things while in the post of attorney general.

I think what's happened is that the left-wing has really withdrawn and pulled away from the umbrella of classical liberal values that have undergirded our society since our founding," Barr argued, in apparent reference to Democrats. He added that he believes the left "really represents Rousseauian Revolutionary Party that believes in tearing down the system" in order to achieve "complete political victory.

They're [democrats] not interested in compromise. They're not interested in dialectic exchange of views. They're interested in total victory. It's a secular religion. It's a substitute for a religion. They view their political opponents as evil that because we stand in the way of their progressive utopia that they're trying to reach

The left wants power because that is essentially their state of grace in their secular religion. They want to run peoples' lives so they can design utopia for all of us and that's what turns them on. And it's the lust for power and they weren't expecting Trump's victory and it outrages them.

We could go on with other quotes and look at the difference between how Barr talked about anti-covid restriction protesters in Michigan vs BLM protesters in other places. But those are highly political statements. To say just keep him on to depoliticize the DOJ is a joke.

[rightleft22]

Bill Bar philosophy as it regards executive power and Judeo-Christian system morality tends to the extreme. He is a man on a mission

The crucial point for Barr is his claim that the thinking of the Founders, and therefore “the American government” they created, “was predicated precisely on this Judeo-Christian system” of values handed down by God. According to Barr, “the greatest threat to free government, the Founders believed, was not governmental tyranny, but personal licentiousness—the abandonment of Judeo-Christian moral restraints in favor of the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites.”

He likes to joke about the left attempt to create a utopian society while he himself is attempting to create just that by restoring the nation to the Founders’ vision. The joke being that the other living by their values is laughably absurd while he, being righteous is right and so justified to uses his office to enforce his values.  He appears to be in the classic sense blind to his shadow.

" there's nothing more dangerous than a true believer on his own crazy mission.”

[Fenring]

Barr has said the following things while in the post of attorney general.

Just for the record, the point of contention is whether Barr is a partisan hack or not, but all three of your quotes seem distinctly to be statements about the social sphere and the climate in left vs right values. None of them seem to have anything to do with politics or with the political parties, especially. Typically I would assume a political partisan is someone favoring one side on Capital Hill, not one side in family values. I don't know if he's a partisan or not, but I don't think those particular quotes show what you wanted them to.

[Fenring]

Bill Bar philosophy as it regards executive power and Judeo-Christian system morality tends to the extreme. He is a man on a mission

The crucial point for Barr is his claim that the thinking of the Founders, and therefore “the American government” they created, “was predicated precisely on this Judeo-Christian system” of values handed down by God. According to Barr, “the greatest threat to free government, the Founders believed, was not governmental tyranny, but personal licentiousness—the abandonment of Judeo-Christian moral restraints in favor of the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites.”

He likes to joke about the left attempt to create a utopian society while he himself is attempting to create just that by restoring the nation to the Founders’ vision. The joke being that the other living by their values is laughably absurd while he, being righteous is right and so justified to uses his office to enforce his values.  He appears to be in the classic sense blind to his shadow.

" there's nothing more dangerous than a true believer on his own crazy mission.”

Strangely enough I think the statement attributed to Barr here is something you wouldn't be so quick to disagree with if you substituted "Judeo-Christian" for "common sense" or perhaps "caring about others before yourself". It seems like you're zeroing in on this as being a religious statement, but actually I don't think the meat of it has much of anything to do with religion. He seems to be saying (assuming he said it) that the greatest source of danger to America isn't some big evil government crushing the people underfoot, but of the people simply becoming worse people, behaving in worse ways, and demanding worse things. You can define worse any way you like, and he seems to define it along Judeo-Christian lines, but that's not really the point I see this statement making. The point is that a decline in personal integrity and self-control is the biggest danger; that thinking of little man than immediate desires is not a way to treat your country or yourself. Do you really disagree with that? Or let me rephrase it in a way that perhaps might strike more of a chord with you: do you think the biggest problem of Trump's Presidency was that Big Brother was going to finally lower the boom and become another China, or that his ardent fans seemed immune to reason and preferred to have their tastes satiated (which may include giving the middle finger to The Man, sticking it to politeness, condoning boorishness, whatever else), so that the general tenor of American decency and discourse went into decline?

Maybe you still don't wholeheartedly agree with his point of view anyhow, but I think this concept is not evidence of someone being a religious crusader. I think you'll be able to find plenty of secular people who also think that personal values being in decline is worse than bad government.

[yossarian22c]

Barr has said the following things while in the post of attorney general.

Just for the record, the point of contention is whether Barr is a partisan hack or not, but all three of your quotes seem distinctly to be statements about the social sphere and the climate in left vs right values. None of them seem to have anything to do with politics or with the political parties, especially. Typically I would assume a political partisan is someone favoring one side on Capital Hill, not one side in family values. I don't know if he's a partisan or not, but I don't think those particular quotes show what you wanted them to.

Left and right are generally used to describe the philosophy of one party or the other. Clearly Barr associated it with politics. You can tell from the following snippet.

They view their political opponents as evil that because we stand in the way of their progressive utopia that they're trying to reach.

They (have to assume some kind of political opponents) because they are viewing their political opponents view us as evil. I'm not sure how someone can look at that statement and say you know what Joe Biden there's a guy you can work and find common ground with. He only assumes that you think he's evil. If Barr was trying to refer to an extremist group on the left he needs to be a lot more careful with his language. But he was generally referring to the left as "they" and the right as "we."

[Fenring]

They (have to assume some kind of political opponents) because they are viewing their political opponents view us as evil. I'm not sure how someone can look at that statement and say you know what Joe Biden there's a guy you can work and find common ground with. He only assumes that you think he's evil. If Barr was trying to refer to an extremist group on the left he needs to be a lot more careful with his language. But he was generally referring to the left as "they" and the right as "we."

Two things:

1) I don't want us to confuse "politics" in the Greek sense, meaning anything to do with the polity and life in the polis (i.e. country), with politics as in the machinery of government, which includes elected officials, lobbyists, and all the rest. In the former meaning, anyone on the opposite side from you in any sphere of life is a political opponent, technically speaking. They are political because they are trying to shape how the country will be. But in that sense they are not political in the sense that they are directly connected to the actual parties in any way. Now maybe Barr meant "we" as in those involved specifically with the GOP; I wouldn't outright call that reading impossible. But it really sounds a lot more to me like he's talking about people on the other side of the fence in terms of walk of life.

2) You mention Biden, but especially if we're talking about political idealists who vilify their opponents, Biden and his ilk in the DNC *really* don't fit that mold. Biden is about as far from an idealist as one can get. The notion that Barr is saying he can't work with Biden and other DNC members because of their utopian ideals seems to me to really give Barr little credit for being aware of what those party members actually believe and fight for. I doubt very many of them care about utopian dreams. Sanders is an outlier in those circles, if you can even say he's a member of those circles, and to the extent that some Republicans think he's a crazy socialist, I could see them calling his views utopian in a way. But he is by far not the norm, and even he isn't really an idealist in the strict sense, and certainly doesn't vilify anyone. No, it's much more likely Barr is talking about the so-called SJW crowd, Black Lives Matter, the radical left, and the media sensationalism that creates radicalization in the public discourse. I can't be sure, mind you, but that's really what it sounds like.

Further evidence that I don't think "we" and "they" refer to politicians is that in fact I do not believe that most people on Capital Hill take things as personally as we think. For the most part I think a lot of them hang out together, go to the same country clubs, and get along at least in a formal sense. I do not really believe that half of Congress thinks the other half is evil (or any more than they think they, themselves, are evil...).

[rightleft22]

Bill Bar philosophy as it regards executive power and Judeo-Christian system morality tends to the extreme. He is a man on a mission

The crucial point for Barr is his claim that the thinking of the Founders, and therefore “the American government” they created, “was predicated precisely on this Judeo-Christian system” of values handed down by God. According to Barr, “the greatest threat to free government, the Founders believed, was not governmental tyranny, but personal licentiousness—the abandonment of Judeo-Christian moral restraints in favor of the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites.”

He likes to joke about the left attempt to create a utopian society while he himself is attempting to create just that by restoring the nation to the Founders’ vision. The joke being that the other living by their values is laughably absurd while he, being righteous is right and so justified to uses his office to enforce his values.  He appears to be in the classic sense blind to his shadow.

" there's nothing more dangerous than a true believer on his own crazy mission.”

Strangely enough I think the statement attributed to Barr here is something you wouldn't be so quick to disagree with if you substituted "Judeo-Christian" for "common sense" or perhaps "caring about others before yourself". It seems like you're zeroing in on this as being a religious statement, but actually I don't think the meat of it has much of anything to do with religion. He seems to be saying (assuming he said it) that the greatest source of danger to America isn't some big evil government crushing the people underfoot, but of the people simply becoming worse people, behaving in worse ways, and demanding worse things. You can define worse any way you like, and he seems to define it along Judeo-Christian lines, but that's not really the point I see this statement making. The point is that a decline in personal integrity and self-control is the biggest danger; that thinking of little man than immediate desires is not a way to treat your country or yourself. Do you really disagree with that? Or let me rephrase it in a way that perhaps might strike more of a chord with you: do you think the biggest problem of Trump's Presidency was that Big Brother was going to finally lower the boom and become another China, or that his ardent fans seemed immune to reason and preferred to have their tastes satiated (which may include giving the middle finger to The Man, sticking it to politeness, condoning boorishness, whatever else), so that the general tenor of American decency and discourse went into decline?

Maybe you still don't wholeheartedly agree with his point of view anyhow, but I think this concept is not evidence of someone being a religious crusader. I think you'll be able to find plenty of secular people who also think that personal values being in decline is worse than bad government.

It wasn't what the man believes but the methods he feels acceptable in pursuit of his vision of 'How America must Be" that triggered warning bells. 

He has been talking and writing about his philosophy for 30 + years. Much of it is over my head. What I found interesting was how certain he was yet blind to his shadow. He belittles others who think defiantly then he does for wanting to 'create a better world' based on that thinking while he himself is attempting to do the same thing. 
It isn't who's more right or wrong in their pursuit of their ideals but about the inability to see oneself in the other that I find troubling when I hear men like Barr speak.

When I watch him talk about his philosophy I find my self both impressed by his certainty and troubled.

It would be interesting if Biden let him stay on if he remains as steadfast to his thinking as it regards to Executive power.

[yossarian22c]

They (have to assume some kind of political opponents) because they are viewing their political opponents view us as evil. I'm not sure how someone can look at that statement and say you know what Joe Biden there's a guy you can work and find common ground with. He only assumes that you think he's evil. If Barr was trying to refer to an extremist group on the left he needs to be a lot more careful with his language. But he was generally referring to the left as "they" and the right as "we."

...
2) You mention Biden, but especially if we're talking about political idealists who vilify their opponents, Biden and his ilk in the DNC *really* don't fit that mold.
Biden is about as far from an idealist as one can get. The notion that Barr is saying he can't work with Biden and other DNC members because of their utopian ideals seems to me to really give Barr little credit for being aware of what those party members actually believe and fight for.

I agree Biden doesn't fit that mold but I don't know what Barr thinks. Barr needs to be a lot more clear in his language than "the left" which is often synonymous with democrats. That he doesn't care to be more careful with his language while giving a public speech/interview means he really does view those groups broadly.

... No, it's much more likely Barr is talking about the so-called SJW crowd, Black Lives Matter, the radical left, and the media sensationalism that creates radicalization in the public discourse. I can't be sure, mind you, but that's really what it sounds like.

You're being generous with your interpretation you can assume by the left and they/we language he really only means the most politically radical elements of the left instead of the mainstream left. If members here posted something about "the right" but made comments that would only apply to Alex Jones I think people would be rightly annoyed and easily misunderstand what was meant.

Further evidence that I don't think "we" and "they" refer to politicians is that in fact I do not believe that most people on Capital Hill take things as personally as we think. For the most part I think a lot of them hang out together, go to the same country clubs, and get along at least in a formal sense. I do not really believe that half of Congress thinks the other half is evil (or any more than they think they, themselves, are evil...).

That culture died with Gingrich. Politicians used to move to DC send their kids to the same private schools and socialize together. Gingrich began the change of culture to go to Washington to work, go home for a 3 day weekend and don't move families to DC. While I'm sure you're right that a bunch of politicians are pragmatists and actors in their public personas a lot more are true believers at this point. So I don't see any reason why Barr should be held up as a non-partisan when he uses language like that.

If Barr is consistent on his attitude about executive power, which is truly expansive, I think republicans would regret having him as AG in a democratic administration anyway.

[Fenring]

I agree Biden doesn't fit that mold but I don't know what Barr thinks. Barr needs to be a lot more clear in his language than "the left" which is often synonymous with democrats. That he doesn't care to be more careful with his language while giving a public speech/interview means he really does view those groups broadly.

To be fair I was just responding to short quotes in a thread where those quotes were supposed to be obvious indicators of partisan hackery, and where I didn't feel those quotes alone showed that. I'm not actually putting forward a case that he isn't partisan, because I really don't know. But for all I know he did give a suitable context for the above quotes; all I've got is the quotes themselves.

For what it's worth I rarely think of the DNC when I hear "the left" in common usage. Honestly I don't think that many career politicians are part of what we can call the social movement, but typically tend to lag far behind it (up to a decade or more behind sometimes). They are the cadre that represents special interests and has to cater to both them and the general public, so I think it would be appropriate to call Congress people intermediaries of a sort. But they are not the initiators of social movements; no one in Congress spearheaded legalization of pot or gay marriage. In all such cases they finally relent, or take up the mantle when it is literally impossible to hedge any more. But I do not think "the left" in almost any case can reasonably refer to the politicians in D.C. It would take a bizarre reading of that term to mean them, when it's far more likely (and meaningful) to assume it means the broader social movement of liberal/left wing citizens.

You're being generous with your interpretation you can assume by the left and they/we language he really only means the most politically radical elements of the left instead of the mainstream left. If members here posted something about "the right" but made comments that would only apply to Alex Jones I think people would be rightly annoyed and easily misunderstand what was meant.

Well he might very well mean the mainstream left as well, but take that in context of what I wrote just above. I think it's also become quite common for the right to view the radical left as being mainstream (an accusation that at times looks fearfully accurate), just as it's common for the left to view the far-right as being typical of all conservatives. I think there were times in semi-recent history where the latter was also fearfully accurate, but I'm not quite so sure how well it maps on to reality right now. In the 80's and 90's I feel there was maybe more connection between the far-right and center-right than there is now. At present the stronger connection seems to me between the far-left and center-left, especially as the messaging is spread through academia and the blogosphere. Some rather average liberal people I know will quite readily repost radical content on social media (stuff like "you are a racist, and if you don't think so you are part of the problem") whereas at least in my circles I don't see as much conservative reposting of radical right-wing stuff (like "they are coming to take your guns, and are lying about it").

That culture died with Gingrich. Politicians used to move to DC send their kids to the same private schools and socialize together.

I can't really contest this point since I don't actually hang with that crowd...but let's just say my first inclination is not to believe the veracity of any political theatre. Just because the show they're performing may have a different overture doesn't mean that it wasn't rehearsed.

[yossarian22c]

I agree Biden doesn't fit that mold but I don't know what Barr thinks. Barr needs to be a lot more clear in his language than "the left" which is often synonymous with democrats. That he doesn't care to be more careful with his language while giving a public speech/interview means he really does view those groups broadly.

To be fair I was just responding to short quotes in a thread where those quotes were supposed to be obvious indicators of partisan hackery, and where I didn't feel those quotes alone showed that. I'm not actually putting forward a case that he isn't partisan, because I really don't know. But for all I know he did give a suitable context for the above quotes; all I've got is the quotes themselves.
...

Most of the quotes were from early in this interview when he was responding to questions about the house judiciary committee. Later he moves onto antifa and BLM.
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/bill-barr-antifa-is-new-form-of-urban-guerrilla-warfare

The quotes were in response to the way Barr was treated by the house judiciary committee. So its hard to say "the left" doesn't include politicians.

And here's what Barr thinks about the behind the scenes stuff now vs his first time in office.

And we have a lot to cover, but I want to start with the House Judiciary Committee...
And what do you make of the change of the whole nature of hearings now?...

Well, you know, I have the perspective of having been Attorney General 30 years ago and now and I thought things were partisan and tough 30 years ago, nothing compared to today. Things have fundamentally changed.

And I think what has happened, and I've been thinking about this because, you know, in the old days, you could have friends across the aisle. You know, politics was part of your life, but it wasn't all-consuming. It wasn't everything. You could have communications and so forth with others, but it's now become all-consuming for many people.

And I think what's happened is that the leftwing has really withdrawn and pulled away from the umbrella of classical liberal values that have undergirded our society since our founding. And, you know, within the family, we've had two ways of resolving disputes, one is discussion, the dialectic, the marketplace of ideas, trying to arrive at the truth. We had an idea that there was some truth to arrive at.

[Fenring]

Yeah, even in context "leftwing" is hard to parse, but thanks for the larger context of his statement.

[Seriati]

Lol, DonaldD, as always, you provide nothing of substance and a whole lot of partisan falsity.  It's a narrative the media and the DNC like to share that Barr is a partisan hack, but they know it's not true, it's just passed along to fool the naive and excite the base.

The DOJ under Barr interfered with sentencing on a case involving Trump's friend.

Did he?  Or did he "interfere" with a sentencing recommendation?

He interfered with a sentencing recommendation, and he was right about that based on the actual sentencing (which was done by the judge not by the DOJ).  And, I'd say he was more than just right in substance he was also ethically correct.  The "career" prosecutors in the DOJ tend heavily towards being DNC partisans (its just a fact, no use arguing about it), and it's pretty clear they were seeking to over charge Roger Stone.  I mean heck, even the fact that they charged Roger Stone is pretty exceptional when you think about it. 

Any chance at all they charge someone in Roger Stone's position that isn't a friend of Trumps?  You already know that answer - well at least if you're honest with yourself. 

Why does it bother you that Barr intervened to correct a bogus charging recommendation (you'll note he didn't intervene to stop the trial and conviction - oh no wait, you didn't notice that), but it doesn't bother you that for entirely partisan reasons friends of Trump receive far worse treatment from the DOJ?

Barr has said the following things while in the post of attorney general.

It's interesting that you pull quotes from what Barr has said, one might instead look at his actions, or the dozens of quotes  of Barr's that are directly on point.  You know where he's repeatedly expressed a goal of applying justice fairly, and not bringing charges or implying guilt without proof.

Do you really think that the investigation into the Russian scandal couldn't have resulted in charges by now?  If the parties were reversed and Mueller had been running that investigation there'd be dozens, if not more, charges on the already revealed facts.  Barr didn't bring any of them (well except against the lawyer that literally falsified a document to the FISA court - but that's the literal kind of self own it takes to bring charges against a DNC partisan, versus say the perjury trap set for Flynn).

Anyone seriously think that grilling Comey intensively over days after seizing all his records couldn't put him in jail?  McCarthy?  Strzock? 

Heck pretty sure you could get Biden to perjure himself in a single interview.

I think what's happened is that the left-wing has really withdrawn and pulled away from the umbrella of classical liberal values that have undergirded our society since our founding," Barr argued, in apparent reference to Democrats. He added that he believes the left "really represents Rousseauian Revolutionary Party that believes in tearing down the system" in order to achieve "complete political victory.

Not sure why that troubles you.  It's just a statement of truth about the current party.  Do you think that somehow interferes with an ability of Barr's to apply justice fairly?  Cause I'm not seeing it.

They're [democrats] not interested in compromise. They're not interested in dialectic exchange of views. They're interested in total victory. It's a secular religion. It's a substitute for a religion. They view their political opponents as evil that because we stand in the way of their progressive utopia that they're trying to reach

Again, just a statement of fact.  That's literally what cancel culture and the politics of personal destruction means.  That's why you have media heads crying on air about how much support Trump gets - they honestly believe it's an embrace of evil.

Again though what does recognizing the character of the other political team have to do with Barr's ability to act according to his own character?  nothing.

The left wants power because that is essentially their state of grace in their secular religion. They want to run peoples' lives so they can design utopia for all of us and that's what turns them on. And it's the lust for power and they weren't expecting Trump's victory and it outrages them.

Again, all true.  And has nothing to do with the office.

We could go on with other quotes and look at the difference between how Barr talked about anti-covid restriction protesters in Michigan vs BLM protesters in other places. But those are highly political statements. To say just keep him on to depoliticize the DOJ is a joke.

It's not a joke.  I think you're reaction to it explains exactly why there's no hope of de-politicizing the DOJ.  You honestly don't recognize what that concept even means.  To you the only way to "de-politicize" the DOJ is to make it ruthlessly DNC partisan (i.e., return it to the state of grace, where good people are free to punish the evil doers determined in line with orthodoxy not law).

Barr represents the Rule of Law, and that the essence of non-political.

[rightleft22]

The left wants power because that is essentially their state of grace in their secular religion. They want to run peoples' lives so they can design utopia for all of us and that's what turns them on. And it's the lust for power and they weren't expecting Trump's victory and it outrages them.

Again, all true.  And has nothing to do with the office.

The thing the got me with that quote is that Barr Philosophy also involves using power to design a utopia 'as he views was defined by the founding fathers', and having the power to do so which appears to 'turn him on'  - recognizing that proving what turns on one person or a group on would be difficult.

Barr can't see that he essentially wants to use power for the same reason as the 'Left', the difference being what Utopia looks like.

All true and neither right or wrong. It would be foolish to hold beliefs that one didn't work towards.
The foolish part is the demonization of the other because they don't hold the same view of 'Utipia' or how to get thier

All true you say because everyone on the Left views power the same way even though you would use power in the same ways as your enemies

[Fenring]

Barr can't see that he essentially wants to use power for the same reason as the 'Left', the difference being what Utopia looks like.

I can't speak to Barr's personal belief, but you are not correct that the same mindset is symmetrical on both sides. For instance there is a very distinct and prevalent view in right-wing political philosophy that actually holds suspect the notion of an ideal society, and maintains that a certain degree of badness and misfunction in essentially unavoidable in order to prevent even worse misfunction. The notion of 'fixing all our problems' (a la Star Trek) is seen by them as fundamentally flawed and most likely to issue in much worse problems than it prevents. I do not believe there is an equivalent anti-utopian philosophy on the left. I mention this because if it so happens that Barr subscribes to this philosophy then he is by definition not in the same game as his counterparts on the left. He may have beliefs, mind you, that he would see put into action, but they are not beliefs about how to construct a perfect society.

[rightleft22]

Barr can't see that he essentially wants to use power for the same reason as the 'Left', the difference being what Utopia looks like.

I can't speak to Barr's personal belief, but you are not correct that the same mindset is symmetrical on both sides. For instance there is a very distinct and prevalent view in right-wing political philosophy that actually holds suspect the notion of an ideal society, and maintains that a certain degree of badness and misfunction in essentially unavoidable in order to prevent even worse misfunction. The notion of 'fixing all our problems' (a la Star Trek) is seen by them as fundamentally flawed and most likely to issue in much worse problems than it prevents. I do not believe there is an equivalent anti-utopian philosophy on the left. I mention this because if it so happens that Barr subscribes to this philosophy then he is by definition not in the same game as his counterparts on the left. He may have beliefs, mind you, that he would see put into action, but they are not beliefs about how to construct a perfect society.

true. during the interview where Barr is quoted about the 'Utopia' the left wants to create he doesn't explain in detail what he want to Create in stead. More how he was using his power to stop the foolishness of the 'left Utopia'.
I don't view his use of his power that way as right or wrong.

My Point was that he clearly was enjoying using his power to stop the foolish and I assume create something he saw as right or better.
That it might be possible that the 'left' could be acting in good faith to user its power to create what they imagine is better isn't possible... at least not based on his rhetoric. The 'left' are fools and any use of their power bad.

The vision of what is best is different but only one side is misusing its power to achieve its aim, the other side. And if abusing ones power is required to stop the other from achieving there aim its justified because of that. 

I  not saying this kind of reasoning is only happening on one side or the other only that such reasoning is circular and that the troubling part is when someone can't see their doing it. 

[Seriati]

The thing the got me with that quote is that Barr Philosophy also involves using power to design a utopia 'as he views was defined by the founding fathers', and having the power to do so which appears to 'turn him on'  - recognizing that proving what turns on one person or a group on would be difficult.

rightleft22, you're not actually stating Barr's philosophy.  He's not a SC justice imposing originalism on law enforcement.  He's a prosecutor that believes prosecution requires application of the law, fairness to everyone and evidence before you bring charges.

Describing that as a lust for power is just absurd.

Where do you see Barr actually applying DOJ resources to impose a vision?  To use the power?  He's using it hold the DOJ accountable to it's actual mission - to enforce the laws (passed by Congress and signed by the President) as they were written by Congress.  This is not an abstract group of dead people, but rather a living body with full and the sole authority to change those laws.

Barr can't see that he essentially wants to use power for the same reason as the 'Left', the difference being what Utopia looks like.

He can't see it because that's literally a false statement. The left is using the DOJ to punish it's enemies and to recreate the law in it's desired image.  They use the prosecutor's office to skip the entire law making process, and neuter Congress though interpretation that can completely reverse the law.

That's autocratic behavior through and through.  Throwing the book at a small gathering of Republican protestors while refusing to prosecute anyone arresting at a riot that supports your political beliefs is the opposite of justice.

All true and neither right or wrong. It would be foolish to hold beliefs that one didn't work towards.

Yep, and if your belief is justice and the rule of law you work towards that by applying the laws and seeking justice.  Exactly what Barr's doing.  You vote for the politicians you believe will make the best laws but you're honor bound to enforce the laws passed by the other side too.

That's the opposite of today's DNC. They view any power, whether it be in Congress, in the prosecutors office, in the courts or in the office of a governor or the Presidency as legitimate to use to create laws they support, and illegitimate when used by the other side even it a legally elected President Trump is acting solely within his exclusive executive discretion.    That's why you see lawless DNC cities - doesn't matter who the police arrest or how many times, the DNC prosecutors have re-written the application of the law to exempt their allies to the maximum extent that can be tolerated.  That's why you have DNC governors issuing arbitrary and capricious COVID restrictions that discriminate illegally between favored groups and non-favored groups, so you have religious ceremonies of more than 10 people banned by the same person that attends a maskless rally of thousands.  That's why Obama can rewrite immigration law illegally without Congress and the "crime" is Trump legally trying to undo it.  Heck that's why Hunter Biden can take bribes and payola based on family connections, in the full knowledge of his father, and the DNC House can impeach the President for investigating it (even without any actual evidence of Presidential involvement).  That's why using Russian propaganda from a Russian spy filtered through a British spy and paid for by the DNC is apparently a non-issue, but defending against Russian collusion is a four year process of proving a negative - and still has morons refusing to accept reality.

The foolish part is the demonization of the other because they don't hold the same view of 'Utipia' or how to get thier

It's not that they have a different view of Utopia, it's that the left rejects justice.  I can't understand how anyone wants a part of the misapplication of justice, but that is truly destructive to the country.

Again, Barr would be a good choice if Biden has a desire to support equal justice and the rule of law.  He doesn't, and maybe that's because he knows Hunter committed a crime, but I think it's more than that.  The DNC is not playing for a fair future, they're playing for a ruling party and ruling class future.

All true you say because everyone on the Left views power the same way even though you would use power in the same ways as your enemies

All true I say because it's an accurate statement of the views that have been openly and repeatedly stated by the those on the left and the politicians they elect.  Can't count how many versions of this stuff has been stated.  Sure, not every member of the party is saying the same thing, but an enormous number of its motivated partisans - and particularly the young ones - are saying this stuff and even worse. 

I mean, I've read a dozen different authors just in the last week demanding some form of no compromise, no mercy in regards to almost literally half the country just because Biden won.  I sure don't remember the wide spread Republican sponsored purges of the last four years, what exactly is this "revenge" for?

I really don't get how anyone can purport not to see some of this.

[Seriati]

That it might be possible that the 'left' could be acting in good faith to user its power to create what they imagine is better isn't possible... at least not based on his rhetoric. The 'left' are fools and any use of their power bad.

Maybe it would be easier to see if we used the actual equivalent of what the DNC believes and is acting towards today.  You'd call it say a theocracy, where religious right and wrong are more important than and override the application of the laws, on a good day, and on a bad day where the priests and their close associates can do no wrong and the courts defer to them on all matters.

If that sounds bad to you, ask yourself why it will work better when it's the DNC using it's narrow view of right and wrong to decide everything in your life, and how that's going to look on the bad days. 

[rightleft22]

It's not that they have a different view of Utopia, it's that the left rejects justice

It statements like this that I can't process.
Prove to me that everyone on the Left rejects Justice.

Or is it a different view on what qualifies as justice and even then id doubt you would you find agreement on that in any group

Are you saying that a person using their power to peruse justice as they understand are not just wrong if you disagree with them but the enemy,  while you can use your power to peruse your vision of justice and stop them without any such judgments.

We can debate different views of justice but when you generalize like you are starting to do all dialog stops

[rightleft22]

That it might be possible that the 'left' could be acting in good faith to user its power to create what they imagine is better isn't possible... at least not based on his rhetoric. The 'left' are fools and any use of their power bad.

Maybe it would be easier to see if we used the actual equivalent of what the DNC believes and is acting towards today.  You'd call it say a theocracy, where religious right and wrong are more important than and override the application of the laws, on a good day, and on a bad day where the priests and their close associates can do no wrong and the courts defer to them on all matters.

If that sounds bad to you, ask yourself why it will work better when it's the DNC using it's narrow view of right and wrong to decide everything in your life, and how that's going to look on the bad days.

What does the RNC believe today and acting towards?
Are the RNC view of right and wrong narrow or broad?

Either way DNC or RNC both are attempting to set boundaries under which we live and decide "everything in your life".

It a matter of perspective I think.  Is gay marriage or pro life telling  'everyone how to live their life or is it freedom to live as one wishes.


Both sides by setting boundaries are "telling" people how to live and defining freedom.

[Seriati]

It's not that they have a different view of Utopia, it's that the left rejects justice

It statements like this that I can't process.
Prove to me that everyone on the Left rejects Justice.

No, that's a stupid request.  There is no group anywhere for whom it can be proven that every member does or does not have a specific view.  And you don't ask for that when the claims align with your beliefs (confirmation bias in operation).

No, what's true and it's obviously true, is that many policies enacted by and endorsed by politicians that are then elected primarily with the support of the DNC voters are opposed to justice.  That the national political movement endorses such policies and seeks to impose them in what ever forum of power they then enjoy.

Why don't you pick any one of the examples I already gave and show me how I'm misunderstanding it, or misrepresenting what it means?

Or is it a different view on what qualifies as justice and even then id doubt you would you find agreement on that in any group

Yep, there's a major part of the new left philosophy that requires the constant redefining of existing words to make them align with leftist orthodoxy.  But just using a word doesn't mean you actually hold to the ideals it requires.

Are you saying that a person using their power to peruse justice as they understand are not just wrong if you disagree with them but the enemy,  while you can use your power to peruse your vision of justice and stop them without any such judgments.

No.  I'm saying that persons that undermine justice are not pursuing justice.  When a priest pursues the right religious answer they may feel that's justice but it's not, no more that a leftist prosecutor that considers the political movement in deciding whether to charge crimes committed at a protest (or really whether to charge leftist rioters).  Applying different standards for the same conduct is the essence of undermining justice (and honestly, if you listened to anything that BLM said you'd already know that because that claim whether true or not is at the root of their entire movement).

They used to teach in pre-school that two wrongs don't make a right, yet even that basic lesson is under assault.  The essence of "anti-racism" is literally to discriminate based on race creating new harms to balance an invisible score sheet that exists in the minds of the "good guys."  That's not justice.

The problem is that it may feel like justice to someone.  You see it all the time on tv, when a "bad guy" is caught and sentenced to prison, the joy of the person that gets to step in there and tell them about how they're going to get raped in prison.  It feels just, like the bad person got their deserved punishment, but it's a false justice and a fake feeling.  If it was really just you'd be just as comfortable writing it into the legal code, and sentencing them to five years of being raped by strangers.  But we both know that you would find that appalling.  Somehow fixing it into law is horrible, but letting it happen and enjoying the knowledge it happens is okay?  No.

The difference there is the difference between Justice, and everyone making up their own version of justice.

We can debate different views of justice but when you generalize like you are starting to do all dialog stops

I'm not vague, I doubt I'm unclear.  But this was a discussion of Bob Barr and most of the claims about his philosophy were beyond vague and actually dishonestly inaccurate to boot.  Hard to see how you're making that criticism in good faith.

[rightleft22]

I'm not vague, I doubt I'm unclear.  But this was a discussion of Bob Barr and most of the claims about his philosophy were beyond vague and actually dishonestly inaccurate to boot.  Hard to see how you're making that criticism in good faith.

its clear that we arn' talking about the same things, perhaps because I am more concerned about how a person peruses their views then the views themselves and that I suck communicating my thoughts.

I personally find Barr philosophy interesting however while discussing it I felt he was blind to his shadow.
He is a man of certainty and conviction but can't understand others that are equally certain in their convictions and so label's the whole as fools. His justification, because he is right. so everyone on the left is painted with the same brush.   You do the same.

In this regard he uses his power no different then those he disagree with. Even that I don't say he is wrong. Where he fails is to see himself in the other.

My actual view on the 'better way' tends to lay in the middle leaning towards Barr pragmatism but not his method. 

[Seriati]

Demonstrate anything you are saying about Barr with evidence.  It sounds like a bunch of made up supposition to me and that you have no real understanding of Barr, his actions or what he believes.

[Fenring]

I personally find Barr philosophy interesting however while discussing it I felt he was blind to his shadow.

The reason I brought up asymmetrical philosophy is because you can't call it equivalent if one person wants others to be left to make their own life choices, while the other person wants everyone to be forced to comply with one idea. True, they are both 'ideas about how society should be', but forcing people to leave each other alone is not the equal and opposite of forcing everyone to do what you want. However I will add to this that since any policy at all will effectively be using force to back it up, I personally don't see much of a difference between anarchist freehaven and socialist diktat specifically in the sense that both will be backed up by some kind of authority and people trying to break it will be opposed. Where the source of that opposition comes is a matter of mechanics, but not of that much interest to me. So on a very pragmatic level I actually do see laissez-faire as being ironically just as controlled a system as any other; it's just controlled to have different parameters of operation. And to that extent I tend to agree with you that a person who feels certain of his views shouldn't be surprised that others do too. However it's not trivial to also understand that people advocating for lower social and political controls distinctly do not agree with me that their way is just another variant of what the opposite side wants; they view the distinction as being not only relevant but in fact critical. So they would not agree with you, and it's not precisely because of blindness, but rather because I think they have a fundamental disagreement with me (and you, I guess) on political philosophy.

[TheDeamon]

The reason I brought up asymmetrical philosophy is because you can't call it equivalent if one person wants others to be left to make their own life choices, while the other person wants everyone to be forced to comply with one idea. True, they are both 'ideas about how society should be', but forcing people to leave each other alone is not the equal and opposite of forcing everyone to do what you want. However I will add to this that since any policy at all will effectively be using force to back it up, I personally don't see much of a difference between anarchist freehaven and socialist diktat specifically in the sense that both will be backed up by some kind of authority and people trying to break it will be opposed. Where the source of that opposition comes is a matter of mechanics, but not of that much interest to me. So on a very pragmatic level I actually do see laissez-faire as being ironically just as controlled a system as any other; it's just controlled to have different parameters of operation. And to that extent I tend to agree with you that a person who feels certain of his views shouldn't be surprised that others do too. However it's not trivial to also understand that people advocating for lower social and political controls distinctly do not agree with me that their way is just another variant of what the opposite side wants; they view the distinction as being not only relevant but in fact critical. So they would not agree with you, and it's not precisely because of blindness, but rather because I think they have a fundamental disagreement with me (and you, I guess) on political philosophy.

The person advocating for less social and political control over people's ability to make choices are arguably more aware of the "variety of options" that exist, and due to that awareness, are justified in saying that while their position "is a variant" what it is not is opposite of what many leftists in the US seem to want today. They're operating on a very different axis of thought and philosophy.

[TheDeamon]

My Point was that he clearly was enjoying using his power to stop the foolish and I assume create something he saw as right or better.
That it might be possible that the 'left' could be acting in good faith to user its power to create what they imagine is better isn't possible... at least not based on his rhetoric. The 'left' are fools and any use of their power bad.

I could agree to "the 'left'" acting in a manner to bring about what they imagine to be a better outcome.

What I cannot agree to is the "acting in good faith" part of the equation.

[rightleft22]

If we don't at least attempt to start from a place where the 'other' could be "acting in good faith" at least to how they view and understand the world I don't see how dialog is possible.

With regards to executive powers I do wonder if Barr would be comfortable giving such power to someone he politically disagreed with.
Would Barr work with Biden as he did for Trump?

[rightleft22]

I personally find Barr philosophy interesting however while discussing it I felt he was blind to his shadow.

The reason I brought up asymmetrical philosophy is because you can't call it equivalent if one person wants others to be left to make their own life choices, while the other person wants everyone to be forced to comply with one idea. True, they are both 'ideas about how society should be', but forcing people to leave each other alone is not the equal and opposite of forcing everyone to do what you want. However I will add to this that since any policy at all will effectively be using force to back it up, I personally don't see much of a difference between anarchist freehaven and socialist diktat specifically in the sense that both will be backed up by some kind of authority and people trying to break it will be opposed. Where the source of that opposition comes is a matter of mechanics, but not of that much interest to me. So on a very pragmatic level I actually do see laissez-faire as being ironically just as controlled a system as any other; it's just controlled to have different parameters of operation. And to that extent I tend to agree with you that a person who feels certain of his views shouldn't be surprised that others do too. However it's not trivial to also understand that people advocating for lower social and political controls distinctly do not agree with me that their way is just another variant of what the opposite side wants; they view the distinction as being not only relevant but in fact critical. So they would not agree with you, and it's not precisely because of blindness, but rather because I think they have a fundamental disagreement with me (and you, I guess) on political philosophy.

I don't view the different world views are equivalent or exact opposites. That wasn't my point at all

Its a misunderstanding of freedom in tension with the rule of law.
For the Conservative not to to be able to acknowledge that their world vision (philosophy) won't be experienced by those that don't agree with that vision as being "told how to live" is a problem. And its a problem for the Liberal as well (maybe more so). Working toward something or against something your still creating something.

The intention of Democracy IMO is to find away to work in the middle. This constant demonizing and over generalized statements don't help
   

[Fenring]

For the Conservative not to to be able to acknowledge that their world vision (philosophy) won't be experienced by those that don't agree with that vision as being "told how to live" is a problem.

Again, I don't think it's that simple. For the left-wing thinker, a good system is one that produces good results, and a bad system produces bad ones. Control of the system is obviously required in order to fiddle with the mechanics so that you can try to change the results. The morality is based on the outcome for this type of thinker.

But at least some right-wing thinkers believe that it is inherently evil to coerce people into action, even good actions like providing for the poor, and that this should be left to individual morality. For them, the fact of forcing people into a controlled system is itself the bad scenario, regardless of outcome. Incidentally they also disagree with the left about what the outcomes would be on instituting strong controls, but that seems to be a side point to the morality of controlling people at all.

So yes, I agree that setting up a de-regulated society in fact forces people to have to deal with that landscape, and IMO it would be a very bad one for most. But the right-wing philosophy is that permitting people to choose their own outcome is the greatest good, regardless of what outcomes that brings about. So it is literally impossible that people who believe this could agree that those trying to create a regimented society are just another version of the American dream. They would argue that this is a fundamentally flawed way to treat people. Just as an extreme example (not applicable to either side), imagine that a third party was advocating for forced labor camps, claiming that despite the unsavory name it would produce incredible prosperity and even happiness. The current mindset of Americans would reject this idea out of hand as immoral and vile, and would not even bother assessing whether its claims about prosperity hold water. It would be seen as fundamentally unacceptable, and I think even you would see it that way. It would not make any sense for you to insist that condemning that idea out of hand makes you "blind to your own shadow" or that you're just as much a believer as the other side. And I believe, roughly speaking, this is analogous to how right-wing thinkers see even the suggestion of a controlled and regimented society. Now *I* don't agree with them, for many reasons, but I am trying to explain to you that even if there is blindness there, it's not the same kind of blindness as the utopian left-winger has.

[rightleft22]

For the left-wing thinker, a good system is one that produces good results, and a bad system produces bad ones.

I don't see that view point as being a right or left way of seeing things. I assume most people think that the system they view as best would produce more 'good' results then bad ones.
Are you saying the right-wing thinkers do think that?
Are you saying the left-wing thinker is unable to imagine a system that is nuanced and not only either or? 

But the right-wing philosophy is that permitting people to choose their own outcome is the greatest good, regardless of what outcomes that brings about.

I don't see that as being THE right-wing philosophy. I suspect Context is required in when one gets to choose ones their own outcome and the good of society.
I assume many on right in such cases would also like to believe they are choosing their own outcome. (even if a illusion)

But I see why dialog is not possible - defining everyone on the left as adhering to such a philosophy and applying it to their concept of justice as it protect people from others choices would make anything they say or think absurd.

I obviously don't understand.

I don't no why your fighting the idea that Conservatives concept of the "better outcome" also involves 'telling people how to live.   

 

[TheDeamon]

I don't no why your fighting the idea that Conservatives concept of the "better outcome" also involves 'telling people how to live.

Only if you're trapped in the paradigm of Reagan-esque (Christiam/"moral" majority) social politics. Most of conservatism has moved towards libertarianism on that front.

"Telling people how to live" for the most part at this stage consists of their telling others to stop telling other people how to live. Suggest all you want, but don't force them to live their lives in your preferred manner.

[TheDeamon]

For the Conservative not to to be able to acknowledge that their world vision (philosophy) won't be experienced by those that don't agree with that vision as being "told how to live" is a problem.

Again, I don't think it's that simple. For the left-wing thinker, a good system is one that produces good results, and a bad system produces bad ones. Control of the system is obviously required in order to fiddle with the mechanics so that you can try to change the results. The morality is based on the outcome for this type of thinker.

But at least some right-wing thinkers believe that it is inherently evil to coerce people into action, even good actions like providing for the poor, and that this should be left to individual morality. For them, the fact of forcing people into a controlled system is itself the bad scenario, regardless of outcome. Incidentally they also disagree with the left about what the outcomes would be on instituting strong controls, but that seems to be a side point to the morality of controlling people at all.

Close, but slightly off target. Conservatives can, and are, still be outcome focused. They want "good outcomes" to happen too, and will be agreeable to things which can facilitate such things. They just have that "first filter" any such solution would need to pass through first: Is the means of the solution itself moral?

[rightleft22]

I don't no why your fighting the idea that Conservatives concept of the "better outcome" also involves 'telling people how to live.

Only if you're trapped in the paradigm of Reagan-esque (Christiam/"moral" majority) social politics. Most of conservatism has moved towards libertarianism on that front.

"Telling people how to live" for the most part at this stage consists of their telling others to stop telling other people how to live. Suggest all you want, but don't force them to live their lives in your preferred manner.

Then how do you explain the conservatives positions on abortions and gay marriage?

Most of conservatism has moved towards libertarianism

Its why I can no longer think of my self as a conservative I find the libertarian philosophy absurd (as reshaped into its new form - no long close to what Ann R philosophy) Such Libertarianism can only lead to Fascism in my opinion.
That said I can't think of my self as a Liberal either. I no longer understand either movement

[Fenring]

Close, but slightly off target. Conservatives can, and are, still be outcome focused. They want "good outcomes" to happen too, and will be agreeable to things which can facilitate such things. They just have that "first filter" any such solution would need to pass through first: Is the means of the solution itself moral?

This might answer both of you, but I mentioned a few times that I was not discussing 'conservatism', but rather a very specific political philosophy that is prevalent among right-wing thinkers. I doubt even a majority of everyday conservatives adhere to it, but it may actually be the backdrop to the beliefs of people who don't know where their beliefs are rooted. I brought it up as an example of a belief that is distinctly not symmetrical with people on the left, where one cannot say that both sides are blind in similar ways. I cannot say whether Barr is personally of that persuasion, nor am I trying to pidgeonhole lots of people into a box. It was an example of why rightleft's claim that if Barr disagrees he must be blind just as the other side is blind, is not necessarily accurate depending on what Barr's actual view of life is.

[rightleft22]

It was an example of why rightleft's claim that if Barr disagrees he must be blind just as the other side is blind, is not necessarily accurate depending on what Barr's actual view of life is.

If that was  how what I was said was interpreted it was most definitely not my intent.

In the Interview Barr was making fun of those on the left trying to create some Utopian society (I assume by using their power to achieve such ends)
Barr talked about using his power to stop such foolishness.  He didn't talk much about the society he was working towards only what he was working against
Based on other articles he has written Barr does have a vision of what he thinks society should to look like (function) and I assume that he is working towards that vision.

I'm not taking about which vision is the better one only that both sides are working to establish their vision and using the power they have to accomplish that vision. 

In the interview it appeared to me that Barr felt that the 'other' side using their power to pursue their vision was not just absurd but wrong. He seemed blind to the fact that he to was using his power to pursue his vision. The foolish (everyone on the left) should be prevented form using their power while he is free to do so, the justification being that his vision is the correct vision.
Of course the other side can and does make same argument, with the right playing the fools,  for the same reasoning.

Such reasoning is flawed and comes about when one can't see the other in themselves. When such lines are drawn dialog becomes very difficult.