The ‘Murder On The Orient Express’ Theory Of American Politics

[corbe]

The ‘Murder On The Orient Express’ Theory Of American Politics
 
Deeper cultural problems led us to our current state of political crisis, and it's just about everybody's fault.

By Robert Tracinski   
December 22, 2017

I spent a lot of time this year trying to analyze the deeper cultural problems behind our immediate political conflicts, and generally trying to grab people by the lapels and shake them into some form of self-reflection. That includes just about everybody.

Since it is on the cultural radar this year, thanks to a new movie adaptation, I can best explain this by reference to the Agatha Christie story Murder on the Orient Express.

But first an important spoiler warning. Murder on the Orient Express is one of Agatha Christie’s best stories, and its ending is so creative and interesting that you shouldn’t have it spoiled for you if you don’t already know it. That’s way more important than finishing an article on politics, especially since were in Christmas vacation already and nothing is really that urgent.

So if you don’t know the story—well, it’s in theaters right now. There are also excellent versions available for streaming. (David Suchet will always be Hercule Poirot for me, so I recommend that one.) Or read the book, for crying out loud. Then come back to this.

<..snip..>

http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/22/the-murder-on-the-orient-express-theory-of-american-politics/

[Cyber Liberty]

Good post @corbe!  A long and fascinating read, and anybody who's familiar with the story knows exactly where this column is heading.

[Bigun]

@corbe

TBR post of the year IMHO!  Should be read by every member and every lurker as well but definitely won't be as it is decidedly NOT a sound bite.

[Cyber Liberty]

@corbe

TBR post of the year IMHO!  Should be read by every member and every lurker as well but definitely won't be as it is decidedly NOT a sound bite.

It's hard to highlight individual paragraphs of this piece, but here are two I liked:

    Being for or against a single person is not an ideology, and it’s not a stand on principle. It’s the opposite of ideas and principles. It’s only about personal loyalty or enmity. It is not principled, for example, to vigorously oppose the Paris Agreement—then flip-flop on it simply because Trump opposes it.

    It’s certainly valid, even necessary, to arrive at an overall estimate of Trump as a leader and as a person. I recently declared him to be foolish and reckless, and I’m sure I’ve said much worse in the past. But if it’s a form of intellectual corruption to be tempted to defend him constantly just because you hate his critics, it’s also an intellectual corruption to attack him constantly, or to give his critics a free pass, just because you don’t like him.

[Oceander]

Very well written, but must be read carefully, because it ain’t cheerleading for Lord Trump.

[Bigun]

Very well written, but must be read carefully, because it ain’t cheerleading for Lord Trump.

Not cheerleading for anyone as far as I can tell but definitely contains some great insights into why we are where we find ourselves currently.

[Cyber Liberty]

Very well written, but must be read carefully, because it ain’t cheerleading for Lord Trump.

Nope.  I didn't read it that way at all.

[driftdiver]

Very well written, but must be read carefully, because it ain’t cheerleading for Lord Trump.

@RoosGirl

An example of how NTs turn any thread into a bash trump thread

[Cyber Liberty]

@RoosGirl

An example of how NTs turn any thread into a bash trump thread

I'm afraid I unwittingly contributed to that by excerpting the paragraphs that I did.

[Oceander]

@RoosGirl

An example of how NTs turn any thread into a bash trump thread

It’s a necessary statement because the article focuses principally on the errors from the left, including their demonization of Trump, without sufficiently clarifying that the same error is being committed by way too many of President Trump’s supporters, with their uncritical Obamalike deification of Trump. 

My view of President Trump is more in line with that of the author: he’s a loud boorish buffoon who is smart enough to make a competent president, but who will not be more than of middling competence.  Like GWB, but without any of the sense of personal grace or civility left. 

[Gefn]

The new adaptation stunk. Even Judy Dench and Derek Jacobi couldn't save it.

Hercule Poirot does not have a soul patch.

Rent the 74 adaptation instead with Albert Finney.

This one took such liberties with the book, oh gosh I was cringing.

People save your money. Avoid this turkey until it appears on Netflix for free

[Cyber Liberty]

The new adaptation stunk. Even Judy Dench and Derek Jacobi couldn't save it.

Hercule Poirot does not have a soul patch.

Rent the 74 adaptation instead with Albert Finney.

This one took such liberties with the book, oh gosh I was cringing.

People save your money. Avoid this turkey until it appears on Netflix for free

I loved the '74 version.  It was my first exposure to the story, so for me it will ALWAYS be "the one."

[Gefn]

I loved the '74 version.  It was my first exposure to the story, so for me it will ALWAYS be "the one."

I'm prejudiced to that one for the same reason, but I didn't mind the David Suchet adaptation.

This one - just... the reviews on rotten tomatoes are great if you never saw the 74 one, terrible if you did.

And Agatha Christie okeyed the 74 edition.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm prejudiced to that one for the same reason, but I didn't mind the David Suchet adaptation.

This one - just... the reviews on rotten tomatoes are great if you never saw the 74 one, terrible if you did.

And Agatha Christie okeyed the 74 edition.

LOL.  I was just looking at my Amazon Prime watchlist to see who that is on the series I got.