The Memoirs of William P. Barr Is Part Advocacy, Part Culture-War


Barr offers a lengthy apology, trying to correct his stance on condemning people to death for their religious belief. Pope Francis’ review of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which condemns the death penalty as “inadmissible because it is an attack on one’s immunity and dignity,” plunges Barr into a meticulous paroxysm: unacceptable it has no established meaning in moral theology, and is certainly too vague and indirect to be read as an attempt to destroy this broad set of established doctrines, even if it could be assumed.”

This is a pattern in Barr’s book: While dropping bombs on everyone he identifies as enemies, he carefully navigates a legalistic path around finely drawn distinctions, examining the path to desired outcomes. “For all his polite demeanor, Obama was still a left-wing agitator who patiently led the Democratic Party into an illiberal, identity-obsessed progressivism,” Barr writes; The real “leftist agitators” who have accused Obama of centrism would undoubtedly want to say something.

Barr’s version of Trump, meanwhile, contains a lot: The former president may have “a vague and inconsistent way of speaking” or even a “crazy rhetoric” disposition, but Barr also believes Trump “has a deep intuitive appreciation for the importance of religion.” the health of our nation.” Barr thinks that if the reception had been received with some goodwill, “the country would have benefited and probably seen more of the constructive, problem-solving style of government that President Trump previewed on election night.” ”

With “good faith,” Barr imagines something perhaps akin to his own generous comments on Trump’s behavior, and goes to great lengths and often devious ways to rationalize it in his book. When Barr learned of the consequential phone call between Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, who was then Ukraine’s elected president, Barr said he advocated the prompt publication of the transcript—largely because it showed Trump ultimately did nothing wrong, according to Barr.

Yes, Barr allows, and told Zelensky that American military aid was dependent on Ukraine opening an investigation into the Bidens, saying it was “stupid” but “an inherent response in almost all diplomacy.” Also, even if such an investigation into the president’s opponent would have “political benefits” for Trump, it would “arguably advance America’s anti-corruption agenda,” says Barr. Making room for such complex rhetorical distortions is partly why this book is nearly 600 pages long.

There are also many places where Barr at first glance seems like a storm of details but still makes some weird omissions. Without a word, he devotes pages to the problem of voter fraud, which he has repeatedly declared to be a real threat. voter suppression. While describing the Chief Inspector’s report on the Mueller investigation as “damn”, he neglects to discuss it. report of the same inspector He explained that the FBI had ample reason to investigate relations between the Trump campaign and Russia. Barr also remains silent about the preparation of a bipartisan report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee. ended up doing the same.

At the end of “A Damn Thing After Other,” it’s clear that Barr has something else in common with Trump – a cunning ability to recognize that certain people are no longer useful for his purposes, and a willingness to give up on them accordingly. Barr enters a description of Robert Mueller’s “shaking” hands and “shaking” voice and wonders if Mueller has his “disease”. The final episode involves Barr throwing Trump under the bus, albeit gently and with utmost decency. Barr laments Trump’s stubborn “tonne” issues, accusing him of “unnecessarily” alienating “a large group of white-collar suburban residents” and declaring that it’s time to move on from the loser of the 2020 election, saving “something old.” Reagan coalition.”

But Barr faces a dilemma in explaining how he can get rid of Trump while maintaining a fervent Republican base. The result is similar to old machine In an ancient Greek play, a desperate situation is resolved when a god suddenly appears on a crane. “Republicans have an impressive array of young candidates who are fully capable of moving forward with MAGA’s positive agenda and developing greater national unity,” insists a sad Barr. Do “MAGA’s positive agenda” combine with “national unity”? I wouldn’t have thought of Barr as someone so thirsty for a fairytale ending until I got to that point in his book.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.