MackAllan

🇺🇸 US Navy/SWCC Veteran ⚓️Irish☘️German🇩🇪Semi-retired🏖️IT Professional💻MAGA🇺🇸✝️A father to my daughter and son, also a brother, son and patriot 🦅

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.

[MackAllan @MackAllan1964]

Benedict Arnold’s name became American shorthand for traitor because he was an outsider who always opposed the Revolution. He was one of its most effective early commanders—yet he tried to sell West Point to the British in 1780. After the plot failed, he fled.
Arnold published an open letter. In it he did not simply say “I switched teams for money.” He argued that he was the consistent patriot:
• The original goal had been redress of grievances, not a complete break.
• Once Britain offered terms, continuing the war was reckless and tyrannical.
• Congress and the Patriot leadership had become the real threat to American liberty.
• He believed that by going over to the British, he was actually serving the country’s long-term interest and preventing further bloodshed.
That is the classic traitor-justification pattern: “I have not abandoned the cause; the cause abandoned its own principles.” It sounds high-minded. He converted those grievances into a public claim that everyone else was the problem.

The people telling others to sit out midterms usually do not call themselves traitors repeating rhetoric like:
• They promised voter ID, deportations, spending restraint, whatever the list is this cycle and failed to deliver.
• Voting for them again only rewards failure/legitimizes a broken system.
• Staying home is the only way to send a message/withhold consent.
• I am the one still defending the real principles; the party/leadership have sold out.

Both the black-pullers and doomers convert disappointment with leaders into a claim of superiority to the country, Both have the same effect: they reduce the fighting strength of the side they claim to represent and make the opposing side’s job easier. It is a gift of turnout to whoever does show up.

Arnold did not just walk away from the Continental Army; he tried to hand the British a fortress that would have split the colonies. Encouraging a motivated bloc to stay home is a much smaller-scale version of the same arithmetic: you weaken your own lines and hope the other side somehow feels the intended lesson.
Arnold was negotiating with a foreign army and later led British troops against former comrades.

Midterm turnout is always lower than presidential turnout; parties have always had to drag their own disappointed voters to the polls.
The sharper historical point is not “these people are traitors.” It is that the language of righteous withdrawal has a long American pedigree, and it almost always sounds more principled to the person using it than it looks to everyone else. Arnold insisted to the end that love of country actuated his conduct. The people urging others to stay home usually insist the same thing. The test is whether the action actually advances the principles they claim to hold.
In a republic the people who participate set the terms. Arnold’s error was deciding that the entire American project no longer deserved his service. The modern version of that error is deciding that because elected officials disappointed you, the mechanism that replaces them no longer deserves your participation. That is the part of the rhetoric that most closely resembles Benedict Arnold.