The presidential election is a mess. Often, the election rhetoric is full of charges of false conservatism and allegations that non-Trump supporters are Hillary supporters. At times, it must rely on fatally flawed logic. Trump’s supporters, lacking substantive (and consistent) merits to praise, must rely on assumption, distraction, and name-calling. Alternating between anger, fear, and a complete lack of self-preservation, the GOP has backed Trump.
Somewhere, there may be a political ledger with the balances of each camp, I think a more intriguing investigation is who owes who support, or their votes. The want of loyalty by Trump supporters for their man grows tedious – but why should that be? They would claim conservatives owe our votes to the Republican candidate. Critical thought and principles, need not attach to the equation.
What has happened to the simple action of heading to the ballot box, and pulling the lever for the Republican? When did this cease to be a viable reaction for voters? Was Trump in the wrong place at the wrong time? Was there actually a tipping point – a spot where voters dug their heels in, and said, “No – you move”?
We should reflect over the past ten years to gain perspective leading up to this moment. We could go further back, and use Bob Dole’s candidacy as a starting point, but I’ll start with John Boehner. Boehner, seeing his support erode in the House, sought to punish detractors. He removed “non-loyal” conservatives from House Committees where they could force fiscal responsibility. Representatives Tim Huelskamp, Justin Amash, and David Schweikert lost their committee positions. Conservatives raged, and said the GOP would pay.
GOP stalwarts like John McCain and Mitch McConnell often fought with conservatives. McCain called Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, “Wacko birds”. Mitch McConnell ran against a Tea Party candidate, and Trump donated to McConnell. And again, conservatives railed, and said the GOP would pay.
Donald Trump used friends in media, like the National Enquirer, to smear primary opponents. Unfounded rumors, ties to assassination, and marital infidelities were all used to tarnish opponents’ reputations. Those actions, echoed by his supporters, will only hinder promising candidates in future elections. Given an opportunity to walk back those claims, Trump refused, and said the Enquirer, “does have credibility“. And conservatives, knowing what kind of effect this would have in the future with those candidates targeted, knew an apology was due.
The GOP’s past actions, along with their steadfast support of Trump, has irritated conservatives. The final straw was Trump’s claim that, he doesn’t need conservative votes. And it was then, the conservatives finally realized they had a belief in common with Trump. And they had something that they would grant him.
Now, there is a history of the GOP taking conservatives for granted, and the GOP has spent as much political capital as they dare. Spending most, if not all of it, on big government types and otherwise non viable candidates. This election was finally where conservatives said, “No more”. Having spent, borrowed, begged, and promised – the GOP finds its base turning them away.
The idiom goes, “It’s easy to find a stick to beat a dog”, and the GOP and their recent leftward wandering candidates have no problem with sticks. But, they neglected to notice that the dog they beat isn’t chained – and it can simply walk away. And conservatives have.
An exodus from the GOP has boosted libertarian numbers, as conservatives now find more common ground with them. The conservatives perhaps see an ability to work together and build something with libertarians, where the GOP only needs their conservatives every four years. This leper-treatment by the GOP has no blame to lie at any place other than at their own feet.
For its taking, and never giving, its continual leftward march, and for its rejection of principles and critical thought. It is becoming clear that the GOP does not think it needs its conservatives, and having waged war against them, they may find it exceedingly hard to recover them. The GOP owes much to its conservatives -but to now demand their votes while Donald Trump as the titular head of the party? It is a loan too far. And conservatives should consider the debts already owed to them as unrecoverable.
Donald Trump continues to hold a lead in the Republican primary race, and although it is very early to put much credibility into those polls, I have seen some troubling things from The Donald. His rhetoric, while unrefined and brusque, resonates with a certain audience. Both Donald Trump, and Barack Obama, are ideologues – despite claiming to share different visions – they share many other similarities.
Both men seek issues that infuriate their bases, Obama with healthcare and class differences, and Trump with immigration and the country’s international slipping as a world power. Both men can rely on a rabid response when mentioning these things, and both know how their supporters will respond to any criticism of either man’s stance. The president, currying favor, says forget the rules, forget Constitutional checks and balances – I will do it myself. There is no stopping my attempts to help people. Trump says walls and free trade will be his methods – all to protect the American workers. This is Marketing 101 – 20th century despots and dictators all did this to great effect. Identify a problem, and set yourself up as the sole bastion against that threat. “Only I, with your support, can protect you, Americans,” the politician promises.
Having not been victimized enough once (whether actual or perceived), the aggrieved are again made victims by slick talk. While it may feel reassuring that, for once, someone has your back, there is a tacit belief that the “victims” cannot save themselves. This may lead to a perpetual system of victimization, saving, failure of saviors, and re-victimization all over again. With different causes, and different promises – all ending in the same manner. While it is great for politicians, it is a hellish quagmire for the populace that they suppose to lead.
Both men sell their solutions as being beneficial-only. The cost to the victims? Negligible when considering the worst case scenario (and, it is always a worst case scenario that we face) . Unintended consequences are merely unforeseen and unfortunate results. The Affordable Care Act came with higher costs to consumers, who Obama promised cuts in their premiums, and to access to care, due to doctors refusing to treat Medicare patients, and due to early retiring doctors. If Trump were to engage in a massive immigrant deportation project (attempting to force 11 million illegal immigrants to return to their homeland) – where would the funding for that originate? Which agencies would be tasked with conducting such a huge operation? It is not hard to imagine an over-budget scheme that deports illegal immigrants, only to see them return before any completed walls rise on the southern borders.
Both men seek to surround themselves with loyal lieutenants, willing to both support their man, or fall onto a sword for them, if necessary. Obama’s stalling and faulting supporters have names like: Jarrett, Holder, and Clinton. Trump’s while lesser known, have been with him for decades as he has built his empire. Might they stay within that business sphere, or can we expect to see them rewarded by a Trump presidency? (Bloomberg had a great report on Trump, and how his loyal associates have been long-time business associates and underlings) While such loyalty is admirable, the Obama administration reminds us how much associates can cover and stall for their boss.
Both men talk tough when it comes to their plans – Obama’s talk, when followed by action, promised to be short-sighted and very expensive. Trump’s tough talk sounds very similar, and his temperament can be expected to lead him to take actions, whether he has Constitutional support or not. Both men set themselves up as speakers for the masses, and for certain aggrieved classes. We have seen more than six years of results from Obama – do we really want to risk another decade of it, because it is “our guy”?
On a day off, I found myself following a Tony Katz posted link on Facebook, leading to a certain forwardprogressives.com post. There, a writer posts “10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican”, with an all too typical George W. Bush-making-a-stupified-face photo. That article is not the focus of this post.
This post is about the left’s drive-by commenters. The people with a tenuous grasp on the English language, and atrocious spelling ability. Those same people who love to employ a straw man just as quickly as they would shout “RACIST” at someone who they have never met before. The disgusting, rotten, red herring flinging bigots, who seem to troll certain conservatives and libertarians so easily.
These special flowers have few rhetorical tools in their repertoire, and they have the most depressing, failing, president ever to defend. So, sadly, and painfully, they rely on red-hot personal attacks and mis-representation. If nothing else, here’s to hoping this post gets a few readers who are frequently trolled by these commenters to pause, and begin immediately to fire a salvo of well-timed and well-placed calls of “bull!”
c. Do you understand the supremacy of local officials and how they have MUCH more impact on how cities work? You offer a straw man argument, trying to point your finger at governors of your own cherry-picked states. It’s a bogus argument. And, to answer your question – who cares? We are talking about cities. Don’t re-frame things when you dislike the conclusions.
d. The California Legislature slashed the state budget. Increasing taxes on many things was also the government’s choice to alleviate budget shortfalls. How did this occur? Hint: it was not your “COMMIE democrat governor” as you put it; it was primarily the result of ballot issues that voters passed.
e. Which federal policies are you referring to? You actually want a laundry list? Do your own homework.
f. While Clinton bolstered your numbers (Obama’s been abysmal on job creation), you should remember that Clinton inherited, and left GWB, an anemic economy. Clinton also had a Republican congress for much of his presidency.
g. 40 years seems like an awfully arbitrary figure to use – why is that? Another straw man for you to defeat? Perhaps there were more during Republican presidencies because, despite the stereotype that they are hawks, they actually want to commit enough troops to fight and win, and not keep forces needlessly tied up in a quagmire (like Vietnam-L.B.J. and Afghanistan-Obama). There are more military deaths in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush. I would remind you as well that “Bush’s Iraq War” had bi-partisan support in Congress as well. As to the last 40 years, LBJ’s last year in office saw over 16,000 soldiers die. More died under democrats’ administrations.
h. You seem to have a framing issue with this claim – 74% of food stamps go to young children and the elderly – but I would greatly argue they are still left underfed. There is a massive child obesity problem in this country – do you think it is because they are not eating enough? The race of the food stamp recipient is neither here nor there, but just another red herring.
i. Your anti-religious colors really show here. It is a cheap dig, but then. You manage to stereotype at the same time you denigrate. Your bigotry is astounding.
j. I have no idea. The party is trying to change the way that the party spends outrageously, like the left. The republican establishment does have a spending problem. When everyone thinks that they are entitled to something, it gets expensive, eh?
So, there is my thinking processes when I find myself tortuously reading what I fear is typical left wing commentary. Commenters like the above serve no purpose other than to inflame the right, and tie otherwise productive and thoughtful people up, with face palms and disgruntled sighs. Predictably, many right wing readers will react, and respond, with the same sort of enraged, short-on-thinking, long-on-payback, response – which frequently serves the left as “proof” of an unhinged, unsafely-armed right…
(Logical errors can be studied and easily revealed by using the following site: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/home)
Today’s post finds another short, aging, Jezebel post, which incestuously mentions a Jezebel commenter as its muse. With it, the website glorifies liberalism – that good, old, leftist orientation, as well as the ignorance and laughably clueless nature that so many have come to expect from Jezebel.
Liberalism and its issues
The woeful commenter would like to skip over the obvious fact that taxes are not money owned by the taxpayer. This leads me to wonder – if there any point at which money is “owned” by the person holding it? If so, then it is, indeed, their money. If not, then why are people who have been robbed, filing out police reports for theft of their property? Why is a crime to steal banks’ money in a hold-up? Why is accepting a bribe a crime? After all, if the politician does not own the money given to him, how can it be claimed that the money (owned by who-knows-who) is meant to promote the Congressman’s benevolence in a certain direction?
Tellingly, the commenter wishes seriously, that people would merely give up on their belief that earned money was “theirs”, instead of defending her point that the money is not theirs…
Further illustrating liberalism’s attempt to warp logic as well as the language, the commenter points out that people willingly pay power companies to keep the lights on, and that they willingly pay grocery stores to obtain food. Never mind that those are still both voluntary transactions, and that government taxation is backed by a threat of force for non-compliance – liberalism need not mention such meaningless details when there is a narrative to invent and promote. There is also the ability to shop for different power suppliers and grocery stores if one or another’s services does not meet a consumer’s desired level of service or return on their investment — but again, who needs such thoughtful details?
Piers Morgan’s recent ouster at CNN should not have come as much of a surprise to anyone who ever watched his show. The effete and pompous Brit habitually used his soapbox to champion both unpopular and preposterous ideas – mainly, curbing Americans’ civil rights. Both the tenor and brashness of Piers’ rhetoric cost him in the eyes of viewers, and toward the end of the run of the show, ratings continued to slide. Even though the dismal ratings were what finally cost him his show, there were a few reasons the show evolved into the final mess that it did.
Morgan would invite guests onto the show, ostensibly to have impassioned, but respectful and reasoned, debates. The host and guests would trade ideas, and in the end each would win on a few points, and each would lose on a few. The better ideas would win. Unresolved differences between the guests and host then set the stage for the guests’ next appearance, where the debate could be picked up anew.
Read the rest of the article on The Constitution Club, here: