The problem is this isn't the vindication or validation for their vote they plainly believe it is. As I've said in the past Hitler and the Nazis took Germany from around 30% unemployment to 0% (a national labor shortage) in about 5 years. People incapable of nuanced thought, who think an illustration or comparison is an equation, will think I'm saying Trump is Hitler. I'm not. He's obviously not an ardent genocidal anti-Semite and I've never argued otherwise. I'm not saying favoring economic/job growth is "Nazism" either. It's not. I'm not even disputing he's better for the economy than Hillary. I'm saying this conspicuous belief among the GOP (and DNC) that the economy/jobs is all that matters, and is the sole criteria for a president being "good" or "successful" is a staple of Socialism, and is fundamentally flawed, myopic, and even dangerous.
It seems completely forgotten that Obama often spoke of and touted job growth too.
But Republicans devote(d) themselves to invalidating Obama's job creation at every opportunity, arguing many were just part-time or temporary jobs, etc. Conversely under Trump a job's a job, and job creation is everything. I don't know a single Republican without a job yet job creation is all they care about (because that's what the GOP and its shills tell them to care about). These two men couldn't be more different according to Trump supporters, even though their rhetoric and positions on issues were/are often similar if not indistinguishable. Like when Trump expressed support for raising the minimum wage, a Democrat position, during his campaign.
They'll suggest things like that don't matter because Trump's job creation is better than Obama's, no consideration given to the fact Obama (unlike Trump) entered office during one of the bigger recessions of our time, and yet according to some was still more successful at creating jobs than Trump. Data from the Department of Labor clearly shows unemployment trending down, and almost reaching current levels, long before Trump even took office.
This obviously pokes serious holes in the Trump is a job creation god ship. But pointing things like this out will get you nowhere with his supporters, because anything not pro-Trump is automatically "fake news," and therefore invalid in their eyes. I'd bet money if Trump bails out some major corporation(s) to ostensibly save jobs (as Obama did thanks to the precedent set by another Republican), GOP shills will be praising him from now to kingdom come as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The problem is not job creation, but to whom people are looking for such. As I've said in the past, presidents don't create jobs, dictators do. Jobs are an organic byproduct of free enterprise in a free market capitalist society. In a Socialist/Communist state jobs are a product of an economy managed by a centralized government. And the GOP, just like the DNC, plainly believes in and wants more of the latter; evinced in the manner they look to the government, and the executive of the federal government in particular, to create and sustain job growth. The obvious problem with government created/provided jobs, is that it renders those who have such dependent upon the state for their livelihoods (granting it profound leverage over them), which is quite a hypocritical position to have for people incessantly derogating their rivals for promoting government dependency through entitlement programs. They clearly support the same thing, they just go about it a different way.
Republicans also conspicuously cull information to serve their party's interests just like Democrats. I have yet to see any unabashedly pro-Trump page or organization post this (and probably never will).
Posting things like this might result in inconvenient thoughts being evoked and questions being asked. Why is an alleged "Conservative Republican" president supporting gun control? Is being in favor gun control compatible with Conservatism? Is the president empowered by the Constitution to circumvent congress and impose legislation through unelected bureaucracies like the DoJ and OMB? Isn't undermining the Second Amendment a violation of the president's oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?"
The GOP shills don't want people thinking about such things, or even being cognizant of them at all, and thus engages in assiduous economy/jobs coverage (i.e., pro-Trump propaganda) to keep their base perpetually distracted from Trump's unconstitutional conduct (on which it passes in virtual silence). In the rare event they acknowledge such, it's only to serve in an apologetic capacity, explaining why Trump doing the same thing as Democrats isn't the same thing, is okay when he does it, and is "exposing" the left somehow.
If economic recovery and job growth is all that matters, and it clearly is to Trump Republicans, then Hitler is one of the greatest governors to ever live. The problem isn't that Trump is Hitler, it's that Trump proves America would elect Hitler, based upon its glaring emphasis on all the wrong things. How am I not to believe Republicans wouldn't support an American Hitler, when boosting the economy and job growth is plainly all they care about (to the point they'll suffer assaults upon the Second Amendment in silence), and Hitler was so much better at it than Trump? If they adore a draft dodger with the diction of a child, simply because he expresses homage to the flag and claims to create jobs, how much more so would the uniform worshiping Republicans adore the oratorically adept veteran and war hero Hitler who eliminated unemployment in Germany? Based upon such criterion Hitler, like Trump, would clearly be a superior alternative to Hillary. And "anyone's better than Hillary," right?
As Limbaugh states above.
"This is not some cyclical recovery. This is not a cyclical rebound. This is a policy- and confidence-driven, substantive economic turnaround, and it would not have happened had Hillary Clinton been elected, and it probably wouldn’t have had if 90% of the Republican field in the primaries had been elected."All equally true of Hitler. As stated in the past I might very well not be a Conservative if not for Rush, but his Trump analysis is frankly a nauseatingly infantile spectacle of partisan sycophancy. Given the lack of popular impediment to a tyrant being elevated to power, what besides sheer luck has prevented its occurrence, and protects us in the event of such? The answer is the Second Amendment and organizations like the NRA (among others) which Trump, and consequently numerous others within the GOP following his lead, are openly undermining and attacking.
The Republican base is perpetually herded like cattle via the "lesser of two evils" fallacy, into supporting the very apparatus systematically eroding their liberties, in election after election.
"We are aware that it is no easy task to persuade men - even intelligent men - that this is a matter in which they have a deep, personal, and responsible interest. [...] The notion is so prevalent that if there is anything wrong, it is not their concern; [...] And, finally it is so easy to lull the conscience by the delusive idea that the best way to reform a government is first to swear to support it, and to take a part in its operations." - James Willson, The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government.You see this constantly from members of both parties. The solution to the two party system perpetually underming our liberties according to them, is to renew our support for such every election, and to remain steadfast in our loyalty despite the fact no substantive reform occurs under the policies of either. That's why you'll never see any of these shills posting how many jobs were added to the labor force, mentioning the fact we're still 21 trillion dollars in debt, because Donald Trump and his GOP are spending other peoples' money like Democrats.
Remember all the GOP shills criticizing Obama's massive spending and saddling future generations with debt for 8 years?
"By the time he leaves office, President Obama will have added more to our national debt that all the other presidents before him combined. When President Obama finally leaves office, the national debt will be almost $20 trillion." - Sean Hannity.You don't hear about things like spending and debt from Republicans anymore do you? When their Socialist spends trillions it's no big deal. Indeed, it's not even worth mentioning to these same people who harped upon such incessantly under Obama. Apparently Trump's policies are less about cutting spending than redirecting it to other things, and you either support his massive defense spending to sustain the American war machine, or you're not "patriotic." Which brings me to another troubling aspect of the characteristic "Republican" demeanor currently; the waging of constant war and the elevation of the military over the civilian it induces in the minds of the populace over time.
"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. [...] The continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free. [....] The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. [...] And by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #8.Our country has been in a state of perpetual war for nearly 17 years. We are poised to have an entire generation which, from birth to voting age, have never known a time in which their country was not at war. They will have spent their entire lives in a state of "continual alarm" induced by "a state of continual danger," from terrorists according to Republicans and "mass shootings" according to Democrats, and will look to the state for protection from both, finding two parties eager to provide it in exchange for small perpetual sacrifices in personal liberty; two parties whose efforts, though they may not seem to compliment one another, cumulatively work in tandem to the same end; i.e., both by working against each other, are working in accord to erode individual liberty, merely doing so under differing pretexts.
If you deviate from the platform of either of these parties, you're subjected to aggressive coercion tactics intended to bring you back into the fold, e.g., "you must want Hillary to win" if you're a Republican (and the inverse if you're a Democrat). Basically, if you want to save America from the two party system, you must continue to support the two party system. If you want to "reform government" you must "first to swear to support it and take a part in its operations."
A common attempt at such manipulation from GOP shills is that asinine and trite "airplane" analogy they incessantly regurgitate it as though it were novel profundity. You know, "Hoping that Trump fails is like rooting for the pilot of the airplane you're on to fail." Need I ask the obvious question? What happens when the pilot wants to fly into a building? What about when the pilot attacks the Second Amednment and wants to suspend due process? Well, apparently when flying Air Trump Trump it's your civic duty to support the pilot no matter what. But under Obama these same people were singing a very different tune.
I actually agree with Rush. I also want Socialism to fail. The difference is I don't only want it to fail when a Democrat pushes it. Hence my desire that Donald Trump fail in his support of Socialist medicine, his massive spending, his assault on the Second Amendment, etc. But what Rush wants, though he'd tell you otherwise, is plainly for Socialism to succeed when it's a member of his own party (Republican) pushing it. When it's their guy, when it's the head of the Republican party doing it, party unity supersedes all else and it's imperative you support the leader (i.e., der führer). And obviously, you get the exact same thing from Democrats, just inverted along party lines.
What is the expectation of tacit or even blithe acceptance of liberty loss, i.e., expectation one subordinate personal interest to party interest if not sacrifice the former for the latter completely, if not a quintessential feature of the Socialist "collectivism" Rush claims to oppose? And what should one conclude about the GOP when it expects such from its members in identical fashion to the DNC?
I reached my conclusion long ago. The plain reality is Republicans to a large degree under Trump aren't even pretending to be "Conservatives" anymore; fiscal or otherwise. As I've long said we plainly have a two Socialist party system in America. The hardcore Marxist Democrat party which wants to dive head first into full blown Socialism, and the Fabian Socialist Republican party which prefers to wade in gradually to avoid the discomfort of rapid acclimation. There is no major "Conservative" party in this country and hasn't been for years, decades even, and that needs to change and soon if we really want to "save" America.
No comments:
Post a Comment