I haven't called myself a Republican in going on twenty years, and the asinine sentiments dispensed by Rush above are precisely why. Not only do Republicans not have a problem with sexual predators, they elect them to the highest office in the land, just like their Democrat rivals.
Be forewarned before proceeding. If you're some SJW that came here looking for a pro-Democrat article just stop reading now. You will be sorely disappointed.
If making unwanted sexual advances against women, and/or using a position of fame, power, and/or influence to procure sex is what makes one a "sexual predator," then there are at least three sexual predators in the image above. But if you're a Republican there's only two. Worse, if you're a Democrat, there's only one. So, in a way the image provides a visual representation of the "lesser of two evils" mantra. Republican voters believe themselves the lesser evil, because they see two sexual predators instead of one. Democrats because they see only one. Those of us with functioning brains by contrast recognize the "lesser of two evils" rationale is nonsense, in no small part because the socio-political damage that results from it is cumulative, and that both of them merely see what confirms their partisan bias. Preferring the lesser of two evil candidates is tantamount in principle to preferring one knife wielding mugger to another because he's the "less stabby" of the two. He's not a healthy alternative to the other guy. You'll just bleed out a little slower. And this apparently is with what Republican voters are content. They'd rather die slower than not at all.
Donald Trumps's infamous remarks to Billy Bush, in which he not only admits he makes unsolicited sexual advances toward women, but that his wealth, celebrity, and influence allow him to get away with it, constitutes Trump admitting to something no different in substance than what was done by Harvey Weinstein. But I have a friend who maintains to this day Trump's remarks were a "joke." So just like Democrats if you, your candidate, or party can't meet the standards of propriety, then simply lower the standards to accommodate you, your candidate, or your party. If you can't field a candidate that can resist the urge to grope womens' vaginas, then simply dismiss vagina groping as no big deal, or deny (despite audio evidence to the conspicuous contrary) that it ever happened in the first place. This is what actually occurred with the party that claims to be the "Christian right" alternative to the secular Democratic left.
Yet another friend when pressed about Trump's history of philandering responded that his "personal life" was none of their concern. "So, you're a Democrat" I said; because that's precisely the same excuse Democrats gave for not caring about Bill Clinton's philandering when he was president. Both would claim they're not party shills, and one claims outright he's no fan of the GoP at all. They apparently consistently defend the party leader even when he's wrong for reasons completely unrelated to party shilling. 🙄
Where were these GoP shills now denouncing Harvey Weinstein and the Democratic party when it surfaced that Trump used to go around grabbing womens' vaginas? I'll tell you where. Defending him. Trump's alleged impropriety took place 10 years ago, and was no longer relevant according to Trump supporters. A statute of limitations apparently not afforded to anyone who isn't Donald Trump, or in the GoP, as Bill Clinton is still condemned for inappropriate behavior that occurred far longer ago. Is Harvey Weinstein no longer accountable for any impropriety that occurred prior to yen years ago to these folks? Doubtful.
Each party and its shills arbitrarily base their ethical standards on whatever serves their interests at the time. Each party cites the transgressions of the other as validation for their own, and as an excuse to perpetrate ever more and greater transgressions. This is plainly illustrated in how Trump supporters confronted about Trump's impropriety, all invariably cite the impropriety of Bill Clinton and indifference of his supporters, as a justification for their leader's impropriety and their own indifference toward such. The criteria for what's acceptable is not God's laws for either of them, but rather what can be validated by citing the misconduct of the opposition. So cultural mores have perpetually shifted from Biblical values, to it's okay when I do it because "they did it first" or "they do it too." Meanwhile government spending, the national debt, dependency on entitlement programs, etc., go forever up under both parties. The only thing that both consistently lower is standards. Because as my pro-Trump friend states, to expect a party that bills itself as the pro-family Christian right to field a candidate that hasn't been implicated in some form of egregious sexual impropriety, is expecting "perfection."
Billy Bush was ruined for merely listening to Trump's remarks. For all we know Billy Bush is living in a van down by the river, while Trump conversely was sent to the White House. Why? Because the one and only objective of Republican voters is beating their rivals; the Democrats. Billy Bush wouldn't do that for them. Donald Trump would (or so they believed anyway). And this is why out of sixteen candidates, they chose the one that they perceived would accomplish that objective to the greatest extent, over multiple ideologically superior and less morally compromised alternatives. So hellbent were they to deny the rival team the presidency (championship), that they voted for a man who mirrored their rival's positions on multiple issues, based almost exclusively upon the premise that he's the "only one that can beat Hillary." A notion noncoincidentally derived from Trump himself, and which they all regurgitated by rote.
They didn't care about the fact that Trump had been friends with the Clintons, given them large sums of money, and was a draft dodger and notorious philanderer just like their rival's spouse (Bill Clinton). Trump said he was going to throw Hilary in jail and that was all that mattered. Trump promptly reversed himself on that pledge after being elected (unsurprisingly to the non-lobotomized). But who cares right? He's still sticking it to the Dems on social media every week. And now that is all that matters. What is policy in conformity with Conservative principle, scaling back the size of government, or reversing the Socialist agenda compared to winning rap battles against Democrats on Twitter? I mean, give me the latter over the former any day.
To Republican voters, just like Democrat voters, rhetoric (that which matters least in reality) supersedes all other things. A guy with a phenomenal record of supporting and defending Conservative values? They've no use for him. They want the guy who bashes the other team on Twitter. Because the semblance of opposing the "establishment," and having bested your rivals, etc., is far more important than actually having done it in any substantive way.
So again I ask the question. If Republican voters or their leaders are willing to sever their Judeo-Christian ethical moorings, and revise their platform at whim in preference to losing elections, then what exactly is the difference between a Republican and Democrat save the appellations they use for themselves? It's become undeniable that both will promptly exempt themselves from the ethical standards to which they hold their opponents accountable in a heart beat to "win." It's likewise undeniable they'll even toss out core pillars of their platform for the same purpose. As seen when Republicans supported a candidate (Donald Trump) who openly ran on support of Socialist medicine (which the GoP had been opposing for years pre-Trump), "transgender" restrooms, and stated the role of government was to provide people with free education and housing.
With Republican Christians like that, who the hell needs Democrat atheists? And spare me the protestations to the contrary. Any time the GoP and its leaders disagree with God, the preponderance of its supporters side with the former over the latter, just like Democrats.
If I'm willing to accept these policy positions, and therefore that traditional values and Biblical morality play no significant role in the electoral process, I may as well just vote for Hillary Clinton or even Bernie Sanders. Because if I approach decision making in that manner and consequently accept that platform, all of which is derived directly from the Socialist platform, I'm not opposing secular Socialism. I am a secular Socialist.
But this is what Republican voters have made of the party of Reagan. A party that incessantly compromises its fundamental beliefs for political expediency, and/or to gain votes, while continuously feigning reverence for a man who unequivocally denounced compromising your fundamental beliefs for political expediency or to gain votes. If you're willing to accept Socialist medicine, free education and housing, and "transgender" bathrooms to gain new party members, you didn't convert those new members to your cause. They converted you to theirs. But you'd be wasting your breath trying to make Trump voters see that. As of today Donald Trump remains the only person to ever live not instantly and forever discredited in the eyes of Republican voters for having even a tangential association with the Clintons. He, and only he by some miracle, was able to come into close proximity with the Clintons and yet escape their insidious influence unscathed by collusion or impropriety of any sort.
So, just to be perfectly clear. The goal of the average Republican voter isn't Constitutional conformity, limited government, saving America from the godless Socialists, or any of those pretenses they so often profess as validation for their choices. They feign a virtuous complexity for their decisions, but in reality it's far more simplistic and comparable to sports team fandom. Once you understand that everything they do makes sense.
To be fair Rush was a pivotal figure in my becoming a Conservative. He was the one and only person dissenting with the Socialist left's hegemony to which I was initially exposed in my youth. But before long it became dreadfully apparent that Rush was just a Republican, i.e., a party shill, as opposed to a Constitutional Conservative. (The above image is utter proof of that.) So it would be no less fair to castigate Rush as a completely self-serving party hack. How could you not regarding a man who openly refers to himself as a staunch "Trumpist?"
But hey, what's the big deal, right? What harm could come from merging a party's identity with its leader, and/or making fealty to that leader the metric for membership and ideological purity? Nothing bad has ever happened as a result of that.
Just like Democrats, Rush and the rest of the party loyalists of the GoP would defend the Devil himself rather than risk the party's image or interests suffering, and potentially allowing their political rivals to gain the upper hand as a result. And it was observing this repeatedly over the years (reaching its most egregiously brazen manifestation during the Trump candidacy) that caused me to part ways with the GoP (likely forever).
Rush is a man who challenges the status quo, but only to the extent it benefits him personally. What good is someone who provokes others to question a false conception, yet personally lacks the courage or conviction to pursue that vein of inquiry to its ultimate conclusion himself? The true end result of being liberated from the leftist world view, is not merely the realization that Democrat party is to blame for America's decline, but that a hopelessly broken two party system is to blame; or at least the spirit of abject mindless party loyalty that currently pervades it. But Rush has made a handsome living off of that system and spirit, and all the incentive for him personally as such is to perpetuate it. So Rush opens peoples' eyes just wide enough to see the former, and then stops short before the latter epiphany occurs. You will never see Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or any of the other GoP partisan pimps ever denounce Trump for his sexual impropriety. Because their entire livelihoods are erected upon "the animosity of one part(y) against another." (Not unlike how the interests and livelihoods of men like Al Sharpton are erected upon perpetuating racial animosity.)
The reality is the GoP has no problem with big government, big spending, etc. (i.e., the things they denounced when a Democrat was president), when it's their guy doing it. The same GoP critics that hammered Obama for his 800 billion omnibus bill had no problem with the Trump GoP approving a trillion dollar omnibus bill.
Since when do Republicans have a problem with government shutdowns? I seem to recall them stating such was preferable to yet more "out of control" government spending. But there's no more mention of nation killing, progeny enslaving debt from shills like Limbaugh and Hannity, now that a Republican is doing the spending. That rhetorical boogeyman evaporated as soon as Donald Trump won the general election, in much the same manner death tolls in the war on terror and the homeless epidemic were suddenly no longer a pertinent issue, when a Democrat was at the helm.
Of course the Democrats approved of it. They never have a problem with spending other peoples' money (and naturally praised this bill as a result). But the Republicans have been posturing themselves as the alternative party of fiscal conservatism and responsibility for years. So where was that party when this happened? When both parties in a two party system, conduct themselves the same way and share most of the same platform, meaningful distinctions become illusory.
The massive spending bill was a "clear win for the American people" according to Trump. Chuck Schumer was likewise pleased with the bill, stating it was "a good day," as the bill contained neither funding for Trump's promised wall nor cuts to domestic programs. It should go without saying that Democrats being pleased with the outcome of a bipartisan "deal" (e.g., the McCain/Rubio immigration plan) is rarely if ever a good thing for the Conservative agenda. But apparently the same Trump supporters that spent the entire campaign, telling us that we should vote for Trump because Democrats disagreeing with him meant something, hold that Democrats agreeing with Trump means nothing and is of no significance at all. How the Democrats rolling a facile Trump, and getting what they want while giving him nothing he wants, is a "clear win" for anyone but the Democrat party is decidedly unclear to me. This is a guy who billed himself as the ultimate deal maker (literally bragging about how well he got along with Democrats), and stated you should vote for him as opposed to other GoP candidates for that specific reason, who approaching a year in hasn't made any deals that substantially benefit the anti-Socialist agenda whatsoever.
The simple and ugly reality is that casting a ballot for a Republican often requires violating my conscience no less, or only marginally less, than voting for a Democrat. But unlike most others I will not forsake my conscience, country, and God for the sake of the party. I will forsake the party. And in this regard I now stand apart from Republicans whose loyalty, just like Democrat Socialists, is plainly to their party. They place the interests of the party above all other things. And they'll resort to the most shameless exhibitions of hypocrisy, and even work against their own interests and the interest of the nation, to protect and advance the interests of the party (under the pretext that the former and latter are one and the same). And this folly is something about which the Founders explicitly warned us.
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - John Adams, Oct 2, 1780.Washington too in his final address to the nation before leaving office describes the evils of party in much greater depth.
"Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate dominion of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. [....]
It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
In those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. [...] A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." - George Washington, 1796.I ask the same thing now I asked during the last presidential election. Will someone tell me how this is not exactly what's occurring in America today?
The Republican party and its shills would have you believe they're the "good guys" fighting the "bad guys." Only by voting for and standing with them can you "save" America. But in reality neither party is trying to save America and both are working against it. Just because two people are working against each other, doesn't mean either is working for you (or even what's right at all). To continue to support the present day GoP in election after election, with the expectation it will save America from the Democrats, is tantamount to expecting one hand around your throat to save you from the other. The right hand is not trying to save you from the left hand. Indeed, there is no right hand. There are two left hands competing against each other yet working toward the same goal in unwitting complicity.
The GoP is not the Constitutional Christian party. It's the other Democrat party. Issues like health care evince this. The GoP plainly never wanted or intended to repeal Obamacare. And even if they did, it would merely be replaced with a modified GoP version of the same thing, and therefore "repealed" in name only. Their own slogan, "repeal and replace," openly proclaims this.
The Conservative/Constitutional position is getting the federal government out of health care completely; simply repeal. And this serves to illustrate how the true point of contention between Republicans and Democrats, is no longer one of disparity in regard to the role of government in our lives to any meaningful extent, but rather purely administrative. Republican leaders and voters are perfectly willing to accept the government operating beyond its Constitutional trammels, as long as they're the ones controlling (administering) that unconstitutional bureaucracy. And for that reason I have parted ways with the GoP. I will not accept in my own party, the very things I find unacceptable in the other.
(Click here for part two.)
No comments:
Post a Comment