The Moral Collapse Of The Republican Party
Category: News & Politics
Via: steve-ott • 2 years ago • 131 commentsBy: Paul David Miller (The Federalist)
The party has given away all the high ground it had against the increasingly illiberal and autocratic progressive left by nominating the only person in America who embodies an equally clear disregard for equality under law.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Republican Party has fallen in line behind Donald Trump since he clinched the party's nomination for president on May 4. In historical perspective, this isn't surprising: this is what parties typically do when a nominee emerges. It is surprising this year, both because of the depth of opposition to Trump from within his own party, and because the party's embrace of Trump is an obvious, avoidable, epic blunder.
Embracing Trump, as almost all the party's leaders have done, is a colossal, world-historical, vast mistake; an inexplicable failure of moral courage; and a repugnant act of institutional suicide. It is shocking to see such rampant self-destruction sweep through the ranks of a once-great party.
Roll Call of Surrender
The Republican Party as an institution has embraced Donald Trump. Before his last opponents dropped out of the race on May 4, only one sitting senator (Jeff Sessions) had endorsed Trump. Twelve have since indicated that they support the nominee. The same holds across all categories of elected officials (according, I am ashamed to admit, to this very helpful Wikipedia page): Eleven current U.S. representatives endorsed him before, at least 43 have done so since; as have 13 governors, compared to just three beforehand.
Two former Republican vice presidents—Dick Cheney and Dan Quayle—have endorsed him. Several of Trump's primary rivals, including Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry, have embraced him. Worst of all, even Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, two of the Republicans I admire most, are awkwardly trying to straddle the fence. Even Lindsey Graham sounds like he is wavering.
The last man standing is freshman Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska—who of course is now coming under attack by the party for his principled stand. Sasse is living proof that the rest of the party's surrender is a conscious choice, not an inevitability, and they cannot allow such a rebuke to go unanswered. Sasse is single-handedly writing a new autobiographical chapter for the next edition of "Profiles in Courage," and he is almost the only elected Republican left with the credibility to rebuild a post-Trump political movement.
The most damning observation is that the only other Republicans who have withheld their endorsement from Trump are Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and George H. W. Bush—men whose careers are over and who literally have nothing to lose. Everyone with skin in the game has let expediency triumph over principle.
Unity Through Conquest
The Republican Party is not "unifying." It is surrendering. "Unity" conjures up an image of coming together, of a mutual embrace, of two equal parties compromising for the greater good. No such embrace is happening here except, perhaps, the embrace of wrestlers, locked in combat and sprawled across the ground, one with the contemptuous grin of spiteful victory and the other with a pathetic and groveling appeal for mercy. Trump is not adapting the ideology of conservatism and limited government. He is replacing it.
By embracing Trump, the Republican Party embraces the man, the ideas, and his fate. Whatever legitimate grievances underlie Trump's appeal—such as frustration with the pace of globalization, or with the culture of political correctness—have been tarnished by Trump's overt hostility to basic norms of republican government. The party has given away all the high ground it had against the increasingly illiberal and autocratic progressive left by nominating the only person in America who embodies an equally clear disregard for equality under law.
If Trump loses—which he probably will—the Republican Party will lose with him, and it will deserve its loss. The down-ticket damage will be all of Trump's doing, with the party's open complicity, and much of the gains at the state and local level in recent years will be undone.
It is worse if Trump wins (and I think he has a higher chance of winning than most polls say): a Trump victory vindicates Trumpism—already dangerously on the rise—and permanently transforms the Republican Party into the party of white grievance, nativism, and belligerent nationalism. America will no longer have a party of limited government and classical liberalism. Losing the presidency but recovering a party dedicated to the ideals of ordered liberty is far preferable.
A Failure of Strategery
What is baffling is that the strategic calculus is so obvious, yet the entire party is getting it so massively wrong. That they are getting it so wrong is evidence that they are wholly driven by short-sighted, tactical partisan interests. They want the Republican Party to win and they want to be reelected. This isn't a shocking insight; it is exactly what elected politicians do.
But what surprises me is that they want the Republican Party to win no matter what the party stands for, even if the party flirts with white supremacy and proto-fascism. I held out the hope—now, I see, hopelessly deluded and naive—that politicians understood that there is a line you don't cross; there comes a point at which principle really does come before party; that the good of the nation should come before partisanship; and that when your party starts to go off the deep end, you jump ship.
I thought, because of the #NeverTrump movement and the Shermanesque denunciations of Trump throughout the primary campaign—like Perry's—that the party understood Trump's nomination was such a line. I thought they perceived the existential threat his ideas pose to limited government and to the American ideals of a free and open society. Certainly, many people now endorsing Trump said exactly that, and I took them at their word.
Some people now getting on the Trump train argue Trump can change his tone, learn, adapt, act more presidential. This is Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus' approach. First, no, Trump can't and won't "act presidential." Second, if you have a candidate who needs to work at "acting" presidential, you're doing it wrong.
Candidates shouldn't have to "act" presidential; you should elect them because they are presidential. Third, if he miraculously manages to put on the act for a few weeks, you would be supremely gullible to believe it. If you do, you were probably secretly rooting for Trump all along and are just looking for an excuse to admit it openly.
But fourth, consider what you're trying to believe: either Trump was faking his bombast, xenophobia, and illiberalism during the primary, in which case you have to ask: Why would a candidate believe it is to his advantage to pretend to be an American Mussolini? Or the alternative: Trump was genuine then and faking it now, in which case you're openly rooting for Trump to trick his way into the presidency by lying about his contempt for the norms of democracy.
The Hillary Clinton Argument
The ubiquitous rebuttal: But Trump is better than Clinton. It's a two-party system—if you don't vote Trump, if you vote for a third candidate or abstain, you're wasting your vote and it is the same as voting for Clinton.
It is not a two-party system unless you vote that way. Take the red pill: free your mind. There are a score of other parties in the United States and you and I have every right to vote for any one of them or none at all. If you really want a revolution, try burning down the two-party duopoly. That might usher in real change.
It is not a two-party system unless you vote that way.
My vote doesn't belong to the GOP. It is not theirs to lose. They don't have a presumptive claim to it, as if it starts in their column by right and declining to give it to them requires justification. My vote is mine, and they must earn it by giving me good reasons to believe they are best qualified to govern. I refuse to honor the party of Trump with such recognition.
Not voting for Trump isn't the same as voting for Clinton, unless I vote for Clinton, which I will not do. Not voting for Trump is a morally meaningful act. It means I can look myself in the mirror, sleep soundly at night, and look my children in the eye with dignity and self-respect.
It means that if and when the country is ready to welcome a new political movement of limited government and human dignity, a few—like Sasse—will be standing ready, unsullied by the catastrophe unfolding around us, ready to replace the nihilist apparatchiks who tried to buy a few more years in power by shilling for a neo-fascist.
This is a morally clarifying moment. Trumpism is unjust, foolish, and un-American. It was wrong before May 4, and it is wrong today. It is appalling—it is obscene—that a political party rooted in civic responsibility, limited government, and ordered liberty has so quickly embraced a strongman demagogue. Andrew Sullivan is right: America is ripe for tyranny. Just because we hold elections and ritualistically cast votes doesn't make this a self-governing society.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
222 visitors
"This is a morally clarifying moment. Trumpism is unjust, foolish, and un-American."
Of course, if you follow the Federalist even the least little bit, you will see that the made the decision to themselves go down the immoral rabbit hole.
They, along with the Claremont Institute and others have decided to take themselves down to the lowest common denominator.
An epithet they used to throw at the Democractic party.
Is it any wonder that the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as the gop?
Those mired in the gop should try to get out of it!
When in conversation, did you ever refer to it as the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln? Tell the truth?
Look it up...
Google search has no record of JBB ever calling the Party the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln in conversation.
Nor is there a record of JBB saying that HE 'called' it anything. Reading is fundamental.
Exactly, he asked me to look it up and I did.
Maybe google isn't the best search engine.
Microsoft Bing worked for me.
Please send the links you found on what JBB has called the gop in the past.
Won't........no CAN'T happen.
JBB the Party the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln - Search (bing.com)
It just did.
C O N V E R S A T I O N. Not written articles or blogs. Conversation.
Thinks but we don't need Bing to see what he has said here. That wasn't the question.
Your goal post moving is noted Jim.
You didn't ask me a question. You stated:
I did just that.
Go back to the original request and get back to me. Here. I'll help.......................
So I didn't move the goal posts. You just ran around them.
JBB read that somewhere, and has decided to adopt it as his go-to phrase while here on NT.
I have never heard anyone else use it like he does.
It is pretty idiotic to me.
Just like the fine folks who defend his use of the idiotic phrase.
Maybe we should start reminding JBB that the Democratic Party is the party of Robert Byrd.
I am sure he will be fine with it.
Is it your posit that this isn't a conversation Jim?
I can see you about to get bogged down with an argument about definitions.
Sigh.
Maybe you should just ignore it and let them think they "won" something important?
Conversation. Not a message on a anonymous comment board and not in a blog. An actual C O N V E R S A T I O N. You know the concept. Actually talking with words to someone. Like say a reporter doing a story on said "opinion".
Nah. I like using her own tactics against her. Thanks though LOL
Is THIS a conversation or not Jim? It's a simple yes or no question.
In the context of the original question asked. No
Wow, I thought you and yours were against parsing words. Guess not.
So, what is it you want Jim? An audio recording of JBB speaking those words?
[Deleted]
Oh and BTFW Jim, the JBB's blog from the link had 136 comments, one of them from YOU.
Now, THAT would be awesome!!
Got one, or is all you can find is that he ONLY says that crap HERE?
Don't care. Where's the actual physical conversation? Give it up
From the link I posted:
Donald Trump Has Been Impeached, Again... - Jbb | The NewsTalkers
Again, YOU posted a comment in the CONVERSATION along with over a dozen of other members.
Now as other members know, this is only one of the MANY times JBB has stated that phrase in a CONVERSATION here on NT.
Carry on.
And your definition in this case is NOT what was posited in the beginning.
It wasn't a conversation. It was an opinion piece blog. Barely definable as a virtual discussion.
If the hard core liberal left in the Democatic Party wants to see the decline and degeneration of a political party they need only to look in a mirror.
There was no definition posited in the beginning. YOU are the only one here that insists that we are not now having a conversation.
Yes Jim, you have expressed that opinion multiple times. I disagree.
An opinion piece blog in which YOU joined the CONVERSTION.
PROGRESS!
A synonym of discussion is CONVERSATION.
Oh snap!
Is it any wonder the Democratic Party is the Party of Robert Byrd, KKK?
A five year old article to feed the Trump obsession.
What will the far left do when he dies?
Celebrate.
I was going to say grave dance....
I don't like to dance where I piss.
[Deleted]
If I didn't have such a bashful bladder, i would piss on Trump's grave.
Of course you would. How does your bladder act in front of people who are still alive?
Exactly, no value when compared to MrFrost 3.1.2.
Be very happy!
Trump is so twisted that when he dies, they won't bury him. They will just screw him into the ground.
No, a five year old article to show the decline in morals and ethics of the right.
A five year old article to show how the mighty have fallen.
A five year old article to show that apparently the alligator brain is the only thing the right has left.
A five year old article to show that the right has no grounds to be making pronouncements about morals and ethics.
A five year old article to show that the right needs to remove the 2x4 from its own eye before bitching about the speck in someone else's eye.
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Putin Putin Putin Putin Putin
Exactly, you never see a Dem wear a hair piece.
Statement is false.
Seriously, Dems wear hair pieces?
Of course. Remember our 'famous' Ohio congress critter from the Youngstown area? I'd tell you his name------but in Vietnam there was a saying among us Air Cavalry folk, "If you don't know then you can't ask." Google it.
I am Groot.
Coming from someone who's party embraces criminal aliens to flooding into our country, defunding the police, killing fetuses up to the time of birth, allowing groups to vandalize, assault people and steal from businesses in the name of social justice, try and influence children's sexual and gender identity, allow men to abuse women by allowing them into their sporting events bathrooms and locker rooms, promoting racism, Russian collusion, discrimination, homophobia for when ever they are losing an argument, just off the top of my head.
How many trips did it take with your partisan wheelbarrow to create that pile of horse shit? Not one thing you said is an actual fact, just partisan rhetoric, half truths and slanderous lies. That kind of partisan perspective is only possible from a vantage point inside dirty Donald's rectum.
Almost every one of those items is true, if sensationalized in the description.
That comes from the article, not me.
Never, ever think that I vote for D's or R's. I'll vote for a dead cat before I do that.
Please by all means prove me wrong, otherwise I call bullshit. .
My apology.
The way El Trumpo looks that might be pretty soon!
Looks are where it’s at.
Not if the look says, "I am about to explode"...
Of course they are, it's necessary to your hyperbole.
Is it hyperbolic to demand Trump wears a bra?
I don't care how he or you look.
He's such a fat sweaty ugly pig!
No, just rather childish and STUPID, but hey, knock yourself out!
At least then he'll shut TF up.
I was about to mention that.
WTF? Seriously? We're dragging up shit from 5 years ago?
Anything, virtually ANYTHING, to distract from Biden's sky-high inflation and the successes his Border Czar has had in deterring illegal immigration!
Since when did truth come with an expiration date?
Some people's truth should come with a warning disclaimer.
Some people's truth should come with a warning disclaimer.
Still be bitching and moaning about all things Trump, just like today.
His death would change nothing, as he is so ingrained in their weak psyches that their weaker minds can't handle much more at this time.
Besides, without Trump to constantly and endlessly bitch and moan about, WTF would they do with their days?
his headstone should probably be the tank on a working toilet.
It's interesting that some on the right understand the danger that Trump and Trumpism represent.
There are some members on here (a certain well-known troll in particular) who scoff derisively every time Trump is accused of flirting with fascism. Either they support it, or they are too ignorant (and/or too stupid) to understand it.
Probably because real adults know what a freaking farce it is when some yahoo calls Trump a fascist.
Just like with the race card, progressive idiots have overplayed that card to the point it means nothing, really just the rants of the unhinged.
Thanks for proving my comment, as expected, and for providing the unhinged comment of the day.
No one can prove your ridiculous claim.
No one.
not even YOU!
But it is cute you actually seem to believe it!
BTW, where did you get your info?
CNN?
MSNBC?
The NYTimes?
The DNC?
Who sold you on this farcical claim?
Your idiotic comments prove my point 100%.
Unlike you, I carefully study and analyze numerous authoritative and scholarly sources and formulate rational, supportable opinions.
We both know that you consistently refuse to consider valid and verifiable source material, and instead, rant about whatever fits your preconceived feelings and farcical notions in a typically trolling manner.
You don't even exhibit the self-awareness to comprehend that, in this instance, a conservative source is proving the fact of Trump's fascist leanings.
Really, your trolling is laughable.
One would think your comments might reflect that.
You appear to have some confusion over the difference between "proof" and "bias confirmation".
I don't know you, and you certainly don't know me. If you have an informed opinion, I'm certain we will be able to differentiate it from your trolling comment here.
If you believe the conservative author of the seeded article is not providing sufficient proof, you should take it up with him.
You are repeating yourself even after I have told you are wrong.
You have no clue as to what I read or study. Perhaps your comments will one day reflect that you study things, but it certainly doesn't look like it will be this day.
I am trembling in anticipation of your post linking valid source material for your inane claim that Trump is a fascist. May I expect it sometime soon?
I have noticed that seems to be your go-to answer when failing to provide proof for some of your more bizarre claims, such as this one.
Are you FUCKING kidding? Almost 2 years ago I provided you with the title, and name of the author, of a major scholarly source and you rejected it without considering it. That's when your low information level of discourse became apparent.
In addition, recently, in response to your same tired, and disproven, comment that no one "serious" has ever said Trump is a fascist, or flirts with fascism, I provided you a list of names and quotes, and you ignored it.
You can pretend all you want, but I'm not interested in your bullshit.
At this point, if you are incapable of conducting serious independent research, you may review the Newstalker archives. It's all there.
It's well-known that you have a deep psychological need to have the last word when you are trolling, so, indulge yourself.
You are a real hoot.
Please learn a little about me before making any MORE asinine assumptions about me, and leave your personal baggage about me out of the conversation--if you are able.
So true! Every single word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Deleted. Ed, if you have Gsquared on "Ignore" and don't want him to respond you you, fair enough. But you need to avoid responding to him via other people's comments. You can't have it both ways.]
[Deleted] We're discussing a well-reasoned, thoughtful article from THE FEDERALIST written by a CONSERVATIVE.
Typical!
Your comments give you away.
It's very simple, people who actually "carefully study and analyze numerous authoritative and scholarly sources and formulate rational, supportable opinions" do not always take the same political side on every issue.
What you're actually doing is researching justification for your pre-held political bias, which definitely does not meet the standard of "careful analysis" or "rational opinion".
So you've found a hand wringer who agreed with you 5 years ago and you want to describe this as "proof". [Deleted]
[Deleted]
[You should be embarrassed.]
[Deleted]
Some of those same folks don't seem to realize that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
You are on my ignore list. Please do not send me comments as I will not answer you and do not care what you send me..
If you have him on ignore, why are you talking about him to other members?
Is that not permitted? I had someone claim to put me on ignore while announcing it to all. I didn't see that addressed in the CoC.
Just looking for something--anything--to argue about, no matter how many people don't give a damn about it.
Interesting, isn't it?
What do you find interesting?
I'm interested in art, music, history, politics, comparative religions and languages, among other topics. I have a wide range of interests. How about you?
That's a comprehensive list that mirrors mine. I was actually asking about your comment 4.1.22 and what you found interesting about 4.1.19.
You have no idea about my opinion on "every issue".
Again, you're making things up. You're attempting to create a "straw man" argument, but it's transparent and you earn a fail. You have no idea what I read or study.
You are on my ignore list as well and I have told you that previously. I don't owe you any explanations.
I wish I could vote that up more than once.
It's a made up 'rule' that hasn't been voted on by membership. It's happening a lot.
I call it cowardly, but that's just me...
Thanks.
It's something, that's for sure.
Kind of amusing to see that at one point even the now ultra conservative and conspiracy addled Federalist knew what time it was.
Trumpublicans are in no way conservatives in the true sense of the word. They have given themselves over to the most base of instincts, authoritarianism. One has to wonder if it was there all along but somehow were able to tamp it down. Now they are free to do that which they seemingly wanted to do all along, lord it over all.
Conservatism is as dead as capitalism. Murdered by Reagan, the christians and Supply Side Economics.
Yet no one was convicted, damn that DoJ.
I think it started with Nixon and got worse with every republican POTUS after that
Okay, then, ya'll can pretend it is progressive liberals who whip that Democratic ass in the midterms instead of conservatives if that makes you all feel better!
Pssst..........better alert the DNC that one of their largest voting blocs is....gasp!....Christian!
Just love it when the infamous "tolerance" of the left is exposed and voters can see what Democrats really think about them and their religion!
Way to win friends and voters!
Please do keep it up!
As I was walking down the street one day
A man came up to me and asked me what the time was that was on my watch, yeah
And I said
Does anybody really care (care about time)
If so I can't imagine why (no, no)
We've all got time enough to cry
I wear a Rolex everyday so, yes, I always know what time it is.
[Deleted]
GOP's moral collapse began with the infiltration of christian conservatism within its ranks, the adoption of Supply Side Economics as a wealth concentrator and Citizens United to put that concentrated wealth to work consolidating the power.
Really, morals have nothing to do with any of it. This a grasp for power driven by fear and subservience to the holders of great wealth, whether that wealth is domestic or foreign. It does not matter to these people.
I am sure that one of the largest voting blocs for the Democratic Party will be thrilled to see how so many on the Democratic Party actually view them instead of believing they matter outside of elections.
All that aside.....Republicans take both the House and Senate. DeSantis wins in 2024.
Hopefully.
I will never put it past the Republicans to fuck up a sure thing.
Just look at Michigan. Governor Whitless should be easy pickings; but the Republicans are fielding a team of nobodies. It is almost like they are eager to lose.
"Candidates shouldn't have to "act" presidential; you should elect them because they are presidential."
... like Harris.
Always so much angst over how someone acts when it's really so much more important to focus on what they actually do. But there are way too many people who are just obsessed with the looks and how a person acts, as if that's any real indication on who the person really is. As I remember, even neighbors said of Jeffery Dahmer said he didn't act in any way to stand out and seemed like just a normal neighbor.
She’s in her position exactly because of her looks. Her schoolgirl demeanor belies her phenomenal accomplishments in immigration.
I never understood what she brought to the ballot for Biden. He was going to carry CA anyway so it's not like she was brought on to get him any specific state's electoral votes... And there were others in the running who were also minorities so he could have gotten the same bump in influence from another...
Wonder if even Biden is having buyers remorse...
Wonder if he has to be reminded every day that she is VPotUS to begin with.
Rob Reiner said it best this week when he tweeted, and I'm paraphrasing, "a vote for a republican is simply a vote against democracy".
Thread @4.1 locked for meta