October 25, 2017
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
Who’s Afraid of those “Deplorables”? Why
George W. Bush, Jeff Flake, John McCain, and Bob Corker—and Their Friends at
National Review and in the Potomac “Swamp,” That’s Who!
Friends,
Republican
Party infighting has dominated the news cycle recently. After two inflammatory
speeches given, respectively, by former President George W. Bush and Senator
John McCain last week, yesterday the Mainstream Media [MSM] heralded additional
comments by two US senators attacking President Trump. The special emphasis was
quite noticeable in the extravagant coverage given by the MSM to these dust-ups,
featuring US Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, and
the apparent zeal demonstrated by NBC and other anti-Trump networks to secure quick
appearances by them to spout their bile on “news” shows.
But,
despite the Media’s over-the-top eagerness to use those two retiring solons in
an effort to demonstrate, once again, that President Trump is, “unfit for
office,” a “loose cannon,” “mentally unstable,” or “incapable of leading the
American nation,” in the end it is the two departing senators who have been effectively
run out of office. It is Flake and Corker who now will leave Congress, tails
drooping behind, bitter, not comprehending how their brand of arrogant and
disdainful establishment “conservatism” has fallen so far and so flat—how their
once-thought-unchallengeable control and power has been so diminished in the
“age of Trump.”
Yesterday,
as I caught bits and pieces of the highly-lauded attacks by these two
establishment figures, and I placed them into context with speeches given last
week by Senator John McCain and former President George W. Bush (speeches which,
again I assert, could well have been written by the same speechwriter), I
recalled that during the 2015-2016 presidential primary cycle GOP
“establishment” candidates garnered a total of less than 20% of the total popular vote. That is, the Jeb Bushes, Lindsey Grahams,
Carly Fiorinas, John Kasichs, and Marco Rubios were not only soundly rejected
by the grass roots, but humiliated, as was both the Republican Party
establishment AND the “conservative movement,” ensconced in its highly-paid
Washington DC think tanks, foundations, and chattering class print outlets
(e.g, National Review, The Weekly
Standard, The Wall Street Journal, etc.).
The
massive reaction that Donald Trump incarnated was by no means recently kindled;
it had been simmering and building for years among the grass roots. And what
was even more galling—and assuredly one of the numerous straws that broke the
proverbial camel’s back—was the utter disdain and even hatred exhibited by
establishment “conservatives” and various Inside-the-Beltway Republicans toward
the base. Promises that were made repeatedly, but almost never kept, came back
to haunt those insiders. Policies that too often resembled those pushed by the
Left and the Democrats appeared staples of Republican programs—were we not
supposed to notice?
But
it was not only the broken and unfulfilled promises and the wide acceptance of
a Leftist agenda that caught our attention, but also the flippant insouciant
attitude and the perceived sense of entitlement that punctuated
along-the-Potomac GOPers and professional conservatives. Exclaimed our
self-erected elites: how dare we unwashed peasants from Anniston, Alabama, or
Macon, Georgia, or Big Rapids, Michigan—how dare we presume to know what was
best for us? How dare we give our support to a brash and uncouth New Yorker who
did not know how to “take orders” and “stay within the limits” as prescribed by
the Deep State managers?
Perhaps
you will recall throughout the course of 2015 and 2016 the unceasing series of assaults
by the “conservative” elites and the “big boys” of the national GOP? There were major articles in The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal
and, above all, National Review—the
supposed flag ship of the “conservative movement”—and elsewhere, vigorously
attacking Donald Trump and his voting
base.
Just
consider the following articles, essays and editorials from “conservative media,”
from the National Review:
The
magazine featured an entire NR SYMPOSIUM (January 21, 2016), entitled, “Conservatives against Trump” (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination)
and specifically he was called a “menace” to the
conservative movement
(http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace)
A bit later, February 26, 2016, National Review offered: “Clinton would
be better than Trump” (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431962/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-choose-wisely)
But
such positions should not have surprised long-time observers of the leftward trajectory
of such self-defined “conservative” publications. Indeed, just examining a few
of NR’s more recent pronouncements on cultural and social issues should have prepared
the grass roots for this “evolution” of the conservative elites:
National
Review --
Why we should support “gay marriage” [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418515/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide?target=author&tid=900613]
National
Review
editor Rich Lowry defends Al Sharpton: “…he occasionally will be right. The Trayvon
Martin case appears to be one of those instances for Al Sharpton” [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294226/al-sharpton-right-rich-lowry]
Or, this from a prominent former George Bush advisor:
“Karl Rove praises Eric Holder’s
dealing with the Ferguson, MO, situation”: (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/24/karl_rove_praises_holder_for_ferguson_i_think_he_did_something_of_a_good_job.html)
The examples are countless.
But
even more than supposed “policy issues,” the conservative establishment came
out foursquare on a highly personal level (e.g. David French and Kevin
Williamson in National Review, George
Will, Bill Kristol in various venues, etc.) to echo, even more strongly,
Hillary Clinton’s charge that anyone supporting Trump was in a “basket of
deplorables,” and thus irremediable, and, thus, implicitly, a racist, white
nationalist, bigot, probably an anti-semite, and much worse.
Who
can forget the scathing, scornful and condescending views that National Review senior editor Kevin
Williamson so self-righteously exhibited, when he wrote of the Trump voters and
grass roots “deplorables”:
“Sympathy for
‘Middle America’ is based on a lie….The truth about these dysfunctional,
downscale communities is that they deserve to die…They need real change, which
means they need a U-Haul [to leave the American heartland, or the South, or
wherever in fly-ever country they may live, and get themselves to the swanky,
high-priced and sophisticated East or Left coasts!] (quoted in Modern Age, Spring 2017, pp. 30-31)
This,
then, was the narrative of the conservative establishment and much of the
national, Washington-centered GOP leadership. And this is the background of the
recent unhinged attacks by McCain, Bush, Flake and Corker. Oh, yes, they rubric
their comments under the titles of, variously, “he’s unfit,” or “he’s a loose
cannon,” or “he’s inconsistent.” But in the deepest bowels of their Deep State
infected beings, they not only profoundly resent Donald Trump’s shocking
victory last November, they are appalled by the revolution in the conservative
heartland, among the grass roots, among those who at least have begun to see
through the establishment (and Neoconservative) fakery and support for policies
and positions that run counter to the interests of the hardworking coal miner
in West Virginia undercut by Federal anti-coal policies, of the hard pressed
small businessman in Pennsylvania whose taxes are sky high, of the plumber in North
Carolina put out of business by illegal Mexican labor, and of the faithful
traditional Christian baker in Indiana forced to kowtow to each new demand from
the empowered gay lobby.
We
have been waiting for years, for
decades, for relief, for legitimate opposition to the avalanche of
Progressivist policies, policies that seem always to move forward, and about
which, after adopted, conservative and GOP leaders just seem to sigh, and tell us
that we best accept the latest barbarity as here to stay.
Two
articles, then, today that magnify and continue the examination of this
process. The first is by Dr. Jack Kerwick. It is a sharp critique and analysis
of not just the latest remarks of G. W. Bush, but of his disastrous career as
the Pied Piper of pseudo-conservatism. The second picks up with short comments
on the latest essay offered by the National
Review, dripping with scorn for the South, Middle America, and the “Bible
Belt”.
While
the traditionalist, more nationalist and populist Right may not overturn the
elites who still dominate the GOP and the “conservative movement,” the attacks
by McCain and Bush, and the announced departures from the Senate by Flake and
Corker, are significant signs—signs that for whatever negatives he may have
brought to office, Donald Trump is having some effect and his—our—enemies have
taken note. At the very least he has scared the Hell out of the
powers-that-be…and that, surely, is a very good thing.
Dr. Boyd D. Cathey
Bush Lies—Again
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/10/jack-kerwick/bush-lies-again/
The former
President of the United States, George W. Bush, made quite a splash recently
when he took swipes at President Donald J. Trump.
Some thoughts:
First, the
consternation of Deplorables aside, for purposes of clarity, it is actually a
very good thing that Bush delivered his speech. To as great an extent as
anyone, the former President signifies the Neoconservatism against which
traditional conservative and Republican voters rebelled when they catapulted
Trump to victory.
In other words, the symbolism involved in juxtaposing Bush with
Trump couldn’t be richer inasmuch it symbolizes nothing more or less than the
dramatic contrast between two ideal types: the GOP of yesteryear, a party run
(and run into the ground) by neoconservatives,
and the “populist,” more traditionally conservative GOP of the present and
future.
To be clear, the contrast in question here is largely symbolic:
Substantively speaking, Trump’s GOP has as yet shown few signs of having
repented of its past ways (or of even having a pulse). The neocons, on
the other hand, are still very much alive. Still, there can be no
question that they have been humiliated and that Trump is looking to steer the
party in a new direction.
Second, that
Bush, who insisted upon being neither seen nor heard during the entirety of
Barack Obama’s eight year tenure in the White House, should only now break his
silence by criticizing Trump is a painful reminder of who he has always been. It
isn’t just that Bush and Obama, like Democrats and Republicans generally,
belong to one and the same Regime, a Government-Academic-Media-Entertainment
(GAME) Complex that its agents want to protect from Trump and his army of
Deplorables. Obama, you see, had been widely hailed by the journalistic
and political classes as “the first black POTUS.” To criticize Obama,
then, would have made Bush vulnerable to the charge of “racism,” a charge that
the Bushes of our political universe fear more than anything.
After all, in spite of owning a presidency replete with truly
epic disasters, the only regret that Bush ever expressed was that Kanye
West, rapper
and husband to Kim Kardashian, charged
the 43rd President
with being indifferent toward black people.
As for those
thousands of American soldiers and nearly 500,000 or so Iraqis whose deaths
Bush made possible by way of a war that he launched on false pretenses, they
evidently do not register as high in importance with Bush as does Kanye West’s
estimation of him.
Third, regarding Bush’s signature war, it must never be
forgotten that the invasion of Iraq was justified on the basis of a
fiction. Nor is it honest to say, as the war’s apologists have repeatedly
said, that everyone thought
that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs):
(a)The
intelligence had its share of critics from before the invasion, so it was not
without its share of controversy.
(b)Even if there
was unanimous agreement that Hussein had WMDs, that he posed an imminent threat
against America, and/or that only a preemptive strike against Iraq would
prevent him from eventually attacking us were certainly not propositions on
which there was anything like a consensus. In fact, the evidence didn’t support
these assertions at all.
So, assuming for
argument’s sake that the entire international intelligence community really did
agree that Hussein had WMDs, it did not have evidence that the dictator planned
on using them to launch an offensive attack against America. That the
Bush administration manipulated what (flawed) intelligence existed, rendering
it more ominous than it was, is now clear.
Fourth, Bush
lied. This last is a bitter pill to swallow for his legions of
apologists in Big Conservative media in all of its forms, for they spent the
better part of Bush’s presidency tirelessly defending him and his war. In
exchange, several of Big Con’s celebrities received direct access to the
President and his staff. But in the
meantime, thousands of American soldiers and tens and tens of thousands of
Iraqis died. Thousands
of more Americans were maimed, both physically and psychologically, and their
families made to endure pain the likes of which few of us are accustomed to
experiencing.
While Bush and
his propagandists in Big Conservatism were defending the war, Christian
communities that had existed for nearly 2,000 years in Iraq were destroyed,
their inhabitants made homeless, exposed in this predominately Islamic land to
the homicidal hostility of the majority. They were not alone as Yazidis
too became subjected to horrendous persecution.
Untold numbers of children were among the dead in Iraq, it is
true. An equally alarming number of children were maimed or dismembered, and
approximately one million children were made orphans.
Fifth, in the face of the enormous death, pain, and misery that
he made possible, Bush had the audacity to make jokes at a Correspondents’ Association Dinner in 2005 over the fact
that, his earlier assurances aside, no WMDs had been found. And yet Trump is
supposed to be the crude one? In 2013, the now late Tomas Young, an Iraqi
veteran who was dying at the time, made the point aptly: Bush, he said, was “callous.” Indeed.
Finally, while
Bush (along with those who continue to support him) implied in his speech that
Trump is “bigoted,” “racist,” and a “white supremacist,” even the blindest of
ideologues can see that it is Bush, not Trump, who is responsible for having
brought about the destruction, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of
thousands of mostly non-white peoples, people of color not just in Iraq, but in
Afghanistan as well.
Had an alien
from another planet descended upon Earth and observed Bush’s foreign policy in
action, would he not determine that this powerful white man, the President of a
predominately white country, the most powerful and affluent country on the
planet, was a homicidal “white supremacist” after seeing him launch a
non-defensive war on a small, poor, Third World country populated by
non-whites?
G.W. Bush hasn’t
an ounce of moral capital to criticize anyone, least of all Donald Trump, a
President who, thus far, hasn’t acted remotely as reckless or immoral as he
behaved for eight long years. The world, particularly the Middle East, is still
suffering from his legacy.
Jack Kerwick [send him mail]
received his doctoral degree in philosophy from Temple University. His area of
specialization is ethics and political philosophy. He is a professor of
philosophy at several colleges and universities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Maybe NATIONAL REVIEW Just Doesn’t Like Red State Scotch-Irish?
James Fulford October 24, 2017, 4:55 pm
VDARE Radio is up with “NATIONAL REVIEW Cucking Again On
Immigration”–go here to read or
listen, here to download the
MP3. What struck me about it is the fact that NR has no problem insulting both
rural Pennsylvanians and Alabamans by calling Lou Barletta “The Man from Alabama, PA” [National Review, September
18, 2017]
It reminded me of
something David Brooks said years ago, when he made a quasi-anthropological
study of Red America after the 2000 election.
Franklin County is
Red America. It’s a rural county, about twenty-five miles west of Gettysburg,
and it includes the towns of Waynesboro, Chambersburg, and Mercersburg. It was
originally settled by the Scotch-Irish, and has plenty of Brethren and
Mennonites along with a fast-growing population of evangelicals. The joke that
Pennsylvanians tell about their state is that it has Philadelphia on one end,
Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama
in the middle. Franklin County is in the Alabama part. It
strikes me as I drive there that even though I am going north across the Mason-Dixon
line, I feel as if I were going south. The local culture owes more to
Nashville, Houston, and Daytona than to Washington, Philadelphia, or New York. [One Nation, Slightly Divisible, December 2001]
You can see a rebuttal from Missouri farmer Blake Hurst here: The Plains vs. The Atlantic, American Enterprise Online ,March
2002.
Rural Pennsylvania is not like Alabama for the simple reason
that they don’t have blacks–in 2000, out of 3.5 million rural
Pennsylvanians (as described by the Center For Rural PA) there were
“157,200 residents, or 5 percent of the total population, who were non-white
and/or Hispanic.” That’s because Pennsylvania didn’t, in the 18th or early 19th
century, give in to the temptation of cheap labor.
That being said, why is National
Review considering Alabama itself an acceptable target?
[Ah, but we know the
answer!]
No comments:
Post a Comment