It’s political theater time again!
By now you’ve heard about the marketing ploy, dressed up as La résistance, that took place on the House floor – literally – by Democrats. Maybe you’re one of the few wondering why this all went down, and what the Democrats wanted as a result. Now that the sit-in is over, I decided to write a condensed post that touches on as much of the debacle as possible. I highly encourage reading and watching the links I attach, as well.
Here goes! The week that nobody made you any safer: A recap.
What was clearly meant to conjure up emotions, and surely inflame cultural animosity, simply resulted in the crash and burn for any hope of meaningful dialogue.
Do you remember that scene in Jurassic Park when they lowered the cow into the Raptor cage? It was just full on disorder, animal moans, and inaudible screeches? This was not unlike that.
The House session officially ended in the wee morning hours on Thursday, but not before passing the Zika Bill.
Before getting to the meat of this post I just want to say that I’m incredibly proud of Marco Rubio and his campaign. I believe in Marco, and I saw how humble, passionate, and decent he was. In a better world a man of good character, such as Marco, would have an easier path to the White House. Unfortunately in today’s world, the rejection of the angry masses is a badge of honor.
I think the featured image (GIF) explains my mood on Wednesday. Who’s with me?
Now, to the post:
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
– Benjamin Franklin
You guys may be shocked to hear this [sarcasm], but I’m a rather stubborn person. From the time I was little I made choices and came to conclusions independently (to the displeasure of some) and, while I listened to others, if I didn’t agree I didn’t concede – regardless of their title (I owe a few pastors apologies). Oftentimes it wasn’t even concerning moral issues; if everyone dressed their Barbie in pink, but I didn’t like pink, I wasn’t going to put my Barbie in pink. Not out of defiance, but simply because – in my opinion – Barbie looked better in yellow.
So… Here’s my very serious – GIF free – post (co-written by the other – ever brilliant, but not so frequent – Collision writer).
I have been asked why I’ve focused so much on Ted Cruz instead of Donald Trump as of late, here’s why:
I think most of us would like to believe that those who follow after Trump are merely misguided, but for many he appeals to the darker proclivities living within us, the part of us that craves control and power.
I’ve found that the vast majority of the men I’ve met who support Trump are authoritarians or, as one Twitter user noted, the embodiment of Dale Gribble (you can laugh, I did). Of course they don’t openly admit this, and many are in a state of delusion in regards to their own condition – yet they indeed mirror the characteristics of an authoritarian. They find themselves to be higher on the food chain, and feel rightfully placed in a position of power over those who are weaker. They don’t see the value in those beneath them, and have a black and white world view. While masked in self-righteous ego driven behavior, they project their own feelings of inadequacy and rage onto one individual or, in this particular case, a scapegoat group of individuals.
WARNING: It’s about to get super nerdy all up in here.
As many of you are aware, I’m a bookworm, and J. R. R. Tolkien is a god in the literary world. So, of course, he created one of the greatest unifying characters of all time: Aragorn. I’m overwhelmed with great sadness over the fact that Aragorn is unfamiliar to many, and while I’m also rather disheartened that Khan may be a foreign name, as well, I’ll do my best to give a quick synopsis of their characters without going into incredible detail.
Disclosure: No, I’m not saying that Ted Cruz is Khan, nor that Marco Rubio is Aragorn. For example, I don’t think Rubio has killed any Uruk-hai and, quite frankly, I think we can all agree that we don’t want to see Ted Cruz in the bare-chested Wrath of Khan wardrobe. I’m just noting a few similarities in leadership techniques, and bringing some levity to the discussion because the current state of politics makes me want to curl up in a ball with a chocolate cake and regency era novels, and sob.
Khan Noonien Singh: Think Ricardo Montalban, not Cumberbatch. I may have picked this character because I could then refer to Ted Cruz as an “augmented human,” but as it turns out, the comparison fits quite nicely as a whole. In the very beginning, Khan is a fairly decent being; he comes across as kind, calm, gracious, but yet disregards the wants of others. Kirk even referred to him as “the best of the tyrants,” but also as the “most dangerous.” After being marooned on a “barren sandheap,” he led a revolt for the blind pursuit of revenge. Khan was indeed a villain, but he never saw himself as a villain, he felt as though he was righteously angry and deserving of revenge – he felt it was the right thing to do, you might say. His followers were dedicated and blinded themselves to his faults, as well as the danger an alliance with him induced, and they remained loyal because he was superior to normal humans. Ted Cruz followers offer this same level of oblivious loyalty; they trust him – despite blatant character scruples – so everyone should trust him.
I wrote a post back in April of 2014, after the attack on Fort Hood took place. I was incredibly angry over the response from those on the left side of the aisle, constantly blaming PTSD for the actions of Ivan Lopez. Below is an excerpt of that blog post:
“I’ve always hated the labels that redirect the responsibility of misdeeds from individual accountability to life circumstance. Sure we all go through struggles, but why does society categorize those who struggle as individuals who somehow deserve a permission slip?
She had a child out of wedlock at 16 – Yeah, but she has Daddy issues….
He’s a drug addict – Yeah, but he didn’t have many friends…
She sleeps around – Yeah, but she’s a child of divorce…
He’s a rapist – Yeah, but he was sexually abused…
Trigger warning: This is not a very nice post.
Everyone is angry.
We get it.
“I’M A PATRIOT!”
“I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”
“NO MORE MUSLIMS!”
“NO MORE MEXICANS!”
“NO MORE AMNESTY!”
“NO MORE CUCKSERVATIVES!”
“NO MORE RINOS!”
“NO MORE ESTABLISHMENT GOP!”
“ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!”
We can tell you’re ready to do what it takes to “steal back your country,” especially when you share that “THIS IS MY COUNTRY, AND I’LL FIGHT FOR IT! SHARE IF YOU AGREE!” photo on Facebook. Is your eagle tattoo tingling? Did someone light up the patriot signal into the moonlit sky? Is the world desperately awaiting that Facebook rant about dirty establishment politicians? Quick! Someone said that legalizing illegal immigrants under certain conditions is a viable option, they need your one-liner in the comments section!
“The people, they need me.”
“There… that’s better.”
The problem is that you’re angry with no real target, so you’re just haphazardly shooting into the fog; hoping that you’ll have something dead to bring home to your own version of big daddy government. You’re blasting away at anything that has a pulse because you don’t know what you want to annihilate, you just know you want to annihilate something. You’re like a toddler throwing a fit because your mom won’t buy you a real unicorn… But you’re an adult, so it’s not cute.
You have no idea what “establishment,” “RINO,” “amnesty,” or “rights,” even mean anymore. Your ability to define terms accurately is dead, incinerated, and buried. You’ve already lost, because you’ve lost all sense of what brought you to conservatism in the first place. The left won the battle for your political dignity when you became everything they accuse you of being.
What exactly does “Establishment GOP” even mean these days? I’ve pondered this question over and over, with little answer. From what I can gather, any conservative politician who identifies as a Republican is now a member of the “Establishment GOP,” with the exception of those running who lack any political record. Lack of experience now disqualifies you from being a member of this evil, maniacal cult of “Republican establishment hacks!” But wait, there’s more! You also must be rich enough to fund your own campaign, otherwise you are surely – without doubt – a filthy, soul sucking, America hating RINO.
As I write this, I’ve flipped over to Twitter to do a simple search.
These are the first 4 results: