I originally titled this post simply "The Phony Right" but I was not happy with the title which assumed and assigned a motive to Ben Shapiro. It is fair to say that Hegel's dialectic is being used extensively as propaganda in benefit of (and by) the Progressive Left. Politicians called RHINO are an easy example, claiming to be Republican, Conservative, and Libertarian yet they hold the same positions as people on the Left. Mike Johnson and Jeb Bush should immediately come to mind, both of whom do not see the United States of America as a sovereign Country. Both believe Open Borders is not just a "good" policy but beneficial to US Citizens. Both claim that it is how America was built, which runs contrary to actual history. The media version of the RHINO is today, well, we just call it media.
Ben Shapiro, and people like him, are helping the left. I'm not attempting to claim that the act is intentional, but show the effects. I respect and appreciate Mr. Shapiro's position and listen to his show daily. I find him to be a very enlightened person, but I also disagree with these specific points.
1. Ben claims that his vote has no impact, and that it would only be .0001% of the vote in California. If Ben was a cook at McDonald's or worked as a litigator that may be true. Ben is not doing either of those things, he makes a living providing political opinion to the masses. His opinion sways voters, so does have impact well beyond himself. To claim otherwise is simply a tactic to move voters to his opinion, which does not help the right but helps the left. His statements to belittle his impact is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
2. The idea that Trump is not "the" Conservative and therefor will damage Conservatism misses the path that Progressives have taken to become so prevalent. President Obama was not "the" Progressive that introduced and turned the country on it's head, nor was Clinton, or Carter, or Johnson. It has been a pervasive and constant attack against the US Constitution with small victory after small victory. That is a large part of the meaning of "Progressive" in the "The Progressive Left". To claim that our only hope is to whack the current system with a giant mallet is dishonest. It took incremental progressive steps to get here, and we can surely take incremental steps in the opposite direction.
3. The same ad hominem attacks used by the left are repeated by Ben as factual. This is one I have big issues with, honesty to me is everything. It has gotten to the point where there is nothing I take at face value on any broadcast media any longer. Statements like "Trump is a bigot" have no recent factual basis. Can you find statements from his forty years in the public spot light to make it seem that way? Absolutely, and this is what is done with almost everything claimed about Donald J. Trump. A made for TV spat between him and Rosie O'Donnell is waved as a flag that he is anti-woman. He was anti Rosie but not anti-woman (many of us were anti Rosie, so I guess that counts as a populist opinion). Every claim the left has attempted to trot out, including the fabricated "womanizer" because he gave a model a swim suit at a pool party he was throwing has been demonstrated to be false.
The "damning" evidence produced on the pro-Hillary rag "Huffpo" shows the leading reasons Trump is racist is that he failed to disavow David Duke and an alleged attack on a Gold Star family. The first story is bullshit. Hillary didn't disavow Dr. Ayers did she? See, now we have both players on the same field. Trump was doing a decent job of ignoring Duke, and it was no problem for him to disavow Duke when it was pointed out he didn't.
The second item, the Gold Star family, I'll ask you to investigate that law firm of Mr. Khan and how they are connected to Hillary and Politics. As a Veteran I respect their son greatly and salute his ultimate sacrifice. Captain Humayun Khanman gave his life for his country, but that does not give his family a lifetime free pass for their actions in politics.
Trumps "attack" was a single sentence tweet after hearing a string of personal attacks and doomsday predictions by Mr. Khan. Was a single snarky comment an "attack against a family"? Was Mr. Khan's stream of personal attacks and false claims of Trump being a bigot a personal attack? Two wrongs surely don't make a right, but see what we did here? Now if you are being called a bigot, you are going to have a hard time defending yourself without being "proven" to be a bigot.
Look folks, discrimination is illegal in this country. If you want to say he discriminates you better damn well prove he has been charged and convicted. What's that old saying about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence? Oh yeah, it's that thing. Sorry, but Government suits from the 1970s don't prove bigotry either. If that's true then Hillary is against Gay marriage and wants abortion to be illegal. One can never ever move beyond what was done in the past. That is supposed to be the Left's paradigm, not the "Conservative" position.
One could say Trump puts too much into appearance, and perhaps that's true. I will give you that as a freebee. I should not have to point out that I do the same and so do you. Visual bias is a pretty normal thing, and most of us know some humor about how people look and dress. Comedians make fun of themselves often enough, and not that long ago made fun of others. The PC Police made subjects like obesity taboo to talk about, not comedians. Most big people I know (I'm not a small guy either) appreciate a good joke even if it infringes on our appearances. Humility, we used to have some.
4. Mr. Shapiro claims Cruz was our guy, and if only Cruz had been elected the Republic would have been saved. Cruz may have known the lingo, but was either a snake oil salesman or gave that appearance. Here is a very profound thought.
Donald J. Trump didn't beat Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz beat Ted Cruz.
Adopting Policies that Trump put out as a way of pandering the Trump vote combined with the sleazy "Carson dropped out" lie spread in Iowa demonstrated that his personality matched what people thought (at least for those incidents). If you want to pretty up the lie by calling it "disinformation" then you simply attempting to white wash the incident. I call that being either a sore loser or yet another liar in politics and media.
Here is a simple analogy. Picture a person hired by a bank to rob you as you wait in line to pay your mortgage. You can't pay obviously, and lose your house. A day later the guy comes back and gives you your money and says "sorry". Was no damage done? Was the bank not at fault for hiring the guy to rob you?
This is what people want you to think when they, and Ted Cruz, blame the campaign instead of the Candidate. If you hire immoral people to work for you, and you have them set to use immoral tactics, of course you are at fault. It may be hard to prosecute, but we all see the game and see the morality of Ted Cruz.
Besides, isn't it Trump's fault that his campaign manager beat a poor helpless reporter to the ground? Well that didn't really happen that way either, but it's hard to find the facts in all the fiction today.
Ben, it's simple. We already have a sleazy lying Democrat running, why do we need a sleazy Republican willing to lie and pander?
I don't expect to change your mind about voting Trump, and that is not the point. I do however wish you were honest about your impact and the reasons you dislike Trump. I also wish you were at least as often Never Hillary as you are Never Trump, because the former only seems to be an afterthought when you speak.
No comments:
Post a Comment