Recently, the Republican National Committee (RNC) released a Resolution that is raising eyebrows around the press. So it was with interest that I read the New Jersey Star-Ledger Editorial Board’s (SLEB) release of 2/8/22, The GOP is a legitimate political disgrace (cont.).
According to the SLEB, the Resolution "rebranded" the 1/6/21 Capitol riot as "citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.” If this is true, it is horrible. Since the SLEB is a partisan Leftist political mouthpiece, I decided to fact-check the SLEB's claims. So, I read the Resolution for myself.
Aside from the usual hollow rhetoric you’d expect from today’s political Republican Party, the only direct mention of Jan. 6th in the Resolution is to censor Republican Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for having "engaged in actions in their positions as members of the January 6th Select Committee not befitting Republican members of Congress." The citation quoted by the SLEB is contained in the second-to-last paragraph of the resolution, which reads;
WHEREAS , Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes . . .
To its credit, the SLEB mentions that "neither the committee nor federal prosecutors are targeting non-violent marchers." I don't know if that is completely true. Some innocents may be getting caught up in the prosecutions. But at least the SLEB acknowledges that not all of the Jan 6th participants took part in the violence.
Not so with the RNC Resolution. By failing to explicitly condemn the demonstrators who did turn violent, the RNC is implicitly condoning the violence. By failing to separate the violent mob from the non-violent demonstrators, the RNC is lumping the violent minority in with the innocent majority, effectively calling everything about the Jan. 6th events legitimate. Intellectual debate over the process of certifying the Electoral College outcome is legitimate political discourse. Violence is certainly not. But the Resolution fails to distinguish the two. Is it any wonder that the press is all over the narrative that the RNC is endorsing the violent attack as "legitimate political discourse?"
Again to it's credit, and again with due acknowledgement of the it’s partisan bias, the SLEB quotes RNC chair Ronna McDaniel’s "claim that the censure language referred to 'discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol'." But as the SLEB also points out, "she did not change one word in the carefully negotiated resolution." And, to be honest, I believe it likely that at least some of the RNC members do see the violence as legitimate.
And that's the outrage. This is an official document; an historical document of one of the two major political parties. This cannot be brushed off as a slip-of-the-lip, as if it was an oversight uttered in the heat of an election campaign. Without explicitly and officially calling out the violent offenders as not in any way legitimate political discourse, the RNC is officially condoning it, just as the SLEB claims.
This Resolution, if not immediately corrected, will go down in infamy. No one will remember Ronna McDaniel’s clarification. The history books will only remember the Resolution. It will tarnish the Republican Party forever, just as the Democratic Party is forever tarnished by its historical support of slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow segregation. This Resolution also officially rebrands the Republican Party as the Party of Donald Trump, rather than the Party of Liberal Constitutional Republican Government.
Shame on the Republican National Committee.
Related Reading:
Jesse Jackson’s Big Lie: ‘American Democracy is Under Siege’
QUORA: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’
America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters
Donald Trump Just Showed Why Reforming the Electoral Count Act Is Essential by Eric Boehm for Reason
2 comments:
Does this mean Trump is an exponent, or advocate, of "violence"? If so, does that mean he advocates initiatory violence, retaliatory or defensive violence, or both? If he is an advocate of retaliatory or defensive violence only, that automatically means against initiatory violence, no need to explain that. If so, count me as in with Trump. It means that I am an individual Party of Trump, and the Republican Party of Trump should not mind being known as such.
But, you are implying that Trump is an advocate on initiatory violence. DID he advocate violence by the crowd that entered the Capital on 1/6/21? If he did, he thus automatically advocated initiatory violence, no need to explain that it was initiatory. If so, then it IS bad to be known as a Party of Trump.
Has Trump advocated initiatory violence at other times? The answer is, yes. But, SO WHAT? Who, among the nationwide, and world wide, legions of criminals posing as politicians hasn't advocated and committed initiatory violence all over everywhere? It's bad to be a Party of Anybody in this alleged system of politics, law, due process and government. But, here we are, in it, the only system of control of human relations there is at present. I count Trump as among the least of the bad, maybe the "best" that can be found.
That ain't sayin' much, but it's about all that can be said, unless we step clean out of the present system and start over with a system purely of retaliatory or defensive force, meaning of law, government and due process, as THE system of control of human relations. But that requires an un-breached philosophical system from the ground up. That starts with sensory perception and the first, sensory perceptual level concepts. THAT'S what all these fancy, highly intelligent, highly "educated", highly "credentialed" professional dodos need to go back to, like first graders. They know it. So, they need to be brought back and reminded and physically held to it.
I read Trump's Jan. 6th speech more than once. It does not rise to the level of inciting violence. It fits within the parameters of free speech.
By "Party of Trump" I mean a party with allegiance to a man, rather than allegiance to principles.
Post a Comment