All of this has become absurd to the point of being humorous. The screeds, sermons, and hand-wringing. The calls to rush in and to Save the World!
Enough is Enough
Last week some of [Trump]’s worst qualities were on display: his moral vacuity and his disregard for the truth, as well as his stubborn resistance to sensible advice. As ever, he lashed out at imaginary enemies and scapegoated others for his own failings. Most important, his reluctance to offer a simple and decisive condemnation of racism and Nazism astounded and appalled observers around the world.
Why bother to explain something that’s already been explained over and over, and yet over again and again (in sometimes equally hand-wringing, snarky, preachy op-eds from more right wing publications)? The L.A. Times is infected with the same hysteria as any other affected by it, in that attempting to explain the subtle realities of what actually happened would be as pointless as explaining physics to a cat. The cat doesn’t give a damn about physics, anymore than the L.A. Times gives a damn about what actually happened. An animal is excused their position, because the animal is not sentient, has no need of physics to understand how to navigate its world. The human who is in this position is hallucinating. They see things that aren’t actually there.
With such a glaring failure of moral leadership at the top, it is desperately important that others stand up and speak out to defend American principles and values. This is no time for neutrality, equivocation or silence. Leaders across America — and especially those in the president’s own party — must summon their reserves of political courage to challenge President Trump publicly, loudly and unambiguously.
Enough is enough.
The Times, like so many affected by the hysteria, couches the hallucinogenic state of pure outrage in absolutes, to grant their subconscious minds license to run roughshod over their conscious minds. Their intellect is subdued entirely by this beast called the subconscious mind. So enough is enough, no one is allowed to sit on the fence, no one is allowed to sit back and contemplate the best course of action beyond being outraged at every little thing that Trump does, or his cabinet does, or his twice-removed second cousin. No, it is absolutely time that all men and women be equally outraged along with them.
After all, no one wants to entertain the notion that the hallucination they are having is not being experienced by everyone else. Hallucinations require a lot of mental energy, and mental energy is far easier to find within a crowd.
Many Republicans and conservatives have broken ranks as well in recent months, dismayed by the daily chaos, belligerence and mismanagement. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have been outspoken critics. Max Boot, David Frum and other conservative public intellectuals have written articulately about the failures of the Trump presidency; the venerable conservative magazine National Review has as well. On Friday, former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Trump’s response to Charlottesville had “caused racists to rejoice,” and that if he didn’t apologize it could lead to “an unraveling of our national fabric.” These votes of no-confidence from fellow conservatives and Republicans are powerful indictments.
The Times claim that these votes of no confidence are ‘powerful indictments,’ but to whom are they powerful? The Times and those hallucinating along with them have a gigantic forest of people who voted for Trump, a forest that would make the Redwoods small in comparison, that they cannot see. This forest is unmoved, and did not vote for Trump based on the high-minded nonsense the posturing virtue signalers think matter. They voted from somewhere else, a place within that is not blind to Trump’s mistakes, but that understands the context of each one, and knows which mistake is worth reacting to, thus this forest that these hysterical people cannot see for the trees just can’t be burned down by silly op-eds and sermons.
But try explaining that to them. My eldest cat, King, I guarantee right now understands Z-pinch better than any of these folks hallucinating would grasp what I just told you.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) are the two most-powerful men in Congress. Both have fired off the occasional potshot but for the most part have stood firmly behind this wildly flawed president, despite the taunts and insults Trump hurled at them from his Twitter redoubt.
What holds them back? Craven, self-serving political calculations designed to protect their careers, and dwindling hope that the president, despite everything, will help them move their long-delayed legislative agenda.
Their silence is shameful.
Who the hell would listen to The Times calling them shameful? And what stable, confident, self-aware mindset requires outright shaming someone else? Do we not live in a culture that claims to despise shame in all forms? Slut-shaming, fat-shaming, moral-shaming, body-shaming, cultural stigma-shaming, non-Christian-religious shaming, etc., et al, ad nauseum. The sort of shame The Times speaks of is the sort that is a moving target, not rooted in principles, merely calling out the name of principles, using those names as the labels for the soapboxes stood upon to preach their sermon.
Men and women of conscience can no longer withhold judgment. Trump’s erratic nature and his impulsive, demagogic style endanger us all.
Most people are not averse to change, most people are averse to being required to change. Something I heard from a man named Bob Proctor. The Times, as well as all of those infected by the mass hysteria of outrage, is on a mission, one that they feel is righteous, thus they have become dogmatic, impatient, and indifferent to logical facts, such as that anyone that they might have hoped to have reached concerning their hysterics about Trump, beyond their own echo chambers, dismissed their hyperbolic lamentations with little more than a chuckle, because—just like the writers at The Times likely would despise the fire and brimstone preacher telling them how to live their lives morally, or find themselves in Hell—the forest of people who voted for Trump have no interest in being forced to change. Enough of that has already happened to them. Eight years of hope and change, to be precise.
Rejecting the president of one’s own party could mean alienating friends, crossing allies, damaging one’s chances of advancement or risking one’s career altogether for a matter of principle. But that’s the very definition of leadership.
No one can sit on the sidelines now. It’s time for Republicans to show some spine.
Anyone who so chooses can sit on the sidelines. They can choose to dismiss or reject any information given to them. This is the essence of human free will, the conscious mind that has conquered the subconscious. Such hyperbole is worth a laugh. And I would challenge any Times writer to kick against the pricks of the dogmatic ideology that compels them: try and support Trump for no more than three days. See how alienating it can be to actually rebel against cultural norms, political ideals, and the hallucinations of the day. It’s a perfect opportunity for a self-important, attention-whoring article. You, like me no doubt, can see the title already:
“I’m an L.A. Times Writer and I supported Trump for Three Days: Here’s What Happened.”