If the shoe fits
If the shoe fits
George W. Bush calls out "violent extremists." MAGA gets offended.
One of the highlights of the September 11 observances over the weekend was a speech by former President George W. Bush at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the site of the crash of United Flight 93. Bush extolled the virtues of the crew and passengers of Flight 93, but then said something that got quite a few people up in arms.
Steve Berman has more extensive coverage of the speech, which you can read here (and a full transcript of the speech is here), but I wanted to concentrate on the passage that was most controversial:
And we have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders but from violence that gathers within.
There's little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard of human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit, and it is our continuing duty to confront them.
A lot of Trump supporters are offended by this portion of the speech because they think he was talking about January 6 and the MAGA movement. Quite a few are attacking the former president because they claim that he called them “a terrorist threat.”
Others, like Jesse Kelly, were more circumspect.
The fact is that Bush did not say that MAGA was a terrorist group, even if that is what some heard. As Geoffrey Chaucer said, “The guilty think all talk is of themselves.” Or to put it another way, “If the shoe fits, wear it.”
What President Bush did was to denounce “violent extremists” and there are violent extremists on both sides. When people like Jesse Kelly and Kurt Schlichter take offense at a general condemnation of domestic violence and extremism, they are betraying their guilt.
Bush did not distinguish between the January 6 insurrectionists and the BLM rioters and the Proud Boys and Antifa. And for good reason, all of these people are two sides of the same coin. They are all violent extremists and they are all a stain on America’s tradition of peaceful democracy. Furthermore, they are all threats to our Republic and the Constitution.
A lot of Republicans don’t want to recognize this. In fact, there is a transparent movement in the party to whitewash the January 6 insurrection and minimize its importance. Some are calling the insurrectionists arrested for their roles in the riot “political prisoners” and “nonviolent trespassers.” This is a blatant attempt to rewrite history.
None of the insurrectionists are political prisoners, although some were nonviolent trespassers. The people arrested run the gamut from people engaged in conspiracies to attack the Capitol, such as the members of the Oath Keepers who have pled guilty to the conspiracy charge, to useful idiots who were at the Stop the Steal rally and just wandered in during the attack. Just last week, Cleveland Meredith, Jr. of Colorado pled guilty to illegally bringing guns into the District of Columbia and threatening to go “over to Pelosi [expletive] speech and putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV.”
This sounds like violent extremism to me.
The September 11 weekend also brought examples of comparisons between January 6 and September 11. While there are differences between the two, both represent attacks on America. It’s true that September 11 had a far higher death toll, but January 6 is the more dangerous of the two. My Twitter friend, Atticus Finch, put it well.
September 11 united us against a common threat, but January 6 was an attack from within that continues to divide us. We fought two wars against foreign terrorist groups and their backers, but today many Americans are shrugging off the direct assault on the Constitution and the foundation of our system of government.
That division and the fact that not a few people on the right would like to put the January 6 faction in charge is the single greatest threat that America faces today. For almost 250 years, America has survived both external and internal threats, but it is by no means certain that our country and Constitution will survive the threat that we face today from the radicalism that has infected one of our two major parties. This radicalism explicitly seeks to overturn and destroy faith in elections, the most fundamental process of our democracy.
As I wrote last week, it was the events of September 11 that put us on this course. Without the horrific attacks on New York and Washington, I don’t think that we would have ever come to this point. Donald Trump would never have become president and would have never gained his almost hypnotic hold over the Republican Party.
At the end of that piece, I wrote, “Twenty years later, I’m left to suspect that the terrorists may yet win after all.” I think a lot of people had different ideas as to what I meant by that. It can be understood in different ways, but here is my view.
The terrorists launched the attacks that started the sequence of events that ultimately led to where we are now. We are near the brink of a civil war thanks to a party that does not accept the outcome of the election, has decided to live in an alternate reality, and has become a personality cult for a would-be authoritarian who values his personal power more than the wellbeing of the country. There are violent extremists on both sides and I denounce them both, but at the moment, only one party is threatening the core of our Constitutional Republic.
If the January 6 faction persists and, God forbid, drags America into civil war or topples our constitutional system, then the terrorists will have accomplished more than they ever dreamed of.
From time to time, I get accused of being a liberal. I’m not. I’m also not a Democrat. Or a Republican.
My failure to embrace either side of the duopoly confuses a lot of people, but at this point in time, I’m a conservative who is anti-Republican. If that statement makes your mental processes short-circuit, you aren’t alone. I can almost see smoke pouring from the ears of a significant portion of my readership.
I bring this up today because I recently took the political quiz going around Twitter. (If you’d like to take the quiz, you can do so here.) Being the open and honest guy that I am, I thought I’d share my results.
The quiz put me right where I thought I’d be. I’m in the sweet spot between social and economic conservatism. I was closest to the Christian Conservative Party in my results.
In the past, I’d accept that. I’m a Christian and a conservative, after all.
The problem is Trump. I agree with this faction on a great many issues, but the Christian Conservative embrace of Donald Trump is a dealbreaker for me. For whatever reason, the Christian right is enamored with the man, but I can’t bring myself to support the most incompetent and corrupt president of my lifetime, if not of American history. The tweet below is an example of why I reject this categorization. (The “Reagan” label on the billboard is sadly ironic since Reagan would have been outraged at this claim.)
Long before Trump, I often said that I’d remain a Republican as long as the party represented my principles and values. Well, that day came in 2016 and I chose to honor my beliefs over my party. Events since then have only confirmed that I made the right choice.
So, I’m a Christian and conservative but not a Christian Conservative and definitely not a Republican. I’ll remain politically homeless until a party develops that shares my core principles. Sorry Democrats and Libertarians, but that ain’t y’all.
If you haven’t subscribed to the Racket yet, click the button below to do so while it’s still free. And remember, with the Racket you get MORE than what you pay for!
You can also find The Racket News (@newsracket) on Twitter and Facebook. Join the discussion online with our Racketeers Facebook group.
Follow The Racketeers on Twitter: Jay, Steve, and David.
As always, we appreciate shares. If you see something here that you like, please send it to your friends and tell them that all the cool kids read the Racket!
"My failure to embrace either side of the duopoly confuses a lot of people, but at this point in time, I’m a conservative who is anti-Republican. If that statement makes your mental processes short-circuit, you aren’t alone. I can almost see smoke pouring from the ears of a significant portion of my readership."
When the GOP idolizes a serial adulterer, has no problem spending like Democrats (though the Dems are working hard to re-calibrate the "big spenders" term with that $3.5T "infrastructure" bill), cheers us abandoning the Kurds and Afghans that fought alongside us against Islamic terrorism, and elevates a hack like Elise Stefanik over Liz Cheney, I think we're on solid ground arguing that the GOP is anti-conservative as well, or nihilistic at the very least.
As I commented on Steve's beautifully written column on Bush 43's speech yesterday, I didn't always agree with Bush 43 on some policy matters, but that I never once regretted having voted for him twice. There was a lot of people who hated 43, but they weren't coming those who now make up the MAGA base. I remember wondering at times when 43 was President, that why wasn't he fighting back harder against the far left, and allowing them to draw an unfair caricature of him. It was hurting his approval numbers, and was part of the reason(though not the entire reason) the GOP had the bloodbath that it did in the 2006 and 2008 elections. He just had that above the fray mindset. Fast forward to today, and I better understand why he did what he did. I don't think any other President could've stopped the trends of tribalism any better than Bush 43 tried to do such. But his efforts are noble and I really applaud him for trying his best. I miss our 43rd President, and will always appreciate his service to our nation as President.
For many years in the past, whenever I hear about violent extremists within our country and the threat to overthrow our Constitutional order, I mostly downplayed it by claiming that these are very small numbers of extremists, and that the fact that they are marginalized from a numerical standpoint. Nowadays, I'm not as confident. While I'm glad that we stopped the 1-6 insurrectionists and prevented them from achieving their goals, the fact that they were dangerously close to putting the lives of members of Congress and our Vice President in imminent danger, is not heartening at all. The fact that an enormous plurality of Americans minimize and rationalize what happened on 1-6 is very concerning to me. The unfortunate fact is that many Americans have a short term political memory, and because of that, I worry that we will go into the 2022 and 2024 elections not having learned our lesson and done enough to prevent another potential insurrection in the future.
While it is still not likely to happen for now, if we lose our government and country to a violent insurrection, we are not getting our Constitutional Republic back. We will be getting something much worse. When you look at history at almost every example of violent revolutions that overthrew an existing government worldwide, one similar pattern emerges. That the successor is almost invariably totalitarian/authoritarian in nature, and much worse than the existent government that was overthrown. Only in very few instances, and I mean VERY few, that the outcome of a revolution leads to a liberal democracy/republic or something headed towards that kind of governance. And only when the prior government was a dictatorship(examples include Romania's Ceaucescu in 1990). In every instance where the prior government was a liberal democracy/republic, violent revolutions have invariably resulted in a government that is a dictatorship. One of the latest examples is Myanmar, as they've now gone back to the military junta that had before. When you have people like Mike Flynn, and others in the MAGA base calling for martial law and citing Myanmar as a positive example, then we have every right to be concerned.
That political quiz you took is interesting. I'll have to take it and see where I fall. But I suspect that I will be close to the upper right corner, and not too much different from where you landed, David. I consider myself strongly conservative with a big libertarian streak. Like you and others here at the Racket, I can't count how many times I've been called a lefty, liberal, a commie Biden apologist, a RINO, and other pejoratives too long to list here. And that because I criticized Trump on the non-conservative things he did.
Regarding your last paragraph about you not finding the Democratic and Libertarian parties acceptable to join, I feel the same way. Obviously I cannot be a Democrat because my views are way too far apart from where the party is. Like Joe Biden, his party has veered significantly to the left over the past few decades(Biden tends to move where his party goes, and perches in the middle among them. He is moderate within his party, but not within the overall spectrum. Still, I'm glad its him and not Bernie Sanders, thank goodness). This is no longer the party of Sam Nunn, John Breaux, Max Cleland, and Joe Lieberman, among others. Even more left leaning Democrats like Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, and Bill Clinton would not be welcome in today's Democratic party. As for the Libertarian Party, my views are few ticks more libertarian than many Trump-skeptic and MAGA conservatives. The problem I have with the LP is that they tend to be more libertine then demonstrably libertarian(Especially when they nominated Johnson/Weld. They took a position mandating bakeries "bake the cake!", among other non-libertarian views). Also their views on national security and foreign policy, are the biggest reasons why I cannot join the LP, despite my strongly libertarian views on economic, constitutional, and some cultural matters. Their views on those matters are completely unmoored from reality. Free market principles that Libertarians love are excellent, and I share their enthusiasm for it. But they won't stop Islamic jihadists who have a hardened desire to shed innocent blood. The profit motive will not restrain those who are morally depraved as these Islamic extremists are. And that why I part company with many libertarians in supporting a strong national defense and robust national security.
While I do not consider myself a Republican, I will support Republicans on a case to case basis. We will still have good ones worthy of our support. People like Liz Cheney, Bill Cassidy, Peter Meijer, Ben Sasse, Anthony Gonzalez, and Jaime Hererra-Beutler, deserve our support while they defend themselves against MAGA opposition. I have and will contribute some money to their campaigns.