Politically Speaking – July 14, 2020

July 14, 2020

Last week when I presented the list of events I’ve been totally disgusted with over the last several months, I added the Republican Party. Needless to say, I showed no mercy to the Democratic Party either, and with the likes of Michael Madigan, Nancy Pelosi, and Gov. Pritzker, as well as Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, there’s not much I could say that’s positive. However, many Republicans have also fallen, in my opinion, far from grace and joined the ranks of corrupt Democrats, and apparently I’m not alone in these opinions and thoughts.

For years, far right Fox News host Tucker Carlson has used his prime time slot to interview interesting guests, asking the questions that need to be asked, and then voicing his opinion.

But last week Carlson offered a much different tone, almost conciliatory. He criticized the direction the Republican Party has taken. He even offered an apology (not for himself but for some of the Republican Party members).

He said, “Middle class families are the core of this country and yet both parties have shamelessly abandoned them. Middle class families have no national spokesman, they have no lobby in Washington, Republicans pretend to be their champion.”

The bottom line is instead of improving the lives of the voters, the Republican Party has redirected itself. And no, not in all cases, but in some, like how did Peter Strzok’s text messages become more important than creating American jobs in a new national infrastructure bill?

The thing that disgusts me the most is the Republican Party’s lack of defending our President who has done what he said he would do. And I might add he’s been the best President we’ve had in 20 plus years, in spite of all the trumped up charges by the Washington Democrats, from the Russian witch hunt to the liberal media that has misrepresented, lied to and mislead the American people that would follow and stay uninformed. Trump has had little or no defense from the Republicans.

So with all that said, I wanted to share our friend Rich Lowry’s column this week because it’s a current example of how the liberal media functions.

Until next week.

The Rich Lowry Column:
A Triumph at Mount Rushmore

If nothing else, President Donald Trump’s July Fourth speech at Mount Rushmore clarified the battle lines of our culture war.

The New York Times called the speech “dark and divisive,” while an Associated Press headline declared, “Trump pushes racial division.” A Washington Post story said the speech “crystallized” the president’s “unyielding push to preserve Confederate symbols and the legacy of white domination.”

Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth insisted that Trump “spent all his time talking about dead traitors.”

To be clear — and despite all of this — the media and the left didn’t freak out about a speech extolling the valor of Robert E. Lee or the statesmanship of Jefferson Davis. They didn’t scorn a speech pining for Antebellum America or expressing ambiguity about the Civil War. They didn’t pan a speech that slighted the quest for justice and civil rights throughout American history.

As a matter of fact, Trump didn’t mention any Confederates at all. He hailed Abraham Lincoln at length and called the Civil War “the struggle that saved our union and extinguished the evil of slavery.” He said we must defend “the ideas that were the foundation of the righteous movement for civil rights.”

It’d be difficult to get a more textbook expression of the American civic religion than the speech at Rushmore. It’d be difficult to get a more wide-ranging appreciation of the warriors, inventors, adventurers, reformers, entertainers and athletes that have made the country what it is. It’d be difficult to get a more affirming account of the greatness of America and its meaning to the world.

And, yet, the speech was tested and found wanting.
Trump’s attacks on what he called “a new far-left fascism” and a cultural revolution “designed to overthrow the American Revolution” were indeed hard-edged, but who can doubt the basic truth of the claims?

There’s a fear afoot in the land, as a merciless authoritarian spirit informs a spate of firings and cancellations. The day before Trump’s speech, a Boeing executive resigned over something he had written… in 1987.

The setting for Trump’s speech is itself now deemed problematic. A CNN report previewing the event said Trump “will be at Mount Rushmore, where he’ll be standing in front of a monument of two slave owners and on land wrestled away from Native Americans.”

There’s no doubt that Trump is a deeply flawed messenger. But it wasn’t just Trump the messenger who was attacked in the aftermath of the Mount Rushmore speech; it was the message.

Patriotic sentiments of the sort that have adorned American oratory for centuries were deemed hateful and divisive. A celebration of the Founders that once would have been the stuff of schoolbooks and primers was considered controversial. A defense of the nation’s ideals was waved away. No, nothing to see here — only hate and division.

Surely, if some other Republican president had given the Mount Rushmore speech the pushback wouldn’t have been as intense. But this isn’t just about Trump. It goes much deeper.

Critics of the speech objected to what they said was its wildly exaggerated account of the stakes in the culture war — and at the same time, vindicated that account by equating patriotism with white supremacy.

Rich Lowry is editor of the National Review.