The lynching of Steve King

King is a Republican congressman from Iowa long known for his conservative views on immigration and strenuous opposition to any form of amnesty for illegal aliens. The last few days he has been pilloried by the media, by Democrat politicians, and by his own fellow Republican members of Congress.

What is the charge? “Racist remarks.”

Here is what he said in an interview with the New York Times:

White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization – how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”…

May we postulate that there is zero evidence in his background that he is a white supremacist or a white nationalist? And if he were, would he spill the beans to a gotcha, bloody-minded reporter? Please note that the media only quote the first sentence, leaving out the second. His defense, which the media have ignored, was that the phrase “that language” referred only to Western civilization, not to white nationalists and supremacists or those ideologies. The words ‘our history and our civilization’ in the missing second sentence make perfectly clear that he is puzzled that Western civilization should be offensive to left-wing ears.

Analyzing his remarks

Clearly they are not remotely racist, nor do they imply support for racism. Liberals and radicals themselves hurl with abandon the terms ‘white nationalist’ and ‘white supremacist’ at people like Steve King whose views they disagree with. These insulting terms obviously do not offend them. The people they accuse of white nationalism and white supremacy do. During the interview King was talking about our language-constricting PC environment, mentioning white nationalists and supremacists and then in midsentence pivoted to another thought: the condemnation of Western civilization by the PC crowd.

Lefty guilt by association

Ignoring his explanation and suppressing the full quotation, his critics jumped at the opportunity to claim ‘without evidence’ that he was really defending white supremacy and so is proven to be the racist they have claimed all along on the basis of his views on illegal migration. In today’s upside-down PC world, if a white man says anything remotely about white privilege except to confess his guilt and seek absolution, despite logic, grammar, and commonsense, the mob will come after him. And mobs do not much care about real guilt.

Republicans quake with fear at unfounded accusations of racism

That Democrats and the media set upon King is not surprising. But that no one on the other side stood up to ask the mob to cool down and consider the evidence carefully is shameful. No one had the courage to suggest giving him the benefit of the doubt. Even if what he said could be contorted to imply approval of some aspect of white nationalism, is there no one brave enough to believe his explanation and confront the mob? Or even to report it fully and accurately? The take-no-prisoners PC mob is implacably intolerant and will accept nothing less than capital punishment for malefactors, their Stalinist total elimination from public life and expunction from history. All this is beyond shameful.

The whisper campaign against Republicans

Democrats keep winning elections they should lose through reliance on the whispers that Republicans all suffer from racial bias, concealed to win elections. Democrats, this narrative goes, are exempt from this racist leprosy. Logic and verisimilitude are routinely ignored without challenge. We desperately need forceful pushback and leadership from prominent conservatives against this racial juggernaut. Without it  our culture will be more and more ensnared in loss of freedom of expression, enforced with Red-Guardlike intensity built on delusions like diversity.

Troglo (L. H. Kevil)     

Commentary from Canada, where PC speech suppression is more engrained than here: https://tinyurl.com/ycqfzdtg

In the US there is very little protest against the PC mob. One example is here: https://tinyurl.com/y7ccuqxa

 

Ted Cruz and the pledge

This morning Trump supporters are apoplectic that in his speech at the Republican National Convention last night Senator Cruz did not explicitly support the candidacy of Donald Trump. Big Media delightedly fanned the flames of the controversy. But speaking eloquently in support of the cause of liberty Cruz did in fact signal his support of some of Trump’s main positions, notably the building of a wall and enforcing our immigration laws. And by speaking at the convention he also implicitly encouraged support of the Republican national ticket by those whose conscience is not violated by some of Trump’s positions and his character. This clearly distinguishes him from Kasich the spoiler who is boycotting the convention. Newt Gingrich was correct in pointing out that this passage from Cruz’s speech also comes as close as conscience permits to an explicit endorsement of Trump:

We deserve leaders who stand for principle. Who unite us all behind shared values. Who cast aside anger for love. That is the standard we should expect from everybody. And, to those listening, please don’t stay home in November. If you love our country and love our children as much as you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience. Vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the Constitution.

Hillary Clinton and the minor party candidates are untrustworthy on both criteria. The question is whether Trump, no conservative, is trustworthy. Calling for a vote based on one’s conscience Cruz contributed to party unity as much as is possible. Like the candidate himself Trump’s supporters are notable for their passionate emotion during the primary campaigns and now for their vitriol. They are calling for Cruz’s head for raising notes of caution during the convention they considered theirs only. We should remind them that it was a Republican convention, not a Trump love fest. The big tent we will hear about of course includes Republicans who are not wholly aboard the Trump train (or train wreck.) As has been pointed out, a lukewarm endorsement of Trump would signal the kind of opportunism all too common among our politicians. It is rather rich that supporters of the mercurial Trump, whose positions have changed so often we cannot be sure he has any, should condemn Cruz for violating his pledge. But did he violate it? Or keep as much of it as a true conservative could?

Some consider Cruz’s waving the banner of authentic conservatism a political calculation. I would say it is rather a simple declaration of bedrock principle, the very opposite of political calculation and something all too scarce in the cesspool of D.C. politics. That this courageous speech may harm his political future should engender admiration, whether one agrees with him or not.

Trump is calling for renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA,) which has delivered proven prosperity to all three countries involved. He also suggests that the U.S. should ignore its NATO obligations to defend the Baltic states in case of a Russian takeover like that of Crimea if Trump determines that those states have not “fulfilled their obligations to us.” The first position is foolish and ignorant. The second is simply dangerous and astonishing, and not just because it comes from the self-proclaimed Law-and-Order candidate.

I see Cruz’s speech as a warning to the Republican establishment that Trump’s positions need more than just fine-tuning if the election is not to be turned over to Mrs Clinton. As it is, I do not see how she can be stopped, the vitriol and bloody-mindedness of the Trumpkins notwithstanding.   

Troglo (L. H. Kevil)