Quote:
Originally Posted by hq2
Sigh. Loathe as I am to admit it, but most of what you said about the Democrats and Clinton is true. They're as willing to sell their souls for power as the Republicans
|
Just to be clear, I wasn't criticizing Democrats or calling them corrupt when saying that they stuck together and protected Bill Clinton's sexual behavior and comparing them to The Republican's who are not doing so with Trump or not doing so with other Republican politicians in the past. I was pointing out how, in my opinion, the Dems were and are more concerned and protective of their agenda than in their previous candidate's sexual proclivities or in their present candidates enabling of those proclivities as well as her checkered past and recent failures, while they are trying to destroy Trump for the same issues. In a certain way, that is honorable--the mission, the core belief, is more important than personal dishonor. If not honorable at all, it is certainly pragmatic. And if one has distaste for the ends justifying the means, one must consider that self-annihilation can mean an end to the ends.
Republicans, on the other hand, are divided--many apparently willing to let the Dems have the Presidency thus giving them the power to nominate several SCOTUS Judges which would not only severely damage the possibility of enacting a Republican agenda, whatever that is nowadays, but greatly assure the further advancement of the Democrat agenda. Is such a pyrrhic honor more selfish than honorable, considering what would be lost to following generations?
The division in the Republican party is probably that it does not have a singular fundamental agenda. The Democrats have coalesced as undivided Progressives with the agenda of fully instituting a Progressive form of government. And that goal overrides any concern over personal foibles. Especially so since the goal of Progressivism is a society well-regulated by government. Personality, as all else, is relative and useful only if it can further the goal. Otherwise, it and they are inconsequential. And honor is just another one of those words whose meaning changes or disappears in the relativity of shifting contexts.
Republicans have the internal clash between semi-to mostly-Progressives (what Spence fairly refers to as Neo-Cons) with mostly to fully Classical Liberal Constitutionalists. The Classical Liberals ( true"conservatives") wish to preserve the Constitutional order. The "Neo-Cons" think they do but have a hard time of sticking with it, quite often wandering into Progressive legislation, and seem to be more concerned about getting re-elected than fighting for fundamental principles.
The "conservatives" are an endangered species which no-one other than themselves wishes to preserve. As such, they too cannot fuss over a candidate's imperfections. A fight to the death is just that. So there is no point in surrendering or quibbling about someone's sexual misadventures. They have that in common with Progressives.
The Neo-Cons are betwixt and between, lack real identity, blow with the wind, and are willing to abandon their more principled brethren for self-preservation. Anything that could threaten their re-election, such as supporting a media flawed candidate requires distance from it. Never mind that many of our most revered forefathers had similar or worse flaws, yet they served and promoted the cause.
For what it's worth, this is a more fleshed out explanation of what I was inferring in the post to which you replied. Personally, I would rather have had Ted Cruz be the candidate representing the "conservative" alternative to the Progressive candidate. We could have seen a distinct difference between him and Hillary in almost every respect. And the race would have given a much needed platform for the Classical Liberal view of government.
Now, we are stuck in a battle of . . . whatever. But the prospect of seriously furthering the destruction of our founding principles does not leave much choice to the true "conservatives." Nor, I suppose, to the true Progressives.