Lindsey Graham - A Watershed?
One can hardly forget Lindsey Graham's angry defense of Brett Kavanaugh. It was a kind of righteous anger, a kind of cathartic release of pent-up rage - a reflection of what anybody would feel when faced with what would seem like a politically motivated allegation against a good man.
Of course, one has no evidence either way. Who knows what really happened to Christine Blasey Ford? It is entirely possible that she was merely mistaken as to the identity of the perpetrator, or worse, that Brett Kavanaugh was lying.
A mere possibility does not elevate an allegation into a guilty verdict.
This is no mere platitude. It is something deeply felt by the common man living in a society which has its foundation in due process. It is unfortunate that Ford has no real evidence. Uncorroborated evidence is merely a bare assertion. It can and should never result in a guilty verdict in law.
However, Ford's accusations have repeatedly been taken at face value by common citizens and celebrities alike (most of them Left-leaning), not so much because they believe her, but because it serves a certain narrative. I am not saying categorically that they disbelieve her - they probably do, and are standing up for their own principles - I am simply saying that their belief comes second to the pushing of their political agenda. No doubt some of them believe they are serving the truth (although others, like the paedophilic Asia Argento are incorrigible hypocrites). The point is that this truth must defer to the political agenda and any truth inconsistent with that agenda is obliterated, redacted or just plain ignored. At its extremes, the only truths are those which emanate or originate from that agenda.
It is lamentable that, in the politically-charged environment of the US, people have become less able to distinguish politics from other areas of life, such that their entire moral outlook has been hijacked by an ideology. That ideology uses the terminology of classical liberalism - yet it does not speak the same language, but strings together words and concepts in a frankenstein patchwork aimed to mislead and vilify. Here, 'evidence' and 'due process' is misogynistic, 'republic' is a front for authoritarianism.
Still, Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed as a new Supreme Court Justice, with none other than President Donald Trump proclaiming his innocence to the world. This was not without controversy. Of course, Kavanaugh was by no means 'proven' innocent, given that this was no court of law. Yet one imagines that without senators like Lindsey Graham, Kavanaugh would have been a lost cause (politically speaking).
The new persona - Lindsey Graham 'unhinged' - had made waves on the internet. "Boy, y'all want power, I hope you never get it," he railed against the Democrats. The silent, inconspicuous senator of the past was nowhere to be seen.
Of course this change has not been considered positive, most notably among the far left media. Websites like AlterNet, in characteristically inflammatory language, refer to Lindsey Graham as typical of "craven, ass-kissing Republicans everywhere". No doubt this is typical hyperbole from typical far-left perspectives.
How accurate is this characterisation?
Consider that he had recently been quite vocal about his opposition to President Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria. Yesterday, post-two-hour-lunch with President Trump as the host, the old senator emerged: President Trump "told me some things I didn't know that make me feel a lot better about where we're headed in Syria."
What does one make of this? Leftists with a bone to pick have ample ammunition to spin the story. Here is another spineless coward riding on the coattails of the Commander-in-Chief.
Yet sometimes even rightists must stop to wonder: why the sudden change of heart? The problem isn't so much his sudden support of a inflammatory President but the total lack of grounding in the public perception of an independent-minded politician. Take Trey Gowdy for example. I for one would not mistake him for a lackey.
But this is all about the kind of figure Senator Graham cuts. In any case, his perspective, divorced from his public image, is eminently reasonable.
Of course, one has no evidence either way. Who knows what really happened to Christine Blasey Ford? It is entirely possible that she was merely mistaken as to the identity of the perpetrator, or worse, that Brett Kavanaugh was lying.
A mere possibility does not elevate an allegation into a guilty verdict.
This is no mere platitude. It is something deeply felt by the common man living in a society which has its foundation in due process. It is unfortunate that Ford has no real evidence. Uncorroborated evidence is merely a bare assertion. It can and should never result in a guilty verdict in law.
However, Ford's accusations have repeatedly been taken at face value by common citizens and celebrities alike (most of them Left-leaning), not so much because they believe her, but because it serves a certain narrative. I am not saying categorically that they disbelieve her - they probably do, and are standing up for their own principles - I am simply saying that their belief comes second to the pushing of their political agenda. No doubt some of them believe they are serving the truth (although others, like the paedophilic Asia Argento are incorrigible hypocrites). The point is that this truth must defer to the political agenda and any truth inconsistent with that agenda is obliterated, redacted or just plain ignored. At its extremes, the only truths are those which emanate or originate from that agenda.
It is lamentable that, in the politically-charged environment of the US, people have become less able to distinguish politics from other areas of life, such that their entire moral outlook has been hijacked by an ideology. That ideology uses the terminology of classical liberalism - yet it does not speak the same language, but strings together words and concepts in a frankenstein patchwork aimed to mislead and vilify. Here, 'evidence' and 'due process' is misogynistic, 'republic' is a front for authoritarianism.
Still, Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed as a new Supreme Court Justice, with none other than President Donald Trump proclaiming his innocence to the world. This was not without controversy. Of course, Kavanaugh was by no means 'proven' innocent, given that this was no court of law. Yet one imagines that without senators like Lindsey Graham, Kavanaugh would have been a lost cause (politically speaking).
The new persona - Lindsey Graham 'unhinged' - had made waves on the internet. "Boy, y'all want power, I hope you never get it," he railed against the Democrats. The silent, inconspicuous senator of the past was nowhere to be seen.
Of course this change has not been considered positive, most notably among the far left media. Websites like AlterNet, in characteristically inflammatory language, refer to Lindsey Graham as typical of "craven, ass-kissing Republicans everywhere". No doubt this is typical hyperbole from typical far-left perspectives.
How accurate is this characterisation?
Consider that he had recently been quite vocal about his opposition to President Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria. Yesterday, post-two-hour-lunch with President Trump as the host, the old senator emerged: President Trump "told me some things I didn't know that make me feel a lot better about where we're headed in Syria."
What does one make of this? Leftists with a bone to pick have ample ammunition to spin the story. Here is another spineless coward riding on the coattails of the Commander-in-Chief.
Yet sometimes even rightists must stop to wonder: why the sudden change of heart? The problem isn't so much his sudden support of a inflammatory President but the total lack of grounding in the public perception of an independent-minded politician. Take Trey Gowdy for example. I for one would not mistake him for a lackey.
But this is all about the kind of figure Senator Graham cuts. In any case, his perspective, divorced from his public image, is eminently reasonable.
Comments
Post a Comment