Some consider the Nation’s Capital as “Fantasyland on the Potomac”. Other outsiders are “Fed Up” with the Federal City. It's better to consider D.C. as “the District of Calamity” (sic).
As Democrat voters begin the 2020 Election Cycle, it seems that establishment Democrats are putting their thumbs on the scale to try to shape the outcome.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is outraged that the DNC and CNN are not allowing her on stage for the New Hampshire debate, despite garnering 8% support, while they are letting former Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) onstage as he only has 2% support.
The DNC seems worried that Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist- NH) may well sweep the first few primaries, which would make him the odds on favorite to win the Presidential nomination. So the DNC changed the rules for qualifying for future debates, ignoring the grass roots element of qualifications. That rules change allows billionaire candidate ex NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to participate. That becomes crucial as Bloomberg is banking on a strong Super Tuesday showing on Tuesday March 3rd and the fact that he can self finance his campaign.
In offering analysis after President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court, Fox News commentator Tomi Lahren opined that conservatives seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade are effectively spitting on the Constitution. Lahren has been outspoken in her adherence to abortion rights. She was separated from Glenn Beck's "The Blaze TV" last year because of her inconsistent opinions about abortion. This was sparked by an appearance on ABC's The View in which she argued that it was hypocritical to be anti-choice and be a small government conservative. Beck insisted that he wanted to terminate Lahren for lacking intellectual integrity.
“I can’t speak for the company and why they did it, but it had nothing to do with being pro-choice... What I have a problem with is somebody who will change their point of view or that will say absolutely crazy, red meat things, and not have any intellectual firepower to back it up. Have the intellectual integrity to be able to back things up.”
Now Lahren laments that some conservatives want a Supreme Court to carry out religious judicial activism to get rid of Roe v. Wade (1973). Tantalizing pro-choice red meat but it like the pink slime substitute which some fast food outlets use to sell dollar menu items to a hungry public even though it causes indigestion. Lahren assumes that any rollback of Roe would be premised on religious issues. Even the Roe decision recognizes that government has interests in unborn life in the last trimester that is viable. Prenatal medicine has made great leaps of advancement so viability is pushed closer to the 20th week of pregnancy. No signs of religion in this hermaneutic. And that does not even consider the scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception Pro-Choice jurisprudence currently rests on the shaky foundation of abortion as being included in a right to privacy that is within penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights, as applied to states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Blackmun's holding in Roe is a quintessential example of judicial activism, legislating from the bench for the entire nation. Conceptually, a texualist originalist led Supreme Court could rule that "the right to privacy" is not enumerated within the Federal Constitution and that the Tenth Amendment is applicable. This would throw the abortion issue back to the states, where it resided prior to the 1973 judicial fiat. Some states, like California and New York, would have liberal abortion laws, while other states may be more restrictive. That sort of subsidiary jurisprudence sounds like small government conservatism. Maybe Lahren's political science studies at UNLV did not adequately cover jurisprudence. She seems to think that it is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to overrule bad precedent or is judicial activism. In his confirmation hearing to become Chief Justice in 2005, John Roberts noted that stare decisis does not hold as a legal precedent when a matter was wrongly decided. But in Tomi Lahren's legal logic, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that overturned the Separate but Equal standard of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was just spitting on the Constitution too. It is lamentable that Fox News turns to Tomi Lahren for legal analysis. In little more than a year, she has shifted her abortion rights advocacy from being premised on what she believes is small government conservatism to combating religious judicial activism. No wonder she burned her bridge at The Blaze TV for lacking intellectual integrity. Some may want to consume pink slime perspectives because they are spicy tasty morsel temptations, but assuredly many leave the establishment when such dreck is seen on the television menu.
Last week, Glenn Beck’s The Blaze and Mercury Radio Arts announced a 20% cut in staff. Many critics take schadenfreude at this cost cutting moving for the six year old trans-media company. Beck felt compelled to can his longtime friend Mike Opelka (a.k.a. “Stuntbrain”) who had been hosting during the weekday 12pm-3PM and Saturday morning slot. Despite the venom spewing from MAGA critics and liberal cynics, this does not spell the end of Beck’s alterative media venture, but is certainly a setback. As Beck’s platforms undergo an agonizing reappraisal, it is worthwhile to make a Blaze-ing (sic) retrospective of the ventures. For full discloser, this writer has been a subscriber to GBTV/The Blaze since its inception. While one ought to respect the integrity of Glenn Beck and appreciate his contributions to the media and political landscape, it does not preclude taking a critical eye or thinking for onself on issues. Glenn Beck started a syndicated national radio program for Premiere Networks (the same group which syndicates Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity). Beck started with a rodeo clown shock jock reputation. But after the terror attacks on 9/11, he took an increasingly serious interest in current events, albeit with a wry and emotional sensibility. Beck got into television via a show on Headline News Network (a CNN channel) from January, 2006 to October, 2008. As President Obama was being inaugurated in 2009, Glenn Beck Program premiered at 5 pm on Fox News. It was there Beck achieved phenomenal ratings for his non-prime time slot as well as considerable controversy. Beck left Fox News in July, 2009 to start up his streaming television venture GBTV through Mercury Radio Arts which later morphed into “The Blaze TV”.
"Waffle Face" John Kerry
Glenn Beck has not shied away from taking political stands which ruffle feathers and are not in lock step with his supposed side. Despite prominently promoting “W”’s re-election in 2004 (the John Kerry Waffle Head bit was memorable), Beck seemed to become dissuaded with President Bush after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the confirmation of Beck’s libertarian sensibilities. After President Obama assumed office in 2009, Beck posited that Obama had racist tendencies as displayed by his reactions Henry Louis Gates arrest. During the run up to the wide open Republican Presidential Primaries in the 2016 election, Beck was charry about candidate Donald Trump and the articulation of nationalist politics. This evolved into becoming an anti/never-Trumper which persisted through the General Election. Of course, the stunt in which Beck and his posse doing Cheetos facials further stoked the ire of many MAGA loyalists.
One of the major motivation of establishing alternative media platforms was to ensure that an unadulterated message could reach an audience. While Beck maintains that he left Fox News on good terms (and continued to appear for years on The O’Reilly Factor, Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson Tonight), Beck was steered away from focusing on some subjects and encouraged to tone things down on his own show. Beck worries about the potential of government censorship (e.g. a re-application of “The Fairness Doctrine”) as well as corporate steering of topics.
Orson Welles’ meteoric multi-media career in the 1930s served as an inspiration for Glenn Beck’s multi-valiant media ventures through Mercury Radio Arts, including “GBTV/The Blaze”, “Blaze Radio”, “The Blaze” website, Mercury publishing, stage appearances, films, music and charity. The streaming television part of the media empire started in 2011 with an eponymous name and anchored by a simulcast of the three hour radio program along with an extended Glenn Beck TV program. Beck sought to de-emphasize his imprint by assuming the moniker “The Blaze” (a reference to how fire burns to the truth). A year later, The Blaze Radio began, which featured different radio hosts (beginning with Doc Thompson and Jay Severin, later Buck Sexton, Mike Opelka and Chris Salcedo). There are also several regular radio shows which are available for podcast. The Blaze TV was one of the first successful paid streaming television ventures, using MLB Advanced Media technology for a great picture, whether on a mobile device or a large screen HDTV. While NewsMax and One America Network have made strides in cable carriage, arguably neither have made a major media impact. Ventures like PJTV and SarahPalinChannel have withered and died, failing to monetize ideological video on the web. But CRTV venture seems much stronger than PJTV, including the originator Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin and Stephen Crowder. Glenn Beck has proven to have a good eye in spotting and developing media talent. The Blaze TV’s first hire was Amy Holmes. Beck developed Buck Sexton into an accomplished radio host and television commentator (though Sexton’s TV simulcast was short lived). A Dana Loesch producer Lawrence Jones was lifted to the media spotlight and given his own radio show, along with commentator appearances on other networks. And The Blaze TV gave then 23 year old Tomi Lerhen her own show, in which she catapulted into the conservative commentator stratosphere, until she was terminated for being inconsistent about her so called conservative views favoring abortion. The Blaze TV has mainly relied upon a subscription internet model, although it is also available as a premium channel on Dish TV satellite and Verizon’s FIOS cable. Mercury Radio Arts made serious enquiries about buying Current TV (Al Gore’s channel) in 2013 and was rumored to buy its successor Al Jazeera America, the latter which Glenn Beck vehemently denied. The Blaze TV was based in Dallas, Texas but the Real News roundtable and later Buck Sexton’s radio/TV show was produced in Manhattan. The Blaze also had an office in Washington, DC. As a media venture, The Blaze TV is challenged by limited conventional carriage issues. During the kerfluffle on fairness in presenting the 2016 Republican debates, The Blaze TV made a strong pitch to host a GOP debate . Obviously, the move was intended to attract attention and prospectively earn wider cable carriage. But this did not happen, which may have in part been due to the never-Trump reputation of Glenn Beck and the networks. As for “The Blaze Radio”, the programming mainly has been distributed as live streaming as well as via podcasts (e.g. I-Tunes, Stitcher et ali) and I-Heart Radio (Clear Channel). There was a still born endeavor, which The Blaze Radio would have channels with regional news/traffic focus (e.g. Philadelphia), but that was a short term one off. As Buck Sexton went off to his own syndicated show, The Blaze Radio adapted and started to carry his early evening show live. For four years, The Blaze Radio had its own channel on Sirius/XM, which was eventually demoted to a streaming sub channel before it was terminated in 2017). For several years, The Blaze Radio provided top of the hour news updates for a couple of Sirius/XM talk channels. The Blaze website was intended to be a center for up to date news, which would feature positive takes on faith and some feel good stories. The website has not been as successful as Breitbart and developed a poor reputation of appearing cluttered and simply “click bait”. Although Beck has strived not to make his media ventures, his shadow looms large on the various ventures. The original concept for his TV show was to eventually involve viewer interactivity, in which a viewer could pause a program to search prior shows about unfamiliar concepts before returning. Alas that is an idea which Beck is again slightly ahead of the curve. Starting out, GBTV/The Blaze was intended to be a streaming TV netlet with a strong news emphasis (such as the nightly one hour Real News), investigative journalism (For the Record), wholesome afternoon kids show (Liberty Treehouse), simulcast of Beck’s radio program and his extended TV program along with original entertainment shows (Independence USA).
Obviously, some media concepts fall flat, such as a survivalist reality TV show. Other programs like afternoon educational kids programming reveal there is a small market. And then there’s the gorilla in the room, the costly nature of producing quality news programs. That being said, a fair portion of upheaval in programming comes from shifts in The Blaze driving force’s priorities. Beck knew that it was costly to produce quality news, but wanted to be recognized as a legitimate news network. When the nightly news round table folded, The Blaze TV went to great lengths to produce investigative journalism. But those shows seemed to have abruptly ended. Another impetus of The Blaze has been to educate the audience. While on Fox News, Founder’s Friday proved to be wildly popular. Beck sought to replicate that last season with a twice weekly “The Vault” (showing history artifacts while telling the story) and “HIStory” (an extended historical bio show). In addition, Beck produced cross platform serial segments on history. But that programming seemed abandoned mid season. Beck has shilly shallied from being a conservative political activist to a libertarian contrarian and now seems despondent at the course of current events. In the 2016 election cycle, The Blaze Radio hosted commentary shows after many of the Presidential debates. As mentioned, Mercury Radio Arts wanted to fairly host a GOP debate in Dallas. Judging from Beck’s current commentary, he seems to want to guide the network away from partisan bickering where you can find everywhere else in the media. That is wise, but apparently educational news that you can use or extended format history segments are not profitable for The Blaze. The current layoffs were not the first significant downsizing with The Blaze ventures. In 2016, Mercury Radio Arts laid off 40 people and shuttered their New York City and DC offices. Beck rued the bloat in which he felt was becoming a money pit that was out of control. Beck also wanted to revamp The Blaze website, that he regrets had just become “click-bait”
Glenn Beck's Man on the Moon (2013)
While it is foolish to believe that everyone employed at The Blaze are Beck’s automatons, Beck does exert an extraordinary influence the direction of the venture. The Blaze seems to have backed off on small enterprise live spot advertising (aside from the self owned realty group). . Moreover, there has been a de-emphasis on 1791 clothing, music, publishing. And there has been a lack of live shows, whether they are comedy tours, artistic events (like Man on the Moon in 2013) and public affairs gatherings (e.g. Restoring Honor, Restoring Love). Perhaps these ventures took away from Mercury Radio Arts core competencies or were too difficult to do well, but these changes reflect Beck’s constantly shifting priorities. The Blaze TV’s programming has seen several shifts: 1) full service streaming netlet 2) educational news you can use 3) supplementing personal conservatarian activism 4) current events source 5) less partisan programming featuring radio simulcasts. These constant shifts hurt network branding and positioning. Some of the programming choices seem like friendly personal predilections, such as “The Wonderful World of Stu” and "Pat and Stu". It will be interesting to see if Pat Gray can live up to his billing of being a crack radio host on his own during mid-day radio prime time. In mid-September, Mercury Radio Arts is conducting an all-hands-on-deck meeting which, in the interests of opacity, will be released in a podcast, to flesh out the direction of the networks. Glenn Beck is convinced that media is at a pivot point and that traditional networks are a dying breed of media dinosaurs. As predicted in 2011, The Blaze has been ahead of the media curve and was wise to employ a multi-media and trans media approach to find out what works. Despite alienating some Trump-eteers and mockery from the mainstream media, Beck has developed a loyal audience for his streaming network. The Blaze's mission statement is to "change the world for the better". But increasing those eyeballs requires integrity and a sustained vision. The latter quality may mark a fire line for The Blaze in setting the world on fire with truth in order to make the world better.
Most calendars indicate that today is Presidents’ Day. However, this is a misnomer which truly misses the mark. Popular observance of President’s Day have come down to silly sales and a day off for the government and banks. While we might enjoy the bargains at the malls and the time off in the District of Calamity (sic), we really ought to observe the real meaning behind the holiday. Prior to the standardization of the Uniform Holiday Act in 1971, the shortest month used to have two holidays, both Lincoln’s Birthday (February 12th) and Washington’s Birthday (February 22nd) which many states observed. Even though an early draft of the Uniform Holiday Act referred to the third Monday in February as Presidents’ Day, the Congress never changed the observance from “Washington’s Birthday”. Rather than have a holiday celebrating the general office of the Presidency, or being forced to celebrate James K. Polk,
it seems appropriate to honor the father of our country, George Washington, the man who gave the United States of America Hope and not anger. While there are many myths attached to the first President of the United States (e.g. chopping down the cherry tree) as well as an impressive resume as patriot, warrior, military leader and chief executive, there are several that the American body politic should emulate. Firstly, there is perseverance. When we recall the American Revolution, we swell at the victory over the Great Britain, our mother country. But when not gazing through the rosy glow of hindsight, Washington was leading a ragtag bunch of citizen soldiers against the hyper-power of the day. Things did not seem so glorious after Washington lost New York City and he was huddling in the snows of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. But through Washington’s leadership, American forces eventually were victorious over the British Empire.
After the victory in Yorktown in 1781, the new nation was starved for leadership. If America followed European models, people would have yearned for a king. Due to his prominence and his victory, there is speculation that Washington could have had the crown for America. But Washington chose to retire to his beloved home of Mount Vernon, Virginia. This proved Washington’s opposition to dictatorship and his belief in republican government. When the Articles of Confederacy proved to be an inadequate governing framework for the American Republic, Washington came out of retirement to preside over what became the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Despite his desire for retirement, Washington was the natural choice as the first U.S. President. This shows Washington’s self sacrifice and his dedication to his country.
After serving two four year terms, Washington chose to retire. Washington’s retirement set a standard for chief executives (until 1940 with F.D.R) to have limited terms of power as President. More importantly, Washington helped the American Republic to have peaceful transfers of power. In addition, Washington’s quiet retirement served as a model for future Presidents (until Carter and now emulated by Clinton and Obama) to remain above the fray on his successors’ public policies. At his death, Washington was hailed as "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen". I can think of a more fitting tribute to a great man who was instrumental in establishing the great experiment of America.
[This piece originally ran on DCBarroco.US in 2011 with some updates]
In 2016, there were many controversies about cyber-censorship. Some social justice warriors will fret about the Great Firewall of China. But there are examples of being cyber censorship which are much closer to home. These are not instances of benign curation, such as Apple blocking Flash media links because the media might not display properly in the Cupertino created cyber walled garden that Apple owners expect. These are instances in which a cyber nanny decides what content should be seen.
Facebook was called out for its biased curating of hot topics to favor liberal sensibilities. While it is hard to believe that well informed people consider Facebook their primary news source, The Guardian asserted that Facebook is arguably the most important distributor of news online. But a former Facebook editor revealed that many times conservative news topics did not trend on Facebook’s sidebar because the liberal leaning staff did not recognize news topics (like CPAC) or held an animus against conservatives (like Ted Cruz).
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
In response to the conservative outcry, Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg held a "Conservative Summit" at the company's Menlo Park, California headquarters with right leaning luminaries such as Dana Perino and Glenn Beck to discuss the matter.
While some leading conservatives declined to participate in a so called Facebook photo-op, the social media service subsequently announced some sweeping changes meant to ameliorate the media mess. Although Facebook's internal report denied any ideological bias, they acknowledge limitations of their efforts. Facebook stopped relying on RSS feeds for curation. Instead it would use a select group of publications to discern if a story should be trending news.
Another instance of Facebook acting like an overzealous Cyber Nanny is how pages of content creators are being capriciously unpublished. Close to ten years ago, Facebook established Fan Pages that are separate from a personal page, which attracted eyeballs for various interests and business (as well as generating ad income for Facebook). But recently a group of 2200 content creators banded together under the banner of #powertothepages to protest the byzantine process to objecting to content censorship by Facebook.
To try to explain how Republican Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, many stunned progressives sought to blame "Fake News". Prior to the surprising Election 2016 results, President Obama opined that we need a curating function to deal with the wild west of information flow. This may sound reasonable to hurried casual current event followers to have a source that dictates what is real news. But who decides and on what basis are better questions.
Bloomberg View author Noah Feldman hopes that the news market can correct itself, but that the state might have to step in. Obviously, the journalist does not appreciate the import of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no laws..abridging the freedom of speech, impeding the freedom of the press..."
Some social media companies seem to have taken matters into their own hands before the state imposes censorship. Twitter has unceremoniously shuttered some users who spout ideas that do not appeal to the powers that be, such as Milo Yiannopoulos. While Twitter claimed that @nero violated their Terms of Service with his unflattering exchanges with Ghostbusters' actress Leslie Jones, his rhetoric hardly seemed over the top, yet Twitter CEO permanently banned Milo from the social media site because the exchanges inspired hate mail towards the Hollywood luminary.
Although efforts to #FreeMilo failed to succeed with Twitter, Milo did not make out so bad as Yiannopoulos scored a $250,000 book deal for his memoirs on the social media ban. Others facing social media suspensions are not as handsomely rewarded. A social media site can lock an account on an unsuspecting user and the only established objection process is appealing to an automated digital Big Brother. If the Cyber Nannies look with favor upon the frantic plea, the user is urged to adhere to the TOS, without knowing exactly what was the infraction, It seems that many progressive activists are eager to claim abuse and a cautious social media company will cover their bases by proactively locking controversial accounts.
Liberal Cyberbullies also ape invoke tactics gleaned from lawfare. In the run up to the election, a liberal lawyer objected to a political cartoon of Democrat Presidential nominee sporting an orange "pant suit" behind bars with a tag line "Perhaps Hillary Clinton looks best in an orange outfit." The self proclaimed attorney insisted that she would sue for libel as "destroying a person's reputation with lies and gossip are blatant libel."
Of course, in a rational world, this off-kilter attorney had no standing to sue. Even if that weren't the case, the standard for about prominent figures is an extremely high bar, particularly involving political speech in the run up to an election. Still, knowing the legal system, it was prudent to take time to document everything in case a nuisance lawsuit was filed. Rather that file suspected abuse charges against this budding cyber bully, it seemed better to give the liberal loon a wide berth.
Another modus operandi by micro-blogging platforms is to shadow block as a means of cyber-censorship. Posts which contain hashtags or terms which offend the powers that be are effectively blacklisted by being published but kept from going into search features and is hidden from others' timelines. Twitter has confirmed that it shadow blocks. Twitter does not impose this stealth ban only against spammers but also targets the alt-right, politically incorrect or cultural libertarians. It again begs the question about curation on who decides and on what basis as to posts that are suppressed.
There has been some push back against cyber censorship. In August 2016, Andrew Torba created Gab.ai, a micro-blogging platform which allows for all points of view and champions the principle to #SpeakFreely. Even though Gab is still in beta, it has over 100,000 users and is a top 3,000 internet site, even as it is currently invitation only.
Some have suggested to challenge censoring social media platforms by investigating and litigation the violations of the terms of service by the internet companies. Frankly, that seems like a fool's errand. These cyber bureaucrats can claim TOS violations and unless it is a high profile case like Milo Yiannopoulos or James Woods, they will not feel compelled to respond. While they should champion free speech, the First Amendment is a limitation on the government not a private corporation.
Recently, it has become apparent that some content has been stealth banned too close to home. Although it is praiseworthy to invoke the Ignatian principle of Presupposition by giving one's antagonist the benefit of the doubt. But using analytics and comparing similar web pages, it is dubious that the stealth banning is not content curation for its viewpoint, not because of obscenity, spamming or harassment (which would be clear TOS objections).
It is disheartening to know that Facebook Content Creators can be deprived of their sources of income by vague complaints made by anonymous sources, and there is an impersonal automated system to object to these page pull downs. But it reinforces the wisdom of not depending only on one platform. It is important to find work arounds and not be at the whims of abstract internet overlords. Methodologies can be tweaked and new ways of getting the word out can be developed to speak freely.
In this era of hyper polarization, there are going to be efforts to block viewpoints which challenge progressive proclivities. To often, the silent majority has let things go in order to tend to their own personal interests. Between technological advances and the entrenchment of liberals within the apparatus of government, the levers of culture and "our betters" in academia and corporate boards, free speech for conservative and traditional values could be crushed.
This will not stand in the District of Calamity (sic).
It is interesting to attempt to understand Trump’s fanatical support. I assumed that it mainly consisted of disgruntled Tea Party types who are disgruntled with the “Surrender Caucus” which currently rules Between-the-Beltways. After the Second GOP Debate, however, social media Trump-etteers give a different impressions– unprincipled, uninformed, obnoxious and ultimately alienating. In other words, tending to be troll-like.
One abrasiive interlocutor touted former one term Congressman Col. Allen West (R-FL 22nd) as being the right choice for Trump’s VP, She dismissed the possibility of having the former Florida Congressman as a replacement Speaker of the House if Boehner loses the Vacate the Chair vote for an unusual reason. Not the unlikely novelty of electing a Speaker who no longer is a member of the House. But this Trump true believer tweeted: “The Speaker is just a vote counter spot and [Allen West is] more valuable than that.” Hmm. That was a novel, if not naive, understanding of American government.
So I chimed in noting that the Majority Whip is the House Republican vote-counter whereas the Speaker sets the agenda, acts as the face of the House and is third in line for the Presidency. The social media shrew sarcastically claimed that she didn’t need to be schooled. Really? Yet I did not want to inherently alienate an anti-establishment Republican, I replied: “If you knew then you would not have asserted that House Speaker is just a vote counter. Sorry” Even this attempt at an olive branch gave umbrage yet this troll still wanted to blurt out more bile and incorrect assumptions on how the lower chamber works. My viewpoint was denigrated because I was too DC. It seems that a handle like CalamityDC is too subtle of a protest to business as usual in the District of Calamity (sic) for that Trump-eteer.
Her cyber comrades in arms claimed to block me because “You can’t fix stupid.” What a way to win friends and influence people! My heart certainly does not break for being blocked by a Trump-eteer troll. But I have to wonder what is the objective of these online activists? I was not even questioning the merits of their desired nominee. I interjected with obective process information, yet Trump-eteers took it as an attack and made me the campaign equivalent of Scientology’s Suppressive Person (SP). Guess that coalitions or even winning more Republicans is unnecessary to their bewitched beliefs.
Another close encounter of the social media kind was with a guy whose handle is “No More RINO Excuses”, but he was juxtaposing Donald Trump to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). This struck me as strange that a libertarian Republican like Dr. Paul was labeled a Republican in name only. Fleshing out the dispute, the Trump-eteer disliked Dr. Paul’s disengagement from foreign military entanglements. But the poster asserted that Mr. Trump would have a robust military. I asked to be educated how this would be done, as Mr. Trump has only pronounced platitudes in his two debate performances and his so called major Foreign Policy speech (which only lasted for ten minutes) aboard the U.S..S. Iowa.
The Trump-eteer inquired if I watched the debate. Of course I had but I noted that it should be easy for him to tick off the specifics. Naturally, the Donald had not done so other than cite the slogans “Winning”, “Make America Great Again” and “I build the best military that I won’t even have to use it.” When pressed for specifics, the Trump defender claimed that no candidate offers specifics at this time. I observed that Carly Fiorina was quite specific about battalions and troops at the Reagan Library debate. And I’ve even heard Dr. Ben Carson talk about replacing the Ohio class submarines. What made me prick up my ears was how the flustered Trump-eteer suggested that I ask “The Donald” myself as I would be happier with his answers. Sure. This is a social media activist posting numerous pieces to support his candidate and thinks that a skeptical questioner is going to get the equivalent of “face time” with the candidate.
I saw another active social media commentator who sent hundreds of anti-Fiorina messages, accusing her of proliferating nuclear materials to the Persian Gulf. When others asked what was his sourcing, the standard answer was a stonewall: “Do your own homework”. OK. Pugnatious, smearing and ambiguous. Masochistically, I read a day’s worth of his reposts and messages to confirm who was his candidate. Unsurprisingly, the diatribes started soon after the Reagan Library debate, pointing to an internet poll which purported that Trump beat Fiorina big league, so to speak. Similar internet polls claimed that in 2008 and 2012 that ex Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX 22nd) won huge victories after his debates.
Perhaps these are three isolated examples, but these experience underscores Rich Wilson’s warning about not allowing the Republicans to be co-opted by Trump’s Troll. Like their leader, Trump-eteers love to point to the polls which have the billionaire with a Huuuge lead. They don’t appreciate being challenged on the cross tabs. Aside from discerning if it is a national poll (which means nothing more than name recognition) or a state poll. Then there is sample size, party affiliation, percentage of undecided voters, being registered or a likely voter etc... As silly season (the summer before Presidential primary season) ends, celebrity status driving name recognition wanes and voters get serious about their support for candidates to the Oval Office.
These exchanges relish the fight and refuse to give in, despite not having the fact on their side. That seems jesuitical. These internet exchanges do not seem based on constitutional principles. Nay, one gets the impression that details do not matter or ignorance on the interworkings of our Constitutional Republic. These cyber shock troops will brook no dissent nor take no prisoners. Such agitated activists would probably support having Charlie Sheen as Trump's as Vice President because of "Winning". This is not out of the realm of possibility as the star of Anger Management is willing to be Trump's VP.
During an interview by Glenn Beck, social media expert John Cardillo analyzed the fervent support of Trump-eteers. Cardillo opined that they were not Tea Party supporters but were part of 4-7% of Republican supporters with an identity crisis. They are tired of losing and turn their anger towards the Republic Establishment without having defined goals or base principles.
It is easy to liken this to rivid men of action during times of trouble in Western Europe in the aftermath of The Great War. A charismatic leader who confidently promises to make the trains run on time can utilize such unquestioning foot soldiers as well as dispense of them when it becomes too inconvenient. Beck tends to think that the world is going into a very rough patch and that the polity has been framed in a top down/bottom up/inside out paradigm which creates chaos. That is when the masses cry out for a strong man to make all the tumult go away, and perhaps making our Constitutional Republic go away in the process.
While politics is a favorite contact sport in the District of Calamity (sic), it must be admitted that poltics is not a beanbag sport. Prolonged primary campaigns involve endurance, strategy, building support, formulating and articulating proposed policy, persuading voters and getting out the vote. It can get rough and tumble in the primary trenches but in the end, it is hoped that the party can come out unified and offer an appealing vision which wins over Independents and undecided voters and becomes victorious. But the vacuity and vituperativeness which seems to characterize Troll Party elements calls those political precepts into question. In that case, is “Winning” just an empty boast like drinking tiger’s blood?
The current Republican field has a baker’s dozen of serious candidates that have anti-establishment animus would appeal to Tea Party Sympathies (Carson, Cruz, Walker, Paul, Jindal). Thus the Tea Party vote is currently fragmented. Winnowing of the primary field field may allow a coalescing around a couple of strong candidates who espouse Tea Party values. But if the Troll Party overwhelms the Grand Old Party, it may be impossible to bridge the political chasms which divide Ameicans as the path will be blocked by untamed trolls. That may well be a bridge too far for principled constitutional conservatives.
Since President Obama has taken office, the Republicans and the Democrats have been challenged by a few new “parties” to the political scene. While these factions have not yet sought to create formal party apparatuses, they are seeing to influence the established political parties.
Clearly, the TEA Party has stirred the grassroots of the American political field. While there may be other embryotic origins for the Tea Party, many attribute an on the air rant by Rick Santelli of CNBC as being the inspiration for the movement. In February 2009, while he was filing a live report on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange about the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan, Santelli vents about the poor financial plans that the Federal government was implementing. The CNBC reporter turns to the traders and asked if they should be forced to subsidize the bad behavior of others’ home loan, which elicited a bevy of boos. Santelli spontaneously suggests throwing a Chicago Tea Party.
The Tea Party is a reference to the iconic Boston Tea Party of 1773 when the Crown tried to impose the Tea Act. American colonists protested this tax for many reasons but especially because it violated the perceived principle that Americans had the right to be taxed by its own elected representatives. The Sons of Liberty took matters into their own hands by boarding the ships dressed as aboriginal Americans and throwing the merchandise into Boston Harbor. This was considered to be a key event in advancing the nascent American Revolution.
Within two weeks of Santelli’s clarion call on CNBC, there were protests in 40 cities around the country in reaction to Porkulus, a.k.a. the $787 Billion Stimulus Package that was rushed through Congress. The contemporary TEA party picked up steam by widespread nation wide protests on April 15th 2009, tax filing day. The terrific turnout at these ad hoc grassroots events showed participants that they were not alone and that they were Taxed Enough Already. Points of commonality included: lowering taxes, stopping wasteful government spending, reducing that national debt and adhering to the Constitution.
During the August Congressional Recess, when elected Federal officeholders often tour their districts on listening tours and hold Townhall Meetings, they were greeted by motivated Tea Party activists, who asked hard questions. Some of these Townhall Meetings were quite contentious. So much so, some lawmakers cancelled their public appearances since these Town Halls were not the typical constituent cake walks. There was a gathering on the National Mall on September 12, 2009 that was promoted by Glenn Beck, FreedomWorks and many Tea Party organizations that attracted legions of Tea Party Activists. Crowd estimates vary, but the figures range from 80,000 from the Lamestream Media to an unofficial 1.2 million by on the scene Park Service officials. A figure that seemed reliable counted the number of marchers at Constitution and 14th St. NW, which came to 600,000, but did not include people like me who joined along the way. Regardless of the exact numbers, the crowd was massive.
Another ancillary effect of Tea Party activism has been the ordinary Americans running for office. These outsider candidates have challenged established Republican candidates, and defeated several of them in primaries, such as Christine O’Donnell defeating Mike Castle in Delaware Senate seat, Joe Miller uncrowning Senator Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Mike Lee defeating Senator Robert Bennett in Utah, et ali.
The Coffee Party was (not was) an effort to counteract the success of the Tea Party that was launched on Facebook in January 2010. I apocryphally associate the genesis of the Coffee Party to the liberal young hipsters that hang out at Starbucks and the ilk. Their slogan was “Wake Up and Stand Up” with a mission to getting cooperation in government and removing corporate influence from politics. The Coffee Party was announced with great fanfare on the Lamestream Media, but the public seems to have received it with the lukewarm enthusiasm of Instant Joe. After the initial news peg there has been virtually nothing in the way of activism or media news pegs. In late September 2010, the national Coffee Party convention in Louisville drew only 350 participants and virtually no media coverage. Considering the watered down rap that organized tried to enlist their elderly audiences involvement, I would say that the Coffee Party is decaffeinated swill that can not be given away.
The Cocktail Party is not a new phenomenon but is an apt appraisal by former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) of between the beltways elitists. Angelo Codevilla wrote a book entitled “The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It” which details the group of bipartisan political elites who run America. It is not just many elected officials but the power circle includes Ivy League academics, those in think tanks and East Coast media mavens. Codevilla illustrates through the example of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, that just because you hold a prominent position, you are not automatically accepted into this elite cliche as you did not go to the right schools and were not trained to think the proper way. You can get this elitist imprimatur even if you have occasionally have wandered off the ideological reservation if you hold a powerful position and mouth the right shibboleth.
The Ruling Class and Country Class (the rest of us, especially in “Flyover Country”) has some resonance but can be confused with the economic class dichotomy of former Senator John Edwards (D-NC). So I believe that a more suitable moniker is the Cocktail Party. When President Ronald Reagan came to Washington, he was adamant about not governing to please the Georgetown cocktail circuit. Palin echoed those sentiments during a speech Bakersfield, California where she railed against cocktail party types, the go-along-to-get-along establishment Republicans. Pardon my French but Palin’s political bon-mot is le mot juste. With one clever phrase, Palin captured the establishment aspirations and inclinations of the Cocktail Party.
As the primary season has shown, the Cocktail Party wing of the Republican establishment is threatened by the Country Class sensibilities of the Tea Party movement. In the general election, I expect the Tea Party spirit to sweep out many entrenched incumbents. That will certainly change the Georgetown Cocktail circuit.
Personally, I agree with many of the espoused principles of the Tea Party. But since it is a loose amalgam of grassroots groups, some Tea Party organizations and candidates are not the most appealing or savvy. The test will be governance after November 2nd. In a moment of candor, former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) warned that a bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. I trust that Tea Party candidates will not easily sell out to the Between the Beltways values of incumbency. The real question is whether they will be perched on principle and accomplish nothing or if they can find ways to bend enough to effectively legislate their policies.
