Stay classy, Congressman!
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) was speaking at the Washington Press Club Foundation dinner, and made the following “joke” about the photo of Presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway kneeling on an Oval Office couch in order to take a photo of President Trump with the heads of the nation’s black colleges:
Directing his remarks to Republican Sen. Tim Scott, who was at the White House event and, speaking before Richmond, had previously alluded to the (stupid, but typical of the manufactured Trump “scandals” of late) controversy over Conway being too casual, or something, by kneeling on the Oval Office sofa by noting that “a whole lot worse” had occurred on that sofa when Clinton was in office, Richmond snickered,
“I really just want to know what was going on there, because, you know, I won’t tell anybody. And you can just explain to me that circumstance — because she really looked kind of familiar in that position there. Don’t answer — and I don’t want you to refer back to the 1990s.”
HAHAHAHA! That’s denigrating innuendo, clear as the prairie skies, suggesting that Conway, because she is a woman, routinely engages in fellatio. It’s a powerful male slut-shaming a professional woman, because Richmond doesn’t like her boss, so she deserves it. The “but don’t answer” makes the statement’s intent clear. This was as obviously an ugly, sexist, misogynist remark as Candidate Trump’s infamous, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” in reference to Fox anchor Megyn Kelly. It is another example of the rampant Asshole Virus that has infected, perhaps fatally, the Democratic party, its leaders, and its allies.
More proof of the scope of the epidemic is that no feminist activists, nor Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris or any prominent progressive women, reacted by condemning Richmond—but then he’s a black Democrat, so nobody on the Left will hold him accountable. That’s how they roll, now. It isn’t what you do, it’s who does it.
The Washington Post, which last year meticulously set out to demonstrate that Trump’s ridiculous contention that by “wherever” he meant Kelly’s nose (it was a menstrual joke), naturally glosses over what Richmond said, noting,
“But it seemed to some in the audience that he was making a reference to a sexual act.”
Oh did it? My, what dirty minds some have! It seemed to everyone but dim bulbs and those trying to cover for the smug, partyist, sexist pig (Ah, but a Democratic smug, partyist sexist pig!) that he was alluding to blow-jobs, because of course women with influence and power in a Republican administration could only acquire them by submitting to male dominance by servicing their baser needs. The Post (and its female reporter) disgraces and exposes itself by pretending Richmond could have meant anything else. Then it offers Richmond’s mind-meltingly dishonest explanation without providing a rebuttal or even a metaphorical arched eyebrow.
Richmond entered Jumbo territory. “Sexual innuendo? Sexism? What sexual innuendo and sexism?” He insisted he had no such intention. How could anyone think such a thing?
Here is what he said again, in case your own anti- Conway, anti-Trump bias tempts you to defend this vicious jackass:
“I really just want to know what was going on there [Sure looks suspicious to me! By the way, Kelly is pretty hot!], because, you know, I won’t tell anybody [It’s just between us. Come on, spill the beans. She did the whole room, right?]. And you can just explain to me that circumstance — because she really looked kind of familiar in that position there. [You know, kneeling like that. A sexual “position.” If you get my meaning. Kind of familiar, right? Nudge nudge; wink wink; snort snort…) Don’t answer — and I don’t want you to refer back to the 1990s.”[Never mind, we don’t want to talk about hummers here, there are ladies present, and by the way, this is what you get for impugning our Great President Bubba for his personal, private conduct with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.]
Now his “Who, me?” doubletalk:
“Since some people have interpreted my joke to mean something that it didn’t I think it is important to clarify what I meant. Where I grew up saying that someone is looking or acting ‘familiar’ simply means that they are behaving too comfortably. I decided to use that joke due to the large social media backlash over her inappropriate posture considering there were more than 60 HBCU Presidents in the room.”
Oh, well that makes complete––what? Hey, jerk, if the comment wasn’t sexual, what was the “joke”? Go ahead, where was the alleged humor, if it wasn’t a sex joke?
Richmond’s “explanation” is a confession, and he doesn’t even realize it.
So the coarsening of the political culture and civil discourse continues, with Democrats making the idiotic—but liberating!—decision that they should fight the President by emulating his worst character flaws. Of course—I say of course because it is obvious to me, but it is apparently not obvious to them because “bias makes you stupid” and crude—the down side of this strategy is that it eliminates the most damning distinction between the President and his opponents, which is that he has the manners of a 14 year old raised by baboons. They are making the same, fatal mistake that Marco Rubio made in the debates when he stooped to impugning Trump’s penis measurements because the Senator was sick of being called “Little Marco.” Republicans didn’t like seeing their Senator stoop that low.
Democrats and their allied tribes, however, are apparently undisturbed when one of their Congressmen calls a Republican woman a slut. After all, she deserves it.
Congressman Richmond just revealed to Americans that Democratic men in power are just as quick to spit misogynist cheap shots at women who oppose them as Trump was with Megyn Kelly. The reaction to this from Democrats, progressives, feminists, celebrities—Meryl? Hello? Are you there?––and servile pundits shows that their outrage runs only in one, cynical direction, giving Richmond a pass just as they allowed Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, twats and cunts without criticism or consequences.
Let me slightly update my conclusion from the previous post on this topic:
The Democratic Party has turned itself into the Asshole Party.
And it is allowing its hate for Donald Trump to turn everyone who supports it into assholes too.
(I would say that it has also abandoned integrity, but that happened long ago.)
UPDATE: Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel chastised Richmond in a series of tweets, saying,
@RepRichmond, you may think this is funny, but it’s not. It’s disgusting & offensive….A snarky joke for you is just a reminder of the demeaning comments women hear every single day. And trust me, it happens to all women. Don’t ‘clarify,’ @RepRichmond – apologize. I’d suggest using Women’s History Month to lift us up instead of knocking us down.”
The Louisiana GOP asked Democrats in the state to join them in condemning Richmond’s comment, issuing a statement that said,
“Using inappropriate sexual innuendos to demean women is sexism at its worse. Given that March is Women’s History Month, Congressman Richmond’s remarks about the first woman to successfully manage a U.S. presidential campaign are especially disgusting.”
Meh, who cares what Republicans say, and besides, that report is from Fox News! The party of the pussy-grabber, and the news network of Roger Ailes? They don’t respect women, like good, gender-warriors Democrats. Hey, did you hear the one about Kellyanne Conway’s White House “briefings”?
UPDATE 2: UltraViolet, a liberal women’s group that I have never heard of (Have you?), did criticize Richmond’s comments, despite acknowledging that it disagrees with “just about everything” Conway does or says, saying in a statement,
“No woman deserves to be treated the way Congressman Richmond treated Conway.”
So now feminists can claim that they all reacted appropriately, I suppose.
Ethics Alarms 
“More proof of the scope of the epidemic is that no feminist activists, nor Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris or any prominent progressive women, reacted by condemning Richmond—but then he’s a black Democrat, so nobody on the Left will hold him accountable. That’s how they roll, now. It isn’t what you do, it’s who does it.”
That’s a mighty broad brush you got there, Jack. I saw plenty of condemnations on Twitter from both sides of the aisle.
“(stupid, but typical of the manufactured Trump “scandals” of late)”
Does that include Jeff Sessions?
“The Democratic Party has turned itself into the Asshole Party.”
Both parties are asshole parties but some are more asshole than others. Opinion as to which is more asshole varies.
Not right now, it doesn’t. Later maybe. The Donkeys are lapping the Elephants, and only bias blinders can possibly prevent someone from admitting it.
Yeah? Please forward them here, then. There were none from Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris or Streep. Leadership. Feminists. This isn’t for tweets, this requires formal statements, just as we would have seen if a Republican spoke like that about, say, Chelsea.
Stop looking for excuses for this.
And now I’m calling bullshit, fatty. Here’s the link to the Twitter topic. Find me those “plenty of” tweets from the “other side of the aisle.” I don’t see ONE.
There is one that calls on Rep. Gohmert to apologize for Richmond. Gohmert is a Republican.
Pathetic.
When I say “other side of the aisle” I mean from people across the political spectrum, not specifically members of Congress. And, while I’m gathering a few examples, would you mind commenting on the Jeff Sessions debacle?
I really don’t care how much you hate Kellyanne Conway, and I deeply dislike her: this is vile. https://twitter.com/AlyssaRosenberg/status/837326751609028608
Dorian Richard @richard_dorian 22h22 hours ago
More
@AlyssaRosenberg @ChuckWendig @washingtonpost Agreed. These kind of attacks (what she was wearing, how she was sitting etc.) were sexist.
Chuck Wendig Retweeted (Wendig HATES Trump and company… proof… https://twitter.com/ChuckWendig )
Alyssa RosenbergVerified account @AlyssaRosenberg 22h22 hours ago
More
I really don’t care how much you hate Kellyanne Conway, and I deeply dislike her: this is vile.
KojiCianBalor @KojiCBalor 3h3 hours ago
More
@AlyssaRosenberg @washingtonpost It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you’re on. This is never ok.
Victoria @viva_victoria 21h21 hours ago
More
.@AlyssaRosenberg thank you for posting. It’s a reminder that sexist “locker room” talk isn’t limited to one side of the aisle.
happybrainz (Brian) @happybrainz 22h22 hours ago
More
@AlyssaRosenberg @scalzi Yeah, I can’t stand her, but this whole ‘look how she sits!’ thing is just sexist BS, and *this* added to it? Ugh!
Dave Weigel and 1 other Retweeted
Jake TapperVerified account @jaketapper 21h21 hours ago
More
Congressman Richmond’s “joke” was sexist and inappropriate and his denial of what he was suggesting is insulting. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/02/democratic-congressman-kellyanne-conway-really-looked-kind-of-familiar-kneeling-on-oval-office-couch/?utm_term=.fc22dc5a2b9b …
Sophia Evans 💗 🌴 and 21 others follow
Mitch Behna @MitchBehna 13h13 hours ago
More
You owe an apology to Kellyanne Conway, @RepRichmond
Dario Navarro and 39 others follow
Mo ElleitheeVerified account @MoElleithee 23h23 hours ago
More
I’m a Dem. I’ve been super critical of @KellyannePolls.
But this “joke” by @cedricrichmond is beyond offensive.
Plenty more but I gotta eat. Like I said… both sides of the aisle, not specifically referring to Congress.
“Aisle” means “members of Congress” or, broadly, party leaders. Who the hell are these people? I never heard of any of them. They don’t count as rebuttals of what I wrote. Sure, out of 60 million people, some Twitter users on the left recognize slut-shaming and will even say so about a black Democrat. NOT impressed.Dario is a 26 year old lawyer. WOW. Sophia Evans is either a Hungaarian porn actress, or a welsh folksinger, or nobody at all. WOW. Jake Tapper is a rare fair journalist—not germane to my complaint. Noo, retweets don’t count.
Very, very lame.
Alyssa Rosenberg is a prominent feminist and a Washington Post writer. Her condemnation definitely counts for something. But I agree the Democrats in Congress have the largest responsibility to condemn this behavior.
And I agree that Democrats (not just the people, Jack, but Democratic Congressmen… just to be clear) have the onus to condemn such behavior.
In all good time. Don’t change the subject. You suggested that I hadn’t done my research, and now say, “Well, when I said X that impugned your integrity, I REALLY meant Y. I really don’t care for that at all.
In no way was I suggesting you hadn’t done your research. Here’s exactly the way I meant it.
paint with a broad brush
(idiomatic) To describe a class of objects or a kind of phenomenon in general terms, without specific details and without attention to individual variations.
———————————————————————-
Both sides of the aisle? This is exactly the way I meant it.
Americans on Both Sides of the Aisle Reject Cuts to PBS https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/03/01/americans-sides-aisle-reject-cuts-pbs/
You’re impugning me Jack. You’re move.
Finding another misuse of the phrase does not change its meaning. What I wrote up front was
More proof of the scope of the epidemic is that no feminist activists, nor Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris or any prominent progressive women, reacted by condemning Richmond.
You alleged that you had seen many tweets that disproved that statement, as in “it’s not true.” It is true and remains true. Or, you were making a deflecting, irrelevant statement: “Wait! I’ve seen comments from people who are not feminist activists or people like the ones you mentioned, so you were wrong!”
Ridiculous.
“misuse of the phrase”… huh? Really? I’m not in a court of law here, Jack. I stand by what I said. Totally.
“You alleged that you had seen many tweets that disproved that statement, as in “it’s not true.”
I didn’t “allege a damn thing. I said said. Not allege. I gave proof of WHAT I SAID.
“(of an incident or a person) said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality.”
This lady (mentioned in the above post of Twitter condemnation, bills herself as a feminist.
Victoria
@viva_victoria
So-called activist. Feminist. Survivor.
Victoria @viva_victoria 23h23 hours ago
More
.@AlyssaRosenberg thank you for posting. It’s a reminder that sexist “locker room” talk isn’t limited to one side of the aisle.
More condemnation…
Rob Flaherty
(Only works for HRCs. Rapid Response @HRC. Was: @hillaryclinton @thedemocrats @terrymcauliffe @Marshalls. 4eva: @ithacacollege. Doing all the good I can.)
Followed by Katrina vandenHeuvel and 33 others
@Rob_Flaherty · 18h18 hours ago
oh wow this is extremely not okay
Huffington Post headline… Democratic Congressman Makes Vile Sexual Joke About Kellyanne Conway http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-photo_us_58b83c7ae4b01fc1bde67089
I’m done with this back and forth, jack. Let’s argue about something else… like the witch hunt.
Finding another misuse of the phrase does not change its meaning.
Jack, with all due respect, based on other arguments we’ve had in the past, we could probably find a hundred examples of this phrase used the same way in mainstream, respected publications, and you would still say they are all “misuses of the phrase.” There are some words and phrases that you define differently than about 90% of the public, and when we show you this, you say that 90% of the public is wrong. That’s not how language works.
I think it is clear in context that fattymoon was not directly addressing your point when [sorry, fattymoon, I don’t remember your gender pronoun] used the phrase “both sides of the aisle.” You were specifically talking about Congress members. But that doesn’t make fattymoon’s use of the phrase incorrect, it just means fattymoon misunderstood and gave you evidence that wasn’t relevant to your intended point. “Both sides of the aisle” is frequently used to mean both sides in Congress and both sides in the public. Because that’s what it means.
I’m with Chris.
Not the way I see your statement – aisle meaning Congress. Seems you are in deflection mode.
Wrong, Rick. I don’t deflect. But I don’t object to your opinion. More cowbell, perhaps. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/more-cowbell-with-will-ferrell-on-snl–video–saturday-night-live–nbc/n41046?snl=1
I have never heard opposition outside of Congress referred to as other side of the aisle. Is this something that you just developed? I happen to be no member of the Republican or Democrat Party so what side of the aisle am I on? What stands out to me is the hypocrisy on this situation with the Crickets that you hear from the Democratic side of the aisle and my reference is Congress itself.
Rick, I’m sorry but I don’t have the energy to argue this point yet again. I’ve said all I can say, others have had their say, and now you’ve had your say. If you wish to believe I’m deflecting, please do. As for me, I’m off to see the wizard about the President of the United States. Hocus pocus where there’s smokus… get my drift?
Ah…not really….after the cryptic use of aisle I am lost. Take care.
Rick
I think I get ya 😉
More cowbell could never hurt anything.
Maybe we can start a group?
I just ran down your list of names (except couldn’t find an official Meryle Streep on Twitter) and you’re right, jack. Not one tweet about that sexist joke. Ya wanna know why? CAUSE THEY’RE ALL ON A WITCH HUNT! And, believe me, that witch is going down.
I have no idea what you mean. Whatever it is, it makes no sense. Suddenly the MOST IMPORTANT THING for these women is secondary?
(walrus face) Wha?
“Suddenly the MOST IMPORTANT THING for these women is secondary?”
Sure is, Jack. No idea what’s going on with Jeff Sessions? NO IDEA?
It’s fun arguing all this stuff with you and others, but the truth is, as I’ve said before, all we’re seeing is what’s in front of the curtain. it’s what’s behind the curtain that’s really important. I sent you a link to a piece about a theory of what’s behind the with hunt. Care to share it here?
What are you, the resident conspiracy theorist?
It’s called “hidden agenda” Steve. Individuals and governments have them. Always have. Always will.
Here’s a conspiracy I can believe in (from an email from Ed Rollins).
“Obama’s goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.” – Daily Mail
Friend,
I wanted you to be one of the first to know… No American President has ever stayed in Washington, DC after their tenure was complete. No President has ever interfered in his successor’s duties. Until right now.
Barack Obama has turned his new DC home into the insurgency headquarters against President Trump. And now he’s even had his closest and most radical advisor, Valerie Jarrett, move in to his mansion to coordinate his outrageous efforts to overthrow President Trump.
Instead of returning to Chicago, Barack Obama stayed in Washington “to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.”
Friend, we fought like hell for President Trump’s election. A lot of it centered on reversing the damage done by Obama.
And right now, I need to know if you are on our side.
Great America Poll
WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?
TRUMP
OBAMA
TAKE ACTION | DONATE
Friend, will you help me show Barack Obama that:
“America will be inspired by the future, not bound by the failures of the past.”
“The time for trivial fights is behind us… and America is once again ready to lead.”
– PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
February 28th, 2017
Whose side are you on? DECIDE HERE and then help us get ready to take on the growing insurgency against him by chipping in today.
Sincerely,
Great
America PAC
Ed Rollins
Co-Chair, Great America PAC
P.S. Friend, this is a very big deal. Please respond as soon as you can! Thank you, Ed
————————————————-
Click any link and you’ll end up in a room with people wanting you to donate.
Witch Hunt is an…ironic… term to use… Have you watched The Crucible? What happens when the “Witch” died? And when did the Witch Hunt end?
For me, the witch hunt never ends. That’s how corrupt we are as a species. Glad I live in the sticks.
To address the obvious question: Which is worse, this jerk calling Conway a slut (and denying it), or supposedly objective law professors hitting Conway with a frivolous ethics complaint?
The law professors. By a mile. But the average citizen doesn’t understand legal ethics complaints, or care about them. Assuming successful women succeed by giving men blow-jobs they understand. (See: “Erin Brockavich”)
But I’m so confused! I thought DEMOCRATS were the defenders of women. Huh.
It’s the plantation mentality, Jack. They are only defenders of minorities as long as they stay on the plantation. Once a woman chooses to go a different way, she loses the plantation’s protection, and becomes a fugitive to be run down and destroyed.
This is just two more of my six basic truths about people coming to fruition. I already noted that people are biased and partisan, and obviously this wit of a Congressman is both in spades. The two truths I want to highlight here is that people are hateful and juvenile. They know what and who they don’t like and will give those they don’t like no kindness, no courtesy, and no benefit of the doubt unless they absolutely have to, or derive more benefit from doing so than not. The Democratic party hates Trump with a passion and they hate his chief lieutenants, who somehow denied Hillary her rightful turn as president even more.
At heart I think most people are bad kids. It shows from the get-go, since kids have to be trained and taught to behave well, but do not need any lessons in how to be bad, they’ve got that covered and are often very good at it. We all know how to push people we don’t like’s buttons, grab onto the one thing that really hurts someone we don’t like and twist it, and laugh or mock when someone else scores a hit on someone we don’t like, just to rub some kosher salt in the wound. We all did it in school to members of the circle our circle didn’t like and to the few kids who belonged to no circle and were free-roaming targets for abuse. We also kept a hawk-eyed watch on those we didn’t like. If some guy we didn’t like spoke and his voice broke, or he crossed his legs in an insufficiently masculine way, or he picked his nose for a second when he thought no one was looking because it was dry and driving him crazy, we pounced, and he’d be hearing about it every day for the rest of the school year. Same deal here, just Michael Moore (who deliberately filmed Paul Wolfowitz licking his comb) writ large.
Know why we got away with it? Because those in authority didn’t want to get involved with low-level discipline and insults, so they just told those who complained to develop a thicker skin or ignore the teasing and harassment, so it was essentially open season (although one time one of my math teachers yelled “SHUT UUUUUUUUUUUUP!!!!” at the top of his lungs at the whole class because he was fed up with our constant verbal sniping and counter-sniping, which stopped it until the next Monday).
In this case those who have the capability to stop it are actively in on it, running embarrassing pictures and retweeting and posting every. single. poke by one side at the other. The media’s obvious partisanship is the same as the school faculty actively siding with one group of kids against another. The difference is that a faculty like that would quickly find itself in trouble with the school board, whereas the media think they are untouchable, so the Democratic Party think they are untouchable. They may find out soon enough how wrong they are.
Great post Steve. You brought back memories of Jr. high. Very insightful.
Thank you, though I should probably apologize for dredging up those memories. Few people I know have too many fond memories of those days.
Interesting points, Steve-O. You brought back memories of junior high school. Thanks a;lot! Decades of therapy down the drain! Sheesh. I guess Jack Daniels and I are going to get reacquainted tonight.
jvb
The only fault I can find in your analysis is depicting the media as adults. They’re just like the other “bullies”, but with megaphones.
“More proof of the scope of the epidemic is that no feminist activists, nor Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris or any prominent progressive women, reacted by condemning Richmond—but then he’s a black Democrat, so nobody on the Left will hold him accountable. That’s how they roll, now. It isn’t what you do, it’s who does it.”
This isn’t a new phenomenon, nor is it unique to the left… But Democrats post-election have really changed the scope of it. Democrats don’t have values any more. What a Democratic value? Before the election I used to say that all they have left is “Social Justice” and that they needed more, but now they speak in the language of social justice, when it’s convenient for an attack, and they ignore it when it’s convenient for an attack, and go back to lip service as a base state.
“Racist”? “Misogynist”? These aren’t descriptors anymore, they’re attack labels on par with “Asshole” or “Jerk”, perfectly useful terms, reduced to meaningless noise, and yet more unfortunate casualties of the culture war.
Those people fatty is referencing? Those are 2020 Trump voters, or at least leave-the-top-ticket-blank protesters, if Democratic leadership doesn’t *quickly* decide they care about things and stand on their values.
HT, I’d include ‘bigot’ among the words that no longer describe much of anything. I think the current definition for ‘bigot’ may be ‘Republican.’
“Democrats don’t have values any more.” And the Republicans?
You might disagree with them, but there were more Republicans lawmakers who opposed and still oppose Trump’s less than conservative policies than there are Democrats lawmakers ready to stand on Democratic principles,
I mean… Really… “Free Speech” used to be a Democratic value… And now you have Democratic lawmakers literally attempting to throttle it, at least for the people they don’t like.
What do YOU think a relatively universally held Democratic Value is?
Arrogance.
I don’t really know of any. I haven’t trusted the Democratic Party since the end of Obama’s first term. I haven’t trusted the Republican Party since Eisenhower.
Clarify, I trusted Eisenhower, even after he was caught with his pants down over the U2 plance debacle. But I haven’t trusted anything Republican since he left office.
HT, I’m tempted to use the word “allege” here since Jack used it with me, but I won’t, so don’t take it personally… can you show me the proof of your assertion?
I don’t know what you’re looking for here… Are you saying you aren’t aware of Republican lawmakers who took principled stances against Trump? Because I can provide some easy examples… If you’re looking for me to compile some kind of statistic, I’m not going to be able to.
No, I’m not saying that at all. I realize there are some Republicans sporting those principled stances. That’s ok, don’t bother about stats. I was just wondering about your use of the word “more.”
“More” as in “any”? Can you find an example among the Democrats?
Which Democrats, general public or politicians? OK, just joking. I know the difference. And, no, I haven’t found a single one. I imagine there are some… somewhere.
This is the lowest of the low. And for him to admonish us NOT to go back to the ’90s, when Monica Lewinsky regularly gave blow jobs (sorry, no other way to put it) to the President of the United States, is even worse.The truth cannot be told: only today’s vitriol carries any weight.
So feminism is dead — as long as it serves the evil objectives of the Democrats. Sickening. Terrifying. I’m only protected against misogyny if I’m a Democrat?
The only bright side I can see here see here is the American people will be disgusted at the basest, ugliest side of the Democrats’ attack on Trump. Accuse him of anything and everything: but this is beyond the pale.
And the ‘demonstrations for a free press” are just as ridiculous; Front page New York Times. Who paid for these “impromptu” demonstrations? Free press now means only “our”news — and what can be more Fascist that that! Didn’t vote for Trump (or the evil Hillary), but am quickly becoming a fan (of Trump, that is: The losers are out to get him in any way they can: I just hope he can hold up, flawed as he may be. (And BTW, just who was more flawed or evil: the Hillary machine or Trump?):
I call it a neck-and-neck photo finish national disaster (no matter who won).
This blog inspired me thinking about why the heck people are the way they are today and what the heck are we going to do about it.
IS THAT GLARING LIGHT LEADING TO ENLIGHTENMENT OR IS IT AN ONCOMING TRAIN?
There was a time not so long ago when there was an underlying set of core principles that guided the population of the United States, it was part of what made the United States a great place to live and help it to grow to the powerful nation it is. There was an unspoken but generally accepted moral undercurrent that guided what the general public accepted as right and wrong. There was an unspoken but generally accepted way that we spoke to, or about, others in public. There was a general sense of we are all in this together. There was a general facade of civility that conducted the notes of life into a flowing underlying melody and the sour notes that clashed with the melody were few and far between.
Something has changed, and it’s changed dramatically! There has been an ever widening shift to the sour notes being the ugly and dominating “melody” of choice and the flowing underlying melody we once enjoyed is being completely drowned out. We are all directly and indirectly affected by this trend, we are all directly and indirectly responsible for this trend, and we are all either furthering this trend or actively working to change the trend; apathy to this problem will fix nothing.
As a result of the changes in society, I too have changed over the years and there are days that I don’t like what I see in myself.
What happened to the underlying set of core principles that guided the population?
How did our society get where we are?
But the most important thing is; where will our society be tomorrow?
To fully answer these questions you’d have to be some kind of weird combination of a genius philosopher, genius sociologist, genius anthropologist, and a genius psychologist that has followed, documented, and evaluated the transitioning trends of our society since around the end of World War II. Since none of us qualify to fill this position of the all-knowing, all we have is each other and reasoning.
These questions haunt me, almost daily now.
What I’ve personally seen in my lifetime is a society wide flushing of ethics which has led to a major shift in nearly everything towards the ends justify the means. We as a society have learned, just like children learn, that certain behaviors get results and our society is rewarding the wrong kind of behaviors; it’s like a computer virus infecting the core of principles that guide society and it’s deleting core values that build character. In general, we have become a morally bankrupt society that can’t think critically or logically and we have become susceptible to massive amounts of emotional triggered subversion propaganda; as a result, we have become a society divided in so many ways that it’s beginning to seem irretrievably broken and we have a population that is so lacking in critical thinking that they don’t know that bias makes you stupid. Intelligent reasoning is nearly gone. The dumbing down of America is nearing completion.
Right now that glaring light is an oncoming train.
How do we fix this?
Your guess is as good as mine but it seems to me that the best place to start is we as a society must recognize that we the people of the United States of America are better off together than we are apart, without that there can be no healing of divisions. We as a society need to elect people in all areas of government whether it’s municipal, county, state, federal, even places like school boards need to understand that we are better off together than we are apart. We as a society need to switch from reacting emotionally to thinking critically and we need to teach those skills to our children who are literally the future leaders of our society and country. We need to set standards of ethical behavior for our children and society in general and enforce those standards; exceptions to ethical standards are loopholes that project weakness of character that spread like a virus. We need to inspire others to take individual responsibility. We need to heal the divisions of society by reaching out to those feeling separated by those divisions and bring them into the fold. We broke our society only we can fix it.
That was a whole lot of “we need this” and “we need that”, but what does it boil down to? The bottom line is that the change must begin with you and me, not “them”. Without you and me, it will fail!
There was a time not so long ago when there was an underlying set of core principles that guided the population of the United States, it was part of what made the United States a great place to live and help it to grow to the powerful nation it is. There was an unspoken but generally accepted moral undercurrent that guided what the general public accepted as right and wrong. There was an unspoken but generally accepted way that we spoke to, or about, others in public. There was a general sense of we are all in this together. There was a general façade of civility that conducted the notes of life into a flowing underlying melody and the sour notes that clashed with the melody were few and far between.
When was this? I think this is mostly false nostalgia at work.
deery asked, “When was this? I think this is mostly false nostalgia at work.”
Seriously deery?
Did you stop reading after that paragraph?
Did you just spend your time trying to find something to launch into a deflection?
Did the whole point of the comment completely blow over your head?
Seriously deery?
Did you stop reading after that paragraph? …
Well, since everything else follows from that false premise, it seems a bit moot.
deery wrote, “Well, since everything else follows from that false premise, it seems a bit moot.”
So the perception of the past that I presented in that paragraph was my perception and you say it’s “false” according to your perception and thus negates any value to anything written after that? That’s an interesting way of fully “comprehending” the totality of what is written. I’ll have to remember that method of replying to comments.
I think your perception of my perception is false and it doesn’t negate the rest of the comment. So there.
Zoltar, you are almost over-sensitive enough to write Trump’s tweets for him.
I agree with deery; the notion that there was a time when all Americans agreed on moral issues is not just false, but obviously so.
Chris wrote, “Zoltar, you are almost over-sensitive enough to write Trump’s tweets for him.”
I think you are comprehensively challenged and partisan biased enough to make a mess out of anything you read that’s written by someone you consider a Republican.
Chris wrote, “I agree with deery; the notion that there was a time when all Americans agreed on moral issues is not just false, but obviously so.”
Chris,
I’m not going to speak for deery but I did not say “all Americans agreed on moral issues”, if you comprehended it that way you should go back and read what I actually wrote without putting your own twist on it.
We might not have ALL agreed on moral issues, but we most certainly didn’t subscribe to the sort of moral relativism that’s destroying us today. There is hope, though; I’m seeing lots of signs of a wholesale rejection of this garbage.
I have meditated on this Zoltar and I think I can add my two cents to what you are saying.
Really the decline we see in morality is something that was evitable with the growth of human intelligence and the progress of science. Western society’s ethic and moral code originated from religion and the belief that following moral laws would mean suffering in the short term to benefit for an eternity later. The rise of science essential created the question whether religion was correct; mix in the abuses of all to human religious institutions and you have the end of religious faith as a serious driver for modern human behaviour.
So in a time where we can only truly know this life we need to make the most of it. The main tool we use to make our way and survive in this world is through commerce. What motivates our desire to do business is capitalism. Capitalism is in my opinion anyway the equivalent of economic Darwinism, with the extra caveat of efficiency being more important than quality.
Our society has being indoctrinated to see capitalism as an essential aspect of democracy. It technically is, yet survival of the fittest is naturally anathema to democracy and the belief all people are fundamentally equal. Following the capitalist mindset business and marketing has changed our behaviour. To feel truly successful in this world you need to win you need to be first. Compromise is a necessary evil, these mentalities are deeply ingrained in us. It’s why we see polarisation in the world today.
This mentality is also what creates all are anger towards governments and public servants. As their job should be to serve the public but Darwinian capitalism has educated them to look after themselves and their group first.
What we need in order to move forward as a society global and or regional, is to champion the concept of ethical capitalism. To understand fundamentally that the singular focus of individual success and achievement is toxic in a society where we need all hands on deck.
I believe ethical capitalism ( it probably has another name) is when an individual recognises both their societal and individual responsibilities.
Realises they are an individual and to survive as an individual they need to coexist with society and take direct responsibility when that society begins to fracture and descend into dysfunction. Too often people will say they can’t do it or another lame excuse to vacate responsibility. It is not impotence that creates this response, but laziness, ignorance and a desire to stay inside their zone of control.
These are not my full thoughts on the matter, but I could be writing for hours about this whole thing. I would like any thoughts or counter points people have on this though.
This is an ethics site. Ethics does not require morality; it requires systematic and consistent analysis based on values, logic, experience, and principles. Right and wrong exist independently of laws and codes. The claim that values decline in the absence of religion is nonsense; religion is an enforcement mechanism—useful, often valuable, ethic-friendly on occasion, but still. In ethics, you do right because right works out best for everyone in the long run. You follow moral codes out of fear.
Capitalism maximizes human autonomy and liberty, as well as personal responsibility. It requires ethical practitioners to thrive and avoid doing harm; since substantial numbers of practitioners are not ethical, the law has to provide what character does not: back to penalties and fear. The social Darwinism trope is fact-ducking socialist/communist cant and propaganda, but never mind: it’s off topic on this blog.
I think Marshall is being very kind here re religion. “Religion” has led to more horror than just about every political dogma in history — from before the Crusades and onward. Just tape your eyes open and watch “Spotlight” — and especially the list at the end of the film which lists the cities/countries that have major pederasty scandals. Anything happening from the Vatican about this? Nope. And this — the Roman Catholic Church — should be our example of religion creating morality? This is only the most recent horror.
From the Southern Baptists to the evangelicals trounced by scandal to the United Methodist Church which only espouses “tolerance’ in the most limited, intolerant, liberal ways, organized religion has a totallynegative record in the preaching/teaching of morality.
There, as a preachers’ kid, I’ve said it. Someday I will write a book about what my father suffered because he had the conscience and temerity to march from Selma to Montgomery with Martin Luther King Jr. He took the Christian teaching literally and for what it really meant. He was denigrated and punished for his actions.
Religion — Catholic, Protestant, Muslim et al provides us NOTHiNG except division among cultures. If you believe any one of them, you might get to heaven — whatever that is, because it varies so widely — but overall, I say good luck!
The Prophet is all the religion I need. http://www.katsandogz.com/gibran.html
E2,
I don’t want to sidetrack this discussion, but I think the history of the 20th would clearly demonstrate that political ideology resulted in more deaths in one century than all religions in all other centuries combined, to wit: the First World War, the Second World War, Nazi genocide, Stalin’s programs, Mao’s programs, untold numbers in Southeast Asia, and Africa, and the list goes on and on. And, I would also assert that more injustice has been done in the name of politics than religion. That does not excuse the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or other religious atrocities over the centuries. Now, you may argue that atrocities committed in the name of God are far worse than those committed in the name of politics but that is a discussion for another day or time.
I am no great adherent or promoter of religion (as a lousy Catholic, I do not and will not evangelize because, well . . . I am a lousy Catholic, and I couldn’t care less if people want to worship in a different manner or no manner at all).
Sam,
If I’m reading you right; you’re basing a good chunk of your argument on an assumption that implies that only religious people can be “moral”; I’m a Christian and I think any argument that contains that assumption it’s a verifiable failure on multiple levels.
Well said, sir. Very well said! Comment of the Day! (Oops, sorry, Jack.)
Wow.
In the book, Ethics in Human Communication, there is a statement that I feel applies to all the inappropriateness and unneeded comments seen in society -let alone the ones said by President Trump and Congressman Richmond. “For humans to communicate truthfully, some fundamental demands must be met: good intentions; ability to praise evidence objectively and to employ rigorous reasoning; knowledge of facts, values, purposes and feelings; and, most important, exercise of disinterested good will” (Johannesen et al., pg.25). Not only in recent years, but throughout history, government officials have made inappropriate comments and acted unlike how they should in their positions. We just see a lot more of this now than back then because of how quickly information moves. The internet and TV give information in an instant whether it is true, false, or misinterpreted. Those in the spotlight may want to take the above quote to heart, because it will save them from being the next blog post similar to this one.
References:
Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in Human Communication. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.