Ethics Observations On The John Lewis Funeral

)

  • As I noted here before, Lewis’s reputation as the “conscience of Congress” was undeserved, unless it’s a matter of conscience to be hyper-partisan and a constant source of racial division.
  • Lewis began the process of isolating Donald Trump and denying him the basic respect any incoming President is owed and deserves by virtue of his election. He boycotted the inaugeration, taking the Confressional Black Caucus with him.

If Lewis were worthy of the exorbitant accolades heaped on his memory today and a true statesman, he would have reached out to the President, and used his stature in the black community to work with him. That would have benefited everyone. Instead, he decided to plant hate and fear, and cripple the President’s ability to lead.

  • The “resistance” and Democrats, with great assistance from the news media and such bitter and selfish individuals as the late John McCain, have effectively stolen the Presidents ability to fulfill the ceremonial component of the President’s job, what is supposed to be the unifying and non-political  part of it. Yet op-ed writers and news how panels have the gall to complain that Trump cannot rally the nation’s spirit during times of crisis, when they know he was never permitted to fulfill this role from the moment he was elected.

He could not attend Lewis’s funeral, of course, and because he could not, he was, once again, prevented from being being President.

[As an aside, while I continue to be disgusted by his insistence on expressing every thought, no matter how ill-considered, that pops into his brain, the Lewis funeral reminds me of how horribly this President has been treated by his own country. The abuse and disrespect has been constant and unprecedented, unfair by any objective measure.  I respect Trump more now than I did when he was elected for his fortitude and resolve in the face of such hate.

I don’t know how he’s endured it, frankly. I don’t know if I could, and I’m a lifetime contrarian with my share of guts who regards quitting as a personal disgrace. He has a job he was elected to do, and he’s going to do it his way, no matter how  others, like Lewis try to hurt him. There’s not a lot about Donald Trump that I would point my son to as an example of how to be a man, but this is one aspect of his character that is admirable.]

  • George W. Bush’s appearance at the funeral was another slap at the President. Lewis boycotted both of his inaugurations, characteristically and despicably as the partisan black racist he was.

Bush knew what a divisive fraud Lewis was, yet he participated in the sanctification of an ethics corrupter.

  • Barack Obama remarks were inappropriate for a former President, and made up of the kinds of falsehood and hyperbole that would be critically fact-checked if Trump said anything similar. A sample:

“Bull Connor may be gone, but today we witnessed with our own eyes police officers kneeling on the necks black Americans. George Wallace may be gone, but we can witness our federal government sending agents to use tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators.”

Barack Obama is an asshole.

A single police officer, acting on his own, engaged in a singular act of cruelty. There were no “police officers,” plural, kneeling on”necks.” Obama is tarring all police with the conduct of a rogue officer, and comparing the act to the racist commands of Bull Connor, when, as I have shown, there is no evidence that racism played any part in George Floyd’s death. And Obama is flat out lying about tear gas, and by calling the mobs trying to destroy a federal courthouse in Portland “peaceful.

His rhetoric was contemptible, though, to be fair, John Lewis would have approved.

 

19 thoughts on “Ethics Observations On The John Lewis Funeral

  1. Given the immediate state of our nation, I have to believe George W. Bush’s purpose for attending was intended solely as an act of healing for the sake of Country and had nothing to do with heaping false praises on a man who deserved no such praise.

  2. Unfortunately, Jack, I think you are one of only a few who see this for what it is. There is no denying Lewis was a hero when he marched with MLK and took a severe beating for civil rights, just like there is no denying Douglas MacArthur was a hero when he made the masterstroke at Inchon, or that Christopher Columbus was a hero when he crossed the Atlantic in a wooden ship with only the stars to guide him. Apparently there are differing views as to whether heroism stays with a person, depending on who the person is and who the viewer is, though. To a black person, Lewis is a hero, full stop. He got his skull cracked to stop them being treated badly, and has been a tireless advocate for them ever since. He had no use for the GOP or its leaders, in fact in his Congressional career he only attended the on GOP inauguration, that of George Bush the elder, when he was just beginning his second term. He not only refused to appear for either of Bush the younger’s inaugurations, and in fact supported the idea of impeaching him. GWB would have been fully within his rights to stay away from the funeral of the man who wanted him kicked out of office before his time, but, as you point out, he went as a slap at the president his family is still very angry at for calling Jeb low energy and pushing him out of the 2016 race. That’s a poor reason to do this, but unfortunately, people’s bitterness is often stronger than anything else in their lives. Old grudges die very hard.

    Obama is also a saint as far as both the left and the black community are concerned. He was the progressive black hero who rode a wave of popular discontent all the way to the White House, saved the economy from collapsing, took the first step toward making health care a right, and would have done a lot more if it hadn’t been for those obstructionist Republicans in Congress, who wouldn’t pass his agenda and shut down his chance to point the Supreme Court in a progressive direction for another generation. It’s an election year, the president is vulnerable, Obama had a golden opportunity and a lot of material to work with, and he used it. Black Lives Matter is a political juggernaut, and he pushed it further forward.

    The thing is, the left can do these things because of the media. The media has moved away from granting the GOP and its officials even the grudging respect they gave the Bushes and Reagan. The media has also moved away from even trying to be objective. They exist only to magnify the successes of one side and the failures of the other, conceal the mistakes of one side while making sure no one misses those of the other, and make certain that the arguments of one side travel all the way around the planet and back before those of the other side can even get out of bed, let alone get their shoes on. Of course then they mock the side that can’t get ahead because they won’t let it get ahead, with the same mentality of the jerk who used to trip you and then mock you for being so clumsy. They are also the folks who nudge the populace in the direction they want to think, sometimes very strongly. They’re the people who would bury every victory in Iraq while gleefully announcing the withdrawal of yet another ally. They are also the people who called al-Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar” rather the terrorist he was and wrung their hands over Trump’s decision to take out an Iranian high commander responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. They giddily applaud like cheerleaders witnessing another touchdown when a statue gets torn down by a mob or spirited out of sight under cover of darkness by a mayor who is oh-so-worried about public safety, but they act horrified if someone defaces a huge political slogan painted in the middle of the street. They’ll make sure you see every athlete from the pros on down who kneels and thumbs his nose at the flag, and they’ll also sic the Twitter mob on any athlete who refuses to do that, whether he does not agree with BLM or just doesn’t want to get involved. They’re also the ones who’ve made more than half this nation believe that everything that went on since the death of George Floyd was “peaceful protest,” and that any accounts of violence were either lies or trouble stirred up by white supremacists to smear the peaceful. Finally, they’re the ones that smear anyone who disagrees with them as racist or some equivalent, so fewer dare say anything.

    Meantime, the president is trying to handle this pandemic, which he didn’t cause, and all they do is point out his missteps and wonder aloud why AOC expy New Zealand PM Jacinda Ahern has squashed the curve while we can’t seem to keep it down. He’s trying to bring law and order where Democratic governors and mayors have either been woefully inadequate or have refused to take action at all because their sympathies lie with those disrupting good order, and all they do is compare him to racist Southern sheriffs who beat up civil rights demonstrators because they could. Of course he can’t rally the nation. The opposition and the media won’t let him, and then they laugh in his face for being unable to do what they won’t let him do. I really think there is a good change GWB was the last GOP president who was allowed to do any kind of rallying of the nation as he did in the wake of 9/11. If another 9/11 happens on another GOP president’s watch (God forbid) I am almost certain that president will be portrayed as foolish and out of touch to the point where people will laugh at him or hate him if he tries to rally them.

    Then again, it might not matter, because, depending on the vote this fall, the chances of another GOP president are getting lower and lower. The Democrats have made no secret of what they intend to do should they manage a 2008-style sweep this fall, and a lot of it is aimed at perpetuating their power. But go ahead, buy into all this, and step into that voting booth thinking you need to cast your vote to “use your privilege to help” or whatever. But if you do, understand you’re also rewarding an alliance of lies.

    • I’m trying to think of a good analogy for Lewis. One that comes close is John Glenn, a hero as an astronaut, largely a partisan hack as a Senator, but whose reputaion is based on what he was good at rather than the more important job he was unqualified for. Audei Murphy comes to mind: because he was w war hero, Hollywood kept starring him in moves, though he was a pretty lousy actor. But people came to see those movies, so you can’t really say he was a failure at his second career. It would be like calling Grant a great President because he was a great general, except we are beginning to recognize that Grant was a better President than his reputation, and Lewis was a far worse Congressmen that all the hype had held.

    • Steve writes:

      The thing is, the left can do these things because of the media. The media has moved away from granting the GOP and its officials even the grudging respect they gave the Bushes and Reagan. The media has also moved away from even trying to be objective. They exist only to magnify the successes of one side and the failures of the other, conceal the mistakes of one side while making sure no one misses those of the other, and make certain that the arguments of one side travel all the way around the planet and back before those of the other side can even get out of bed, let alone get their shoes on. Of course then they mock the side that can’t get ahead because they won’t let it get ahead, with the same mentality of the jerk who used to trip you and then mock you for being so clumsy. They are also the folks who nudge the populace in the direction they want to think, sometimes very strongly. They’re the people who would bury every victory in Iraq while gleefully announcing the withdrawal of yet another ally. They are also the people who called al-Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar” rather the terrorist he was and wrung their hands over Trump’s decision to take out an Iranian high commander responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. They giddily applaud like cheerleaders witnessing another touchdown when a statue gets torn down by a mob or spirited out of sight under cover of darkness by a mayor who is oh-so-worried about public safety, but they act horrified if someone defaces a huge political slogan painted in the middle of the street. They’ll make sure you see every athlete from the pros on down who kneels and thumbs his nose at the flag, and they’ll also sic the Twitter mob on any athlete who refuses to do that, whether he does not agree with BLM or just doesn’t want to get involved. They’re also the ones who’ve made more than half this nation believe that everything that went on since the death of George Floyd was “peaceful protest,” and that any accounts of violence were either lies or trouble stirred up by white supremacists to smear the peaceful. Finally, they’re the ones that smear anyone who disagrees with them as racist or some equivalent, so fewer dare say anything.

      Wilmot Robinson wrote:

      Is it not incredible that the largest American population group, the group with the deepest roots, the most orderly and most technically proficient group, the nuclear population group of American culture and of the American gene pool, should have lost its preeminence to weaker, less established, less numerous, culturally heterogeneous, and often mutually hostile minorities?

      With all due allowance for minority dynamism … this miraculous shift of power could never have taken place without a Majority “split in the ranks” – without the active assistance and participation of Majority members themselves. It has already been pointed out that race consciousness is one of mankind’s greatest binding forces. From this it follows that when the racial gravitational pull slackens people tend to spin off from the group nucleus. Some drift aimlessly through life as human isolates. Others look for a substitute nucleus in an intensified religious or political life, or in an expanded class consciousness. Still others, out of idealism, romanticism, inertia, or perversity, attach themselves to another race in an attempt to find the solidarity they miss in their own.

      To say ‘The Media’ is very similar to saying ‘The Democrats’. It is always a *them* and they are always *over there*. Your seeing us such that you do not and you cannot see how the *general system* has engineered what is going on. Both sides, all sides. You fail to see and understand your own ideological involvement.

      Steve’s political views and geo-political views about America are child-like, though historically very interesting. He reveals the Standard View which is itself (entirely!) a Media Creation! (in the somewhat sloppy sense of his use of the word ‘media’). He decries the Media while failing to understand its extraordinary collusion in entire realms of deception.

      Media + business interests + military interests + global design + social engineering = Our Present

      That is not ‘conservatism’ as I define it. It is a sort of ‘toadyism’ (though there is likely a better word). It is working with Received View. It is not critical view: a sort of critical view very needed.

      Curiously, the ‘split in the ranks’ Robinson talks about is quite notably visible among *yous*. It is so interesting, if strange, to watch Steve and Jack and so many others ‘rehearse’ their essentially Progressive speeches while representing ‘Conservatism’. You are the champions of progressive views!

      These activists of former days (MLK for example) began — on the whole — as Marxist activists. MLKs ideology is Black Liberation Theology basically. These are Marxist categories. And I mean real Marxism and I do not mean this as a blanket slur as ‘cultural Marxism’ is used today.

      Conservatism could have been, should have been, might have been capable of resisting what has now come to fruition in our present, but Pseudo-Conservatism could not, did not and I also think will not be capable of mounting a ‘heroic’ opposition.

      YOU ARE COMPLICIT!

      Therefore, all you can do is complain. If you could bring yourselves to see this it would help a great deal.

  3. Barack Obama once again failed, as he did though out his eight-year presidency, to take advantage of the unique opportunity placed before him. He could have used the eulogy of a great civil rights leader (despite the racial rhetoric of his later years) to add some perspective to the claims of systemic racism that are polarizing the country today. Juxtapose the strife and struggles, the accomplishments and successes of Lewis and others of that generation, with the current calls of racism. To emphasize that Lewis fought not only to remove racial barriers, but also to uplift the black community and inspire them to take advantage to opportunities that arose from the removal of these barriers, and strive to achieve true equality. To unite the country in that ongoing effort. Instead, as is his wont, he chose to deepen the racial divide. Perhaps the early comments from some in the black community that he “is not black enough” were true, for he continues to ignore the great opportunities placed before him to help the black community, and strives only to pursue his Progressive ideologies, at their expense.
    Say what you want about Donald Trump’s faults, and there are many, but his goals are clear. His methods are transparent and he is unapologetic of his belief that his policies will benefit the country as a whole. If you don’t agree with his policies, fine, but at least you know what there are and you can take the appropriate actions. Barack Obama is a deceitful, narcissistic, fraud; in my book, an Ethic Dunce for the ages, and it saddens me greatly.

  4. Steve-O is right: Obama’s statement yesterday characterizing the filibuster as a “relic of Jim Crow” shows that Democrats will get rid of it the minute they have 50 votes and the President/VP to break ties. It also shows — again — how anything and anybody who interferes with Democrats getting power will be attacked on racial grounds. I mean, why even bother debating the merits of the filibuster when it can be dismissed as a “relic of Jim Crow”?

    • The irony is that the filibuster rule is to protect the political minority’s rights yet it is attacked by the demographic minority

      • The democrats have removed minority power multiple times and it has bit them in the butt time and again.
        Judges were only opposed with valid reasons of concern rather than partisan differences. Then we had the attack on Bork lead by Sen Kennedy. That was followed up by the slander of Justice Thomas.
        The republicans responded by playing hardball under Obama. Reid responded by killing the fillibuster against judges. How has that gone recently? The answer is not so well in the democrats favor, as the Senate is rubber stamping Trump judges as a fast clip.
        If history is a guide, the democrats might get a short term win but will pay in the long run if they eliminate the fillibuster alltogether.

  5. Steve in NJ writes:

    There is no denying Lewis was a hero when he marched with MLK and took a severe beating for civil rights, just like there is no denying Douglas MacArthur was a hero when he made the masterstroke at Inchon, or that Christopher Columbus was a hero when he crossed the Atlantic in a wooden ship with only the stars to guide him.

    I am interested in the word ‘hero’.

    [from Wikipedia:]

    The word hero comes from the Greek ἥρως (hērōs), “hero” (literally “protector” or “defender”), particularly one such as Heracles with divine ancestry or later given divine honors.

    A hero (heroine in its feminine form) is a real person or a main fictional character who, in the face of danger, combats adversity through feats of ingenuity, courage or strength. Like other formerly solely gender-specific terms (like actor), hero is often used to refer to any gender, though heroine only refers to female. The original hero type of classical epics did such things for the sake of glory and honor. On the other hand, are post-classical and modern heroes, who perform great deeds or selfless acts for the common good instead of the classical goal of wealth, pride, and fame. The antonym of a hero is a villain. Other terms associated with the concept of a hero, may include “good guy” or “white hat”.

    If it is true that ‘by their fruits you will know them’ (and I mean this in a general and not in a specifically Christian sense where ‘heroism’ has a radically different meaning), I am not sure how I would go about describing the heroism of MLK or John Lewis. I certainly recognize achievement, and perseverance of will, but if Our Present and the radical rebellion that is everywhere evident is the outcome or final result of the heroism identified in the activities of MLK and John Lewis, I am uncertain if this heroism will stand the test of time. It is something to be looked into in any case. The entire notion of heroism and what heroism means in our present.

    It is a curious fact that in this present, at least in those places where I read and gather perspective, those that are anti-heroes to the Present’s notion of heroism are brought out against the coercions employed in the present to define and defend what is *proper and good*. Jonathan Bowden, Julius Evola, Réné Guénon, Savitri Devi, Sir Arthur Mosley, Carl Schmidt, Francis Parker Yockey to name a few. These are people who turn against the *current of time*.

    In *our* intellectual world — deeply critical of aspects of liberalism as a ‘rot’ and a ‘disease’ — I guess we cannot be certain who the *real heroes* are. It is an interesting fact — it is related to the notion of ‘liberal rot’ — that Richard Weaver noticed what he termed strong trends of nihilism even when America was winning its WWll battle. The seeds were already present. To be *truly heroic* (I would suggest) requires a ‘spiritual dimension’. But everything in present day America has to do with elevations of the banal. Marketing strategy and campaign to *sell* people on the wonders of a horizontal, non-vertical ‘life’ and ‘reality’. You have to dismiss one order of heroes and heroism in order to elevate the new, accepted order.

    Who are the ‘heroes’ of our present?

  6. And Obama is flat out lying about tear gas, and by calling the mobs trying to destroy a federal courthouse in Portland “peaceful.

    This meme about “Trump’s secret police” has been going on now for two weeks. Not just spread by some random bloggers, but by Democratic leaders.

    Speaker Pelosi also accused the feds of being stormtroopers.

    Furthermore, I was dismayed over Reason.com’s coverage, claiming absurd things like sending federal agents to protect federal property somehow violates federalism, or that Trump is answering lawlessness with lawlessness.

  7. Jack wrote, “Bush knew what a divisive fraud Lewis was, yet he participated in the sanctification of an ethics corrupter.”

    Yes that’s true but this is also true; what Bush did was “Presidential”, even though President Bush was a political opposite he was invited there to be “Presidential” and in his own way he did just that; President Trump will never be granted such an opportunity by the political left to do so would show respect for President Trump and publicly invalidate their hate. In President Bush’s only reference to the political climate of the United States today, he put a subtle shot across the bow of the divisional politics currently consuming the USA when he said “We the people, including congressmen and presidents, can have differing views on how to perfect our union while sharing the conviction that our nation, however flawed, is a good and noble one.” That must have made some progressives and social justice warriors listening to him throw up a little in the back of their throats.

  8. First, W. I listened to every speech,, every eulogy. I tried to follow every nuance. W’s presence and his speech were healing in nature, and I (am I alone in this?) believe that is why he was there and why he spoke as he did. It therefore moved me, but of course that is an emotional rather than logical response. Was it unethical for W to speak that way or for me to respond as I did? I think not, if what we are really discussing is ethics and not politics and ideologies.

    What about Obama? I did not “like” his eulogy, but it was not speaking to me. It was a funeral, people! He was consistent with the spirit of Lewis. No matter what one thinks about Lewis’ merits as a legislator or his oppositional “stunts” toward those with whom he disagrees, there is little doubt that his reputation as a “fighter” for justice for African Americans was earned and is admirable. For Pete’s (John’s) sake, the 14th Amendment came into effect 152 years ago, the progress made after the protests of the late ‘50s and early ‘60s was more than half a century ago, and here we are; still trying to address (as they must be) racism, inequality, and justice. No, Obama’s speech was not out of place for a funeral. The primary purpose of a funeral is to honor the dead; and Obama did indeed say “what John Lewis would have liked to hear”.

    As I said at the outset, I do not agree with several of the characterizations by Pres Obama but …. the fact that it was a media event did magnify what he said. Had it been a private funeral, it would have not been inappropriate — just as it would not have been inappropriate (perhaps incorrect but not inappropriate) for another speaker to deliver that speech. The one “celebrity” speaker who captured the moment was Xernona Clayton; a very personal eulogy from a 5’11” dynamo who will be 90 this month. Let’s be careful, in criticizing and critiquing the oratory at the funeral and the people who spoke, to not forget a few things: the civil rights leaders were brave courageous, their fight was just; that someone (W) speaks well of a man who did not treat him well is to be praised, not denigrated; that this was a funeral (!) to honor John Lewis…and he was so honored.

    When my youngest son died, his brother honored a pact they had made after reading Speaker for the Dead, and spoke objectively but lovingly about the missing spark in our family. I know of no such pact here, so the focus on the positive at a funeral is neither unexpected nor unethical. I wish I were more knowledgeable and more articulate so I could really communicate as objectively as possible the interplay of facts and emotion inherent (for me) in the elements of this funeral. John Lewis may have acted — at least on occasion — in a way that was inconsistent with greatness; but he said great things. And by saying great things, he loud the foundation for aspirational acts. I wish I could understand everything, could simplify complexities and comprehend inconsistencies. Probably not happening. From Speaker for the Dead: “I want to understand everything,” said Miro. “I want to know everything and put it all together to see what it means.”

    “Excellent project,” she said. “It will look very good on your resume”

    • My Lord! What is needed today is an awakening to the total destructiveness of an ant-White ideological cancer. That is the starting point. There is no other starting-point.

      John Lewis ‘attended by angles’? This is all nonsense, and it is a total Media Creation. It’s Spectacle. It’s obfuscation. It is a form of drunkenness. It is non-heroic. It is a joke. It is also a giant Game.

    • Helpful perspective and reflections, M. I’m going to jump it ahead in on the COTD runway.

      I’m torn regarding Bush. In a sense, I don’t feel Lewis earned his respect or tribute; the opposite, in fact. I don’t know if it’s ethical to put that aside and pretend that the deceased didn’t take affirmative efforts to try to destroy you. Did any Kennedys speak at J. Edgar Hoover’s funeral? Did Ted speak at Nixon’s funeral? At some point, honoring becomes complicity.

      The standard of “it was what Lewis want to hear” seems like one easily abused, and Obama abused it. Why not just call the President a racist cocksucker, then?

      I realized what a destructive hack Lewis was when he constantly interfered with legitimate investigations of the many corrupt actions in the Obama administration. He wasn’t doing his job or looking out for the country. He was protecting his “tribe.” In this, Lewis was no better than the racists he opposed when he braved the threats of the segregationists.

      • I realized what a destructive hack Lewis was when he constantly interfered with legitimate investigations of the many corrupt actions in the Obama administration. He wasn’t doing his job or looking out for the country. He was protecting his “tribe.” In this, Lewis was no better than the racists he opposed when he braved the threats of the segregationists.

        Could you list these corrupt actions?

  9. Since Democrats die every day, every American flag should be flown at half-mast (and upside-down) 24/7. JESUS! How many more WEEKS or MONTHS are the media going to talk about “saying goodbyes” to Lewis?! Is there going to be a 24/7 “resurrection vigil” at the man’s grave now? Will the space around his grave become Occupied Blacklandia? JESUS!

    I guess they just had to make sure they out-George-Floyded the goodbyes to George Floyd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.