Chris Marschner completes our two-headed Comment of the Day with this reaction to Null Pointer’s comment featured in the first installment. Here is Chris’s COTD on the post, “Ted Cruz ‘Scandal’ Significance: Another Smoking Gun”:
Yesterday on this topic Null Pointer made the points I was going to make regarding our need to focus on results not contrived gotcha moments. A great deal was said here about the symbolism Cruz’s trip conveyed.
I ask this: Who defines what the symbol means? A photograph of a US Senator and father who chooses to escort his daughters to a vacation spot with plans to return home within 24 hours that occurs during a critical time for his state of which he has no technical capacity, authority and control or responsibility to effectuate results is only a negative symbol for those who wish to define it as such. Would it have made any difference if he was escorting his daughters to their college dorms in El-Paso, which is roughly the same flying distance from Houston? Is it really a Marie Antoinette “let them eat cake” moment, or is it symbolic of a dutiful father making sure his daughters are safe?
Symbols are useful artifacts to convey meaning in an abbreviated manner. The crucifix is a symbol the Jesus died on the cross for the sins of man. I remember that Cruz’s appearance reminded someone commenting on Ethics Alarms of the devil during the 2016 primary season. The imagery of the devil is a concoction by man to symbolize evil, so why was it mentioned other than to diminish the man? Our flag used to be be symbol for freedom but now it is merely a dinner bell for those wishing to feed at the trough or a representation of colonial oppression, depending on what argument is to be had. Symbols are often abused by posers who wrap themselves in defined symbols but never deliver results. Symbolism is often exploited for political gain. They are offered up as unsubstantiated evidence that cannot be countered. Claiming an act symbolizes racism or insensitivity to an issue if left unchallenged becomes the de facto definition of that symbol. The very act of defending against a charge of being a racist is now classed as a symbol of racism.
I have no idea whether the photographer who took the picture of Cruz in the airport held any animus toward him. Perhaps he or she was a supporter and did not realize that someone would take that photo and construct a negative symbol out of it. Or maybe it was done specifically to “out” him for political gain.
To use the language of the left, “Is that who we really are?” The answer is: probably.
Let’s take the photo in context: Does the left want to get back at Cruz and Hawley for their challenges on January 6th? Yes. Would any opportunity to harm Cruz politically even if it meant defining an event in the most negative manner be fair game for Democrats? Based on what I have seen so far – probably. Does it help their cause if they can chip away his political support through a thousand little wounds that they themselves inflict? Yes. So why do we buy into their definition of the symbolism of Cruz escorting his daughters to Cancun and returning the next day? Because we are head-explodingly naïve.
Progressives are adept at creating negative symbols to define their opposition, and any attempt to push back is merely another symbol of their opposition’s hate toward some group they have brainwashed into believing they are victims. I will not play their game.
Symbolism has been abused to the point that symbols that were once used to incentivize people to strive for achieving greatness, honesty, and being a productive citizen have to be expressed as similes. If you have to explain the meaning of a symbol, it is no longer a symbol. One thing is for sure, though: the Capitol building surrounded with miles of concertina wire and 5000 troops armed with select fire weapons is symbolic of a regime that is fearful of its people.
The question is what are they planning for us.