Dialogue of the Self in Modern Times
Article produced and published by the Anglican Curmudgeon,
A. S. Haley (click on the "Dialogue" title just above.....etc. link to go directly to his site.)
Q. Is Donald Trump crude, and coarse, and pompous?
A. Indubitably.
Q. But we knew that about him already, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So what is “new” in regard to a tape of his crude and coarse
remarks made in 2005?
A. Nothing.
Q. So how can the left [sc. the Democrats and their camp-followers]
claim this development as “news”?
A. They can’t. But that doesn’t stop them from doing it anyway, since
they see a political advantage.
Q. And just what is the political advantage they see?
A. That they can trumpet [pun intended] how crude, and coarse,
and pompous Mr. Trump is.
Q. Wait — we already knew that, right? [See first question.]
A. Right. Just as we already knew that former President Clinton used
his position to exploit women, and on occasion to assault, batter and
even rape them -- with no fear of reprisal.
Q. So what possible advantage can they gain from raising as “new"
something that everyone already knew, and that is hypocritical of
them, to boot?
A. Ah, now you’ve gotten to the heart of the matter.
Q. I have?
A. Yes. The God of PC [Political Correctness] demands from His
devotees incessant sacrifices of the same thing over and over again.
Thus the left can once more (ad nauseam) profess and show how
much they adore their God of PC: they kneel and prostrate themselves
before His altar, but are careful to offer only their political opponents
(and never one of their own) for sacrifice. Those on the right, on the
other hand, are left [pun intended] — with a quandary.
Q. What quandary?
A. They don’t relish worshiping the God of PC — but they will, and
will sacrifice even their own chosen candidate if that’s what it takes to
get themselves re-elected. And that’s why so many of the right have
chosen this particular moment to abandon their previous
[albeit lukewarm] support of Mr. Trump.
Q. And just where does that leave Mr. Trump?
A. Just where you now find him: gazing in the pool, admiring his
own reflection, and not caring a fig for what anyone else may
think -- all the while that his erstwhile “supporters” desert
him in droves.
Q. That’s not a very pretty picture.
A. It’s not. But politics is never pretty. If you wanted Mother Teresa
for a candidate, you could never have gotten her, because half
(or more) of the electorate would have rejected her just for what she stood for,
namely the welfare of everyone else but herself. The majority of this
motivated to go to the polls today ask only: "What will this (or that)
candidate do for me?"
Q. Well, even if that's so, what's wrong with that? Shouldn't
they vote based on which candidate can deliver the most for them?
A. That approach renders them incapable of placing themselves in
anyone’s shoes but their own. Consequently they end up with
candidates whose vision likewise cannot extend beyond their
own selves, e.g., Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In short,
they get just those whom they have asked for, and whom they
certainly deserve.
A. Indubitably.
Q. But we knew that about him already, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So what is “new” in regard to a tape of his crude and coarse
remarks made in 2005?
A. Nothing.
Q. So how can the left [sc. the Democrats and their camp-followers]
claim this development as “news”?
A. They can’t. But that doesn’t stop them from doing it anyway, since
they see a political advantage.
Q. And just what is the political advantage they see?
A. That they can trumpet [pun intended] how crude, and coarse,
and pompous Mr. Trump is.
Q. Wait — we already knew that, right? [See first question.]
A. Right. Just as we already knew that former President Clinton used
his position to exploit women, and on occasion to assault, batter and
even rape them -- with no fear of reprisal.
Q. So what possible advantage can they gain from raising as “new"
something that everyone already knew, and that is hypocritical of
them, to boot?
A. Ah, now you’ve gotten to the heart of the matter.
Q. I have?
A. Yes. The God of PC [Political Correctness] demands from His
devotees incessant sacrifices of the same thing over and over again.
Thus the left can once more (ad nauseam) profess and show how
much they adore their God of PC: they kneel and prostrate themselves
before His altar, but are careful to offer only their political opponents
(and never one of their own) for sacrifice. Those on the right, on the
other hand, are left [pun intended] — with a quandary.
Q. What quandary?
A. They don’t relish worshiping the God of PC — but they will, and
will sacrifice even their own chosen candidate if that’s what it takes to
get themselves re-elected. And that’s why so many of the right have
chosen this particular moment to abandon their previous
[albeit lukewarm] support of Mr. Trump.
Q. And just where does that leave Mr. Trump?
A. Just where you now find him: gazing in the pool, admiring his
own reflection, and not caring a fig for what anyone else may
think -- all the while that his erstwhile “supporters” desert
him in droves.
Q. That’s not a very pretty picture.
A. It’s not. But politics is never pretty. If you wanted Mother Teresa
for a candidate, you could never have gotten her, because half
(or more) of the electorate would have rejected her just for what she stood for,
namely the welfare of everyone else but herself. The majority of this
motivated to go to the polls today ask only: "What will this (or that)
candidate do for me?"
Q. Well, even if that's so, what's wrong with that? Shouldn't
they vote based on which candidate can deliver the most for them?
A. That approach renders them incapable of placing themselves in
anyone’s shoes but their own. Consequently they end up with
candidates whose vision likewise cannot extend beyond their
own selves, e.g., Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In short,
they get just those whom they have asked for, and whom they
certainly deserve.
