As the Ruling Class
reminds us, it’s a class war, you stupid people.
The argument has little to do with Roy Moore, and even less with
what is acceptable behavior. It is about what Lenin succinctly called “who,
whom?” — who can do what to whom or, as Amos ’n Andy used to say, who’s gonna
be the “do-er” and who the “do-ee,” neither more nor less. The reason why the
bipartisan ruling class of officials, corporate executives, educators, the
media, entertainment, etc. demand Roy Moore’s political scalp is that it fell
on Moore to be the focus of a pivotal effort to detach the Republican Party
from that ruling class. It has nothing to do with what he may have done four
decades ago, and everything with the threat that his election now poses to
their power to run the country while de-legitimizing the rest of Americans and
their culture. Had it been anyone else, the degree of hostility would have been
the same, the charges possibly different but just as fiery and equally beside
the point: which sector of the population shall have its power enhanced, and
which diminished?
By precisely the
same token, crediting the 2016 election’s outcome to Russia or/and “the
resistance” thereto to concerns with Donald Trump’s personal proclivities
bespeaks willful detachment from reality.
Focusing on the
ruling class’s hypocrisy, its sordid history of approving behavior by its
members far worse than that with which it charges Roy Moore, crying “tu qoque!” not only
lends unwarranted credence to its charges on Moore. It diverts attention from
the most important reason for that approval, namely the key function of partisan solidarity.
Lenin explained partiinost,
party spirit, most succinctly. Asked in the Duma whether one of his decrees was in
accordance with justice, he answered: “Justice? For what class?” This is the
question that Bill and Hillary Clinton posed to the ruling class by asking it
to join in destroying the reputations of the women whom Bill had raped. The
Democratic Party’s answer then, and especially subsequent to DNA evidence’s
confirmation of President Bill’s nationally televised perjury regarding his
fellatio in the Oval Office, joined it forever in totalitarian partisanship.
More and more Republicans joined up — the price that junior partners pay for
doing business with senior partners.
The reason why
Republicans even more than Democrats try to destroy Roy Moore is that, for the
moment, his campaign is the spear-point of a movement first to peel away
Republicans from business as it is being done in Washington, and then to
destroy that business model. How it got to be that is worth keeping in mind.
Franklin D.
Roosevelt made the Democrats the party of big government. Naturally, Americans
who disagreed with, felt burdened by growing government, gravitated to the
Republicans, then led by Robert A. Taft. But the Party was always anchored by
officials and donors tied to big business, who disdained ordinary Americans as
much or more than Democrats. Beginning with Barry Goldwater’s movement in 1960,
and culminating in Ronald Reagan’s 1981-89 presidency, the Party became an
advocate for liberty vis-à-vis government and a defender of American culture —
at least rhetorically and at the local level. But in Washington, under the Bush
dynasty, ever-bigger government tied Republican officials ever more tightly to
Democrats and their agendas. Ever since 2006, Republican voters have been
trying to take back the Party, or to find another political vehicle for their
needs.
In 2016, voters
chose Donald Trump because he presented himself as opposed to the Republican as
well as the Democratic wings of the ruling class. But his election by no means
dissolved the business relationships between Republicans and Democrats in
Washington, of which Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is
emblematic. When Alabama’s Republican leaders appointed Luther Strange, an ally
of McConnell’s, to fill the seat vacated by Trump’s choice for U.S. Attorney
General, voters rebelled. They nominated Roy Moore, defeating Strange by ten
points despite the entire Republican establishment’s efforts on his behalf, the
expenditure of over $30 million, and even Donald Trump’s appearance on his
behalf.
Roy Moore’s
victory over all that raised the prospect that candidates who appeal to the
sentiments that had elected Trump in 2016 and nominated Moore in 2017 would
sweep establishment Republicans out of their cushy places. To put this specter
off a little while longer, the Washington
Post published allegations — wholly unsubstantiated — that,
some forty years ago, Moore had engaged in consensual sexual activity with
minors.
The ruling class
piled on. Perhaps enough conservative voters would view the accusations as
defenses of youthful virginity. But such objections to Roy Moore, coming from
such as Mitch McConnell and Hillary Clinton, recall voters to reality and might
well count as reasons to vote for him.
