https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Time magazine, surely a bastion of right wing orthodoxy, ran the above article under the headline "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election". What's interesting is the implication in the headline that this "Shadow Campaign" was necessary to "save" us from the possibility of Trump winning. I'm not sure that this is the smoking gun that many of the Trump zealots wanted, but it's clearly an indication that those who opposed Trump were open to anything no matter how unseemly that would "save" the election.
5 comments:
What's most galling is the article stands as a clear slap in the face, as it's an admission of much of what's been alleged regarding the stolen election, and it has a "and there's nothing you can do about it" feel to it. Of course, it won't change the condescension and demonizing by Dems and NeverTrump Republicans of those who've been seeking a fair hearing.
While I don't agree that it's the smoking gun that some would have wanted. I am also shocked at the matter of fact way that Time acknowledges that there was a concerted, organized effort to affect the election by various forms of media and others. It's certainly disturbing that these "media/elite" folks would be so brazen in their admissions. I think this is palatable to some because of this new "Our opposition is evil." narrative that we've seen.
So, are you agreeing our opposition is evil? I certainly believe it's the case for many reasons. Some balk at the use of the term, but I say it's entirely appropriate.
By itself, the article only addresses certain aspects of the widespread fraud and as such stands as just one more piece of evidence. But it's a compelling piece to be sure and should be enough to provoke a deeper and more serious look at all the evidence, if not just the specific points it referenced. But "should" be enough has not been enough thus far for those determined to avoid scrutiny altogether.
No, I think that one of the biggest problems in our political dialogue of late, is the notion that the other side is evil. I've been pretty clear that I think that use of terms like evil to describe political opponents and the like, simply cheapens the meaning of the term evil. Way to many terms are being wantonly applied to the point that they have become meaningless. Biden might well be headed towards senility, engage in unwelcome sexual behavior, be a serial liar and plagiarizer, and be advocating horrible policies, but I can't see how that makes him evil. In my mind, there is an element of intent to evil, that I can't attribute to my political opponents.
Finally, this current use of evil in a political sense, has come from the left and I don't see the benefit to descending to their level.
I've always argued that the election should be scrutinized. I believe that every charge of election fraud should be investigated exhaustively, and that anything revealed in the Time article that rises to the level of criminality should be pursued. Free and fair elections should be sacrosanct, and should be defended zealously. I've proposed multiple suggestions that I believe would help toward that end
I'm just not sure how referring to people as evil does anything to help.
It's not descending to their level if the term is appropriate. Keep in mind the things they support and promote. Abortion alone is evil. However, evil doesn't have to be that obvious to still be evil. Nonetheless, it alone makes the term entirely appropriate and as such it provides a lesson in its proper usage. Whatever is immoral is evil. The Dems promote immoral sexual behavior as worthy of legal protection, if not outright promotion. That, too, makes them evil.
Conversely, the Dems use of the term is mere pejorative. They aren't even willing to engage in discussion as what makes an opponent or policy evil. They simply apply the term as a means to dissuade anyone from considering that opponent or policy. It goes to a position I've always maintained: call me what you like, but be prepared to explain why it's appropriate. As such, I'm definitely prepared, as my two examples above demonstrate. I don't see that from Dan. We're just to agree with him. Indeed, that doesn't help at all. But saying, "He's an asshole and here's why..." does absolutely. One could say that it essential to preclude the explanation with the epithet in order to make the case rather than the other way around. It grabs the attention better in front of the explanation rather than as the conclusion. (though it needs to restated after the explanation as well, as in, "He's an asshole, here's why, thus he's an asshole".)
Post a Comment