The Thinking ‘Kat: Why it’s Difficult to Trust Republicans, P2
No sooner had I followed through with an exercise in examing how there are a great many arguments why Republicans should not be trusted, Citizen Tom issued a response. Tom thinks my post is fundamentally flawed, as he thinks it doesn’t point out contradictions (except of course, that it does precisely the same thing that Tom’s post actually does). Unfortunately, his is a response that only reinforces the hypocrisy present in his original argument.
Consider his first ‘point’.
I did not accuse Liberal Democrat politicians of bias. I pointed to behavior that demonstrates they are telling outright lies. Just because politicians lie shamelessly does not mean they are not lying.
I wasn’t stating that Tom was accusing Democrats of bias. I was referring to Tom’s own bias, and the general bias we all have when it comes to political and social arguments. However, if Tom wishes to reference politicians and lying, perhaps he can consider why the Trump administration has been habitually dishonest. Perhaps he can consider the various occasions that Trump himself has been caught in serious and obvious lies.
Something tells me Tom will not be interested in a harsh critique of Republican dishonesty. It would disrupt his carefully constructed narrative that Republicans are somehow much more trustworthy and less inclined to be hypocrites, even though that simply isn’t true.
All politicians lie. It seems to be a core element of the job. It is a mistake to believe that Republicans do not lie, or that they do not lie as often as Democrats. The evidence certainly suggests that they do.
Tom thinks I don’t understand book banning, and makes an off-the-cuff remark about the First Amendment not allowing pornography in libraries. Of course, this tells me he has not read the sources I supplied last time out, so perhaps some quotes are in order that demonstrate the book bans have everything to do with clamping down on freedom of expression. Firstly, from here. Perhaps Tom would care to point what makes these books explicit:
Freckleface Strawberry, by Julianne Moore
Authored by actress Julianne Moore, this story follows a young girl with bright red hair and lots of freckles, which earns her the nickname Freckleface Strawberry. While she’s full of energy and loves to play, she feels self-conscious about her freckles because they make her look different from other kids.
Hmm, not seeing the sexual content here. What about the next book the DOD banned?
To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
Set in the racially charged American South during the 1930s, this classic novel follows a young girl’s coming-of-age as her father, a principled lawyer, defends a man facing grave injustice. Through her innocent eyes, the story explores complex themes like morality, empathy, and social inequality. It’s been a part of school English curriculums since it was published in 1960.
A striking story that cuts to the core of social injustice during a time of racial unrest. What possible reason could there be to ban it?
The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood
Set in a dystopian future where a theocratic regime strips women of their rights, this chilling narrative follows a woman forced into reproductive servitude. It examines themes of power, control, and resistance with eerie relevance and emotional depth.
It’s pretty obvious why this was banned. It’s too close to the handbook that some conservative Republicans have, and they feel embarrassed by it.
This is merely the tip of the iceberg. Is it possible some books are being removed from school libraries with a measure of justification over content? Possibly. However, the ones targeted for having the nerve to write about real issues affecting real people (such as homophobia, racism and misogyny) are certainly evidence of a government that is not interested in respecting people’s voices, and the Trump administration has targeted public libraries too.
Tom complains that I have not understood Republican efforts to censor the media. I have understood it absolutely fine. When the government starts bullying and threatening the media into silence, on the grounds they are not nice to Trump, that is as bold and obvious an effort at censorship as can be. Nor is this the only situation where such performances are unfolding. Tom would do well to consider the throttling of left-wing views on social media, orchastrated by Elon Musk, one of Trump’s allies. Of course, he probably won’t.
Next, Tom is upset by my remarks about voter ID. He says I’m claiming it’s racist. All I did was point to evidence that it affects minorities more. There are valid concerns about it. It may well be that most Americans approve of it, but if pure public approval is enough to make it right, then is the tiny fact that most Americans – including Republicans – are opposed to Republican book-banning measures make those measures wrong?
Tom bemoans my criticism of Republican gerrymandering. ‘The Democrats did it first!’ he whines. Leaving aside a lack of proof from Tom on this score, the Republicans do it more often and more thoroughly, which is hardly the act of a party committed to fair and open elections.
I stand by my reference regarding Trump and the border. He did not want it passed purely to gain power, and did not act in the best interests of his country, instead preferring to look out for himself (which is Trump 101).
I also stand by my points re RFK JR. I have seen no evidence from Tom that suggests I should not regard RFK JR as a hypocrite. Vaccine rates are falling, dangerous diseases like measles are on the rise, and yet somehow, Tom thinks Republicans are following science.
Tom is upset by the evidence that Democrat states tend to perform better in areas such as education. They also perform better in terms of safety from violent crime, and health outcomes. Tom retorts that people are leaving blue states for red ones, but doesn’t offer any reasoning behind why. Perhaps those leaving are more inclined to vote Republican, and wish to live in states that reflect their beliefs? Perhaps there are some benefits to Republican states (at least on the surface, relating to taxes). However, none of this alters the facts regarding education, health, and crime. The reality of these facts will not alter just because some people get angry about them.
Anyway, it seems Ben thinks that he is so right that only someone evil can disagree with him, and that is why he does not understand WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO TRUST LIBERAL DEMOCRATS? That post is not about which policies are right or wrong. That post is about self-contradictory behavior so blatant that only a liar could hold such contrary views.
Irony, thy name is Tom. Tom has regularly painted Democrats to be the root of all evil, and as such when it is shown to him that Republicans are at least every bit as indulgent in the behaviours and contradictions he accuses Democrats of, he cannot and will not compute this. Indeed, nothing can stop him from his idolatry of Trump.
To summarise…
There are scores of contradictory behaviours here. Republicans claim to be all about free speech, yet ban books on ideological grounds (yes Tom, that is precisely what is happening). Republicans claim to follow the science, yet lead an anti-vax attitude that is seeing dangerous, even deadly, diseases return to American shores. Republicans claim to be for electoral transparency and integrity yet gerrymander to a far greater extent than Democrats do. I could go on, but Tom is not interested in this. Pesky things like facts and evidence don’t tend to mesh well with idolatry.
That said, Tom does have a valid observation that people are generally leaving blue states for red ones, and the reasoning could well be down to cost of living. However, this should be considered a crumb of comfort to Tom. Nothing changes the base reality that Republican states score worse for health, safety and education. Perhaps an influx to red states from blue ones will go some way to improve red states with better-educated, healthier people?
‘Kat Comments