Can conservatives use cancel culture to cancel 'cancel culture?'

The past couple of weeks have brought big news from the culture wars. We lost Mr. Potato Head to asexuality (not really) and Dr. Seuss's books were banned (again, not really). But even though neither was really “canceled,” many people are still hopping mad about what one of my Twitter friends calls “social engineering” by the left.

Even though Mr. Potato Head is still going to be Mr. Potato Head and there seems to have been little to no real pressure for Seuss Publishing to make its brief, nonpartisan, non-ideological statement announcing its decision to remove six of the good doctor’s books from publication, it is supposed to be a major cultural emergency that two private companies decided to make what amounts to minor changes to their product lines of their own free will.

I thought free will and freedom of choice are good things, but many only accept a company's freely-made decision if it's one that they agree with.

Photo credit: Gerd Altman/Pixabay.com

Share The Racket News

But then I started thinking about how many times Republicans tried to cancel things that they opposed. One of the first examples to come to mind was none other than Chick-fil-a. It was back in 2019 that the king of the chicken sandwich joints, a sandwich sometimes jokingly referred to as “God’s chicken” because of the company’s Christian roots, ran afoul of conservative cancel culture. The crime? The company stopped donating money to three groups that oppose same-sex marriage.

Per a Fox Business report at the time, Chick-fil-a suspended donations to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the Salvation Army, and Paul Anderson Youth Homes sparking a backlash from conservatives. Some on the right were angry enough to try to cancel the restaurant with a boycott.

Once you start thinking about conservative cancel culture, it’s easy to come up with more examples. One of the first big examples of a cancel movement was the boycott of Martin Scorsese for his film, “the Last Temptation of Christ,” in 1988. Christian groups boycotted Disney for almost a decade. Over the past few years, we have seen Republicans boycott or threaten boycotts against Harley-Davidson, Nike, the NFL, Target, companies that cut ties with the NRA, a restaurant that refused to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders, social media companies, and Disney again for firing Gina Carano. In just the past few days, I’ve learned that many on the right are angry at Cadbury over an ad that isn’t even shown in the US which depicts two men sharing one of the company’s candy eggs in a quasi-kiss. And that’s just off the top of my head. I could go on.

Now, I’m not defending everything (or anything) that the targets of these boycotts did, but the irony is that people who loudly decry “cancel culture” have been pretty busy trying to cancel things that they don’t like. If the “social engineering” label applies to one side then it applies to both.

And if we are to be honest, the problem that most people have with “cancel culture” isn’t the tactic, but the targets. Republicans and conservatives are quite happy to cancel people and companies that don’t align with their values.

And that’s fine. They have a right to do business with whoever they want and to not do business with whoever they want. But in the end, the right becomes exactly what they accuse the left of being: A group of people with an ideological purity test for every product from chicken sandwiches to pillows to television shows.

To me, it seems that it would be exhausting to be so outraged and angry with some individual or company every day for some microaggression, real or imagined, against a treasured principle or a favorite political figure. I don’t want to have to stop and think about which company I’m supposed to like today or which one that I’m supposed to respond to like Gollum, saying, “We hates it forever.” That’s not me.

There was a time that I would have felt differently, but these days I’m more of a live-and-let-live kind of guy. My friend on Twitter used the phrase, “radical neutralness.” I kind of like that and consider it a compliment even though it kind of reminds me of the Neutral Planet on “Futurama” (“It’s a beige alert.” “If I don’t survive, tell my wife, ‘hello.’”)

In reality, being neutral often means that you’re in the middle of the battle and you draw fire from both sides. There’s a reason that Switzerland has a strong military. Being neutral is not the same as being weak and strength is often required to maintain neutrality. It’s much easier to go along with the crowd.

For years now, I’ve admired August Landmesser. You may not recognize the name, but you have probably seen his picture. Landmesser is the man standing with his arms crossed in a picture of a crowd of Germans giving the Nazi salute. The picture is often captioned, “Be this guy.” (You can read the story behind the picture here.)

August Landmesser (Photo credit: unknown author/Wikimedia/public domain)

Share

I think that’s good advice. Don’t blindly follow the crowd. Think for yourself. Seek the truth and stand on principle.

And, circling back (to use my son’s favorite pet peeve about Jen Psaki), that applies as much in the culture war as it does anywhere else. The Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head controversies are good examples of what I like to call the “Outrage du Jour.”

In these cases, as in many others, there is a grain of truth at the core of the story, but it is inflated, twisted, and blown out of proportion until it scarcely resembles the truth. Armies of bloggers, pundits, and radio hosts pore over the news to find something, anything, that will generate clicks and calls. To keep the readers and viewers engaged, the outrage has to be stoked and fed, even if what people are outraged about isn’t technically what happened.

And it works. I don’t have to tell you that some people have made heaping gobs of money off of daily outrages. Some have gotten elected off the tactic. You know who they are.

One of my favorite talk-show hosts, Michael Medved, often said that conservatives should be strong on principle and moderate in behavior. Today, too many on the right reverse those attributes.

Is there a market for moderation, neutrality, and living-and-letting-live? I think there is, and you, dear reader, are the key. If you can help us to grow the Racket, an outlet that is focused on objective truth and compromise, not stoking outrage, then maybe we can find a better way.

If there’s not, then it’s hard to be optimistic for America’s future. How can a nation be unified when its two main opposing factions are increasingly angry and separated from each other? If we can’t buy the same pillow or eat the same chicken sandwich, how can we live together as a nation?

In our Wednesday Bible study, one of the verses that came up was Ecclesiastes 7:21:

Do not pay attention to every word people say,
    or you may hear your servant cursing you—
for you know in your heart
    that many times you yourself have cursed others.

This originally made me think of “selective hearing,” and that true to some extent, but what it’s really about is picking your battles, and that’s good advice for the culture war.

We shouldn’t be looking for things to be offended about. We should be trying to get along with our fellow Americans rather than picking fights. Save the outrage for things that are really outrageous.

If you don’t like a company, don’t buy their product, but also don’t make a federal case out of it. Especially if the reason that you’re outraged is fake to begin with.

From the Racket

Of Red Dogs and Republicans

 A term that I’m starting to hear more in the post-Trump-but-Trump-isn’t-really-gone era is “Red Dog Republican.” If you have children, you might associate the words “red” and “dog” with Clifford, the “big red dog” of children’s books and television, but what we are talking about here is a particular brand of refugee Republican.

The term “Red Dog Republican” is not a new one. It goes back to at least 2009 when it appeared in a Red State article. The term has its roots in the term, “Yellow Dog Democrat,” from the 1920s when many Democrats said that they would vote for a yellow dog if it ran on the Democratic ticket rather than backing Republican Herbert Hoover. More recently, the term “Blue Dog Democrat” has come to mean Democrats who are moderate to conservative on some issues. Following on those terms, “Red Dog Republicans” are moderate Republicans who have been pushed toward the Democratic Party.

Photo credit: Sonja-Kalee/Pixabay.com

The definition of “Red Dog” depends on who you ask and seems to have changed over time. The Red State author apparently didn’t proofread his work well because he titles a section, “RED-DOG Republicans versus RINO” and asks, “What is this new RED-DOG Republican term? How is it different from a RINO?” But his rhetorical answer is, “When it comes down to it, a RINO and a BLUE-DOG are pretty much the same,” so my guess is that he means “Red Dogs” and RINOs are the same.

To the contrary, the Red Dog Report wrote in 2010 that “Red Dogs” were “the true conservatives in the Republican party.  Right-leaning social, moral, and fiscal conservatives who know where they exactly where they stand on the issues.” In other words, “Red Dogs” are the opposite of RINOs.

Today, the term has come to mean something else. In December, Tim Miller of the Bulwark described “Red Dogs” thusly:

Today, it’s the “Red Dogs” who are looking for a home in the Democratic party: college-educated, largely white suburbanites in major metropolitan areas who used to be Republicans or swing voters. (Remember the security moms? Most of them are Red Dogs now.)

These are people who voted for Mitt Romney and/or George W. Bush but who pulled the lever for Democratic House candidates during the 2018 mini-wave; voted for Joe Biden/Mike Bloomberg/Mayor Pete/Amy K, powering a massive suburban turnout surge in the 2020 Democratic primaries; and then pushed Biden over the top in the general election….

The Red Dogs might still vote for a Republican in a local race, maybe even enthusiastically if they live in a blue state or a swing district where the Republican candidate is more pragmatic. But in the nationalized races (which most are these days) they’re now aligned with the Democrats.

So, the “Red Dogs” are essentially suburbanites who are turned off by the Trumpist direction of the national GOP and have moved toward the Democrats. They can be fiscal or national security conservatives but may align more with Democrats on social issues and criticism of the Trump wing of the GOP.

For those of us who are disappointed and alarmed about the direction of the GOP, there are at least three different possible directions. One is to become a “Red Dog Republican” and join the Democrats, another is to remain Republican and fight Trumpism from within, and the final option is to become an independent. There are pros and cons to all three choices.

One attractive thing about the “Red Dog” option is that, if moderates and conservatives flow into the Democratic Party, they can provide a moderating influence to counter the progressive left. Would you like to see the Democratic Party run more pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-socialist candidates? Well, the only way to do that is by getting more pro-life, pro-gun, and free-market people to vote in Democratic primaries. The downside is that no matter how much the Democratic Party moves to the center, it isn’t going to be a conservative party any time soon.

On the other hand, staying in the Republican Party means having the ability to influence the direction of the GOP. To paraphrase William F. Buckley, anti-Trump conservatives can support the most conservative and least Trumpy candidate who can win and perhaps steer the party back from the fringe group that it has become. The downside here is that the Republican Party seems hopelessly enamored with Trumpists and given over to conspiracy theories and the Outrage du Jour.

Finally, disaffected Republicans can simply toss both parties to the four winds and become independent. This works particularly well in open primary states where voters are not required to register as a member of either party. Just pick the primary that where you think your vote can do the most good.

The right answer will vary for each Republican dissident. Many of my readers may assume that I’m a Democrat since I voted for Joe Biden and then ultimately voted for the Democratic candidates in Georgia’s Senate runoffs. I’m not. The truth is that my votes for Democrats were only a reaction to the decline of the GOP and its refusal to hold Donald Trump, the most dangerous president of my lifetime, accountable for his corruption and unconstitutional acts.

Many people have difficulty understanding is that not being a Republican any longer does not make me a Democrat. My common cause with the Democrats is limited to such issues as opposing Donald Trump, taking the pandemic seriously, and realizing the need for immigration reform. Whether I vote Democrat in 2022 and beyond depends as much upon what the Republicans do as how the Biden Administration fares.

Since I left the Republican Party in 2016, I have relished my status as an independent. I don’t feel pressure to jump on the bandwagon for either party or defend bad behavior from either side. I can comfortably call them like I see them and don’t feel any need to change that status quo in the near future.

I hope that some unhappy Republicans will join the Democrats and steer that party toward the center. I hope that some will stay in the GOP and move that party back toward the center as well. I think that the country fares best when it has two viable, non-fringe parties from which to elect leaders. But as for me, I think I’ll take the third option and reserve the right to vote for either side (or none of the above) and criticize both.

Are you a “Red Dog,” a die-hard Republican, an independent, or something else? Let us know!

From the Racket

Good news and bad on COVID

 This week brought both good news and bad about the pandemic. The good news is that vaccine production is ramping up and we are on the downhill side of the pandemic. The bad news is that pandemic fatigue may mean that we have to crest a few smaller rises to get off the mountain.

One of the best pieces of news that I have heard in recent months is President Biden’s announcement that the US will have enough vaccine doses for every adult American by the end of May. The Biden Administration had previously estimated that it would take until the end of July to manufacture the required number of doses.

Photo credit:engin akyurt/unsplash.com

Share

Per CNN, the president also said that the federal government would advise states to prioritize teachers for vaccinations. For those who want to reopen schools as well as minimize the risk to faculty and students, this is good news as well. Ultimately, the road back to normalcy will be paved with vaccinations.

The qualifier on this good news is that production of vaccine doses is not the same as getting those doses into arms. Distribution of vaccines is largely up to the states so, depending on where you live, your results may vary.

Currently, vaccination statistics from Our World in Data show that just under eight percent of the US population has been vaccinated. Individual states range from Alaska at 13.81 percent to Illinois, which is only 6.75 percent complete.

There is still some question as to how many Americans will refuse the vaccine, but a recent AP poll found that 15 percent say that they will definitely refuse the vaccine and another 17 percent say they probably won’t be vaccinated.

The good news is that if a third of the population doesn’t want to get vaccinated, it will make it that much easier for the 67 percent who want to be vaccinated to get their shots. The bad news is that a two-thirds vaccination rate may fall short of the estimated 75-80 percent required for herd immunity. This leaves open the possibility of sporadic outbreaks among the unvaccinated and further viral mutations that might evade current antibodies.

More bad news comes in the form of relaxed mask mandates and social distancing guidelines in a number of states. Texas and Mississippi made headlines yesterday when their governors lifted mask mandates and occupancy limits for businesses, even as health officials warned it was too early. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas tweeted that his announcement “doesn’t abandon safe practices,” but unfortunately that is the message that many have received.

Both states have been trending down in terms of new cases and deaths over the past month, but both states also have much higher case levels than when the restrictions were implemented last spring. There is illogic in the belief that the mandates were necessary then but not now.

Some would argue that the current higher virus levels indicate a failure of masks and social distancing, but I believe that it would be more accurate to say that it represents a failure of people to comply with the guidelines. Mandates do not magically ensure full compliance. There are many Americans who make an issue of refusing to wear masks or take precautions and then tout the continued spread of the virus as evidence of the inefficacy of mitigations.

As an example of how convoluted the issue can be, my local county in Georgia has a mask mandate even though the state does not. I support that, but some businesses enforce the county rules and some do not. I have it on good authority from an employee of a discount chain whose name rhymes with “Mollar Beneral” that employees were warned that they could be fired if they ask customers to wear masks even though there are signs posted in the stores that say masks are required.

The upside of the relaxed rules is that Texans and Mississippians can still wear masks and social distance. Private businesses and local governments can still set more restrictive policies than their state governments. In the end, much of our health protection is up to us.

But not all of it. The very nature of a viral pandemic means that risks taken by other people can affect those of us who do choose to take precautions. We can wear masks, but if an infected anti-masker coughs on us while we are in the dollar store, we can still get sick. If the virus mutates because people refuse to be vaccinated then we can all be put at risk again.

What many of the skeptics miss is that the mitigations are as much about protecting our neighbors as they are about protecting ourselves. In a pandemic, the Biblical admonition to “love your neighbor” and the Hippocratic charge to “first, do no harm” go hand in hand.

I’m not going to make definite predictions about the future of the pandemic in Mississippi, Texas, or elsewhere because I realize that there are other factors at play aside from whether masks are mandated, but the relaxed rules do present a risk for another viral surge. More important than whether masks are mandated, however, is whether people choose to wear them and follow other social distancing practices.

It’s easy to see which states have mask mandates and emergency guidelines in place (and incidentally, red states dominate the top 20 states when it comes to per capita case rates). What is not so easy to see is how many people are wearing masks, regardless of whether they are mandated. One way is to poll people about their habits. Unfortunately, polls show that mask usage has declined from 90 percent in October to about 50 percent today per a Newsweek poll.

There is a bit of cognitive dissonance though because 83 percent in the same poll believe that masks are effective even though only 51 percent usually wear them. This dissonance, the fact that people don’t do what they know they should to protect themselves and others, is why mask and social distancing mandates are needed. Sometimes a nudge is needed to get people to do the right thing.

This is especially true when doing the wrong thing is a public health problem. If you don’t wear a motorcycle helmet or save for retirement, then you bear the brunt of your bad decisions. If you allow a deadly virus to spread, many others might pay the price for your carelessness.

Contrary to the breathless claims of the alarmists, no one wants to make people wear masks or keep things shut down forever. Most people want to get back to normal, but getting back to normal without killing a lot of people needlessly requires defeating the virus. We are very close to that point and getting closer, but we aren’t there yet. People may get tired of social distancing and wearing masks, but viruses don’t get tired of spreading.

From the Racket

Dr. Seuss is the Outrage du Jour

 For the second time in two weeks, there is news that a familiar part of American culture is being canceled or reprogrammed by the left. And for the second time in two weeks, the breathless reports by culture warriors were wrong.

The first skirmish came last week in the battle over Mr. Potato Head. The initial reports from the social media front sounded the alarm that the left was forcing Mr. Potato Head to become gender-neutral.

Photo credit: Marcus Winkler/unsplash.com

My response was, “So what? He’s a potato and potatoes are asexual anyway.”

But the reports were inaccurate. As Mr. Potato Head’s maker, Hasbro, confirmed in a tweet, only the brand name was being changed. Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head were keeping their assigned genders.

Hasbro @Hasbro

Hold that Tot – your main spud, MR. POTATO HEAD isn’t going anywhere! While it was announced today that the POTATO HEAD brand name & logo are dropping the ‘MR.’ I yam proud to confirm that MR. & MRS. POTATO HEAD aren’t going anywhere and will remain MR. & MRS. POTATO HEAD

February 25th 2021

4,561 Retweets20,506 Likes

Fresh from that farce, we now have people proclaiming that Dr. Seuss is being canceled. Once again, the claims are not exactly true.

The reality is that only six books that will cease to be published and they are not books that most people will recognize. The six books are:

• "And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street"

• "If I Ran the Zoo"

• "McElligot's Pool"

• "On Beyond Zebra!"

• "Scrambled Eggs Super!"

• "The Cat's Quizzer"

Of the six, the only one that I’m sure I’ve read is “If I Ran the Zoo,” although “Mulberry Street” sounds vaguely familiar. And those memories are from my own childhood. I’m pretty sure that none of the books was among the Dr. Seuss collection that my kids enjoyed. You can rest easy that the “Cat in the Hat,” “One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish,” and “Green Eggs and Ham” are not being canceled.

Which brings me to my second point. Is this really a case of “cancel culture?”

There was no hue and cry over the Dr. Seuss books. The company was not facing protests or a backlash from readers, although the AP does cite a few sporadic and outside-the-mainstream complaints over the years.

Instead, this seems to be an internal decision that was made by Dr. Seuss Enterprises of its own volition. CNN reports that the company may be responding to a study published in 2019 that found a heavy majority of Asian and black characters in Seuss’s books had stereotypical characteristics, but there was no broad movement to force the company to change.

This situation seems less an example of “cancel culture” than how one might treat a beloved but embarrassing family member. Many people of older generations can unintentionally do or say racist things because they were brought up in a different time that had different social mores. You don’t want to erase them from the family albums completely, but you may not want to leave in every photo either. Some things are best forgotten.

I suspect that, in addition to the objectionable material, the six books on the list just weren’t profitable. Seuss wrote more than 60 books, most of which you’ve probably never heard of. Only one of the six going out of print, “Mulberry Street,” appears on a list of the top 16 D. Seuss books, and even then, it checked in at #15, between “Horton Hatches and Egg” (another Seuss title I’d never heard of) and ‘Yertle the Turtle,” one of my childhood favorites.

If “cancel culture” is not really the issue, property rights are. No one is forcing Dr. Seuss Enterprises to drop the books, but the company owns the copyrights and has every right to make its own decisions on how to handle its business. That doesn’t mean everyone has to agree, but it does mean that the company is within its rights and, if the company is being pressured in any meaningful way, it is by the culture warriors who are outraged - OUTRAGED - to find that a private company decided to stop publishing books that they probably never heard of or read.

It’s part of human nature to be nostalgic for our childhoods and to want to preserve the things that brought us joy, but the problem with the angst over the Potato Heads and Dr. Seuss is that people are being stirred up over misrepresentations of what is happening. Mr. Potato Head is unchanged and the good doctor is not being canceled. We aren’t losing the Cat in the Hat or the Grinch. Dr. Seuss’s books are not being burned or otherwise destroyed.

If you feel strongly enough that the survival of American culture depends on seeing Asian characters in coolie hats and stereotypical black characters, then you do have some options. As of this writing, the books are available on Amazon and other bookstores and websites. Books often go out of print, but that doesn’t mean that they go away. A more long-term option is to wait for Seuss’s books to enter the public domain and then fund a new edition. Depending on each book’s date of publication, the copyright term could be 28, 56, or 95 years.

Neither the Potato Heads nor Dr. Seuss are vital to American culture. And more importantly, neither is going anywhere despite what you’ve heard on the internet. We need to stop falling for the Outrage du Jour clickbait and focus on more important issues.

From the Racket

---

Issues like Andrew Cuomo, who may be getting canceled. Yesterday, I wrote that Cuomo was sinking fast. To continue the nautical metaphor, the SS Cuomo took on more water during the night and is starting to list markedly to one side.

The New York Times fired another broadside into the erstwhile governor’s hull with a new report that a third accuser has come forward. Anna Ruch met the governor at a wedding reception in 2019 when he allegedly placed his hand on her back. Ruch says that she removed Cuomo’s hand and he became “aggressive,” putting his hands on her cheeks and asking if he could kiss her. And guess what? This time there’s a picture.

Jodi Kantor @jodikantor

Breaking: A third woman has accused Cuomo of over-the-line behavior. Incredibly, a photographer caught the moment, and this look on her face: nytimes.com/2021/03/01/nyr…

March 2nd 2021

2,420 Retweets8,216 Likes

Ironically, the sexual harassment allegations are still pretty tame. To me, the more serious problem is the allegation that Cuomo’s Administration covered up the tragic results of its nursing home policy for recovering COVID patients. The policy itself can be excused due to the new and unknown nature of the disease, but if Cuomo really cooked the books and misled others about what was happening in the midst of the pandemic, that is a much more serious problem that could have cost the lives of other seniors.

I still don’t think that the allegations are enough to force Cuomo to resign or for impeachment, but his political career is over. Look for him to announce his retirement before the next campaign season starts. The twin scandals are still unfolding, but I’m still betting that the crippled SS Cuomo will be able to limp into port and complete his term, but once there, he’s likely to be scuttled.

---

On a final note, a Trump advisor told CNN that Donald and Melania Trump secretly got the COVID vaccination at the White House in January before he left the presidency. Trump had said in December that he would get the vaccine when his doctors recommended it.

Why wouldn’t Donald Trump announce publicly that he was getting the vaccine? I can think of only one reason. Trump is obsessed with appearances and he probably thinks that getting the vaccine makes him look weak, especially after pooh-poohing the danger of the virus for the past year.

Donald Trump could have done a good thing for the country by publicly getting his shot, as Joe Biden did, or at least made a public announcement. This would have been invaluable because there is a strong correlation between pandemic-vaccine skeptics and the former president’s supporters. The lives he could have saved would have been those of his own voters.

Donald Trump’s secret vaccination is just one more example of his inability to lead and his failure as president.

The Republicans and the golden calf

 I’ve written many times that if it sounds too stupid to be true, it probably is. However, I’ve also written a somewhat contradictory corollary to that statement, which holds that, quite often in our times, reality is more unbelievable than satire. It was the second statement that was on display this week at CPAC when Republican activists wheeled out a golden statue of Donald Trump.

Given the high percentage of self-proclaimed Christians among the activists at CPAC, you might think that some would see the parallel between a golden, graven image of the former president and the numerous Biblical admonitions against idol worship (as well as idle worship, but I digress), but the crowd seems to have been lacking in such self-awareness.

Josh Jordan @NumbersMuncher

A golden statue of Trump is as good a summary of CPAC as one could possibly make.

February 26th 2021

2,918 Retweets13,214 Likes

Share

If you’ve seen these pictures, you may have wondered, as I did, why and how the conservative conference came to play host to a modern-day icon of a political figure for quasi-religious veneration. CNN provides the backstory on the golden Trump:

Tommy Zegan, a California-based artist, created the Trump statue in response to the multiple pieces of art mocking Trump.

"Two years ago, when I saw all those statues of naked Trump and Trump on a toilet, I said, 'You know what? I can do better,' " Zegan told CNN Friday as attendees gathered around the statue to snap photos with it.

Zegan said the piece on display at CPAC is actually the fiberglass mold of the real, stainless steel sculpture currently stored in a warehouse in Tampa where it awaits a potentially high-profile showcase.

"It is museum-quality, and that's the one I'm eventually hoping to get in the Trump library," Zegan said. "It is literally priceless."

"The coat and tie is the fact that he's a professional, he's a businessman," Zegan said. "The red tie symbolizes he's a Republican. The red white and blue is that he's a patriot. The fact that he's wearing thongs and shorts is that he's at the age where he should be retired. He should be at the beach right now."

The golden Trump, which ironically was made in Mexico, is strongly evocative of any number of Bible stories. There was the golden calf that the Israelites made in Exodus 32, the tendency of the Israelites to set up idols of Baal in the high places, and most ominously, the image of the Antichrist that John predicted in his Revelation would be the focus of compulsory worship in the last days.

The context of the golden Trump at CPAC is that members of a party, which many already believe has become a personality cult, have cast a golden statue of its leader that strongly resembles an idol. On Twitter, Scott Lincicome won the internet for the day by referring to the statue as “DeploraBaal.”

Now, I’m pretty sure that the intent of Zegan, Look Ahead America, the organization at whose booth the statue resided, and CPAC was not to induce people to bow down to a golden effigy of Donald Trump. I’m also positive that no other Republican leader would be the subject of such devotion.

Mitt Romney and John McCain would definitely be averse to being the subject of a golden effigy, being the humble and unassuming men that they are (or were, in the case of McCain). I pretty sure that neither of the Bushes or Reagan would have been comfortable being the subject of such adoration either, even though they accomplished much more than Trump.

I’ll acknowledge that Abraham Lincoln was posthumously awarded the Lincoln Memorial and a spot on Mount Rushmore alongside Teddy Roosevelt, but we also have to admit that Lincoln and Roosevelt had much more success as presidents than Trump. Lincoln preserved the Union and Roosevelt at least won two terms, although in one of history’s ironies he split the GOP after leaving office in 1909 as Trump is splitting the party today. Roosevelt broke with conservative Republicans to form a pro-labor “New Nationalism” movement and ended up handing the House to Democrats for the first time in 20 years.

Even including Lincoln and Roosevelt, I can’t imagine any other Republican being the subject of a golden statue. I’ll extend that statement to Democrats as well. Even Barack Obama, who gave his 2008 convention speech from a stage that was created to resemble a Greek temple and was the subject of his own devout following, would most likely be uncomfortable with such veneration.

The golden Trump seems to be unique in American politics. Even though we’ve occasionally embraced politicians as celebrities, the veneration and… well, worship of Donald Trump is something I’ve never seen in this country before. Even leaving aside the golden idol, the prevalence of Trump flags around red states is unprecedented, especially four months after his election loss. Aside from a few Obama flags, I don’t recall ever seeing any politician’s name emblazoned on flags.

Republicans may not think that they are part of a personality cult centered on Donald Trump but parading around golden idols of the former president is going to make it tough to convince the rest of the country. That’s especially true since I haven’t heard a single Republican complain about the unseemly statue. Instead, Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Marco Rubio line up to affirm Trump’s continuing role in the party, despite provoking his base to attack to attack the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the election.

Everything else aside, the purpose of a political party is to persuade people to vote for its candidates. Republicans may be enamored with Donald Trump and amused by the golden statue, but to the rest of the country, it affirms the GOP’s descent into an irrational cult of personality. If the Republican Party wants to have a future, it needs to change its current image as a party that exists to praise a failed and unpopular former president.

Republicans need to junk not only the Trump idol but the Trump idolatry.

From the Racket

Andrew Cuomo is sinking fast

A little less than a year ago, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was the darling of the media. His press conferences at the height of the pandemic in New York evoked an air of professionalism and competence that was sorely lacking from President Trump’s daily press briefings. At one point, I even speculated that Democrats might try to dump Joe Biden and draft Cuomo as a presidential candidate. It’s a good thing they didn’t because these days Andrew Cuomo is like a ship in distress. He’s taking on water and sinking fast.

Cuomo’s problems began with the revelation that his Administration had been less than forthcoming with its statistics on COVID deaths in the state’s nursing homes. Now, however, the governor has been hit by something that is much damaging in today’s society than a possible attempt to cover up mistakes made in the early days of the pandemic: sexual harassment.

At this point, there are two allegations against Cuomo. The first came in December from Lindsey Boylan, a former Cuomo staffer, who said Cuomo harassed her about both her work and her looks. The tweet thread, based on a possibility that Cuomo was being considered for Biden’s attorney general, also accused the governor of running a “toxic” workplace. Cuomo’s team denied the allegations per CNBC.

Lindsey Boylan @LindseyBoylan

Yes, @NYGovCuomo sexually harassed me for years. Many saw it, and watched. I could never anticipate what to expect: would I be grilled on my work (which was very good) or harassed about my looks. Or would it be both in the same conversation? This was the way for years.

December 13th 2020

10,186 Retweets28,430 Likes

Last week, the plot thickened as a second former aide came forward with similar accusations. The New York Times reported that Charlotte Bennett, a 25-year-old former aide, said the governor asked about her sex life and whether she slept with older men but never made physical advances.

Cuomo initially made a statement denying the claims, saying, “I never made advances toward Ms. Bennett nor did I ever intend to act in any way that was inappropriate. The last thing I would ever have wanted was to make her feel any of the things that are being reported.”

A day later, however, Cuomo issued an apology, calling his behavior “being playful and mak[ing] jokes that I think are funny.”

“I have teased people about their personal lives, their relationships, about getting married or not getting married,” Cuomo said. “I mean no offense and only attempt to add some levity and banter to what is a very serious business.”

“I now understand that my interactions may have been insensitive or too personal and that some of my comments, given my position, made others feel in ways I never intended,” Cuomo continued. “I acknowledge some of the things I have said have been misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation. To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.”

But Cuomo also stressed that his behavior went no further than making jokes and teasing, saying, “To be clear I never inappropriately touched anybody and I never propositioned anybody and I never intended to make anyone feel uncomfortable, but these are allegations that New Yorkers deserve answers to.”

After initially saying that his own office would investigate the complaints, Cuomo relented and agreed to allow an independent special counsel to probe the matter.

There are a couple of points to make here. The first and most obvious is that between the two scandals, Cuomo’s political career is almost certainly over. He is in his third term as New York governor, which expires in 2023, and could run again since New York has no term limits on its governors. However, the twin scandals will still be fresh in voters’ memories when the campaign starts next year. I would bet that Cuomo will announce his retirement after this term.

Second, Cuomo’s problems undercut the Republican belief that the media covers for Democrats. There has been widespread coverage of both scandals in the mainstream media even though I’ve seen numerous social media claims that both stories are being ignored. The New York Times broke the story about Cuomo’s second accuser. The reporting on Cuomo is proof positive that the media covers Democratic scandals when there is real evidence to report, unlike in the Hunter Biden conspiracy theories.

There’s also an interesting dynamic with respect to sexual harassment accusations against a Democrat. In many past cases, I’ve noticed that the probability of believing someone who accused a prominent politician of misbehavior was inversely related to whether the voter shared that politician’s party affiliation. In other words, Democrats believed people who accused Republicans and Republicans believed people who accused Democrats.

On the Democrat side, that seems to be changing. Al Franken and Katie Hill are two recent examples of Democrats holding their own side accountable for sexual misbehavior. Andrew Cuomo may be the third.

In Cuomo’s case, quite a few Democrats are already deserting the governor. Democrats in the legislature were already joining a Republican effort to limit Cuomo’s emergency powers and there is talk that he may be forced to resign.

Republicans are understandably giddy about this, but given their own party’s difficulties in holding their own officials accountable for much more serious misbehavior, both in the realm of corruption as well as unwanted sexual advances, they should probably sit this one out. Jumping into the fray would only serve to remind voters about the GOP’s repeated failures to hold Trump accountable.

If Democrats face the Cuomo scandals head-on, damage to the party will probably be inconsequential. New York is not going to go red because of Cuomo and there is no real link to tar the Biden Administration with Cuomo’s problems. Unless Cuomo runs for re-election, most voters will have forgotten about the matter by November 2022.

Still, how the Democrats handle Andrew Cuomo will shed light on the inner workings of the party and whether they will hold their own elected officials to the same standard that they apply to Republicans. So far, it’s too early to tell what Democrats will do, but I am in favor of holding public officials accountable for their actions, regardless of party. 

From the Racket