Republicans haven’t figured out who or what they are fighting, and more important, how to fight who they are fighting.
First, what is it that they are fighting?
Vince Everett Ellison put it distinctly in Crime, Inc., “…foreign Communist/Marxist governments, through patience and cunning, systematically took over the Democratic Party, thereby infiltrating the federal government of the United States.”[1]
Second, who are they fighting? That’s simple: democrats, who if you accept Ellison’s point of view, are Marxists. Making the Republicans non-Marxists, or capitalists. In other words, it’s an ideological or philosophical battle going on.
Finally, since no speaker was elected, Republicans forgot how to fight. This is incomprehensible to me. In this case, how you fight is with votes. Clearly, based on observation, democrats all voted in unison. But the Republicans didn’t, or couldn’t, or wouldn’t.
Why was that?
Why is what this essay is about.
Because when you don’t know who or what you are fighting and seem to have forgotten HOW to fight, then we have to ask some questions. For example, have you been fighting so long you actually have become what you are fighting?
The key to answering these and other questions is to listen to what people have said in the last few weeks and make observations. I’m using the Wall Street Journal article that covered these events as a base, and my conclusion as to what happened is this: perspective was lost.
When perspective gets lost, other things get lost like what the battle was really about: ideologies, not personalities. Benjamin Franklin said in Poor Richard’s Almanac, for want a nail the war was lost.[2]
Some Republicans have become part of what they should be fighting against.
Wall Street Journal Should Know a Thing or Two
The Wall Street Journal article which covered the behavior of Republicans and Democrats proves Republicans don’t know who or what they are fighting this week was written on October 20, 2023 by Kristina Peterson, Katy Stech Ferek, and Gabriel T. Rubin.
The title was “GOP Reboots Speaker Search After Jim Jordan Bid Collapses: House Republicans say they will start over Monday with new candidate forum.”[3]
I base my observations on behaviors too, which includes what they say and how they say it, both Republicans and Democrats. Observation should be the sole criteria for judgements, don’t you agree? Emotion shouldn’t really play a part in knowing the truth.
Because people feel all sorts of things when they observe things, but an action is an action. What you say is what you say. If you observe someone vote “no” or “yes” on a ballot, you should accept it at true.
I observed three rounds of voting. In each round, the Democrats all voted the same way: 210 for Jeffries. In each round, more and more Republicans voted against Jordan: 194 in round three, 199 in round two, and 200 in round one.
Who did Republicans vote for to keep Jordan from his 217 number? Scalise, McHenry, Zeldin, McCarthy, Donalds and three “others,” including Mike Kelly who voted for John Boehner one round. People laughed at that (which by the way, is evidence the Republicans have forgotten the who and what, as well as the how). In other words, they voted for all sorts of people, whereas the Democrats voted for only one.
If the Republicans voted like Democrats in unison, realizing that they are in an ideological battle, Jordan would be the speaker. Or Scalise would have been.
So the question is why didn’t they? Could it be that they forgot who and what they are fighting, and how to fight? I think that’s it exactly.
Consider that when Hakeem Jeffries announced that Jim Jordan is a ‘clear and present danger’ ahead of third vote[4] as further proof. To call someone a “clear and present danger’ is serious stuff, wouldn’t you agree? However, look at the words he used following this accusation; and more importantly, the Republicans reaction to this charge.
Jeffries said: “Jim Jordan is a clear and present danger to our democracy. He wants to end Social Security as we know it, he wants to end Medicare as we know it, doesn’t believe that President Biden was elected in 2020. That’s disrespectful to the American people.”
Being disrespectful is a far cry from being a ‘clear and present danger.’ But is Jordan a clear and present danger?[5] Words, as we know, are interpreted by all of us. So definitions count.
Jeffries continued: “Jim Jordan wants to impose a nationwide abortion ban, and he is the poster child for MAGA extremism. We are saying to our traditional Republican colleagues, good men and women on the other side of the aisle: End the attachment to the extremist Jim Jordan and join with Democrats in finding a bipartisan path forward.”
Is there proof of these statements? Most important, consider Jeffries plea: to call “Republican colleagues” to end “extremist” Jim Jordan. Which is what the Republicans did. Instead of standing up and asking what is meant by “clear and present danger,” Republicans nixed Jordan.
But the question is still why? Have some Republicans forgotten who and what they are fighting, and that how you win is with votes? Why would Jeffries and his Democrats want Jordan out when he is obviously not a “clear and present danger” except to their ideology?
Examples That Stand Out
The Carlos Gimenez interview on Newsmax is behavior you can observe, and a clue to understanding Republicans – not all of them – have forgotten they are in an ideological fight. I didn’t know who this guy was before I watched the interview, but if you watch it[6], you’ll observe what Jeffries called a “traditional” Republican, especially since he voted “no” to Jordan.
For example, he called McCarthy’s removal a “drive by shooting.” Word choice is always clue to who you are dealing with, and expresses inner thinking (i.e., as Jeffries used “clear and present danger”).
Gimenez said with pride McCarthy “never called me” to vote for Jordan. Yet, McCarthy backed Jordan. Gimenez used terms like “the will of the Caucus.” Did Gimenez need a personal call?
Rob Schmitt who interviewed him said he was part of a similar gang (referring to Matt Gaetz who with seven others pulled the trigger on a rule established to remove a speaker, which by the way was a rule that McCarthy agreed to in order to become speaker to begin with). Schmitt asked Gimenez point blank how are you different in preventing Jordan from becoming speaker, reminding him that Jordan stood with McCarthy. Schmitt seems to understand the fight is about votes.
Gimenez responded about Steve Scalise and how some Jordan people weren’t going to vote for Scalise. This makes no sense. There are no “Jordan” people, or “Scalise” people when you are in an ideological battle. There are Republicans and Democrats.
“Don’t’ tell me what’s good for me is not good for me,” Gimenez said, visibly shaking. “I don’t claim to be a saint. There are no saints here.” He wouldn’t stop talking, which is a sign. And note, again, the use of the word “saint.” What does sainthood have to do with this situation? And if you claim not to be a saint, what have you done wrong?
Another example is the “standing on principle” statement usually used.
“We had to stand on principle here,” said Republican Don Bacon who opposed Jordan. According to the article from WSJ, Bacon said he wanted, “Republicans to return to an era where they coalesced behind the candidate selected by the majority of the party, rather than let a tiny faction overturn that choice.”
What principles is Bacon referring to? What era is he referring to? Isn’t coalescing behind a single candidate what they are trying to do? In fact, Bacon is part of the “tiny faction” overturning the choice, because clearly, Jordan had the majority.
Bacon added, “There’s got to be a set of rules we all play by.”
Huh?
This is all evidence the Republicans forgot how to fight: THEY CAN HAVE WHOMEVER THEY WANT AS SPEAKER.
The WSJ article noted that “Jordan’s supporters lamented that his withdrawal meant they had lost their best shot at disrupting the usual patterns of how Congress operates—and spends money.”
Thomas Massie said it this way: “He (Jordan) was the best Speaker candidate to reform Congress’s spending addiction.”
These are ideological statements, and perhaps, why the Republicans who forgot their way slammed Jordan out.
Brian Fitzpatrick, said, “We need to open the government. That is the bottom line.” Apparently, Fitzpatrick forgot that Republicans who control the majority in the House could have done just that.
The only path forward is for Republicans to realize who and what they are fighting. And how.
Some people will say it takes leadership, and that’s what lacking.
Leadership is an interesting word. In Leadership in Today’s World, I put forth the question: “Can you have a leader without followers? In that piece I argued that followers are just as, if not more, “powerful” than leaders in many cases.
In the House last week, it proved my point. Republicans simply don’t know how to be good followers. Democrats do. The question is, what are you fighting for?
___________________________________________________________
[1] Before you wet your pants, take some time to consider what you see and observe, especially in the House the last few weeks. And read Ellison’s book. There are many signs of this Marxist phenomenon, the most recent being what happened to Jim Jordan in the House this week. Through observation, the signs are everywhere – i.e., when Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to define the word “woman” because as she put it, “I’m not a biologist.” She was still voted in to become a Supreme Court justice, and Republicans carried her over the top. Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, and Mitt Romney, of Utah were the Republicans who voted for her; all Democratic senators voted for her, which you will see is part of the explanation of why Republicans don’t know who or what they are fighting in this essay. How you fight what you are fighting is with votes!
[2] “For the want of a nail the shoe was lost, For the want of a shoe the horse was lost, For the want of a horse the rider was lost, For the want of a rider the battle was lost, For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.” Benjamin Franklin wanted to illustrate to the colonists the importance of being vigilant towards seemingly small things that can lead to much bigger problems. He titled it, “A Little Neglect May Breed Great Mischief.” Ignoring seemingly small things may cause a lot of heartache later. Ignoring not being able to define a woman when you are a woman is going to lead to heartache. As does ignoring what is really going on in the country…which you should conclude from your own observations of both human behavior and what people say.
[3] https://www.wsj.com/politics/jim-jordan-set-to-fall-short-again-in-third-speaker-vote-2c72ff5e?mod=Searchresults_pos2&page=1
[4] https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4266729-jeffries-blasts-jim-jordan-as-clear-and-present-danger-ahead-of-third-vote/
[5] The clear and present danger test originated in Schenck v. the United States. The test says that the printed or spoken word may not be the subject of previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless its expression creates a clear and present danger of bringing about a substantial evil. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clear_and_present_danger