Written by Your Third Choice
Follow on Twitter: @YourThirdChoice
Debbie Wasserman Shultz, disgraced ex-chairwoman of the DNC and connoisseur of political corruption, is once again battling tidal waves of truth with political “us vs. them” rhetoric. A staffer working for Wasserman Shultz is being charged with fraudulent bank dealings and physical theft from House of Representatives members’ offices.
Wasserman Shultz is now defending the staffer, Imran Awan, after he was caught, after previous charges were filed, attempting to flee the country to his home nation of Pakistan with thousands of dollars of cash in hand. Although the charges against Awan seem entirely legitimate, to say the least, Wasserman Shultz now not only defending the former employee, but has attributed his legal troubles to islomophobic law enforcement.
Debbie is no stranger to deserved defamation, and it’s hard to imagine her reputation or credibility slipping any lower, but there are still many that will jump to defend her and Awan, regardless of the truth. The fact that Wasserman Shultz is not, in this case, being entirely discounted out-of-hand is evidence that many would rather defend a political side than the truth.
The political climate in America is no longer conducive of the rational, or even the obvious. The poison hanging around our civil discourse is one that divides to conquer. The nature of the illness is to infect and corrupt all of a host’s opinions, simplifying the- often good-natured or well-meaning- positions of a person to basic right vs. wrong dichotomies based solely on political lines.
Last year, as a nation, we were treated to the most absurd election in generations and, as a side effect, our nation dropped off the cliff at the end of the slippery slope of ideocracy. Many libertarians are privy to the angst of being mislabeled as red or blue while pointing out the painful inconsistencies in either of 2016’s candidates. Even mention Hillary’s emails or Trump’s rhetoric and you might as well be a Russian spy or a globalist anti-american. The same goes for any of either’s cronies.
In 2017, healthy disagreement is extinct and finding logical compromise is treated as moral sacrilege. It seems like people are becoming increasingly incapable of civilly disagreeing over how immigration, trade, or entitlements should function, each is now a matter of principle. Even pointing out the rational human flaws of political foes is now seen as taking up arms for a team rather than a necessary part of keeping politicians honest.
Partisanship often is conflated with morality by those infected with the cancer of dogma. If you go to bat for ideas supported by the wrong team, your worth as a person is made suspect, even if the points you make are objectively valid. When earthly disagreements are moralized we egotistically confuse subjective opinion with holy truth and we elevate earthly sinners to divine status.
Debbie is a hero to the left. A holy warrior against he evils of white American racism, much in the way some libertarians see Ron Paul and NAP as the gold standards (no pun intended) for morality.
Lead by example, recognize your hero’s faults. They are only human. It is the only cure for the disease that sadly might be making your friends and family defend miserable lairs like Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
Latest posts by Guest Author (see all)
- Deconstructing the Deconstruction- Postmodernism’s Effect on US Politics - September 1, 2017
- Explaining the Recent Massive Success and “Fork” of Bitcoin - August 30, 2017
- News from Down Under: The Global Effects of DPRK Threats - August 28, 2017