![]() True, we’ve drifted from that ideal, but unless we switch from a constitutional republic to a kingdom ruled by a philosopher sovereign, we sort of need those keyboard cowboys out there doing the ideological lifting. What we can take from that, though, is that elected officials are not there to rule us, but represent us. Surmising how those from the past would behave in the present is a fool’s errand, so we won’t. Of course, we cannot know how they would respond to Rubio’s statements that he’d be honored to help a dangerous lunatic take over the Oval Office. Buckley, to name just a few of those, are revered for their service to the public in the form of thinking and keyboard cowboying, if not in the form of the world’s second-oldest profession. There are some other inconvenient realities for Rubio’s assertion, as well. Of course, of those 200, about 50 did run for the Republican nomination, and 46 of those have since endorsed Trump, which doesn’t offer much room for criticism or competing ideas. Maybe those 200 people could offer better ideas about governance and criticisms of presidential candidates than those keyboard cowboys. Second, in any given year only about 200 people could realistically run for president. First, there is the truism that holding public service up as a loftier profession than welding or prostitution-just to name two examples-is a heavier lift than that undertaken by Atlas. Is “keyboard cowboy” actually an effective and accurate depiction of those on the idea side of conservativism and not the public servant side? Actually, no, it is not. De Tocqueville? Keyboard Cowboyīack to Rubio. Note that it’s highly likely Ted Cruz will also flip on Trump, so for those interested in keeping that particularly ridiculous civil war going, you may want to keep your powder dry on this. Maybe that whole Gang of Eight thing was more indicative than some realized. Not only is he going sour grapes since people didn’t have the wisdom to give him the nomination, he’s engaging in verbal attacks reminiscent of a Code Pink rally as he positions himself for future runs. In other words, Rubio is who his critics thought he was. Perhaps he should read Sun Tzu instead of focusing on the long game: “In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.” As a party man with an eye on his own political future, maybe such support is necessary to an extent, but to impugn those who actually stick to their ideological guns tends to prove correct those who questioned his authenticity. Sure, he’s a party man and he’s not leaving politics. Now Marco, once presented as the sunny hope for a new generation of conservative leadership, is tossing about the equivalent of “chickenhawk” against those who have the temerity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, backtracking on his statements about Trump being mentally unfit and dangerous isn’t consistent with the pure and cool image he cultivated. Marco Rubio Is Who His Critics Thought He Was Those who lob it about rarely seem concerned if the commander in chief or other elected representatives with whom they agree have opinions about the military the term is only deployed when someone with an opinion that differs from the one who utters it offers support for military action, kinetic or otherwise. What supposedly makes “chickenhawk” such a devastating line of attack is the idea that those who aren’t in the business of actually going to war have no business influencing how the military conducts itself. The New Hampshire Gazette, among other sites, even maintains a “ Chickenhawk Hall of Shame.” The list doesn’t have a date for when Rubio was added, although presumably before he called for drafting our wives and daughters to fight in Libya. That term is “chickenhawk,” a person who advocates for war without enlisting in the military. It’s all reminiscent of a lazy pejorative that used to get lobbed around more frequently when a Democrat wasn’t the one ordering armed sky robots to do his bidding in the Middle East. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |