A Dance of Hypocrisy, Racism, and the Danger of Political Parties

In response to North Korea’s latest fiasco, President Trump made himself quite clear, “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” I would imagine that such strong language against North Korea’s madness would be condoned by most on both sides of the isle. Yet alas, some dreams don’t come true. The President’s remarks fell on thorns on both sides of the isle but mostly amongst the democrats. Apparently Trump “might provoke North Korea.” Yet calling serious action against Russia after they’ve been blamed for hacking Trump into the Oval Office isn’t provocative? Yet Trump’s remarks provoke North Korea? I understand not poking a sleeping lion with a stick but if it’s charging at you (unlike Russia, I’d like to keep the mm sleeping) there isn’t much else you can do. In our situation, this lion has a nuke, and doesn’t seem afraid to use it.

Let’s jump back in time to the Truman administration. After WW2 the Soviets (the democrats were and still are quite fond of their communistic philosophies) had gained control over East Germany. These areas were war ravished and the people starving. Truman approved Berlin Airlift to supply food and other necessities via unarmed military cargo jets. However, there was no agreement with the Soviets on such matters. Naturally they took little kindness to it. When the Soviets began to threaten these unarmed supply aircraft Truman responded that if any of the planes were shot down “Moscow will get very hot.” Needless to say the Soviets understood.

In another instance, don’t we all know of when Ronald Reagan said, “Tear down this wall”? That was probably his greatest moment, and a bold move as well. Sometimes it benefits to be heavy handed and even provocative, as Reagan and Truman here have shown.

So let’s jump back to the present to the Charlottesville riots. In which an awful, awful, attack occurred by a white nationalist (simply put, anybody willing to do this kind of act is a maggot) that resulted in the death of one and injuries of many others. In response Trump not only denounced the act but also pointed out the blame of violence on both sides. Apparently this time the political intelligentsia decided that such remarks weren’t harsh enough. Yet considering things, When an alt-left and an alt-right group meet, odds are things won’t go well. Judging by the pictures and videos of the event some even came prepared to fight, and is anyone really surprised?

So why would Trump’s remarks be so poor? When events of division happened under the Obama administration there was quite a harsh response when he’d pick sides early on. (Albeit mostly from the right) So, why this change with Trump? Considering how his North Korea remarks were taken, I’d imagine this was an attempt to keep unity. Trump could have done better, but I understood his message as to try and preserve peace. Odds are he was trying to carry a softer tone after his North Korea remarks.

Clearly this movement (spearheaded by the democrats) against confederate statues isn’t helping unite us, nor is it dealing with any problems that we have. Yet I find it odd that it’s the democrats now claiming to be the party for all races, they were the confederate! One could say that the democrats are calling for statues of democrats (or those that supported democrats) to be taken down! It was the north that was against slavery whilst the democratic south supported it. It wasn’t until the first republican president, Lincoln, that abolition was achieved, in spite of democratic efforts.

Now look at the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964, all opposed by the Democratic Party. Another example is Robert Byrd, at the time of his death in 2010 he was the longest serving senator (also a democrat) in congress, was also a former leader of the KKK! He was even made president pro tempore of the senate. Even the Wikipedia article on the KKK says “It sought to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South.” The KKK not only hunted down African-Americans, but also the white republicans that supported their rights. Why don’t we have a call for the democrats to denounce this?

I’m not trying to say that the republicans are “the way to go” and that they don’t have flaws, because many of their flaws are on display today. What I warn against are political parties, they’re like factions, and factions often quarrel with each other. They’ve now created a biased “team” mentality that clouds good reason. It turns what should be a method to secure our good future and that if our children’s, and makes it little more than a competition. I’m not sure how to fix that. What I am sure of is that we need to avoid falling into that kind of system. A party label can be important, but it should never decide for us.

One should note that Reagan was a republican and Truman was a democrat. I did not include alternating parties like that on purpose, those were the examples I first thought of. I realized the parties later.

Again, I shan’t withhold from thee the word of the article: Do not be ‘dysig’ in thy reasoning.