Addicted to the process

Why change takes so much longer than it should

A mere eight republican members of the House of Representatives, in concert with all the Democrats, voted to oust Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. This means that several supposedly “firebrand” conservatives, including Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor-Greene, voted to keep McCarthy in power. Likewise, noted “conservatives,” including Newt Gingrich and Mark Levin, condemned the removal of the Speaker.

Presumably, the reason that faux conservatives and neocons opposed the action was in the name of unity. While it is comforting in some circles to invoke Reagan’s 11th commandment of not speaking ill of any Republican, a moment’s reflection will see that this is a losing strategy long-term.

An obvious historical example is the formation of the Republican party from the dissipating Whigs and the Free-Soilers. Under Reagan’s rubrics, shouldn’t the Whigs have preferred unity over anything else? Or, wasn’t anti-slavery a sufficient cause to form a new party? Why should the Kansas-Nebraska Act have changed anything?

But, there’s more than the quest for unity going on here. We also have a near-robotic addiction to the current process of governing, itself. Apparently, it doesn’t matter to the establishment apologists that McCarthy did not live up to the promises he made to secure the speakership in the first place, and essentially caved to the Democrats at every opportunity. The almighty PROCESS must be maintained above all else.

Consider how absurd and even quaint this notion is. Why, we always had political debates in one form or another running up to the primaries—until we didn’t. Trump broke the mold by refusing to participate, given his huge lead in the polls. Thus, we had a “process,” until we didn’t.

The only reason the TV debates occurred at all was because enough people were addicted to that process to watch the seven dwarfs on TV, and the networks wanted the advertising revenues. As it was, the performances by the candidates were awful, and the moderators and their questions were completely inane.

Being addicted to process makes one unaware when the process has failed. What better example can there be than the ridiculous and biased indictments against Trump? The current case in New York state is especially laughable. Apparently, the legal system, in the form of the state attorney general, can create a “crime” where none has occurred.

A common definition of “fraud” is: “[T]he intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud.

Note well that there must be some injured party who has incurred a loss. Yet, the attorney general in New York is IMPUTING fraud by Trump, even though his bank loans were all paid off, no bank claimed any loss, and on any loan, the bank would have performed its own due diligence. If that weren’t bad enough, the judge unilaterally applied a ludicrously low valuation to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property.

While we have a court, a prosecutor, and a judge, the process has become so perverted that it merits no respect whatsoever. What about Yasser Arafat getting a Nobel Peace Prize? Or elections having countless irregularities, but still being ELECTIONS.

The removal of McCarthy occurred because the system was not working. With runaway inflation, open borders, and a criminal family in the White House, the go along to get along process had to be abandoned—as much as that upsets the RINOs and NeoCons.