When Stupid People Talk
One of the benefits of the Trump cult era in the Republican Party is that it has certainly exposed a lot of underlying and unappetizing truth about a goodly proportion of the grassroots of the GOP, which used to be properly mitigated or moderated behind the old Tea Party’s constitutionalist mantra. Thanks to the rise of flagrant demagoguery, populist vulgarity, and a certain understanding that there is almost nothing one could say now (post-Trump) that would disqualify one from political respectability among the majority of Republican voters, as long as what one says is vaguely consistent with the vaguely sensed notion of “Trumpism,” we may now, with increasing frequency, see what these corrupted millions and their self-seeking leaders really want, because all need for diplomatic pretense has vanished.
So it is that we have J. D. Vance, some sort of writer I believe (please never confuse people who write words with authors), making his case for cutting off aid to Ukraine in order to help save Vladimir Putin from ignominious defeat. “Well, he doesn’t say it that way,” you might be tempted to object. But you would be wrong. He does say it that way, thanks to the drop-your-pants bluntness that Trump, the world’s greatest litmus test for the stupid obedience of mobs, has made mainstream over the past several, fatal years.
Vance has apparently made it a sort of personal mission to speak in sub-Candace-Owens talking points about the corruption of the Zelensky government as a means of undermining American support for Ukraine’s cause — an argument that in its evasion of the practical reality of Putin’s war of aggression amounts to little more than a non sequitur, but is also an obvious KGB propaganda tactic, learned from the master in Moscow himself. Republican senator Thom Tillis, frustrated by Vance’s KGB claptrap, replied to reporters’ questions by calling Vance’s remarks “total and unmitigated bull—-,” granting his goofball colleague’s motives slightly more respect than they perhaps deserve.
In response to Tillis’ rude but warranted comment, Vance responded as follows, according to The Hill:
“Well, it’s never good to have Thom Tillis peeved at us,” Vance told reporters Monday, adding later, “But with all due respect to Thom, he’s not living in reality. There is no plausible pathway to the end of the war where Ukraine goes back to 1991 or 2014. It just isn’t … that’s not a desirable thing; it’s not a good thing.”
I leave aside as typically American in its oafish ignorance Vance’s presumption that this war is America’s to “end,” and that the proper results are America’s to determine, as though the sovereign country defending its territory and its self-determination against a brutally inhumane attack were merely a random piece in America’s Lego set (to use an image somewhat charitable to the Trump cult’s intellectual level). What I wish to focus on, rather, is Vance’s final point in this quotation: “It just isn’t…that’s not a desirable thing; it’s not a good thing.”
What isn’t a good thing? Ending the war in a way that allows Ukraine to have all of its territory back, as it was prior to the 2014 invasion of Crimea. Note that Vance is not merely saying, as Trump tried to finagle it during his presidency, that the Crimea issue is “in the past,” and therefore irreparable. Rather, he is declaring that it would be wrong for Ukraine to have that territory again — along with, by implication, whatever further territory the Ukrainians would have to cede to Putin in order to reach a peace deal satisfying to Putin (and Vance).
In other words, J. D. Vance, American Putinite, believes that Putin is right to demand control over significant portions of Ukrainian territory, that he ought to be granted that territory, and that it ought to be American policy to seek to bring about a resolution that rewards Putin’s brave and worthy aggression against what is, as he claims (parroting Putin and/or Tucker Carlson and/or Candace Owens), “one of the most corrupt countries in Europe.”
In short, J. D. Vance is rooting for Putin, seeking to assist Putin, and anxious to employ the most absurdly immoral moral equivalency smokescreen to cover for Putin’s murderous regime, and to obscure the tens of thousands of violent and ugly deaths (including the deaths of more than a hundred thousand Russians) that Putin’s unprovoked aggression has directly caused.
That, I am pained to say, is what remains today of what, a mere eight years ago, was a civilized and freedom-friendly constitutionalist movement of millions. From men to minions, from decency to decrepitude, from limited government to limited liberty, from Reaganism to populism, from the long fight to the quick surrender, in such a short span of time.
Revolting, but also educational for those who have the stomach for nauseating truths about human nature.
