Anybody who covered the Vietnam War became familiar with several phrases that were used to explain or clarify American involvement.
Terms like “Body Count,” “Hearts and Minds,” “Pacification,” “The light at the end of the tunnel,” come immediately to mind.
But there was another phrase that with just a few alterations seems to define what is happening in our country today. That phrase is “We had to destroy the village to save it.”
It is still used today to describe the brutal absurdities of war and the destructive extremes American forces went to annihilate the Communist Viet Cong who had taken refuge in the South Vietnamese village of Ben Tre in the Mekong Delta.
During the battle American bombs, rockets and napalm obliterated much of the town, hundreds of innocent civilians were killed, and most of the buildings were leveled. After the battle, a U.S. major allegedly justified the carnage by telling a U.S. reporter: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” In other words, the only way to kill the Viet Cong enemy was to destroy everybody and everything around them.
When I watch what is happening today in America’s political universe the phrase that comes to mind is this: “We have to destroy the country to save it.”
It seems to be the justification for the perpetual war the Democrat party and the leftists that control it are waging against President Trump and anybody who supports his agenda.
Whatever happened to the concept of the “loyal opposition?” Do Americans even remember what a loyal opposition is? I sincerely doubt it.
A loyal opposition implies that a party that doesn’t hold the presidency or a majority in the House or Senate can still oppose the actions of the sitting president and the majority party while remaining loyal to the source of the government’s power—our constitutional form of government. In other words, they will not mount a Coup d’état to overthrow the government; they will wait for the next election so the electorate can vote the rascals out.
During World War II, for example, the Democrat Party held the office of president and the Republican Party cooperated fully and without reservation in the war effort.
In the past, we also saw this form of loyalty play out in the Senate judiciary committee when senators from both sides often voted for a judicial candidate without the kind of political rancor we see today. For example, during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, three of his nominees were approved unanimously (Sandra Day O’Connor, 99-0; Antonin Scalia, 98-0; and Anthony Kennedy, 97-0).
Let’s look at the current justices and the votes they received. Clarence Thomas was approved in 1991 by the vote of 52-48; Ruth Bader Ginsburg was approved in 1993 by a vote of 96-3; Stephen Breyer was approved in 1994, by a vote of 87-9; John Roberts, in 2005 by a vote of 78-22,; Samuel Alito, 2006, 58-42; Sonia Sotomayor, 2009, 68-31; Elena Kagan, 2010, 63-37; Neil Gorsuch, 2017, 54-45.
Should Circuit Court Judge Eric Kavanaugh be confirmed by what is likely to be the closest vote yet—maybe 51-49, we can safely say that the from this day forward, Supreme Court Justices will have to go through seven levels of hell to attain a seat on the nation’s highest court. The confirmation process is no longer about who is best qualified, who has the best legal mind, who can be the best justice, but what political party he or she belongs to and whether they are liberal, judicial activists, conservative or strict constructionists. In other words, it has devolved into a form of political combat; a kind of survival of the fittest.
After the disgraceful displays of partisan politics regarding Judge Kavanaugh, if Democrats believe one of their future nominees will fly right through the confirmation process the way Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, or Kagan did they are sadly mistaken. There are long memories in the Senate and the way the last two Trump nominees have been treated means the Democrats are in for some severe retribution.
It’s a sad state of affairs.
The same can be said for the demented and frenzied opposition to President Trump, his cabinet and his supporters, all of whom have been called the coarsest and most offensive of names—from “deplorables” and racists to Nazis and Fascists by the alleged “loyal opposition.”
The leftists and socialists that appear to be running the Democrat party are intent on turning our republic into a socialist ghetto. Never mind that socialism has failed in every country where it has been tried.
For some inane reason, there are people on the left who want to subject our highly successful capitalist republic to a form of government that eliminates incentive and profit and instead creates a system which says “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”—the highly flawed philosophy of Marxism.
Why? It’s the “we have to destroy the country to save it” argument.
That mantra says, “Get rid of President Trump at any cost—even by death if necessary.” (Yes, people on the left have actually said that and some, like goofy Maxine Waters, have come close to saying it).
That’s where we are today. Get rid of the Trump administration, even if it means destroying our democracy, our republic, and rebuilding it again, preferably in the image of Karl Marx.
So villagers take heed. Watch out for the political napalm, the socialist rockets, and the leftist bombs as we approach the midterm elections. The barrage from the left has only just begun, and our country just may not survive the onslaught.