A potential presidency built on shifting sands
Another reason to NOT vote for Trump
A potential presidency built on shifting sands
In the ever-turbulent seas of American politics, we find ourselves approaching a storm that could reshape the landscape of our nation's leadership. The 2024 election looms large, with the Republican ticket presenting a vice-presidential nominee that is a man of contradictions and opportunism. At the helm stands Donald Trump, the oldest presidential nominee in our history, a man whose controversial tenure continues to divide the nation. But it is his choice of running mate that may truly give one pause. J.D. Vance, once a vocal critic of Trump, now stands poised to potentially ascend to the highest office in the land through a path paved with political expediency and calculated maneuvering. Vance's metamorphosis from "Never Trumper" to presumptive heir apparent is a testament to the malleability of political conviction in our times. This is a man who, not long ago, likened Trump to "America's Hitler" and derided Trump supporters as akin to drug addicts. Now, he eagerly awaits his turn at the throne, betting on actuarial tables and fast-food diets of Trump to accelerate his ascension. The danger here is not merely in Vance's breathtaking reversal of stance, but in the fundamental lack of core principles it reveals. This is a man who has changed his name twice, altered his biography to suit his political ambitions, and shifted his policies like sand in the wind. Such a chameleon-like ability to adapt may be admired in the animal kingdom, but it should give us great pause when considering the potential leader of the free world. Another quality, he and Trump have in common are rage issues. On the August 2 Full Send podcast, Vance was bragging about telling “Shut the hell up” to his 7-year-old. What kind of father brags about yelling a curse word at their 7-year-old? What we witness in Vance is the embodiment of a political opportunist, a man willing to trade the very soul of the nation for the glitter of power and the jingle of coins in his pocket. The prospect of such a figure ascending to the presidency not through the will of the people, but through a calculated gambit, should send shivers down the spine of every American who values the integrity of our democratic institutions. Moreover, this Faustian bargain reflects poorly on Trump's current judgment. By selecting a running mate who once denigrated him and his supporters, Trump demonstrates either a dangerous quick decision or a cynical disregard for loyalty and consistency. As we approach this crossroads in our nation's history, we must ask ourselves: Are we willing to entrust the future of America to a man who views the presidency not as a sacred duty, but as a prize to be won through political shapeshifting? The answer to this question may well determine the trajectory of our nation for generations to come.
Grand Old Party's New Clothes
Once upon a time, not so long ago, the Republican National Convention stood as a bastion of conservative ideals and policy discourse. Members argued about creating economic opportunity zones in the Southern States and Midwest (2004 George Bush), now they argue over did Matt Gaetz pay money to have relations with a 17-year-old girl (2024 Kevin McCarthy).
In the past, delegates gathered to debate the finer points of tax reform, national security, and the role of government. Speeches rang out with references to Reagan, Lincoln, and the Founding Fathers. But oh, how the mighty have fallen.
In a surreal twist that would make even the most ardent postmodernist blush, we now witness the party of Lincoln trotting out a porn star (Amber Rose), a rap video, and a reality star whose parents are tax fraudsters (Savannah Chrisley) extolling the virtues of their standard-bearer – a man now branded with the scarlet letter of 34 felony convictions. The Grand Old Party, it seems, has traded its Brooks Brothers suits for a costume better suited to an adult film set which Trump is all too familiar (Trump made a cameo appearance in 1999 adult film called “Playboy Video Centerfold 2000”).
This jarring metamorphosis raises a host of uncomfortable questions. How does a party that wraps itself in the flag of Christian values reconcile featuring a speaker whose claim to fame is disrobing for the Only Fans camera and promoting her atheism? What gymnastics of logic must one perform to square the circle of "law and order" rhetoric with a speaker who approves of her parents’ tax evasion and a candidate whose legal troubles pile up faster than his Truth social posts?
And let us not forget the specter of Jeffrey Epstein, whose black book of infamy and his criminal conviction court cases now links the Republican frontrunner to a scandal that would have sunk any previous candidacy faster than the Titanic. Yet here we are, watching the party faithful rally around their man with a fervor that would make tent revivalists envious.
One is tempted to ask: Is this the same GOP that once railed against moral relativism? That decried the coarsening of culture? That positioned itself as the last bulwark against societal decay?
The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. Christians and evangelical leaders now find themselves in the awkward position of defending a man whose lifestyle and legal entanglements would have made the Pharisees blush. It's as if the Moral Majority decided to rebrand itself as the Amoral Plurality.
Yet perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. This is merely the logical conclusion of a political movement that has increasingly valued power over principle, celebrity over substance, and tribal loyalty over moral consistency.
So here we stand, watching a political party that once prided itself on personal responsibility and family values now rallying behind a man who embodies neither. The cognitive dissonance is deafening, but the faithful seem not to hear it.
In the end, we're left to ponder a question that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago: Can a party built on the twin pillars of Christian morality and law-and-order conservatism survive hitching its wagon to a star so at odds with those very principles? Only time – and the American electorate – will tell.
But one thing is certain: The Republican Party of 2024 is a far cry from the party of Reagan, let alone Lincoln. It has traded its moral compass for a carnival barker's megaphone, and in doing so, may have lost its soul in the bargain.
About the Creator
Joseph McCain
I love my wife. I love my children. And I had a 30 year love affair with newspapers.
Keep reading
More stories from Joseph McCain and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Right to Protest Under Threat in England and Wales, Reports Warn
A growing number of reports and analyses have raised alarms about the erosion of the right to protest in England and Wales, suggesting that legislative and policing measures are increasingly restricting citizens’ ability to engage in public demonstrations. Advocates for civil liberties warn that these changes not only undermine democratic participation but also risk creating a chilling effect on political activism and public dissent. New Laws and Restrictions The focus of concern centers on recent legislation and guidance affecting public demonstrations. In particular, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and associated regulations have expanded police powers in ways that critics argue curtail lawful protest. These measures give law enforcement greater authority to impose conditions on gatherings, issue dispersal orders, and arrest individuals for offenses that previously would not have warranted intervention. Under the current framework, protests can be restricted for reasons including the risk of public disorder, potential disruption to traffic, or impacts on local businesses. While authorities maintain that these powers are necessary to balance public safety with the right to demonstrate, civil liberties organizations contend that the threshold for intervention is too low, enabling disproportionate action against peaceful activists. Impact on Activism The consequences for grassroots movements and social campaigns are significant. Climate activists, anti-racism campaigners, and other advocacy groups have reported instances where demonstrations were curtailed, permits denied, or participants arrested for minor infractions. Some organizers have expressed concern that these restrictions force them to scale back planned actions or abandon public events entirely. Legal experts note that such constraints may have long-term implications for democratic engagement. When citizens feel that their ability to express dissent is limited, it erodes trust in public institutions and reduces the visibility of critical issues that demand societal attention. Policing Practices Under Scrutiny Reports also highlight concerns about policing practices during demonstrations. While the majority of protests proceed peacefully, there have been repeated instances of heavy-handed tactics, including the use of kettling, stop-and-search measures, and aggressive dispersal orders. Critics argue that these practices disproportionately affect younger participants and marginalized communities, raising questions about equality before the law. Civil liberties organizations emphasize that effective policing should protect both public safety and the rights of protestors. They caution that current approaches may prioritize control over dialogue, undermining the essential democratic principle of free expression. International Comparisons England and Wales are not unique in facing tensions between security measures and civil liberties. Around the world, governments have grappled with balancing public order with the right to protest. However, observers point out that increasingly restrictive laws risk placing England and Wales alongside jurisdictions where civic freedoms are curtailed, potentially impacting the country’s international reputation on human rights. The United Nations and other global watchdogs have repeatedly underscored that peaceful assembly is a cornerstone of democracy. Any erosion of this right, even under the guise of public safety, is viewed as a warning signal of democratic backsliding. Voices from the Frontlines Activists and legal advocates have been vocal in highlighting the human impact of these changes. Many describe a climate of fear and uncertainty surrounding public demonstrations. For example, community organizers report increased anxiety about fines, arrests, or legal challenges, even when events are conducted lawfully. Some protestors have resorted to creative methods, such as virtual campaigns, flash mobs, or socially distanced gatherings, to circumvent restrictions. While these strategies allow activism to continue, they also reflect the limitations imposed by current legislation. The Debate Over Public Safety vs. Civil Liberties Government officials argue that the expanded powers are necessary to maintain order and protect citizens from disruption or harm. They point to incidents where protests have caused traffic chaos, blocked emergency services, or escalated into confrontations with counter-demonstrators. Nevertheless, civil rights advocates insist that public safety and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive. They call for reforms that uphold the right to protest while allowing authorities to address legitimate risks through proportionate, evidence-based measures. Looking Ahead The ongoing debate over protest rights in England and Wales is far from settled. As new reports shed light on restrictions and their effects, policymakers face growing pressure to strike a balance between security and freedom. Legal challenges, parliamentary scrutiny, and international attention may influence future reforms, with the potential to either strengthen or further limit the ability of citizens to engage in peaceful dissent. Conclusion Reports warning of attacks on the right to protest highlight a critical issue at the heart of democratic society. While governments must maintain public order, safeguarding civil liberties is essential to ensuring that citizens can voice opinions, challenge authority, and advocate for change. In England and Wales, the right to protest faces unprecedented scrutiny, and the outcome of this debate will shape the nature of civic engagement for years to come.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 6 days ago in The Swamp
Comments (3)
Nice work
Thanks for the well detailed analysis
These men stand on hypocritical action and rhetoric as much as they do their endless lies. Where are the Republicans of old who demanded accountability from their candidate, Richard Nixon? In today's world, parties turn blind eyes as though wanting to believe something is true will make it so. Front and foremost, narcissists never, ever should be in power, able to have such influence and control. In my lengthy lifetime, having seen many Presidents come and go, these two men fall far short and are undeniably the least worthy. I liked your article, but in all fairness, I wholeheartedly already agreed with the points presented.