Ohio Representative Jim Jordan has a lot on his mind this week of July Fourth, and it's not the eloquent virtues penned in the Declaration of Independence. Allegations that he knew of sexual harassment and abuse of Ohio State University wrestlers while he was an assistant coach there are biting at his heels. He denies he knew about the harassment or abuse and asserts that if he had, he would have taken action to protect his athletes.
Luckily for him, the President of the United States has come to his defense. Donald Trump believes Jim Jordan. He believes his claims that he was unaware of any sexual harassment or abuse during his time at Ohio State. And if Trump says it, then it must be true: "Jim Jordan is one of the most outstanding people I've met since I've been in Washington. I believe him 100 percent. No question in my mind."
But what of the men who say Jordan did know? They say everyone, including Jordan, knew about the sexual harassment by voyeurs lurking at the Ohio State University sport's facility and the sexual abuse of wrestlers by the university doctor, Richard Strauss. Are they all lying? Or are they, as Jordan purports, part of a "deep state" conspiracy determined to bring him down because of his "honest" search for the truth in questioning Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein?
This is the classic tale of sexual assaults and the astonishing moral torpidity of the grownups who know all about it yet pretend they don't. We saw this pattern with Joe Paterno and the vile monster Jerry Sandusky. Paterno's willingness to ignore the rape of young boys stretches beyond the bounds of human understanding and forgiveness. Like Paterno, Jordan claims that he knew nothing. Given the number of men who have said Jordan did know makes his assertion of "ignorance" less than credible.
Throughout his political career, Jim Jordan has styled himself as a conservative purist. Conservative on taxes, immigration, the military (which means spending taxpayer's money on unneeded tanks), on the environment (which means allowing corporations to poison the planet), and, of course, conservative on protecting Donald Trump. He is among those who have led the fight to discredit the Mueller investigation. Jordan is so loyal to Trump that when asked by Anderson Cooper if he had ever heard Trump lie, Jordan answered that he had not, despite the almost four thousand lies Trump has told since being in office.
One expects members of both political parties to be partisan; to frequently stretch facts to fit the narratives they wish to promote. However, as the tally of lies Trump has told continues to grow, it becomes ludicrous to deny that Trump has ever told a lie, and such a statement by Jordan makes one suspect he too possesses no regard for the truth. But I guess that's what makes them simpatico. And like Trump, Jordan continues to receive unwavering support from his Republican base. That support tells us a great deal about the character of those supporters. However, in the contest for truth between him and his former wrestlers, Jordan, I afraid, is pinned to the mat.
*********************************************************************************
While sordidness and sheer dishonesty cling to one of the foremost republican members, on the democratic side of the political aisle a fresh face has emerged to inspire hope for the November elections. In a New York primary, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez trounced Joe Crowley, the fourth ranking Democrat who was said to be in line for Nancy Pelosi's leadership position.
After upsetting the highly favored Crowley, Ocasio-Cortez encountered a less than warm reception from fellow Democrats and the expected disdain from Republicans. Nancy Pelosi dismissed that Ocasio-Cortez's victory as insignificant and limited to "just one district." Tammy Duckworth, commenting on the primary results said, "I think that you can't win the White House without the Midwest, and I think you can go too far to the left and still win the Midwest."
Of course, conservatives have expressed disdain and revulsion for Ocasio-Cortez because she is a Democratic Socialist. Conservative Bret Stephens of The New York Times presented a more balanced analysis of what he fears her candidacy will produce come November, which he has called "political hemlock for the Democratic Party." Even though Stephens is a conservative, he is afraid that Ocasio-Cortez's political positions will drive the Democrats too far left and thereby hand Trump congressional wins in the fall that could prevent his impeachment. But what are the policies that Ocasio-Cortez supports which these liberals and conservatives label as too far left to be political feasible?
Ocasio-Cortez believes in "health care as a human right." She believes that "every child no matter where you are born should have access to a college or trade school education if they so choose it." She believes that "no person should be homeless, if we can have public structures and public policies to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States."
Mainstream liberals such as Pelosi and Duckworth are frightened about being labeled too liberal; and the word "socialist" seems to terrify them. Conservative, on the other hand, cringed at the slightest notion that government can serve the American people with programs to lessen some of life's hardships. It's what makes them scorn Ocasio-Cortez's political views. Ocasio-Cortez's identifies herself as a Democratic Socialist. But as she herself explains, that label is not what matters most. What matters to her are the values she believes need to be essential in serving as a representative in Congress. She puts it succinctly: Being a Democratic Socialist is "part of what I am; it's not all of what I am...and I think that's a very important distinction...I'm not truing to impose an ideology on all several hundred members of Congress...It's not about selling an 'ism' or an ideology or a label or a color. This about selling values."
As Ocasio-Cortez says, she is not interested in imposing her beliefs on anyone else. Her aim is to present her views and try to persuade fellow Democrats and members of the other party that her values, and therefore policies, have merit. If they accept her ideas and support them, so be it. If not, she will continue her best to convince them of the merit of her beliefs and values without resorting to demagoguery.
And that's what it all comes down to: Which party has the values that will best serve the country and the planet? The Republicans, who value corporate profits and greed above all else, including the health of new born babies (See "U.S. Officials Opposition to Breast-Feeding Stuns World Health Officials")? Or Democrats such as Ocasio-Cortez, who know that profits and wealth don't measure the real health and prosperity of a country and a world. When Ocasio-Cortez wins her seat in the fall, the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans will become even more conspicuous and important. Let's hope her victory becomes a watershed election in the history of American politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment