This is The DC Swamp: Meghan McCain’s Attack on Tulsi Gabbard

2

Here’s what professional Republican gossip Meghan McCain tweeted about Tulsi Gabbard just after the Democratic Congresswoman announced her presidential run:

Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy – CNNPolitics – she is the absolute worst, ethically nebulous, apologist for dictators who chemically gas women & babies – and apparently always has been truly awful.

I was disgusted by that tweet. And you should be too.

It’s a perfect example of the worst kind of Washington swamp politics: What the late Catholic philosopher Rene Girard called “victimism.”

Instead of sincerely supporting truly vulnerable people, victimists like Meghan McCain cynically use people–in this case, the LGBT community–to empower themselves and their own agendas.

The LGBT Community Should be Offended to be Used as a Victimist Group

It’s no coincidence that McCain mentioned the LGBT community and attacked Tulsi Gabbard’s foreign policy in the same tweet.

What she was doing was trying to hijack the momentum of the relatively successful and popular LGBT movement in a desperate attempt to prop up the deeply unpopular and disgraced regime-change legacy of her late father, former GOP presidential candidate John McCain.

The beltway foreign policy establishment has used this victimist tactic for years. If you stand up to their disastrous policies, they don’t argue with you. Instead, they use innocent people as victimist tools to smear you and build themselves up.

As one commentator points out,

Tulsi Gabbard “defended Assad” in the same way that people who sought a diplomatic resolution in Iraq “defended Saddam,” or critics of regime change in Libya “defended Gaddafi.” The list goes on, and on, and on. It’s the same tired, mindlessly-repeated, 100% bogus talking point. 

That’s right. Except it’s not just a talking point. Talking points can be legitimate, and they’re used in every civil debate. But the suggestion that Tulsi Gabbard is an enthusiastic supporter of dictatorial brutality is more than a talking point; it’s a victimist lie, and a kind of slander.

The kind of vicious slander that victimists like Meghan McCain use to try to ruin people they see as threats to their own political agendas.

Luckily, the Republican Party and Victimism Don’t Mix

I say all this as a proud member of the Republican Party, who disagrees with Tulsi Gabbard on fundamental issues.

But as I’ve written elsewhere, what makes me proud of the Republican Party is its history of standing with those in most need of advocacy, from American slaves to victims of discrimination in the Jim Crow South to the unborn in danger of abortion today.

What I’m proud of is the golden thread that connects the dots of the Republican Party’s history: its firm commitment to defending the truly vulnerable, even–no, especially when powerful elites stand against them.

And it’s for that same reason that I am grateful to Tulsi Gabbard.

I’m grateful that she has been willing to take a stand on behalf of the most vulnerable minorities in the Middle East, even when the foreign policy establishment attacked her for it. I’m grateful that she defended the religious liberty of Catholics, even when Washington elites seemed to reject that principle.

This is what the Republican Party is all about. And it’s the opposite of the victimist rhetoric of Meghan McCain and the Washington swamp.

A Welcome Contrast

I have no doubt about Tulsi Gabbard’s personal courage, and nothing could prove her sincerity more clearly than her willingness to face down leading members of her own Party.

America could use more of her brand of sincere and courageous politics.

The views expressed here are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of CatholicVote.org

Share.

About Author

mm

Jason Jones is the Founder of Movie to Movement and producer of films such as Bella and Crescendo.

2 Comments

  1. There is a lot that can be said thats critically questioning of the points you are making, and things you cite, in this article. But I’ll jst offer one here, re: this comment towards the end.
    “I’m grateful that she has been willing to take a stand on behalf of the most vulnerable minorities in the Middle East…”
    Im curious to know which vulnerable minorities were you referring to there? Cant be the Christians like the Yazidis, or ppl who are secular, or moderate Sunnis, because the ppl who are a threat to them are Islamic extremists groups like ISIS or AQ, and EVERYONE is opposed to them — in fact combatting them is specifically what the mission that US troops in Syria entails. (People get confused about that & mistake what it is exactly that we’re doing there because prior to us becoming directly involved we had given rebel groups some arms — but all the military actions we’ve engaged in since we got directly involved has been focused on combatting ISIS & terrorists there, not helping rebel groups wage battle with Assad’s regime. The Russians have been working with the regime battling rebels, but we our activities in Syrua have been focused on the eliminating the destabilizing terrorist threat ISIS poses, not tipping the scales against Assad. (Even if he is a total pos who we would like to have removed. We’re only authorized use of force against, & help others there combat/defeat ISIS,)

    So, since majority of ppl in politics support combatting terrorist extremists, it’s not exactly unique or heroic to hold that view.

    And you couldn’t have been talking about Shias & Ba’athists, since they are not only NOT vulnerable minority groups.. They are the elites who have been holding all the power — and its actually the other 70% of the population there, Sunni ppl outside of Damascus, ie. the majority, who’re the real ones who are suffering, powerless, vulnerable, and oppressed.

    So again, cant figure out what ya mean by that?

    So again

  2. I agree with most of what has been stated here including the history of the Republican Party but lets not pretend like it did not abandon its abolitionist’s roots and with the help of Democrats, instituted policies to create neo-slavery through the prisons mostly targeting “minorities”. Let us not pretend that the majority of the Republican party, along with Democrats have been in the regime change business after WWII with non-stop wars and so-called military interventions propping up dictators in the ME and Central and South America.

Leave A Reply