I posted this yesterday and it didn’t get any traction, so I took it down to work on it some more.
Then today I got another very interesting response to my Facebook post from two nights ago saying what I’ve been saying on here since Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation became official (echoing what Sheldon Whitehouse has been saying for weeks): that the sale and purchase of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Government, and the U.S. itself, by the various industries that own the GOP (fossil-fuel, chemical, pharmaceutical, financial, insurance, tobacco, firearms, defense, &c.) is now complete; they — and we — got what they paid for.
I should note that while I do have some right-wing friends on Facebook, I’ve unfollowed most of them. Which means that I don’t see their posts in my News Feed, but they can see mine in theirs (unless they’ve unfollowed me as well), although I tend not to post political material or thoughts on Facebook except on certain momentous occasions. Nonetheless, even on those rare occasions I try to avoid blatant partisan advocacy. And when some hateful racist right-wing stuff comes through from someone I haven’t yet unfollowed (for whatever reason), I just hide it; I never pick fights on Facebook, because nothing good can come of it.
Every once in a while my unfollowed right-wing friends will respond to one of my rare political posts. It is abundantly clear that my assertion vis-à-vis the sale and purchase of the SCOTUS, and the U.S. itself, by the above-referenced industries touched quite a nerve with two of them.
The first response I got was fairly temperate:
I beg to differ. A duly-elected President and a duly-elected Senate exercised their constitutional responsibilities and authority to nominate and confirm a qualified candidate. The people have spoken.
My response: The POTUS got 3 million fewer votes and the Senate “majority” represents ~15 million fewer people and is in any event wholly-owned by the aforementioned industries. “The people” had nothing to do with it.
The Senate is much more representative.
Me: The Senate is the least “representative” legislative body in the Western hemisphere.
We’re a republic, not a democracy; the majority does not rule.
Me: If “the majority does not rule,” then “the people have [not] spoken.”
Note that at this point (s)he still hasn’t denied that the Party to which (s)he’s sworn allegiance is wholly-owned by the aforementioned industries.
There was some additional back-and-forth but nothing terribly unpleasant. I didn’t directly call out the contradiction, which came up again later, and I didn’t want to get into a whole thing (again, I try not to get into whole things on Facebook) about the undemocratic elements of our system of government, and how a process and a result can be both legitimate and undemocratic at the same time. I assured my friend that I know perfectly well who “has spoken” and who has not, and (s)he accepted that and wished me good day.
But again, (s)he never denied, challenged, disputed, questioned, or even addressed my original core assertion that his/her political heroes are wholly-owned by the referenced industries. Even if “the people [had] spoken,” as (s)he said, that is not incompatible with the sale and purchase of the nation by the GOP’s owners; the two are not mutually exclusive. After all, that is what Republican voters voted for, even if they didn’t do so consciously. Although I didn’t want to get into that either, neither did my friend dispute that or imply otherwise.
Then today I got another response, this one a veritable firehose of passive-aggression and Fox-fueled ignorance, along the lines of “Who do you want running this country, the Democrats??!?!!” followed by a tirade taken straight from the canons of the FNCU about how horrible Cuomo, Pelosi, and all Democrats supposedly are. Since trying to reason with people like this is like trying to talk a cat into taking guitar lessons, I simply applauded the performance. This prompted another tirade, on the same subject, which prompted another polite non-argumentative response, which prompted a nasty remark, and by then I’d had enough and had to un-friend the person and delete the thread.
When this was over I couldn’t help but notice the connection between today’s Invasion of the Mind Snatchers and yesterday’s. As civil as yesterday’s was, today’s was intemperate; as on-point as yesterday’s was, today’s was out of left field. But they had one critical thing in common: Neither one denied, disputed, challenged, questioned, addressed or even mentioned my original, core contention, that the Barrett Confirmation completes the sale by the GOP, and the purchase by the aforementioned industries, of the Court, and of this nation.
Indeed, the second person not only didn’t deny it, but seemed to be fine with it if not throughly enthused by it. After all, who wouldn’t want to be the wholly-owned property of the fossil-fuel, chemical, pharmaceutical, financial, insurance, tobacco, firearms and defense industries … if the alternative is [gasp!] a Democratic government??!?
Honestly, I think that if the shoe were on the other foot and someone had claimed that my political heroes had literally sold the nation to polluters, profiteers and predators, that might be the first thing I’d take issue with. Unless, of course, I couldn’t deny it, or unless I agreed with it, was fine with it, was happy about it, and/or had voted Democratic specifically because of it.
One of the things I didn’t say in the first conversation was that even if “the people have spoken,” and even if the system worked exactly as intended, “the people” (viz., Republican voters) still voted to hand ownership and control of the nation to the polluters, profiteers and predators that own the Republican Party. In retrospect, I wonder if (s)he would have denied that, or taken exception to it. The second conversation suggests that (s)he would not have. Which leaves me unsure: Why did neither of these people, who have sworn allegiance to the GOP and the FNCU, take issue with my original, core contention?
Is it because they agree with it, are fine with it, are happy about it, voted for it and will gladly vote for it again?
Is it because they know it’s true but can’t reconcile the fact, or admit to themselves, that this is what they actually voted for?
Is it because they don’t want to believe it so they’ve just mentally blocked it out?
Or is it because they’ve been marinating in Republican Fan Fiction for so long that the idea is just entirely beyond their comprehension?