DIALOGUE OF THE SELF IN MODERN TIMES
Q. Is Donald Trump crude, and coarse, and pompous?
Q. But we knew that about him already, correct?
Q. So what is “new” in regard to a tape of his crude and coarse remarks made in 2005?
Q. So how can the left [sc. the Democrats and their camp-followers] claim this development as “news”?
A. They can’t. But that doesn’t stop them from doing it anyway, since they see a political advantage.
Q. And just what is the political advantage they see?
A. That they can trumpet [pun intended] how crude, and coarse, and pompous Mr. Trump is.
Q. Wait — we already knew that, right? [See first question.]
A. Right. Just as we already knew that former President Clinton used his position to exploit women, and on occasion to assault, batter and even rape them -- with no fear of reprisal.
Q. So what possible advantage can they gain from raising as “new” something that everyone already knew, and that is hypocritical of them to boot?
A. Ah, now you’ve gotten to the heart of the matter.
Q. I have?
A. Yes. The God of PC [Political Correctness] demands from His devotees incessant sacrifices of the same thing over and over again. Thus the left can once more (ad nauseam) profess and show how much they adore their God of PC: they kneel and prostrate themselves before His altar, but are careful to offer only their political opponents (and never one of their own) for sacrifice. Those on the right, on the other hand, are left [pun intended] — with a quandary.
Q. What quandary?
A. They don’t relish worshiping the God of PC — but they will, and will sacrifice even their own chosen candidate if that’s what it takes to get themselves re-elected. And that’s why so many of the right have chosen this particular moment to abandon their previous [albeit lukewarm] support of Mr. Trump.
Q. And just where does that leave Mr. Trump?
A. Just where you now find him: gazing in the pool, admiring his own reflection, and not caring a fig for what anyone else may think -- all the while that his erstwhile “supporters” desert him in droves.
Q. That’s not a very pretty picture.
A. It’s not. But politics is never pretty. If you wanted Mother Teresa for a candidate, you could never have gotten her, because half (or more) of the electorate would have rejected her just for what she stood for, namely the welfare of everyone else but herself. The majority of those motivated to go to the polls today ask only: "What will this (or that) candidate do for me?"
Q. Well, even if that's so, what's wrong with that? Shouldn't they vote based on which candidate can deliver the most for them?
A. That approach renders them incapable of placing themselves in anyone’s shoes but their own. Consequently they end up with candidates whose vision likewise cannot extend beyond their own selves, e.g., Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In short, they get just those whom they have asked for, and whom they certainly deserve.