What happened to the Reagan years anyway? It all seemed to start going downhill with the Bentsen-Quayle debate, when Bentsen disparaged Quayle in a personal way, and Quayle couldn't manage an adequate response. Thereafter, Quayle seemed to be a burden to Bush because the Democrats wanted to use that to buttress their claim that Quayle was a dummy.
It is easy to criticize when you are not in that situation yourself. Nevertheless, Quayle made a tactical blunder that Bentsen took full advantage of. Having made the blunder, Quayle couldn't take advantage of Bentsen's mistake. Bentsen did make a mistake, and that was to get personal. He claimed Kennedy was his friend, but was he really that close to Kennedy? Others at the time didn't seem to think so. Quayle might have taken advantage of that to deliver a response that would have been stronger than just saying "that was uncalled for, Senator".
But you might have forgiven Quayle for not knowing Kennedy well enough to spot Bentsen's blunder. The blunder is that for a friend, Bentsen didn't seem to know Kennedy well enough to know that he wouldn't have resorted to a personal attack like that. It violated Kennedy's belief in "grace under pressure". Under the pressure of the moment, a personal insult is not indicated. But a slight jab in a joking manner might have been more of Kennedy's style.
Quayle could have mentioned that, but it would have required that he know his subject a bit better. As Bentsen said, Quayle was making the comparison. Quayle couldn't back out of that, but what he could have done is make the comparison between Bentsen and Kennedy as well. That might have been good enough of a response to acquit Quayle of any shortcoming in comparison to Kennedy, as Bentsen wouldn't have been any Kennedy either. Bentsen was no better than Quayle, and that was an apt comparison.
Quayle's failure might have set the tone. Thereafter it seems that the only response to the left's depredations seems to be like Quayle's to Bentsen--- it's all uncalled for. Yes, that's true, but there's something missing. The missing thing is an apt response for the left's incivility. You can complain about it, but if you cannot do anything that delivers a telling blow in response, you come off weak.
Then there was Trump. The GOP seemed to just let the Democrats rip Trump with no meaningful response of their own. It's Quayle all over again. It was even worse to say that Trump had no right to defend himself. He does and they should never relinquish that. They did and that is how we are in this mess right now. Trump is a fighter, and the GOP should have never given that up. They should not pass themselves like a wounded bird, like Quayle, and expect to be respected by their adversary.
Update:
With respect to these types mentioned in this post, what do you do if you are like Quayle, and a "finesse" approach isn't available for whatever reason? The reason in Quayle's case, is that no person is likely to be that quick-thinking to prepare for a defense that can be acceptable in that scenario. In other words, would Quayle really have much choice but to do what he did?
Or could he have done something that, in ordinary circumstances, would be considered unacceptable? In other words, could he have done what Aaron Burr did to Alexander Hamilton? Hamilton insulted Burr, and Burr's response was to challenge him on the "field of honor". That meant, in those days, a duel. Do we do that anymore? It would seem that an obvious response is "no". But could that be an option when somebody transgresses the rule, and no authority can jump in and say "foul". For Bentsen's crack about "being no Jack Kennedy" was intended to be an insult, and therefore should be considered a foul.
But there being no foul recognized, then isn't Quayle reduced to just saying "that was uncalled for"? Furthermore, it sets a pattern in which an unscrupulous sort, like the political left, can take advantage of without mercy.
What else could explain the lack of response from the GOP to the left on all too many issues? It is as if their hands are tied. Shouldn't it be okay then, that Trump should refuse to be hemmed in by such rules when the other side is bound by no rules?
The point then, is that Trump was fully justified in responding to all attacks in whatever means he deems fit. Unless you are willing to hold the breach of rules accountable, then this is inevitable. If you want more civility, then hold all side EQUALLY responsible.
Consequently, the complaint against Trump is like a lot of things these days. It is a crock.
No comments:
Post a Comment