43° Cloudy

Editorial: Mr. Will, look not at Republicans but in the mirror to find the “lout,” then turn to this lady to find the true rulers of the GOP

Editorial: Mr. Will, look not at Republicans but in the mirror to find the “lout,” then turn to this lady to find the true rulers of the GOP

Image: One of the true rulers of the Republican Party, Ginger Russell of Magnolia, Texas. She’s not a lout, unlike columnist George Will who personifies awkwardishness and brutishness.

Kelli Ann Cox, Publisher, and Eric Yollick, Editor-in-Chief, The Golden Hammer

Lout means “an awkward brutish person,” according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. That term most perfectly describes George Will, the Washington, D.C., cocktail circuit persona in a bow tie clawing himself towards any politician who will bear to suffer his oafish arrogance. Will, who announced that he left the Republican Party in 2016 when former President Donald Trump came to lead the Party, received a mention in a Seinfeld episode, “The Jimmy”:

George and Jerry each said “I can’t find beauty in a man.”

Kramer disagreed, “I’ll tell you who is an attractive man … George Will.”

Elaine then suggested that Will is smart.

Kramer replied, “No, no I don’t find him all that bright.”

Columnist George Will.

Will apparently set out to prove Kramer right on Saturday, February 13, when his column appeared in The Washington Post, “Will Senate Republicans allow their louts to rule the party?” The entire column appears at the end of this Editorial.

Will’s column contains little more than name-calling (referring to “Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Josh Hawley (Mo.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), et al.” as the “Lout Caucus”) and seriously comparing the January 6 protests at the Nation’s Capitol to the 9/11 tragedy. Will concludes, “The Republican Party will wither if the ascendant Lout Caucus is the face it presents to this nation of decent, congenial people.”

If you act like an awkward brutish person, however, you are a lout, by definition. Senators Graham, Cruz, Hawley, Rubio, and Johnson aren’t awkward nor are they brutish. They don’t always follow the principles supporting liberty and individual rights, which were the fundamental philosophy of the Founding Fathers of the United States. They seem to try, however, to do what they believe is right. This “nation of decent, congenial people” recently re-elected Senators Graham and Cruz to additional six-year terms as United States Senators.

Will, who on June 6, 2014, likened rape victims to a “coveted status [of victimhood] that confers privileges,” seems to fall outside of a decent or congenial person in much of his opining. He chose correctly, however, when he left the Republican Party. Will seems like he is a “lout caucus” of one. He never fit into the Republican Party, because he falls more closely akin to the “Inside the Beltway Establishment.”

For his benefit, we must remember and teach who really rules the Republican Party, or at least strives to do so. The Republican Party has a Platform at both the national and state levels of the Party organization, which could not more closely adhere to core principles of liberty and the original intent of the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution. Certainly, there are those, such as Will before he left the Grand Old Party or Mitch McConnell, the Senate Leader from Kentucky, who seem far more focused on garnering the trappings of power than they are on effectuating principles.

The real rulers of the Republican Party, its face, its soul, its mind, and its heart, are the activists who fight for the Platform and for the election of candidates who claim they will adhere to it. Ginger Russell of Magnolia, Texas, is one of those true rulers.

Russell lives with her husband and family in a rural home, which they meticulously maintain. She’s known as the “Quiet Lady From Magnolia,” because she fights for principles through actions rather than through grandstanding or copious words. Russell is an elected Republican Precinct Chair and an appointed Area Chair who oversees the work of other Republican Precinct Chairs in her region of Montgomery County, Texas.

She’s an education curriculum expert. Russell was instrumental in leading the successful fight against the Conroe Independent School District’s wasteful $807 million bond package in May, 2019. Amazingly, Russell and one of her closest political friends together, with little help otherwise, mounted a campaign and defeated a huge tax increase election in August, 2018, against the entire political establishment of the Magnolia Independent School District. Russell fearlessly criticizes government spending and is certainly willing to criticize her own County Commissioner, a Republican, when he skirts too close to corruption.

In other words, Ginger Russell is genuinely one of those decent and congenial people. She has contributed tens of thousands of hours and substantial treasure to the political causes in which she believes. She does not of that for personal gain but rather for the future of her community and of her children and grandchildren.

Russell focuses on issues and the core principles of freedom and Original Constitutional Intent. She couldn’t care less about who attends the local political cocktail circuit, because she knows that her ideas and her actions to support those ideas are what has built this nation into the exceptionalism it has enjoyed.

The reality is that the Republican Party may, indeed, wither. Leaving principles behind and clawing towards arrogant elitists, such as Will, who believe the purpose of government is to govern rather than to protect the rights of individuals to pursue happiness as they please, any political party will die, as we should hope it would. In order to revitalize and save the Republican Party, activists must demand, insist, cajole, and fight to move the Republican Party towards decent and congenial people, such as Russell, and away from the awkward and the brutish among whom we must count George Will.

Will’s column follows.

George Will, “Will Senate Republicans allow their louts to rule the party?” The Washington Post, February 13, 2021.

The first of this century’s national traumas is denoted by two numbers: 9/11. One purpose of, and a sufficient justification for, the second impeachment of the 45th president was to inscribe this century’s second trauma in the nation’s memory as: 1/6.

Although not nearly as tragic as 9/11 in lives lost and radiating policy consequences, 1/6 should become, as its implications percolate into the national consciousness, even more unsettling. Long before 9/11, Americans knew that foreign fanaticisms were perennial dangers. After 1/6, Americans know what their Constitution’s Framers knew: In any democracy, domestic fanaticisms always are, potentially, rank weeds that flourish when fertilized by persons who are as unscrupulous as they are prominent.

The Framers are, to the 45th president, mere rumors. They, however, knew him, as a type — a practitioner of what Alexander Hamilton (in Federalist 68) disdainfully called “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.” Post-1/6 America has a quickened appreciation of how those “little arts,” when magnified by modern modes of mass communication as wielded by occupants of the swollen modern presidency, make civilization’s brittle crust crumble.

Intelligent people of goodwill disagree about the constitutionality of an impeachment trial of a former president. Forty-four Republican senators voted (generally less from constitutional conviction than from political convenience) to truncate the trial. They lost, but their role as jurors remained. In that constitutional role their duty was to decide whether the president’s two months of inciting what occurred on 1/6 constituted an impeachable offense. Saturday’s revelations about Donald Trump’s comportment during the riot — redundant evidence of his character, surprising to no senator — were no match for 100 senators’ unifying desire to spend a week away from the Senate.

The presentation by the House impeachment managers was a demonstration, the more welcome for its rarity, of congressional conscientiousness and meticulousness. Congress is an investigating institution, for three purposes: To establish the need for particular legislation. To provide oversight of the operation of existing laws and the institutions they undergird. And to inform voters about matters that they must understand in order for representative government to function. The investigative aspect of impeachment proceedings serves this third purpose.

Information is inherently good, and the trial was a cornucopia of information about the sights and sounds of 1/6. And about the Republican Party. Its congressional membership overwhelmingly says, and perhaps believes, that 1/6, and the low presidential intrigues that preceded it, were not violations of the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.

As the trial proceeded, there appeared a new aspirant for membership in the Republican senators’ large Lout Caucus: Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Josh Hawley (Mo.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), et al. In Ohio, Josh Mandel announced his candidacy to replace Rob Portman, the temperate conservative and meticulous legislator who is retiring in 2022. Mandel said the impeachment “got my blood boiling to the point where I decided to run.” His blood boils frequently: This will be his third Senate run.

His agenda for creating a more perfect union is “to pulverize the uni-party,” meaning “this group of Democrats and Republicans who sound exactly the same and are more interested in getting invited to the cocktail party circuit than they are in standing up for the Constitution.” With his stupefying unoriginality, Mandel sounds exactly like innumerable congressional Republicans who clawed their way to Washington by espousing an anti-Washington-cocktail-circuit stance as conservatism. Mandel has perfect pitch for populism’s rhetorical banalities.

Were he to win, he would occupy the seat once held by Robert A. Taft Sr., the son of a president, and one of the five senators (with Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Calhoun and Robert La Follette Sr.) first honored with portraits in the Capitol’s Senate Reception Room. Taft’s wife was once asked, “Do you think of your husband as a common man?” Aghast, she replied: “Oh, no, no! The senator is very uncommon. He was first in his class at Yale and first in his class at the Harvard Law School. We wouldn’t permit Ohio to be represented in the Senate by just a common man.”

Taft was known as “Mr. Republican.” Seventy years later, Mandel is an increasingly common Republican. Today’s two major parties have framed political competition since the middle of the 19th century — since the Republicans rose from the rubble of the Whigs. An essential conservative insight about everything is that nothing necessarily endures. Care must be taken. The Republican Party will wither if the ascendant Lout Caucus is the face it presents to this nation of decent, congenial people.



You must be logged in to post a comment Login