Robert Kagan is an American historian, author, foreign-policy commentator, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a contributing columnist for The Washington Post.
He is not what you would call a card-carrying Democrat. He served as a speech writer for George P. Shultz who was Secretary of State under Ronald Regan and Secretary of the Treasury and of Labour under Richard Nixon. Kegan has aimed pointed criticism at Hillary Clinton.
But, now Mr. Kagan is angry, really angry. He is mad at the leadership of the Republican Party in the United States of America. And on Tuesday he launched a full-throttled attack against the GOP in a Washington Post Op-Ed piece titled “Why we shouldn’t forgive the Republicans who sold their souls.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cowardly-gop-has-engineered-its-own-suicide/2016/10/11/ec585af8-8f22-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b&utm_term=.d57904b06f00)
Here are some excerpts from Mr. Kagan’s attack on the Republicans. I post them here, simply because he lays bear so cogently the craven hypocrisy and duplicity of what was once a great political party in the United States.
Not only has the party refused to save the country, but also it has proved too helpless, too incompetent and too craven even to save itself.
Republicans used to be able to call national security policy their strong suit. Can they still? All the tough young senators who railed at the Obama administration for its weakness on the world stage, how tough were they when it came to their own political skins? Not tough enough to take on Donald Trump, even though his foreign policy, such as it was, betrayed many core Republican principles and was in most respects far worse than President Obama’s.
After years of railing against the Obama administration’s “reset,” the leading Republican spokesmen on this issue said little and did nothing when their own nominee spoke admiringly of Russian President Vladimir Putin and when his closest advisers were discovered to be intimately connected to the Kremlin and found to be lobbyists for Putin’s puppets in Ukraine or Gazprom’s pipeline plans. They were silent when Trump went so far as to urge the Russian intelligence services to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.
These are the political leaders who are supposed to stand up to the world’s real strongmen in Moscow and Beijing. Yet they did not stand up to this bullying would-be authoritarian when all he could do was steal away a few of their voters. They would not risk five points in their primary campaigns to stop this man from becoming commander in chief. They were willing to damage U.S. national interests, as they define them, to avoid a close race. These are the men and women to whom we should entrust the nation’s welfare?
…whatever one may think of the relative merits of the two parties, at least this much can be said: In this election cycle, it has been the Republicans, not their opponents, who have worked, and are still working, to hand the country over to someone who they know in their hearts would be a disaster for the nation’s security.
Maybe when those who caved to Trump in 2016 begin their campaigns for 2020, some voters will recall that at a moment of national crisis, those politicians promising strong leadership were too weak, too obsessed with winning elections, too afraid of Trump’s angry faithful, to have the steady moral compass, the calmness under fire, the vision in the fog of battle that real leadership demands. And maybe voters at that point will look away from those who self-servingly tried to foist Trump on the nation and will turn instead to the handful of Republican officeholders who had the courage of their convictions and tried to stop him from the beginning. Maybe there will be enough voters willing to reward that kind of genuine political courage, enough to make a difference.
Of course, while we are on the topic of angry at Republicans, conservative political commentator George Will who seems to have managed to get himself pretty worked up about Donald Trump writes:
His Cleveland convention was a mini-Nuremberg rally for Republicans whose three-word recipe for making America great again was the shriek “Lock her up!” This presaged his Banana Republican vow to imprison his opponent.
The St. Louis festival of snarls was preceded by the release of a tape that merely provided redundant evidence of what Trump is like when he is being his boisterous self. Nevertheless, the tape sent various Republicans, who until then had discovered nothing to disqualify Trump from the presidency, into paroxysms of theatrical, tactical, and synthetic dismay. Again, the tape revealed nothing about this arrested-development adolescent that today’s righteously recoiling Republicans either did not already know or had no excuse for not knowing. Before the tape reminded the pathologically forgetful of Trump’s feral appetites and deranged sense of entitlement, the staid Economist magazine, holding the subject of Trump at arm’s-length like a soiled sock, reminded readers of this: “When Mr. Trump divorced the first of his three wives, Ivana, he let the New York tabloids know that one reason for the separation was that her breast implants felt all wrong.”
His sexual loutishness is a sufficient reason for defeating him, but it is far down a long list of sufficient reasons. But if it — rather than, say, his enthusiasm for torture even “if it doesn’t work,” or his ignorance of the nuclear triad — is required to prompt some Republicans to have second thoughts about him, so be it.
Because Pence looks relatively presidential when standing next to Trump — talk about defining adequacy down — some Republicans want Trump to slink away, allowing Pence to float to the top of the ticket and represent Republicanism resurrected. This idea ignores a pertinent point: Pence is standing next to Trump. He salivated for the privilege of being Trump’s poodle, and he expresses his canine devotion in rhetorical treacle about “this good man.” What would a bad man look like to pastor Pence?
but what the heck its just politics