By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The author expresses alarm at the decline of the American movie industry, framing it as a national security threat due to foreign competition and incentives. A proposed solution is a 100% tariff on foreign-produced films to encourage domestic filmmaking. The author satirically compares this perceived threat to genuine national security crises, highlighting the absurdity of the proposed policy. Finally, the author urges Republicans to intervene, questioning the rationale behind this and another seemingly detrimental policy.
Read the original article here
Dear Republicans, Get a Grip on This Guy Already, Will You?
The question isn’t whether Republicans *can* rein in their party’s most prominent figure; it’s whether they *will*. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests they won’t, and the reasons are far more complex than simple fear. This isn’t about a lack of control; it’s about a deliberate choice.
Their continued inaction isn’t a sign of weakness, but a calculated strategy. The narrative of a party helplessly clinging to a volatile leader is a convenient simplification. In reality, this is a symbiotic relationship. He fuels their base’s fervor, and they, in turn, offer him unwavering support. The notion of them abandoning him is laughable, given the power he provides them and the influence he has over the electorate.
The idea of them suddenly “getting a grip” is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of their motives. They are not simply enabling him; they are actively benefiting from his actions. He’s not a rogue element; he’s the linchpin of their power structure. He represents a successful strategy, a way to maintain control and consolidate power that transcends the usual political maneuvering.
It’s a dangerous game, one that puts the entire country at risk. The lack of concern regarding potential electoral consequences is telling. They believe they have the mechanisms in place to ensure their continued dominance, regardless of public opinion or legal repercussions. Impeachment? A mere inconvenience, a distraction from the real game at hand – the consolidation and retention of political power.
This isn’t about a lack of awareness; they are acutely aware of the potential dangers. The deafening silence from many in the party is a testament to a deeply entrenched ideological commitment, even if it involves compromising democratic principles. The fear isn’t of the leader himself, but rather of losing the control and power they’ve gained through his influence.
To suggest that the party is simply “afraid” diminishes the depth of their complicity. This is a calculated alliance, a strategic partnership built on a shared vision of political dominance. The party’s unwavering support isn’t a sign of fear; it’s a sign of agreement.
This situation presents a fundamental problem: How do you address a party that actively benefits from chaos? How do you address a situation where the party in power appears to have fully embraced an anti-democratic strategy, and where the usual means of checks and balances have proven ineffective?
We’re not just dealing with a single individual; we’re facing a party that has systematically eroded democratic norms. The current crisis extends far beyond a single controversial figure. It reflects a much deeper, more troubling reality about the state of American politics today. It requires a re-evaluation of our democratic processes and mechanisms to ensure that similar scenarios are avoided in the future. This isn’t just about one man; it’s about a party and a movement that actively embraces the erosion of democratic norms.
The apathy and inaction are deliberate choices, reflecting the prioritization of power and control over the well-being of the nation. The hope for a return to traditional political norms, a sudden change of heart, is naive and misplaced. We need to grapple with the fact that this is not an aberration but a strategic choice by a powerful political faction. The sooner we understand this, the sooner we can devise effective strategies to counteract it. It’s not about “getting a grip” on one individual; it’s about confronting the systematic threat to American democracy itself.