Leaving the GOP
I often write about political change and changers. It’s almost axiomatic that most political change occurs in the direction of left to right rather than the other way around, with the caveat that in young adulthood there is quite a bit of change from right (or center) to left, and even from left to more left.
On that latter point, I remember in my own larger (non-nuclear) family, I had some distant relatives whose parents were pro-Soviet but whose young adult offspring became pro-Chinese Communist during the late 60s, and this created a remarkable amount of discord within the family.
But I digress.
Recently a reader alerted me to Jeremiah Goulka’s right-to-left change story. It’s hard to say whether his tale is representative of most right-to-left change, since I’ve read so few stories of that nature, but on reading it I think it’s fairly easy to see why he was susceptible to that particular transformation.
Goulka’s Republicanism was an inherited one, rather than having been arrived at through independent thinking. He was a Republican through osmosis, having absorbed his family ethos. A great deal of early political orientation is like that, so Goulka is hardly unique in that regard. But questioning one’s political inheritance often begins in college or even high school for many people; Goulka seems to have had a delayed political adolescence and rebellion.
Note the prevalence of the word “we” when Goulka describes what he thought back when he was a Republican. He’s talking about his family and himself as though they were a single entity. I’m not sure of his age when he had his political conversion from right to left, but he seems to have been a college student intern for Denny Hastert some time between 1995 and 1998, and then reports that Abu Graib (2004) was a special turning point for him, which would probably place him somewhere in his mid- to late-20s at the time. Also, he says he voted for Kerry that year “out of spite,” which indicates both immaturity and emotionality.
Goulka’s description of his family’s Republicanism reads like the left’s caricature of Republicanism (although he makes it clear they were not racists). It’s almost like it was designed to make the Salon audience feel good about themselves and have their stereotypes about Republicans validated. (Not that he’s lying about it; such people do exist in the GOP):
We believed in noblesse oblige, for we saw ourselves as part of a natural aristocracy, even if we hadn’t been born into it.
Another turning point for Goulka was Katrina. Note again the emotionalism with which he looks at the issue, plus the parroting of MSM reporting and liberal talking points (such as, for example, Bush’s callousness):
I had fallen in love with New Orleans during a post-law-school year spent in Louisiana clerking for a federal judge, and the Bush administration’s callous (non-)response to the storm broke my heart. I wanted to help out, but I didn’t fly helicopters or know how to do anything useful in a disaster, so just I sat glued to the coverage and fumed ”” until FEMA asked federal employees to volunteer to help. I jumped at the chance.
The piece goes on to describe more of Goulka’s previous naivete (“Not having experienced it, I had always assumed that government force was only used against guilty people.”—this is someone who’d gone to law school??) Whether this guy was a Republican or a Democrat, in each incarnation he was a lightweight as a thinker.
Goulka went on to spend three weeks in Iraq during the surge, and was shocked to discover the American war effort was imperfect! Naive doesn’t even begin to cover it. Now Goulka seems to assume that all Republicans are as naive as he was:
Today, I wonder if Mitt Romney drones on about not apologizing for America because he, like the former version of me, simply isn’t aware of the U.S. ever doing anything that might demand an apology.
Goulka describes himself in the following passage, but he assumes (naively; old habits die hard) that he’s describing Republicans in general:
My old Republican worldview was flawed because it was based upon a small and particularly rosy sliver of reality. To preserve that worldview, I had to believe that people had morally earned their “just” desserts, and I had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to point out that the world didn’t actually work that way.
The idea that the foundation of Republican thought is a belief the world is a perfect moral meritocracy is odd, to say the least. Goulka seems never to have heard of the idea that one can have compassion for a person’s plight and yet not think that throwing more and more money at that person, and encouraging more and more helplessness, dependency, and entitlement is the best way to be of assistance. In other words, he seems unfamiliar with the underpinnings of conservative thought.
And of course the commenters at Salon congratulate Goulka for finally seeing the light and entering the reality-based community.
I wonder if Goulka is another phony like the dems posing as ‘republican women for obama.’ He reads like a phony. Maybe he is just looking for props he know he will get from the reactionary left.
The left has often focused, laser like, on American imperfections.
Usually they do this without considering the wider context. For example, the context of a Cold War where we are dealing with a number off less then ideal options. They attack America for selecting a less then ideal option that helped to stabalize a region and fight the expansion of communism.
Supporting the Shah, or Somoza or the Contras or the Mujadeen in Afganistan, etc. Their preferred option was to let radicals sieze Iran and communists sieze Nigurauga, etc.
Steve, I agree, he reads like a phony.
Milton Friedman’s thoughts on how people spend money is still the best response to those who would simply throw money at a problem. I paraphrase:
People spend money four ways:
The govt falls into the last category which is precisely why throwing dollar after dollar at a continuing problem never achieves any meaningful result.
Goulka the Ex-Pub:
Two points.
First, the delay in the Fed response to Katrina was the result of Governor Blanco’s delay in declaring an emergency. By law, the Feds couldn’t do anything until the Governor requested help/declared an emergency. Recall Dubya’s imploring Governor Blanco to declare the emergency/request help. I suppose that the delay in asking for Fed volunteers paralleled that delay.
Second, a childhood friend who works for the Feds had some dealings before Katrina with his counterparts in Louisiana regarding emergency plans crafted for Louisiana. He told me that when asked about emergency plans, the response from Louisiana was “We’ll deal with an emergency when we have one.” IOW, no planning. That did not increase my friend’s respect for the way things were done in Louisiana. While he felt sorry for the NOLA victims of Katrina, he thought that most of the blame could be placed at the feet of irresponsible government officials in Louisiana. [He was much more caustic about the government officials in Lousiana than I have described.]
I came across the Goulka piece somehow a few days ago. Can’t remember how but I must have followed a link, because I don’t read Salon. I got as far as the Katrina part and knew I was dealing with someone who was either a propagandist or not real bright, so I didn’t read any further. I love New Orleans, too, but the idea that the big problems involving Katrina were Bush’s fault is sheer agitprop. There was plenty of blame to go around, but the failures began with local incompetence and corruption–for which Louisiana in general and New Orleans in particular are famous.
Perhaps in the longer run it will be good that he was knocked out of his complacency, but not if he simple resumes it in another guise.
I’m sort of curious if his idea of “noblesse oblige” is what I would consider private charity out of a sense of gratitude for being blessed.
Also, since I’m not sure if my request actually posted last time, I’d *love* a tweet button for the posts.
All he’s describing is the life of the typical young liberal. Grew up knowing nothing of politics except that his family voted Republican, went to college and was told Republicans were bad, got mildly interested in politics after watching the Daily Show a few times, and after watching the Daily Show for years, considers himself a political expert and a Democratic “convert”. However, he only converted from “unattached” to “Democrat”, not from “Republican”.
The couple of former conservatives I know almost always cite the left’s “compassion” and characterize the GOP as heartless and greedy. They very clearly don’t understand either conservative core values *or* the reality of what government reliance does to people. They almost always think Statism is the answer.
They miss the part where “the government that can give you anything can also take everything”, and fail to understand the central premise of limited government that this country is built on. They don’t think that way. They just want to have a feel-good Big Brother government.
That they started out as conservative was indeed family-based… in other words, they were there by happenstance, and their basic thinking processes never really were conservative to start with.
Well met, Mr. Goulka. You have successfully absorbed years of mild-to-blatant propaganda and have learned to let your emotions do the thinking for you. Welcome to the community-based reality.
Oh, wait — I got that backwards.
Oh, wait — no, I didn’t.
your problem is not whether they changed or not. most peoples problem here is the default of validity…
It’s almost like it was designed to make the Salon audience feel good about themselves and have their stereotypes about Republicans validated.
why do you say ALMOST?
because to say sometning else is to accuse the person of dishonesty.
and you have been conditioned NOT to do that… and now you only do it here and there..
you have yet to develop the concept that if the person joins the left, they have to lie.
since the left maintains mutually exclusive inconsistent positions you HAVE to lie to have them and promote them.
at no time do you think.. hmm. sociopaths are attracted to the left as that would give them the ability to use everybody for anything ranging from money to deviant sex like killing while orgasming.. of which our society is quite the oppressive one, as you cant even do taht to animals let alone people (but when they rule, you CAN)
So why say almost?
why isnt it exactly what you thought it was, and had to add the almost to change it?
(to something ore socially acceptable)
same with feminism… but the other way..
ie. you refuse to accept the word of 15 leaders all saying the same heinous thing spanning almost 200 years unchanged, and what? they almost meant it?
first of all…
why not catch the lies, and figure out where HIS change happened. as the change due to indoctrination is not the same as the change due to thinking…
the reason is simple,. the change due to thinking is not a change in you, it in a change to align your allegiances after you find out they are lying….
but the change the other way i snot that. it never is. its the change that comes when you get older ahd HATE the world, hav enomore compassion for your fellow man dislike him, and wish to remove or get over him.
you can tell becuase what happens is a devolving to a ideological samenes,s not an growing to a nuanced reality
from the very first sentence he is lying…
what would a serious republican be? to republicans it would be someone that had morals that were not situational, the end doesn’t justify the means, minimal government, constitutional observance, etc…
or is a serious republican someone who blindly sides with the republicans like democrats do?
moderate? meaning what? today that means a leftist that pretends to be on the right…
so to say your a moderate X is to say i am only a bit X and a bit something else.
so i am a serious something who is only part something and the rest something else. how serious is that?
so used to screwing with words to the point where we argue over nothings as words like evacuate mean almost evacuate… (ie. whether you evacuate a compound, evacuate a plane or your bowels, the idea is, its empty when done. and if whats in front of you dont match that, then its the wrong word – and no, i dont know what yuo mean, if you dont know what you mean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
serious lie 2… its not a joke, and we don’t tell it as a joke, and we know where its from. and his saying its a joke does what? prevents the people reading on the left from knowing where, and reading what THAT person wrote.
in fact, he is speaking like a leftist pretending to be on the right, as he is doing a CARGO CULT SURFACE JOB and since your a woman and its bad manners to be rude and call someone a liar, you make every excuse rather than pin his wings to the wall.
the description of what Winston Churchill said is a cargo cultist talking to others. anyone of actual substance, whether republican or just conservative, would know and say.
and the key here is that last sentence.
my REAL education started at 30..
but didnt you say in your piece you didnt know when? why did you ignore that he said it started at 30? because you want him to be honest more than you want our view of him to be honest, and you want him to give you an honest right to left movement.
but that doesnt happen..
the move is based on lies..
ie. move from lie to truth is what you did
you never changed…
what changed about you? did you start hating blacks? did you start wanting to enslave all under a fascist flag? what leftist nasty did you change to become that?
oh… you didnt become one of thos nasty left things… so then what about YOU changed? you discovered they were lying to you… so YOU dd not change, the lie in your head fell apart and you could not longer work with it.
and you cant work with it, as you are not looking to use others and have morals, and see the individual.
so a person going the other way has to do what? learn the lie and believe it… OR foment it.
everything he says is said in a way that is seaid from the left.. what is a republican world view? who is the prophet of the non marxists?
IS that how someone on the right thinks, or how someone on the left thinks if they are trying to pretend to be on the right?
is it real, memorex or a poseur…
its a poseur…a cargo cultist.
his job is to pretend to be the enemy to craeate a DEFECTOR STORY…
the left sees how effective pacepa, mitrohkin, etc… thousand of defectors from the left cluing the world in.
but you dont have the same on the other side. so they are manufacturing it.
and the whole idea of such confessions is a key part of communism…. duh..
and now your on the left you see them as what? equals? so your equal to jeffery dahmer? you dont think a man who drilled holes in strangers head to pour Drano in it is not second class? how about a man who shoves a hot soldering iron down a woman throat, and breaks another woman feet in a vice, then makes up Kwanza? is he a first class person?
all he is doig is constructing a false narrative of moving from not left to left… in fact, if he actually knew what he claims he would not use left and right…
if you read carefully, you might realize his conversion and such makes no sense. other than if he went from a reality he coudl not face into a contrive one he could face.
[edited for length by n-n]
Artfldgr: I know you sometimes have problems reading subtle tones, so let me make it clear: when I wrote “almost,” I was being sarcastic. I don’t know about Goulka’s motives (he may be lying or not; that’s not my point), but I think Salon would not have published his piece if they weren’t well aware that if fit their agenda to present Republicans in a certain stereotypical and negative way.
But as far as the question of whether Goulka is lying goes, I get that he might indeed be lying. But from my experience when I was a Democrat, and from my observations about many of the Democrats I know, I can believe he could be telling the truth, because he sounds like a very shallow thinker (that’s what I wrote in the post). Many many people think on such a surface level that first (as with Goulka’s story) they just follow what their family tells them (and the family is operating politically on a shallow level, as well), and next they just follow what seems nice and compassionate and fashionable and what CNN tells them.
The political affiliation of many many people is not really the result of a whole lot of deep thought. And even a political change is not necessarily the result of a whole lot of deep thought, either. Goulka is probably eager to ingratiate himself with his new peeps, so he tells his story and they use it for their purposes, but his story itself has at least some chance of being true, from my observations of human beings and their political affiliations.
Neo writes:
” … a reader alerted me to Jeremiah Goulka’s right-to-left change story. It’s hard to say whether his tale is representative of most right-to-left change …”
The signal thing about modern liberalism is that you are expected to profess sympathy for and solidarity with those whom you look down upon and keep at arm’s length.
After reading his piece in Salon, I had prepared a number of excerpts from his article in order to argue that Mr. Goulka’s transition was not from conservative to liberal, but rather from one subspecies of liberal elitist to another.
A second reading of his piece convinced me however, that by doing so I would be accomplishing nothing he hadn’t already done himself.
As commenter Jack has already said and implied.
That’s because Goulka never claimed to be a conservative, much less a libertarian/individualist.
He was, as he freely admits, an unreflective member of a suburban feel-good club; and, on his own say so, a university student whose method of dealing with leftists in academe was to tune them out, rather than think their thinking through …
Not much of a critical thinker then; nor now, for that matter. He finds out at some point that the world wasn’t created by God as his personal oyster, and that drunks live on the same landmass as he does, and he has an epiphany … of sorts.
He begins caring about people as people, as “… living, breathing, thinking, feeling, hoping, loving, dreaming, hurting people.”
Get the feelings part?
See, he FEELS your pain. And of course it feels so good to feel so much for others, without having to really feel too much of raw reality, like say farmers or machine shop owners, or surgeons.
Did he say he was down with business? Yes, I think he did. Business of some kind or another.
Perhaps you have shaken hands with a Republican like him at “the club” or during a convention, or just at some social occasion or another.
Recall the oddly limp grip, the narrow soft palm … uncalloused by either labor or productive recreation.
But he’s a businessman. Or of the political class that benefits from business. So he’s just like everyone else who works without a net in the free market. Even if he does have a non productive sector job.
And so when he relates his own moral shortcomings he speaks with insight into the shortcomings of all of us – don’t you know.
And if you don’t know, just ask him. He’s been there. Or so he says.
I thought these following excerpts were especially indicative of the true intellectual “depth” of whatever commitment to conservatism, or individualism he might have once been said to have had.
The funny thing is, is that they reveal that he has merely gone from being a cosseted and smug little knowing bunny of one sort, to a cossetted and smug little knowing bunny of another.
In this, he reminds me of the kind of fundamentalist who would become an ardent atheist upon finding out that the King James version of the New Testament found in Dad’s desk wasn’t in the original language, and as scribed directly by the hand of God.
So who was this guy originally? Pretty much the thin flip side of just who he is now.
In his own words: Yeah, he was Republican, but not, you know, one of “those” …
“I grew up in a rich, white suburb north of Chicago populated by moderate, business-oriented Republicans. Once upon a time, we would have been called Rockefeller Republicans. Today we would be called liberal Republicans or slurred by the Right as “Republicans In Name Only” ….”
Thus, we were the good kind, the already arrived and wealthy kind, the moderate kind, not the grubbing striving kind …
“We believed in noblesse oblige, for we saw ourselves as part of a natural aristocracy, even if we hadn’t been born into it. We sided with management over labor and saw unions as a scourge. We hated racism and loved Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., particularly his dream that his children would “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” We worried about the rise of the Religious Right and its social-conservative litmus tests.”
Our brand of broadmindedness obviously deserved recognition. Why …
“I intended to run for office on just such a platform someday …”
The right kind of people need to be in office after all. Yet,
“In January 2001, I was one of thousands of Americans who braved the cold rain to attend and cheer George W. Bush’s inauguration. … But I knew that he wasn’t one of our guys. We had been McCain fans, and even if we liked the compassionate bit of Bush’s conservatism, we didn’t care for his religiosity or his social politics. …
I might still have stuck it out as a frustrated liberal Republican, knowing that the wealthy business core of the party still pulled a few strings and people like Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe remained in the Senate …”
Then came the rude awakening,
“… I had assumed that bootstrapping required about as much as it took to get yourself promoted from junior varsity to varsity. ”
But Hurricane Katrina proved it wasn’t. So given that, how can anyone be responsible for or deserving of their own fate ?
Why, these unsuccessful people are, after all …
“… living, breathing, thinking, feeling, hoping, loving, dreaming, hurting people.”
And,
“I couldn’t remain in today’s Republican Party, not unless I embraced an individualism that was even more heartless than the one I had previously accepted.”
Yeah, he was a real individualist alright …
Seems like a guy who was a Republican and not a Conservative/Libertarian. He certainly wasn’t deeply rooted in any kind of coherent policy. What did Katrina have to do with ideology/philosophy? At most it was about competence. Seems like a rube twice over.
I lived in the Nawlins area when Andrew came through. Instead of learning a lesson & improving the levees, the local commissioners took a collective sigh of relief and built more marinas.
I also volunteered and spent a month of weekends with Mormon Helping hands clearing some of the worst grunge after Katrina. I don’t fly or any of that disaster stuff, I just went when called.
Seeing the devastation up close & personal, I have a hard time see how the response could have been quicker. That storm was so massive and covered such a large area, it was hard to comprehend. I’ll never forget the slight of the mountains of discarded refrigerators west of N.O.
That the death toll was not higher is testament that the response was pretty damn quick as it was.
Looking at all the evidence Goulka is a poser with limited critical thinking skills. I’ll not be retaining his legal services anytime.
Having ridden out Katrina and Issac, I can say W got here as fast as the Constitution would allow.The difference this time was that Governor Jindal acted decisively to protect our state . No calling Howard Dean for advice . Secondly,President Bush got FEMA, imperfect as it was here in under 96 hours, this in the face of at best a total lack of cooperation from the Governor’s office .
President Downgrade took six days to talk about it, another three to get anyone here …and only in selected areas,
re: Goulka on Katrina
Either this guy missed a whole bunch of stuff — even reported on the MSM (briefly) (make that very briefly) or he writes only from the most selected memory (I mean “selected.” He has CHOSEN deliberately to write about those reasons supporting his change while completely disregarding any alternative behavior).
“…and the Bush administration’s callous (non-)response to the storm broke my heart.”
I guess he missed the part when the “perfect” storm was forecast, on its way, even imminent and George Bush literally begged Louisiana’s governor at the time, Kathleen Blanco, to declare a state of emergency. He also was (is) ignorant of the law that says the Federal Govt. cannot intrude on State’s Rights and cannot begin providing federal aide until the Governor formally declares State of Emergency.
And I don’t know how widely reported it was, but I distinctly remember that Bush chose to fly over and not land for very specific and logical reason: with the chaos already ensuing, his landing and touring the city (as much as was possible) and all the security attendant with a Presidential presence would only create more havoc and possibly cause problems with rescue and evacuation. This is all besides the fact that overhead viewing would give much clearer indication of the flooding and damage than on-the-ground inspection which would have been severely limited due to same flooding. (And what was he supposed to do? Shout hey to the folks who were fortunate enough to make it to their rooftops to await rescue?)
And he goes on:
“I wanted to help out, but I didn’t fly helicopters or know how to do anything useful in a disaster, so just I sat glued to the coverage and fumed…”
Gee, I was in NYC & remember immediately contacting and donating to Red Cross and then organizing a clothing drive (along with sheets, towels, etc. – anything useful so long as in was in decent shape and clean) in my fairly large apt. building. The generosity was amazing and I packed up the many filled boxes and I and my family paid for shipping it to the Salvation Army for distribution.
I know hundreds — probably thousands — did the very same thing as I did for the many people who lost everything in the storms and floods.
This guy Goulka was no kid at the time. He had completed college, completed law school, and was clerking for a federal judge (which usually indicates that he was no dummy as clerkships are competitive). He was out living on his own (even if he was partially or completely supported by affluent parents). I don’t know whether it was naivete or the overwhelming anti-Bush bias of the media reporting (and the propaganda critique of the President that continued) which he obviously swallowed hook, line and sinker that got under his skin, but this guy clearly was looking for more reasons to justify his change (if only to himself). I wonder if this thinking was really his thinking at the time, or is it description conjured up in retrospect, among other things he cites for rationalization to one insecure about his change.
A good part of his reasoning seems to come directly from Democratic talking points as opposed to personal experiences.
Long time lurker, but I think this might be my first comment. 🙂 This guy sounds like he comes from country club Republican stock. He was a Republican because his family was, as was everyone in their social circle, until sometime during the GWB administration when these types of people started heading toward Kerry somewhat and then flocked to Obama. Christopher Buckley would probably be a good example.
I don’t think people like him understand the large numbers of Republicans who don’t come from a lifestyle anything like what he describes. My parents were working class Republicans, there wasn’t much money on either side of the family and they were very much about personal responsibility yet my mom gave $10 to just about any charity that contacted her. (You should have seen how long she got mailings from charities after she died, after 4 years, some still haven’t given up)
After being a Democrat for most of my adult, I seem to be coming back to the Republican fold. I registered Independent this year but eventually I’ll probably return fully. It’s weird, I don’t feel like I’ve changed that much, but nothing that the Dems do makes any sense to me. Nothing.
I’m gonna throw up now. That’s all.
This Twit is a phoney. Fiction. IF not, then the Left is welcome to him. His IQ(Not)fits perfectly.
I’ve been watching my sis-in-law make this change over time, and I have to agree with what Melissa and DNW are saying. She grew up in Iowa during 1970’s and 1980’s when being Republican was very ‘Establishment’. A lot of her politics seem driven by SWPL fashion rather than any coherent philosophy. I haven’t had any in depth discussions but the comments she’s made (and some recent Facebook posts) indicate that the drivers seem to be the ‘optics’ of certain Republican views (gay marriage being one) along with a general discontent with ‘materialism’ as represented by Republican support for free markets.
}}}} with the caveat that in young adulthood there is quite a bit of change from right (or center) to left, and even from left to more left.
I don’t think you really HAVE an actual political outlook until you’re about 22 — prior to that it’s all Zelig-like matching up with those around you for most people. Very few people are able to truly form their own opinions in defiance of social cues, from parents or later from peers.
My own quick read is that he was a natural Democrat-libtard who’d been led to the conservative trough as a child, and only shifted away as he got older and less inhibited to match those around him.
That he gravitated to the kind of stupid idiocies common to liberal thought processes isn’t surprising — he’s showing a lot of them in his commentary.
Anyone who gets into law school who remains as naive as this idiot can’t be that wise. You have to ignore a LOT of experiential evidence by that point to not have a more balanced view of how The Real World Works, and that no one, no group — nothing — is what you ideally would have it be. There are ALWAYS compromises and stupid errors made by people who ought to do/know better.
Sparkey, I read an article in American Heritage of Invention And Technology (I believe it was ca. 1992) — it was about the pumping stations of NO — they were ancient, as in early 1900s construction, and still working just fine.
BUT — and this was the “fun” part of the caveat — they were only going to be able to keep out the water as long as no cat *4* or above hurricane hit.
I had thus been watching for something like a decade as every “significant” hurricane headed that way veered off and made landfall somewhere else.
This was something that everyone knew was coming, but everyone kept betting the other way. It’s kind of like living in California. Someday, The Big One is going to hit, “but hey, that’s not today, right?”
Me, I’ll take every other natural disaster over an earthquake. There’s not a one of them that is both widespread (covering hundreds of miles) and also less predictable. Tornadoes you can both see and get shelter from, and cover only a narrow swath of damage. Hurricanes can be pretty destructive, but you see them weeks away, really. Plenty of warning and prep time. Even a Tsunami can give people good warning if there are systems set up for them, and they’re only dangerous if you’re within a mile of the coast, really, or immediately upriver from a strike.
Writing directly to his audience.
Srsly? Even among “heartless libertarians” I very rarely encounter this attitude (like 0.000001% of all libertarians I have met and even then only at the national convention in 1993 and I still don’t know if they were serious or not) and I have yet to encounter it among any republicans I have met in person.
If this guy and his family really believe this sort of shit, then I don’t know what makes them republicans in the traditional sense of the word.
Then again, I could make that same statement about so many in the republican “leadership” and “talk show hosts” these days.