The Newspeak of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Robert F Kennedy, Jr. has recently declared his candidacy for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. This news astonished me, since in recent years, RFK, Jr. has seemed obsessed with only one single issue: vaccine skepticism. So I searched his newly-created website to see if I could learn a bit more about his other-than-vaccine “platform.” Here is some of (the little) information I found on his campaign website, www.kennedy24.com.

“Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has clear positions on most of today’s divisive trigger issues like abortion, guns, and immigration, but he knows that both sides have legitimate concerns and legitimate moral positions. No one is deplorable. Furthermore, most of the disagreements obscure deeper shared values. Everyone wants their children to be safe. Few relish the thought of dead fetuses, nor do they want to force women to have unwanted babies. Everyone wants safe streets, yet few wish for millions of people to languish in prison. Robert F. Kennedy…will lead the way toward national reconciliation, respectful dialog, and willingness to change, to grow, and to forgive.”

What a load of mind-numbing woo! If indeed RFK Jr. has “clear positions” on triggering moral issues (by the way, where are these stated?) then he obviously does NOT believe in moral equivalencies and moral legitimacy on all sides. He obviously does NOT believe that opposing positions have equal validity with his own. He obviously does NOT believe, say, that wanting safe children makes pro-and anti-abortion arguments equally valid in his own mind (where, since he has “a clear position,” one side is surely “right,” while the other is “wrong.”) In short, this forked-tongue statement was clearly designed, not to promote understanding, but rather, like Orwellian Newspeak, “to diminish the range of thought” in its readers and trick them into mindless acquiescence.

I recognize, of course, that politicians often try to “unite” voters (on and FOR election day, at least) with disingenuous happy talk about how we’re all Americans together. But this jolly bonhomie strikes me as irresponsibly dishonest (at worst) or pathetically simple-minded (at best). And it should be given neither credence nor approbation, especially not at a polling place.

In short, I simply could not vote for someone who cannot (or will not) recognize and vigorously oppose people whose values and policies ARE, by any humane and rational criterion (i.e., intended to promote the general welfare, the common good, human well-being) deplorable. Let’s be frank: some individuals and groups most assuredly ARE deplorable—and potentially harmful to the commonweal. As such, they must be resisted and kept from power (by means that are not themselves deplorable) lest the general welfare be sacrificed for the aggrandizement/pleasure of the selfish and stupid.

I conclude, therefore, that RFK Jr. is either a messianic crackpot or an addlepated simpleton. Either way, he’s a disturbing presence on our political scene. Don’t be taken in by this Nothing Burger with a famous name. Don’t vote for his Newspeak “woo.” 😬

Macron Barks But Doesn’t Bite

French president Macron is being widely criticized these days—mostly for his heavy-handed (albeit unavoidable) raising of the French retirement age from a fiscally unsustainable 62 to a still barely manageable 64. But in addition to his domestic clumsiness, Monsieur le Président has recently proved himself remarkably inept in international affairs. At a moment when Europe in general and Ukraine in particular are in great need of American support in the face of Russian agression and Chinese opportunism, Macron has, inexplicably, chosen to resurrect the tired old Gaullist wheeze about American high-handedness: France is not an American vassal, France does not need to “follow” America, France wants European “strategic autonomy”, etc., etc. 

Naturally, the Russians and the Chinese love this—cheering on the sidelines as France once again plays its classic role as intellectually superior (Socratic, even) sniffer/yapper, whose virtuous duty it is (not being itself the pack leader) to annoy and pester the top dog, thus keeping him aware of his limits and his responsibilities to the other members of the pack—and especially to the pack’s self-appointed yapper. Upon hearing this pooch’s adamant barking, one concludes that he, personally, would happily take over as top dog—if only he could gin up the support of the other (lazy, he thinks) dogs. But alas, these latter tend to evaluate him for what he does best—sniffing out everyone’s defects and calling attention to them. An occasionally useful member of the pack, perhaps, but not quite compelling leadership material.

The Americans—who, I heartily admit, DO often need to have their hubris identified and restrained—are of course predictably annoyed by Macron’s sniping. Not, though, because they think Macron is likely to leave NATO, but mostly because his ill-timed remarks serve to encourage all the centripetal forces bubbling for release just beneath the surface of the existing world order—any one of which, if stimulated, might burst forth and bring mayhem to the already tenuous Pax Americana.

Well, never mind. Down with vassalage! Down with collective security! In short, down with the Americans! And up with—somebody nicer, smarter, somebody with better taste in food and music and art and politics, somebody less obnoxious…like, oh, wait…well…maybe…or…hmmm…not so sure about THAT one… uh…hmmmm…what’s that you say? Well, what a pickle!

P.S. I am an enthusiastic Francophile who loves France deeply. If I could have chosen my nationality, I would have unhesitatingly chosen to be French. But just as my love for America does not (usually) blind me to its many flaws, so, too, my love for France does not delude me about its weaknesses, one of the greatest of which is its “know-everything-ism” (in contrast to America’s “know-nothing-ism”). Many French people, both on the left and the right, have a galling (“degaulling”?) tendency to assume that they just automatically “know better” than the presumably low-IQ Anglo-Saxons. Sometimes, undoubtedly, they are right. And it IS occasionally salutary to obstruct and restrain American gung-ho foreign policy. But persistent sniping and grumbling about being treated like a vassal, blah, blah, blah—well, this is mostly bad faith posturing—theater for the voters (whose grievances can thus be blamed, at least partially, on the perfidious Americans rather than on the beleaguered French government) but backed up by absolutely no sincere effort to break away from the collective security of NATO and/or the American alliance. It’s mostly hi-falutin’ bark accompanied by no toothful bite. Prickliness aside, the French are not particularly oppressed by Uncle Sam, are they? That dog just won’t hunt.