Skip to content

What The Martha’s Vineyard Farce Means For Republicans

Think about the irony. It’s the beginning of Hispanic heritage month. [The] border … has not been secure for quite some time. Over 2 million migrants coming through, [and] it took only 50 brown people showing up in one of the most exclusive Democratic enclaves, without leaf blowers [or] mops, for it to be declared a national emergency, and to get the media focused on this.

Gloria Romero, Latina democrat, former Majority Leader California State Senate

There is no need to call out the transparent hypocrisy of “liberals” and their media propagandists like Chuck Todd and Joe Scarborough in their attempt to make excuses for Martha’s Vineyard’s rapid panicked expulsion of a mere 50 illegal aliens (Venezuelans) from their wealthy mostly white utopia to an air force base on the mainland. Further, quite surprisingly the Obama’s did not offer to set aside 4-5 acres of their 12 million-dollar 30-acre beachfront property to set up a nice homeless encampment for their brothers and sisters.  The message is clear:  We “liberals” will virtue-signal and self-glorify to our hearts content but it’s the great unwashed masses that must put up with the consequences of our destructive selfish policies.  We refuse to pay any price.  Do not expect us elites to live under the rules we set up for you!

The present article is, however, not so much directed at the Democrat Party and the socialists because, as the Martha’s Vineyard farce shows, their capacity for self-reflection is so low it is impossible to reach them and they are, accordingly, completely incapable of shame.  The present article is aimed at napping Republicans who may not have grasped what the Martha’s Vineyard farce means for the Republican Party going forward.

Since most of the Democrat and socialist policies are extremely unpopular Democrats, socialists and their propaganda unit (aka the “news” media) do not try to defend them with facts and rational arguments.  The standard “Democrat” or socialist response to a challenge to their policies and views from the “deplorable” patriots is to call their political opponents names, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, white supremacist, NAZI, semi-fascists, etc., or, like many members of the “inclusive” party, to threaten them.  Unfortunately, there are a plethora of weak people in both parties and in what passes for our “news” media who, apparently, do not remember where this kind of political thuggery leads. 

In the first place, there is a name in logic and critical reasoning texts for these kinds of favorite “liberal” and socialist arguments.  They are called ad hominem fallacies (arguments in which one attacks the “man” or the person instead of the issues).  There are two main kinds of ad hominem fallacies, namely, arguments ad hominem abusive and arguments ad hominem circumstantial.  In arguments ad hominem abusive one fallaciously attempts to discredit someone’s view by abusing the person who holds it.  Calling someone a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, a “climate denier,” etc., are examples of ad hominem abusive fallacies.  An arguments ad hominem circumstantial fallacy does not abuse the person per se but rather argues that because of that person’s circumstances they cannot possible be correct about some issues, e.g., the argument that because someone is white they cannot comment fairly on “black” issues, the argument that because someone is male they cannot understand “women’s” issues, the argument that because someone is “straight” they cannot be right when they object to same-sex marriage, etc., are all examples of ad hominem circumstantial fallacies.  

The reason ad hominem fallacies are so useful to today’s Democrats and socialists is that it takes no intelligence whatsoever to make them.  One does not actually have to know anything about climate to call someone a “climate denier.”  If some hapless undergraduate states that they are against affirmative action one does not have to know anything about the law or about the actual complicated history of racism in the United States to call them a racist.  It is enough that this hapless undergraduate disagrees with the Democrat or socialist cause du jour.  If someone disagrees with allowing “trans-females” to compete in women’s sports, one does not have to know anything whatsoever about male and female biology in order to call them a trans-bigot.  Knowing actual facts and theory about the climate, about the law and the history of racism, or about gender differences is hard.  One actually has to study quite hard for a long time to know enough to form a well-reasoned view on these and other issues.  But that is quite hard and requires a lot of discipline and self-sacrifice and why should one subject oneself to that long hard period of study and self-discipline when it is much easier to become a hero (to the Left) by calling people names?  

"*" indicates required fields

Are you voting in the midterm elections?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

No doubt, this is why these are the favorite kinds of arguments in what remains of our universities, where, apparently, no one takes logic or critical reasoning texts seriously anymore because they are too busy promoting the appearance that they, having achieved enlightenment at a noisy rally in front of the administration building, are saving the world.  To repeat: The favorite kinds of arguments used in our universities and by “liberals” generally are textbook logical fallacies.

The present point is that although Republicans have always been wrong to cave to leftist ad hominem name-calling, there is no longer any excuse for doing so.  The next time a Democrat or socialist calls a Republican or conservative names in an attempt to intimidate them into submitting to some silly leftist view, for example, the Democrat’s indefensible open border policies or their trillion dollar vote-buying bills, Republicans and conservatives need to reply firmly that there will be no more name-calling until Martha’s Vineyard, Joe Biden’s neighborhood, Nancy Pelosi’s neighborhood, Chuck Schumer’s neighborhood, Chuck Todd’s neighborhood, Don Lemon’s neighborhood, Mark Zuckerberg’s neighborhood, Rob Reiner’s neighborhood, etc., “looks like the rest of America,” specifically, until it is 13.8% black, at least 20% Hispanic, not black and Hispanic  doctors, lawyers and professors, but poor minorities including gang members and has several large homeless encampments with the associated defecation on the front lawn beside the discarded needles.  

There is no more excuse for putting up with the transparent massive hypocrisy and selfishness of leftist elites, no more excuse for letting Democrats and socialists get away by calling conservatives names for refusing to go along with their silly trillion dollar inflationary vote-buying and election rigging schemes (mail in ballots, etc.).   This will, of course, require some backbone from many Republicans who have not shown much capacity for it so far, but after the latest farce at Martha’s Vineyard there is no longer any excuse.  Republicans from coast to coast, from Maine to Alaska and everywhere in between, must be required categorically to shut down the ad hominem thuggery from the Left.  We’re not going to take it anymore.  Since all Republicans have a duty to defend the Party as well as the nation, any alleged “Republican” who is unable, after the pathetic Martha’s Vineyard farce, to shut down Democrat and socialist name-calling and thuggery should be encouraged, after admitting their inadequacies, to resign the Party in disgrace and start their own party.  Perhaps they can call it “the Tinkerbelle Party.”

Richard Michael McDonough, American philosophy educator. Achievements include production of original interpretation of Wittgenstein’s logical-metaphysical system, original application Kantian Copernican Revolution to philosophy of language; significant interdisciplinary work logic, linguistics, psychology & philosophy. Member Australasian Debating Federation (honorary life, adjudicator since 1991), Phi Kappa Phi. Richard is a regular contributor to The Blue State Conservative.