Received via e-mail:

=====

On Political Lust

By Roger Simon

In “American Refugees,” I devote a few pages to what I call “political lust.”

The term came to me spontaneously when writing the book while thinking of how to describe the behavior I had observed in certain local politicians, some of whom I name and others I don’t.

These people had to run for office no matter what. It was their reason for being: What they had to offer in office, why they were running, what actual ideals they had were irrelevant.

What was relevant was that it had to be them.

Indeed, they would frequently change their positions in order to keep running or to run again. They would do this on the assumption we wouldn't notice and, if we did, they would ignore our reactions and proceed anyway, overcome by ... “political lust.”

It's an ugly phrase, I admit, that ties people in power, or seeking power, to the most uncontrollable passions. But since typing the words, almost out of my unconscious, I have come to see it everywhere, not just in the relatively small-time politicians where I first noticed it, but in the highest realms.

The entire presidential campaign of former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was a near-perfect example.

First, she said she wouldn't run if former President Donald Trump were to do so. He declared his candidacy, but she reversed field and, undeterred by what she had stated only months earlier, ran anyway.

Then, Mrs. Haley, in order to appear in the primary debates, pledged to support the eventual Republican candidate. She has now reneged on that as well, saying, in her brief speech suspending her campaign, that President Trump somehow now has to “earn” her vote.

It was clearly all about her in the first place.

But if you’re looking for the most shining example of “political lust,” look no further than the current president of the United States.

What exactly does Joe Biden stand for if not himself?

It’s almost impossible to say because he has been on both sides of almost every issue.

In the past, the man who informed us on Charlemagne Tha God “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black” not only palled around with notorious segregationist Sens. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), he teamed up with them on legislation.

Of course, in this era of separate graduations at Harvard, segregation is back as being “progressive,” so Biden might have been ahead of his time (kidding).

But in all seriousness, President Biden has done little other than run for office his entire life, soldiering on through highly accurate accusations of plagiarism that began in law school, flip-flopping on every issue as called for, to become an almost-accidental president, installed to prevent the potentially disastrous candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Second place might go to former presidential candidate and exiting U.S. climate envoy John Kerry, who has just reassured us we would all “feel better” about Russia’s incursion into Ukraine if Russia would only “make a greater effort to reduce emissions.”

Was this forwarded to you?

Sign-up for an all access digital subscription, or register for a free account.

Besides being hilarious, on one level, this is where “political lust” and good old-fashioned greed intersect, and not, obviously, for the first time. Billions have been made off the global warming/carbon credits scam that Mr. Kerry consistently applauds.

One could say that “political lust” and greed were not separated at birth. They are blood brothers, even conjoined twins. The instances are all around us.

But we must then ask another question,

What of legitimate change, when it is not the lust of political expediency? Is it ever real?

And, I have to say, yes, it is. For that, too, there are instances all around us.

One obvious one is former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), another is presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

They both have changed their views in a legitimate matter to varying extents.

Many people of what one might call orthodox ideological views distrust these people, don’t think they’ve really changed, that this too is all expediency.

Others revile them because they have left the fold.

But I would submit, that if people, not just those in leadership positions, weren't able to change and grow, there would be no point in democracy in any form.

President Trump is one such person. He clearly isn't the same man with the same views as he held 20 years ago, when he was donating to the Clintons. (Neither are the Clintons, for that matter, in a more negative way, though they weren’t great in the first place.)

Were Mr. Trump’s changes legitimate or governed by expediency?

Nothing is simple in this realm.

As a “changer” myself, can I say I was pure? No, I cannot, nor would I claim to.

But these things must be taken on balance, and on balance, I give credit to President Trump. In his case, it is less about “political lust” than a bona fide desire to actually make America great again.

And now, I'm off to have a pre-State of the Union lunch with the man I call Rocky Top in “American Refugees.” No doubt all or most of you will have seen the SOTU by the time you read this.

But even with that warning from Nobel Prize-winning physicist Niels Bohr (or was it Yogi Berra?) that “prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future,” I think it’s safe to say in advance that almost all you were hearing was motivated primarily by “political lust.”

UPDATE: Word has it that President Biden, in his perpetual lust for votes—in this case, inspired by fear of his left flank—will be coming down hard on the Israelis for defending themselves against the perpetual onslaught of Hamas, which would be what any normal country would do. If so, this will be fake morality in the cause of immorality. It will be sickening to watch.

*************************************************************