Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
Dear Buzzword Voters: Let's Define 'Establishment'
Dear everyone against the "establishment,"
There are millions of you out there. You're tired of the "status quo." You're irate at career politicians. You're done with promises, promises only to have failure upon failure being elected. You're angry. You've lost your patience. You've lost your cool. Mostly what you want is to just stop losing. What you want is your country back. You want power to be in the hands of the people, not in the hands of the "establishment."
Sounds good to me. I'm with you. But before I go all in, let's do some homework first...
What does "establishment" mean? If the word "establishment" were a person, we'd have to call it a hooker. Don't balk at that, stay with me for just a second. According to pick-your-candidate, everyone else but pick-your-candidate has slept with the Hooker Establishment. She's a high class broad, the Hooker Establishment. She takes money from the big donors. She wears Prada not Payless. She doesn't associate with the lower rung of society, also known as the middle class. To be clear, she's gender fluid. Let's be open-minded here. Trannies can work that hip pop just as well as anyone with a vagina. Don't get distracted, I'm getting to a point soon. Promise.
Since no one wants to admit they're dimestore floozies for the establishment, we have to narrow it down a bit. Is anyone who's been in the same building as the Hooker Establishment guilty of being a part of it? Or is that only reserved for those men and women who've taken it to bed? What about those candidates who've donated money to the Hooker Establishment so she'd take other politicians to bed? Is he or she just as dirty?
Are you immensely uncomfortable? Good, we're halfway there. Stay with me.
"Establishment" has become the new buzzword. Even the democrats are using it, saying they're "against" the establishment. Hillary Clinton says she can't be "establishment" because she's a woman. Bernie Sanders people say he's not "establishment" because he's not a Clinton. Donald Trump says he's not "establishment" because he's never held elected office. Ted Cruz says he isn't "establishment" because his fellow senators think he's the devil.
So who's right? Who's actually establishment and who's an establishment virgin?
Oh Kasich? His dad is a mail man. If the establishment is a hooker we need her to slip him a little something in his juice box so he sleeps the rest of this election. Like a good John.
First we have to define what we're actually talking about when we say "establishment." Spoiler alert: you may not like the conclusions we draw. Here's how I define the "establishment."
The establishment is a set of people who belong to the elite Washington class. They belong to both parties. They desire, above all else, to maintain their political power and influence. And money. They're usually career politicians who've lost touch with the rest of America. Because they're not the rest of America. They are better than you, therefore they know better than you. The Establishment oath is: Power above ideology. Re-election above the interests of America. Approval from their peers on high instead the approval of their constituents.
Hillary Clinton is the Establishment Hooker's favorite customer. Hillary has lived most of her professional life as a political elite, concerned firstly with getting more power, never with the lives of others. Ask the men who died in Benghazi. She's brokered deals, covered up crimes, and taken questionable donations. Why? Not because she's interested in America. She wants to maintain her status. She wants power.
Former Speaker of the House John Boehner is the establishment. He said whatever he needed to say to get elected. And re-elected. But when he was in power, he never offered more than words to his opposition. He was concerned mostly with keeping his powerful job, of maintaining his esteem among his colleuges, never with will of the American people.
Still with me?
Donald Trump has donated to many political elites so he could get what he wanted in New York. That's how, according to Donald Trump, the system works. Does that make Trump "establishment"? Or does him not being an elected official mean he's not "establishment"?
Ted Cruz is an elected official. He called Mitch McConnell a liar on the floor of the senate. He seems less concerned with earning the approval of his peers and more entertained by pissing them off. But does his affiliation with Washington automatically make him the "establishment"?
Plot twist: I could write all day long about how all of these candidates are the establishment. Another about how they're not. Why? The word has come to mean whatever someone else chooses it to mean. It's a gender-fluid whore when it was once just a high class broad with great shoes.
The macro issue here is not to rely on a buzzword. Or a bumper sticker slogan, you Feel the Berners. Buzzwords, slogans, they all have their places, sure. But to use either as a reason to vote for or against someone is asinine. We're at a juncture in our electoral process where critical thinking, not gut-reactions, is needed above all else.
It's time to move past the surface. It shouldn't matter how long Hillary has been a politician. I don't hate her because she's "establishment." I hate her because she's an evil witch with a B who would be terrible for America. I apply the same lens of clarity to Trump, Cruz, Sanders. What are their policies for America? Will they work? How will they work?
Establishment, not establishment, candidates need to be measured by the same barometers as everyone else. How effective will they be as leaders? What will they do for America?
Oh John Kasich? I didn't forget him. But boy I wish I could...