Former National Review columnist and unhinged Never-Trumper Jonah Goldberg recently claimed that small donors in the Republican primary were a problem “for democracy” and are “just venting their spleen” rather than acting strategically.
The pompous neocon told “Inside Politics” host Dana Bash, “Small donors in Iowa are more important as an indicator of grassroots support than anything else. But I also think we’re dealing with a time where there’s a lot of people, there’s a lot of cheering and self-congratulations about the rise of small donors a decade ago.”
He then added, “Now small donors are one of the biggest problems for democracy, for the GOP. Because small donors — large donors actually have a strategic view about moderation, who can win, who can’t. Small donors really are just venting their spleen with their credit card, and they lock candidates into positions that can hurt them in the general election.”
Wow. That is an elite, inside-the-beltway view that is certain to be music to the ears of the Uni-party and the countless members of The Swamp/Deep State.
Rather it is big donors, corporate lobbyists, and wealthy individuals such as George Soros that have warped politics, crushed the middle class, driven the growth of (unrepresentative) government, pooh-poohed the Constitution—and assaulted the rights and freedoms of Americans in the 84% of counties in the U.S.—at minimum-- that voted for Trump in the past two presidential elections.
Times have changed. Things have pivoted. Once upon a time, Republicans typically received more donations from businesses, and in greater amounts than Democrats. Totally different now. In 2016, Trump got more small donations than Hillary Clinton did. Trump empathized with—and energized—middle Americans…who wrote out checks to him for $30, $40, or $50 in droves. By contrast, Hillary got large donations from super PACS, corporate interests, and the uber rich like Jeff Bezos and George Soros. There is a reason for that.
Goldberg dismisses the ordinary citizen, as well as the ones who have the audacity to support a candidate that “can’t win,” while excoriating those who have the temerity—and poor manners--- to vote for those candidates that appear to share their interests… and frustrations. Don’t these rubes have a strategic view? Why are they not “moderate” to my way of thinking? How dare they urge their potential representatives to support their positions if that could hinder them in the general election!
Today, the more someone blathers on about “saving our democracy,” the more it tells you they disdain anyone who might disagree with them, which is quite the opposite.
This nation was borne with the idea of public servants accountable to engaged citizens.
Today, we have too few of either.