It is a curious spectacle, a man who has never marched under the flag, nor even earned a single merit badge in Scouts, now rising to the thunderous roar of indignation against a sitting senator; all because of a shaky, potentially staged video purporting “illegal orders.” This man, brimming with performative ardor and narcissistic authoritarianism, demands punishment. He craves retribution. But his fury says more about him, his insecurity, his longing for misplaced power, than it does about the senator, the video, or justice itself.
At the center of this melodrama is a public figure whose resume consists entirely of punditry and posturing. Yet he positions himself as a guardian of duty, honor, and military discipline. He brandishes the symbols of service, two vague words: “orders” and “duty” as though they were the triggers of some moral minefield. And he expects those symbols to detonate, to punish and to terrify. But the only bomb they set off is in the theater of his own ambition.
Let us parse what is being demanded. The call for “punishment” vague, ominous, echoes with threat and with spectacle. No due process is named. No transparent hearing is proposed. Just the primal echo of denunciation: Shame. Disgrace. Backlash. This is not the language of justice; it is the language of a lynch mob assembled in front of television cameras. The difference between patriotism and vengeance, between moral clarity and mob fervor, is not lost on those who have bled, who have marched, who have stood watch. Yet to our loudmouth apparatchik, it is invisible.
He is quick to call for retribution against perceived wrongdoing. But what of the wrongdoing, the video? Is it verified? Is the chain of custody intact? No mention of that. Has the senator been asked to respond? Has she been offered a chance to explain, to contest, to rebut? Has there been even a presumption of innocence? Not in his world. In his world, guilt is immediate. The unverified image, the half-heard statement, the suspicious edit: all become proof enough. It is the very definition of arbitrary authority, cloaked in the trappings of righteousness.
This, one must note, is a man who, by his own admission, by his public biography, has never borne arms, never carried a rifle, never pledged an oath under threat of mortal consequence. His battlefield is a TV studio. The closest he comes to the sacrifice he speaks of is the sacrifice of nuance, integrity, truth. And yet he demands of others sacrifices vast in scope: career, reputation, trust in institutions.
Let us not mistake this for a moment of integrity so much as a moment of performative ascendancy. He wants to slay a public official on the altar of outrage. It is a sacrifice to his own vanity, not to principle. The roar he summons is aimed not at corruption, but at applause. He measures success not by fairness, but by the echoing cheers of a crowd hungry for easy condemnation.
Worse still, the chaos he yearns to rain down is contagious. For if one unverified video becomes sufficient grounds for censure, then tomorrow another voice, maybe yours, maybe mine, could become the next target. Under his logic, suspicion is enough. Outrage must follow. Punishment is demanded. The precedent sets not justice, but arbitrary terror “We suspect. We condemn.”
Some may say such condemnation serves a higher cause, accountability, discipline, deterrence. But let us ask: accountability of what? And disciplined in whose name? Institutions built on law, transparency, collective memory, these crumble when outrage becomes the currency. When reputations flip with a tweet; when political currency accrues to the loudest shouter.
I am reminded of the old saw: “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Our pundit, lightweight, loud, self-sure, wields his hammer against anyone he perceives as a nail. The nails need only appear. The deeper the hole he drills, the less he cares for what falls through. Washington is littered with their broken fragments.
And, yes: there will be applause. Headlines, trending hashtags, finger-wagging commentary. The kind that never returns but is often forgotten once the next provocation emerges. The pendulum swings. The public forgets. The next outrage demands attention. And so the cycle renews.
But attention is not justice. Noise is not remedy. And fury is not righteousness. Honor, discipline, service, these are earned in silence and sweat, in the shadows before dawn, when no one watches, when no microphone is present. They are not earned in the glare of spotlights, shouting from a desk.
If we are to value justice, let it be guided by evidence, by fairness, by measured process — not by the thundering chest-beats of the untested. If we are to hold power accountable, let that accountability be firm, principled, transparent, not reactive, vengeful, mediated through theatrics.
Otherwise, what are we defending? Where is the boundary between patriotism and performative vengeance? Between civic duty and somebody’s career climb? Between honor and the hollow echo of a shout?
In the end, the loudest voice is seldom the wisest. And the quickest call for punishment is seldom the fairest. It is easier to demand someone’s downfall than to examine one’s own motives. But integrity demands more. It demands patience. It demands fairness. It demands that we judge not with the microphone, but with the scales of justice.
Let us remember: virtue does not demand spectacles. It requires steady hands, quiet resolve and a heart capable of seeing truth beyond the glare.
No comments:
Post a Comment