How Long Can They Keep A Lid On Public Anger?

Earlier this month, NBC News hosted a debate with GOP candidates for president. Donald Trump did not attend, and this seems to have been a wise choice. It’s not obvious that anyone who was at this debate benefitted. Perhaps they scrambled the favorite among the pack a bit but the debate did not increase the likelihood of any of them grabbing the brass ring.

I watched in hopes of some substantive something to come out of it. But it was not to be. It was, as usual, a waste of time.

A major factor was the questions themselves. They were strangely focused, truncated, and pitched at every issue except the major ones about which the GOP actually cares. None were on the COVID response, of course. None dealt with the problem of the administrative state. None dealt seriously with the issue of the vanishing Constitution.

All the questions seemed to be chasing dead-end and beside-the-point issues. I could not really figure out what was going on so I chalked it up to the general stupidity of the press.

Vivek Ramaswamy said the most true thing all evening: NBC should not be hosting. The debate should be hosted by the GOP itself and the questions should be asked by Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, and Joe Rogan.

It took me a few weeks to realize something. The questions were not stupid. They were part of a plot. Each question was designed, not to find difference between candidates, but rather to peel off support of some constituent bloc from supporting the GOP candidate whomever it might be. The entire event was a setup to harm the entire chances of the party.

Early on, for example, there came a question about whether TikTok should be banned. This is a major problem for the GOP because, yes, the China-based app bugs people and rightly so, and it is a massive time-waster for a whole generation.

I know of no responsible adult who would rather not see it disappear. But using government power to ban an app that is massively popular among millions of people under 25 is a tremendous abuse of government power. It would set a precedent for a domestic form of digital central planning, or, rather, intensify what is already in place. It also contradicts the larger message of the need to cut government intervention.

There would have been good ways to answer this. For example:

More