I guess I need to wade, ever so carefully, deeper into radioactive waters.

To do so I need to return to yesterday’s essay wherein I opined that the Clintons had launched a morality-neutron warhead at Donald Trump.

What did I mean by that? The neutron bomb, as some of you will recall, was a Reagan era nuclear weapon characterized by its selectivity. It was meant to be used against advancing Soviet troops in central Europe. It would kill the Red Army men with a burst of radiation but spare European physical infrastructure because it had little blast effect. Presumably civilians would have fled the battle zone before the neutron bombs were released. Noncombatants could then return, ante bellum as it were. The Soviet dead could be buried, their abandoned tanks towed off to scrap yards, and life would resume as before. The reality would have been far more grim but that was the theory.

Now translate that to our current context. Heather McDonald of City Journal (who usually writes about urban crime) gets at the selectivity of the left’s electoral nuclear device:

Democrats and their media allies, joined by many Republicans, are calling on Donald Trump to withdraw from the presidential race after a newly released, decade-old tape of a frat-house-level conversation between Trump and television host Billy Bush in 2005, in which Trump boasted of his heavy-handed pursuit of females…

Now why might it be that men regard women as sex objects? Surely the ravenous purchase by females of stiletto heels, push-up bras, butt-hugging mini-skirts, plunging necklines, false eyelashes, hair extensions, breast implants, butt implants, lip implants, and mascara, rouge, and lipstick to the tune of billions a year has nothing to do with it. Females would never ever exploit their sexuality to seek attention from men. Bush and Trump, driving to the set of Days of Our Lives on a studio bus, comment on the legs of actress Arianne Zucker who is coming to meet them: “Oh, nice legs, huh?” Trump says. “Your girl’s hot as shit, in the purple,” Bush says. How surprising that Trump and Bush noticed Zucker’s legs! As documented in the video, she is wearing a skimpy purple dress, with an extremely short hem cut on the bias, a low neckline and fully exposed back. She is in high heels to accentuate her bare legs. The ratio of exposed skin between Zucker, on the one hand, and Trump and Bush, on the other, is perhaps 100 to one. But all that bare flesh must simply be because Zucker has a high metabolism and gets exceedingly warm; she would never want to broadcast her sexuality to men or have men notice her. The fact that she swishes her hips when she walks must just be a quirk of anatomy.

Thus we see that the morality-neutron warhead is selective in that it targets men only. Only men can be guilty of sexist behavior, you see. How’s that? Because the left says so.

But wait. This warhead is double-selective. It is a sophisticated weapon. Generally speaking it doesn’t harm Democrats. Are any of them guilty of sexual misconduct – not ten years ago like Trump, but right now?

Enter author Ed Klein, an expert on the inner workings of the Obama and Clinton cartels. Many denigrate his books because he makes use of unnamed sources. Actually that’s quite common in the Washington-insider tell-all genre – Bob Woodward comes to mind. In any event, here’s Klein’s comment:

“I have a whole chapter on Bill Clinton’s current – not back in the 1990s when he raped and harassed and intimidated women, not 20 or 30 years ago – we’re talking about right now, Bill Clinton is continuing his exploitation of 20 year-old interns at his [presidential] library in Little Rock,” said Klein. “I did not see one mainstream media outlet pick this up – or, for that matter, even check to see if I was accurate. Of course, I think I’m accurate because I interviewed the girls who did the foot rubs, and I interviewed the man who was at his party when he hosed down the women in this wet t-shirt contest. But nobody in the media has bothered to check and find out what I did, by simply going down to Little Rock and asking questions.”

Bill has a mistress up on Long Island too. And there are those multiple flights on the “Lolita Express” down to the pedophile’s private island in the Bahamas. Has Hillary publicly expressed her outrage about any of this? No, she covers it up. And don’t think Bill is just an ex-President. Given her obvious ill health Hillary will be at best a low-energy President. People in her inner circle will act in her stead, first among them Bill. If we elect her we’ll be in effect re-electing him.

“So you can see this disgusting double standard that we are living with in this country…”

…And the heavy irony of the Clintons – the least moral, least ethical, least honest inhabitants of the public sphere – attacking Donald Trump on moral grounds.

The double irony is that the left, which has done do much to undermine public morality over a period of decades, which has drenched the culture in sex, is now getting all sanctimonious about sex.

Oh, and mirror, mirror on the wall – who’s the biggest potty-mouth of all? Based on multiple credible accounts, the answer to that is “Hillary! Hillary!”

There are rumors of more Trump tapes to come – one allegedly more of the same and one worse. Will the final incoming nuke carry a racism-neutron warhead? Has Trump ever in his life uttered the wrong word with regard to black people? Who knows. I do know that a racism bomb will also be selective. Only whites can be guilty of racism, you see. And Democrats get a pass.

Do I think these nukings will work? Yes.

Donald Trump is being found guilty – ex post facto – of being a reprobate who engaged in loose braggadocio. The alternative, embodied by the hapless GOP political class, is to constantly self-censor yourself in accordance with ever-shifting ground rules set by your enemies.

Now, to the difficult part (all the above is self-evident). The hard question. You might ask, if I was against Bill Clinton during the impeachment crisis of the late 1990s, how can I be for Donald Trump now? Are there any meaningful differences between the two? Or am I engaging in situational ethics?

Two differences between then and now: First, there is a big difference between criminal acts and politically incorrect speech. Second, there is a difference between the behavior of a sitting President and that of a private citizen. Plus, the Clintons were, and are, all slime all the time. Bill’s sexual misconduct is central to but not separate from the rest.

Do I think, even in private conversations (which this was meant to be), that men should talk the way Mr Trump did? No. Did I ever talk like that? No. I never had that big of an ego. Have I heard the like from other men over the years? Yes. Do some women talk in similar ways about men? I think they do.

Donald Trump was my fourth choice for a presidential candidate. I have acknowledged all along that he is a crass and vulgar person. I support him in spite of, not because of, this. before you shake your head, consider the choice that lies before us and the consequences of being oh so pure. Do you really want to live in a one-party state?

– Tacitus

Copyright 2016 Tacitus
http://www.vicsocotra.com