Republican cancel culture

America’s authoritarian radical right Republican Party (ARRRP) howls in self-righteous outrage about liberal cancel culture. Despite all the squealing, most cancel culture action is by the radical right blocking criticisms of Trump. I have been banned from all pro-Trump online sites, usually on my 1st comment.

Reddit pro-Trump site r/trump

Note rule #2

Now-a-days, radical right Republicans do not tolerate any criticism of Trump at most online pro-Trump sites. That started years ago. Faux News constantly bitches about how people who criticize the left or CRT or groomers in the Democratic party will be severely canceled by liberals and Democrats to silence criticisms of the left. 

Now, in an expansion of Republican cancel culture, the WaPo reports that to protect Trump from criticism, America’s ARRRP cancel culture has spread to the House of Representatives. The WaPo writes (not paywalled):

In the GOP House, details of Trump’s trials 

are an unfair personal attack

Rep. Jim McGovern’s (D-Mass.) articulation of Trump’s legal issues on Wednesday was stricken from the record

A candidate for president of the United States is on trial for allegedly helping facilitate a hush money payment to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal during his 2016 campaign, and then fraudulently disguising those payments in violation of the law. He’s also charged with conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He’s also charged with willful retention of classified information. And a jury has already found him liable for rape in a civil court.

As you probably know, those statements apply to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee on November’s presidential ballot. They are also statements that, with only a few slight changes, were deemed unfair personal attacks by House Republicans and removed from a record of debate on Wednesday afternoon.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) rose on the House floor to challenge having been admonished for saying Trump had been indicted by a grand jury and is on trial. He made a parliamentary inquiry about the admonishment; that is, he asked Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry L. Carl (R-Ala.) for clarification on the rules of debate. Specifically: “Has the chair determined that it is unparliamentary to state a fact?”

“The chair is not in a position to determine the veracity of remarks made on the floor,” he replied as the member facilitating debate at the time. “Members must avoid personalities.”

McGovern declared this to be “unbelievable.”

“Personalities” is another of those terms that has a specific meaning in the context of the House. It comes from a long-standing rule governing debate in that chamber, including the rules adopted for the 118th Congress.

“Remarks in debate (which may include references to the Senate or its Members),” Rule XVII, Section 1b states, “shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding personality.” And “avoiding personality” means, simply, not making personal attacks on peers.

The intent is to foster collegiality, to keep members of Congress from attacking other representatives, senators or the president. In this way, decorum might be maintained and interpersonal disparagements limited.

But Trump is not a representative, senator or president. He is a private citizen, at least at the moment.

To McGovern’s point, it’s fraught to suggest that statements of fact are personal attacks. He noted that previous comments about the trial in New York, in which Republicans called it a “sham,” did not prompt any sanction. His articulation of Trump’s status, though, did.

“These are not alternative facts. These are real facts,” he began. “A candidate for the United States is on trial for sending a hush money payment to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal during his 2016 campaign, and then fraudulently disguising those payments in violation of the law.”  

“He's also charged with conspiring to overturn the election,” McGovern continued, referring to charges in Fulton County, Ga. “He's also charged with stealing classified information.”

McGovern added that “a jury has already found him liable for rape in a civil court,” which is true.

It was at about this point in McGovern’s soliloquy that Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.) demanded his comments be stricken from the record. Carl stated that the words would be taken down and told McGovern to sit down.

This probably wasn’t a great idea from a political standpoint. The clip of McGovern’s objection and comments was shared on social media, where prominent Democrats quickly jumped in to defend the legislator — and ensure their followers saw what he said. This is the Streisand Effect at work: the effort to suppress awareness of information can draw even more attention to it.

But we shouldn’t lose sight of McGovern’s broader point. It is both the case that his comments were (largely) accurate and also that they were embarrassing for Trump and, by extension, members of his party who seek to downplay his legal problems. McGovern highlighted this tension, giving Republicans the opportunity to argue that true things said about a nonmember violated rules of decorum barring the disparagement of elected officials.

There it is, right out in the open. ARRRP cancel culture on display in the House of Representatives. Instead of doing real work, ARRRP pisses away precious time whining about fact-based criticisms of Trump and striking legitimate criticisms from the public record. According to scientific measurement, that is gross and disgusting hypocrisy:

Inclusivity is leftist cancel culture!

Etc.