With Ron DeSantis, The Dead Are Mere Collateral Damage; The Supreme Objective Is Power

The news emerging from the state of Florida is quite depressing. For an area which makes up 6% of American population, nearly 20% of all new cases in the union comes from the Southern state.

According to Dr. Reiner of the George Washington University Hospital,Florida has one the highest virus load in the country. The doctor went on to say that if the state was a standalone country, a travel ban would be imposed.

So with all the information at our disposal, why isn't much being done to stem the flow of hospital admissions and deaths?

This is simply down to the governor of Florida, sticking to his position in allowing adults and children alike to go about their business, without getting their masks on and his pertinacity in refusing to lockdown his terrain. I have no doubts that the Chief executive isn't unaware of the consequences of his decisions.

What does this tell us about Governor Ron DeSantis?

That he is inimitably corrupt, morally bankrupt and in thrall to the guys who bankroll the elections.

And much more to the point every dead person in Florida is collateral damage.

Collateral damage?

Based on the definition via Wikipedia, it says:

Collateral damage is any death, injury, or other damage inflicted that is an incidental result of an activity. Originally coined by military operations,[1] it is now also used in non-military contexts.

Or to quote Joseph Stalin:

One death is an unfortunate tragedy, a million deaths, a statistic.

Only that, which is politically expedient matters and the supreme objective for these renegades is the capturing and consolidation of power, at all levels of government and in public life.

Power, by any means necessary.

Which essentially means that the bodies in the state of Florida will pile high in their hundreds of thousands - many of whom will be school kids and retirees - but for power to be attained and retained, these deaths are completely necessary.

What does this mean for the American Democracy and by extension for the Democrats?

Hannah Arendt, the great German intellectual who emigrated to the United States once said that she was surprised to find America much more fascist than the country from which she came.

Contrary to the vast numbers of columns written on this space, bemoaning America's slide into fascism, anyone with a clear sense and understanding of history, will readily appreciate that the US of A has never been a democracy; It has and forever will be a very powerful consortium of interests.

The all powerful consortium of interests were the ones to whom Dwight Eisenhower referred, when he spoke of a military industrial complex, in his final speech as President, as captured in the quote below:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction…

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together. [emphasis added]

For all Democrats, armed with a clear analysis of realpolitik in America, the need to attain power is one that is shaped by moral ambiguity and a high degree of skulduggery.

The pursuit of power by the left should never be seen as one shaped by high ideals and moral superiority, but one that must involve speaking the language of pragmatism and a willingness, if need be, to get one's hands dirty, from time to time.

For as long as it is unprepared to take the battle to the GOP and learn to outflank them on being skillfully pragmatic, it will continue to play second fiddle and lose vitally important elections.

Thanks very much for reading.

References:

The New York Times

Wikipedia: Hanna Arendt and President Eisenhower.

Wikimedia Commons