Too which Republican Party are you referring. The party of Eisenhower . . . Nixon . . . Reagan . . . Bush . . . Trump. They are very different parties. Was it the Allied Commander who warned us of the power of money in defense who was subsequently ignored? That is considered the golden age of he country. . . . Was it the one who used presidential power to pursue political enemies and the amassing of said power? He left the party in shambles. . . . Was it about leading us to a shinning city on a hill. We seemed to have stumbled on that climb and the seeming lack of evidence-based policies belie a serious problem with the enactment of ideals. . . . Was it the cowboy whose minions seemed to seriously misunderstand the projection of force and how it operates in the current environment. Is there even a coherent strategy for the armed forces . . . Trump leads yet another very different party based mostly on the failures of prior Republican administrations and of the party itself. If the party led from a base of the power of true ethics rather than a Machiavellian desire to be the prince of power, all these diversions would simply fall away. Machiavelli’s ideas work great in the short-term, but work very poorly for the health of a republic. It’s important to win elections, but the ethics of leading are more important.
