‘It’s the Super PACs, Stupid’: Vivek Calls Out the Elephant in the Room

Vivek Ramaswamy recently destroyed Sean Hannity on his own show. An audience member at a recent event asked him about it.

“What was up with Sean Hannity the other night?” the gentleman asks.

Ramaswamy answered:

It’s the Super PACs, stupid…

[Super PACs] need politicians to dance to their tune. And here I’m running against Trump in this race, no doubt, but what I will say is, here’s why they came for him. He didn’t want to play that game.

Now the question for us in the Republican Party is, I’m in this to take our America First movement to the next level to move our country forward, but I am an outsider who’s not playing by the rules of the donor establishment and the system. And so they’re having the immune response to me that they did to [Trump] in 2016.

And that’s exactly right. Sean Hannity is a mouthpiece for the special interests that control the Republican Party in the same way that Rachel Maddow is the mouthpiece for the Democrat Party’s special interests. They are not “opinion hosts”; they don’t have any opinions, at least not ones they share on air. What they are are rank propagandists hiding behind the label of “journalist” (perverting the meaning of “journalist” in the process, a story for another day).

The reason that the corporate state media came so hard after Donald Trump in 2015-16 was not genuine outrage over his mean Tweets or his sexual escapades (Bill Clinton was credibly accused of rape, as was Joe Biden, but we get radio silence on those scores because they are favored puppets). The reason they came for him was that he could not be relied on to hold the donor line; he was not quite as well-heeled as the donor class prefers. That’s why they were partial to Jeb Bush and the rest.

For every seemingly intractable problem laid at the feet of the federal government, there are entrenched interests ensuring the problem never gets solved.

Take the border as an example, which I have written about in this context at length elsewhere. The vast majority of the electorate outside of “libertarian” think tanks and radical Social Justice™ ideologues wants a secure border. The reason it won’t get fixed is that a porous border serves multiple functions. It provides the avenue for replacement migration. It supplies cheap labor. It facilitates the import of fentanyl.

Because of its desirable dulling and pacifying effects, if the governing authorities could sell fentanyl over the counter and get away with it politically, they would. Hell, if they could distribute it with EBT cards through the mail, they’d do that.

Instead, they’ll settle for the next best thing: leaving the border a gaping wound and letting it pour in from China via Mexico. A few thousand useless eaters die each year, it creates a permanent underclass of drug addicts, and the epidemic provides further pretext to boost Drug War spending — all viewed as benefits by the governing authorities, not problems.

And that’s ultimately the problem: what voters consider problems are not shared concerns by the government. In their eyes, they’re opportunities for special interest profiteering and new social engineering schemes.

That’s how things work in the Land of the Free.