The Tomi Lahren Debacle Proves that Many are Followers of Personalities and not Principles

At the outset, let’s address the caged cat: Ms. Lahren is heretically wrong on abortion and in contradicting her own statements on the matter proves she’s either a publicity-seeking opportunist or genuinely had a fascinatingly quick, Trump-like change of heart. I highly doubt the latter and I’ll explain why. But let’s scrutinize her recently announced posture on abortion first.

Tomi’s newfound ideological stance reeks of intellectual laziness and downright stupidity. Contrary to Lahren’s assertion, it is perfectly acceptable and consistent to demand that government not infringe on the right to bear arms and to demand that that same government outlaw infanticide. Please remember that one cannot enjoy the blessings of liberty without life first.

Hence, the protection of the unborn so they may see life and the protection of the right to continue living by means of self-defense, which includes resistance to tyranny, are both part of the legitimate role of government.

Now, on to her rapidly changing attitudes on abortion. Being that no one alters their opinion as quickly as Lahren has (even considering the flimsy exception extended to Donald Trump), the only conclusion one is left with is that Tomi is a popularity-monger. Add her to the list pundits, talking heads, commentators and the like who feel the need to change views to suit the audience.

Now that we’ve dispensed with the appropriate criticism due to Ms. Lahren, let us address the elephant in the room which let the screeching feline out of its cage so no one would notice the elephant was in the room to begin with: her followers.

To the point – and let’s not be politically correct about it either: the primary reason many of Lahren’s male followers are defending her is because she is the source of many of their most intimate and sensual desires. The reason many women are defending Lahren is because she has just toed the line many neoconservative women would love to promote as true conservatism – liberal social policies (such as abortion on demand, LGBT “rights”), conservative fiscal policies (balanced budget amendments and entitlement reform).

(An important side note: If the reader thinks that Glenn Beck didn’t adopt the Fox News policy of hiring an appealing, blond-haired face to attract viewers when he decided to employ Lahren, the reader is fooling himself or likes to be deceived. Moving on…)

Even more to the point, the main motivation behind Lahren’s followers who run to her defense is because they’ve come to idolize her. In their minds she is infallible. No matter the objection, whether those who properly criticize her are accused by her fans of being hypocrites, sexist, exclusivist, etc., the motivation for said objections are all the same – it’s a smokescreen for the fact that her minions have committed themselves to her, the personality, and not to the principles of conservatism.

Mind you, this isn’t an isolated incident. Rush Limbaugh has his sycophants. Mark Levin has his bootlickers. Sean Hannity has his devotees. The list of conservative talking heads is long but the fact remains, they all enjoy massive popularity because a great number of their followers kneel before their favorite personality’s figurative altar.

Consider just one recent incident which proves the point I’m attempting to make here. After Mark Levin promoted his book The Liberty Amendments, a work in which he attempts to make the case that the only way to curtail corrupt government is to amend the Constitution via a convention of the states, individuals and originalist groups such as the John Birch Society decided to curb the purely emotional enthusiasm for the project by pouring a cold cup of reality over the matter.

The essence of the counterarguments to Levin’s proposals are that there are various clear and present dangers to an Article V, “Convention of the States”, which include:

  • The voters not being familiar with the beliefs and intentions of the state delegates
  • State delegates being co-opted by the corrupt congressional politicians who put the country into the mess it’s currently in
  • The high possibility that the three branches of government will continue to ignore any amendments which are ratified, just like they’ve ignored the Constitution itself
  • The real precariousness that the ratification process will result in a complete eradication of the Constitution, just as the framers did to the Articles of Confederation during the 1787 Constitutional Convention

When questioned about these concerns, Levin countered by launching an ad hominem (personal) rant against the groups. Most of his followers didn’t object to his vilifying statements or the fact that he used the tactic in an attempt to distract from the substantive and well-founded concerns presented by those opposed to the idea.

This incident and the Tomi Lahren episode reminds me an awful lot about the state of Christianity in our country. Since the faith has been misrepresented by many charlatans wishing to make a dollar off it, they themselves have sought to create an aura that constantly surrounds them so as to engender a cult of personality which uses Jesus and His Gospel as a platform and pretext for their popularity.

Suddenly, when the “little flock”, as Christ called faithful Christians, sees said manipulators for what they are and try to warn others, the personalities’ fanatics rush to their defense, blindly defending unrighteous men and the false doctrines they promote instead of siding with the Word of God and God Himself.

These are all microcosms of the biggest issue we’ve mentioned, idolatry. It’s still with us folks, and as I’ve mentioned before, graven images and literal altars need not be present for people to engage in it – even in certain circles where adherents claim not to engage in the practice.

2 thoughts on “The Tomi Lahren Debacle Proves that Many are Followers of Personalities and not Principles

    1. You’ll pardon me, but I don’t know what article you read which leads you to comment in the manner which you did. I substantively argued against Lahren’s assertion early in the article and made mention of her sketchy past (which includes her tweeting that she enjoyed being inebriated and “popping that p”) in order to prove that people must be careful over who they allow to influence their lives. Conversely, your comment attributes to me, personally, ill-intent and doesn’t argue substantively against what I assert. Hence, it doesn’t disprove anything I wrote. Lastly – could it be that you are one of these idolaters I wrote of and are giving her the benefit of the doubt, even though logic and evidence should push a rational person to denounce her for her ideological inconsistency and hypocrisy?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s