RFK Jr. Isn't Exactly a Political Ally

There is no such thing as a political savior so learn to save yourselves.

One of my favorite quotes from Reagan was his quip that “My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy.” That said, measuring political friendship — or the strength of an ally — does have some sort of measure and should include more than just one issue. Case in point: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Earlier today on Twitter RFKJR trended after a Spaces discussion with Elon Musk and David Sacks, similar to what Florida Governor Ron DeSantis did a couple of weeks ago. I didn’t get to listen live as I was wrapping up production for my radio program so I went back to hear his remarks on gun control:

Presidential contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says that he supports Second Amendment and would not seek a gun confiscation program if elected.

Asked about his stance on gun rights by The Epoch Times, Kennedy, the nephew of President John F. Kennedy, replied, “I support the Constitution that includes the Second Amendment.”

“I’m not going to take anybody’s guns away,” he said. “I think at this point in history all that would do is to increase this toxic polarization.”

Kennedy said that he grew up in rural areas, and thus understands how “integrated” firearms are into the culture of such people.

“It’s existential for those people who live in those areas,” Kennedy said, citing the self-sufficiency required to live far from civilization centers.

“And it’s part of our Constitution, the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court has interpreted it.”

He mentioned psychiatric drugs like SSRIs and how the relationship between these and violence should be studied. Good. He said “I’m not going to take away anybody’s guns. I’m a constitutional maximalist and the issue has been settled by the Supreme Court” — but then also said “The only way we’re going to get gun controls in this country is through consensus and that consensus cannot happen when we’re all at each other’s throats.” Bad.

The issue here is that consensus doesn’t determine the extent to which we’re allowed to exercise our natural rights. It’s weird for him to say he’s a “constitutional maximalist” — up to the point of consensus. These are two irreconcilable statements.

Also bad is this now-scrubbed tweet:

or this, which is still up:

His clarification on the above isn’t the only thing I’d be interested in hearing; he once called for industries like Koch and Exxon to be put to “corporate death;” claimed global warming deniers were traitors and that they and coal companies “should be in jail for all of eternity;” and literally wrote an article titled “Jailing Climate Deniers” that’s since been memory-holed; this is just within the past ten years. I’m not even touching the denial of the 2004 election results.

Some argue that he’s changed since then and he should be given grace. I sincerely hope he is changing or has changed. That’s all well and good — were he not running for public office. I'm always pro people changing their minds to likeminded positions -- but without clarification and acknowledgement of their previous position, it’s meaningless. No one gets a pass from explaining to the voting public whether or not they’ve changed their views and why. Voters are owed this.

Instead of downplaying these concerns or viciously berating those who raise them on social media, his supporters should encourage him to speak concisely and clearly to clean up any confusion. Not everyone with questions has ill intent and it’s irrational to assume so.

Some on the right treat him as the latest potential savior, the fabled candidate who can convince enough on both sides and the middle to vote for him. This candidate doesn’t exist and never will exist. The left has moved so far left they can’t identify women anymore, the right is a combo of just wanting to buy products without rainbows on it and new natcons who think history began the day they were born. The middle is a vast wasteland of cynical, shell-shocked voters who are more likely to vote for whomever first promises to not run another campaign ad.

RFKJR agrees with folks on the virus vax and opposes Big Pharma. He makes very good points there. However, that doesn’t make him an ally and it definitely doesn’t satisfy concerns about other issues or things he’s said. Compared to the crazier members of his party he looks more attractive to independents and right-leaning voters but merely withdrawing to an earlier version of progressivism doesn’t solve the issue, it just buys some time.

RFKJR is still a Democrat and supports many of their issues. If hell froze over and he were the Democrat nominee and if hell thawed, froze over again and he won the presidency he’d still be a Democrat representing Democrats, strategizing with Democrats, doing the bidding of Democrats. You don’t change the soul of a party by merely replacing the head of it, this is politics 101. You are not walking back decades of hardcore leftism-to-communism with one guy and one election.

As I’ve said for the last ten years, this is a generational fight. Teaching your kids how to resist and defeat cultural Marxism.

A politician will never fight as hard for your family as you will yourself.