Opinions differ!

I am not a republican, if that makes any difference. Not a democrat either.

But listening to the loud, obnoxious, overbearing, bloviating, "no one but me gets a chance to talk", "I so smart I'm a media celebrity with nothing on the line" Joe Scarborough rant about what is ruining the Republican party this morning, a thought occurred to me.

A common criticism of party politics these days, especially from the republicans, is that there is really little to any difference between the parties - that, as democrats have moved steadily left, republicans have followed so that they, at best, to their traditional base, are now centrists. They have small differences on some issues and no differences on others.

So, along comes Scarborough, telling everyone that Trump's comments are "ruining the party", thinking he can convince people (that is, party leaders, not rank and file) that a righteous and indignant social justice tirade will solve the issue.

I think the problem is - the one he is not facing - that the base that has supported Trump think that the party has already been ruined by republicans becoming democrat-light and adopting a social justice orientation.

There are at least two views from two different perspectives about what has ruined "the" party:  Scarborough and many of his ilk think that Trump standing his ground, suggesting, in essence, that racism runs both ways, will ruin the party.  The clear message from Trump's base is that the people who insist on that interpretation have already ruined the party.

I can't say either way.  On one hand, in today's namby-pamby world of special little snowflakes, Trump will have a hard time winning a general election with the kind of brutal honesty, bull-headedness, and out of control mouth he has. But let's be clear - the sentiment he expressed was not a new one and the focus on the ethnicity of potential judges has often been identified as a positive for increasing representation in the system.

Indeed, as Pat Buchanan recently noted, "When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?"

PJB added that Sotomayor herself noted in numerous speeches “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life".

It is a clear indication of the double-standard applied by today's social justice movement that the idea of someone serving on the bench using their own experiences, including those that reflect their ethnic background, is a reason to place them on the bench, yet not a possible or legitimate reason to scrutinize their judgments.  Yes, we want them to use their unique perspective to make decisions, but no you cannot notice that their uniqueness might influence their decisions.

On the other hand, anyone-but-Hillary - who is really just as likely to similarly denigrate those she finds unacceptable.