Glenn K. Beaton is a writer and columnist living in Colorado. He has been a contributor to The Wall Street Journal, RealClearPolitics, Powerline, Instapundit, Citizen Free Press, American Thinker, Fox News, The Federalist, and numerous other print, radio and television outlets. His most recent book is "High Attitude — How Woke Liberals Ruined Aspen"
The fascist who gave fascism its name came to an ugly end. Benito Mussolini was impaled on a meat hook and hung upside-down from a lamppost. Fascists don’t tolerate failure.
Democrat leader Charles Schumer is someone I don’t like, and I felt a certain schadenfreude when his Democrat “friends” blamed him for their caving on what has come to be called the “Schumer Shutdown” or, more accurately, the “Schumer Sh*tshow.”
But there’s something disquieting about the barrage of criticism from the left.
The gist of the criticism is that Schumer failed to keep all the Democrat Senators “in line.” In other words, he failed to coerce every Democrat to vote the way he told them to, despite his best efforts at coercion. At coercion, he failed.
Criticizing Schumer for failing at coercion says a lot about the criticizers. It says that they think other Democrats are Schumer’s subordinates, and he is supposed to be able to control their votes.
That sounds vaguely dictatorial to me.
It would come as news to the people of New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Illinois who elected these particular Democrats that the Senators they elected are required to vote not their conscience, and vote not for the interests of the people who elected them, but vote the way an old guy in New York tells them to.
It seems the left wing of the Democrat Party believes that the only acceptable vote for the rank and file is a vote for insanity and radicalism. When the Democrat leader tells his “subordinates” to vote for insanity and radicalism, then, by golly, that’s what they’re required to do, their conscience and their constituents be damned.
The predicament of the Democrat leader is even more precarious. It’s not enough for him to vote insanely and radically. He’s also supposed to succeed in coercing every other Dem into voting insanely and radically. Any failures in his coercion earn him a meat hook and a hanging.
Regardless of what it says on paper, regardless of Senate rules, regardless of the will of the people, the leftists in the Democrat Party have a tyrannical and bloodthirsty grip on the party.
It’s now a truism that the policies of the left are widely viewed as outrageous – at least the cultural ones such as allowing male voyeurs and exhibitionists into girls’ bathrooms, discriminating to benefit favored races and sexual orientations, grabbing the guns held by hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans while simultaneously coddling criminals who will never give up theirs, and abolishing the nation’s borders.
Such issues have earned a name – the “80/20 issues” – because something near 80% of Americans oppose the left on such issues.
That 80% figure would probably be even higher if not for some Democrats whose hearts and minds are on the 80% side but whose instinctive tribalism boxes them into the 20% side just because they (correctly) see the 20% side as part of the formal Democratic Party platform.
Yet, the left seems unable to effectuate a course correction on those outrageous policies disfavored by 80% of the people.
One result is that the Democrats lose elections. Who cares about the nuances of tariffs, an issue on which reasonable persons disagree, when they’re putting boys in drag into your daughter’s bathroom at school, an issue on which reasonable persons do not?
My reaction to the Democrats’ truculence is one word: Good. I hope they stay bound to the losing side of those issues. Because I want them to keep losing elections.
But I’m left wondering: Why? Why is the left so bound to the losing side of issues that cost them elections?
I have a theory.
Recognize that the left is not like you and me. At the core, they aren’t trying to solve problems. Instead, they’re trying to provoke ordinary people. What better way to provoke ordinary people than to put messed-up teenage boys into the bathrooms of those people’s daughters?
But that, in turn, leaves a question: Why does the left want to provoke ordinary people?
Here’s where it gets sinister. They hate America. They really do, you know. Polls consistently show that the hard left feels genuine hate for America. Even mere Democrats – as opposed to hard leftists – often feel something less than love for the nation.
Thus, the left is fundamentally different than the right. On the right, neo-Nazis are loathsome and even mere right-wingers are sometimes not very appealing, but I’ve noticed that most of them do not hate America as a nation and an institution and a culture and a people.
The left’s hatred of America is the reason they seek to provoke Americans. Hatred is the mother of provocation and, ultimately, violence.
Did Hitler really want to own Russia? I doubt it. But he certainly hated Russians. He never did succeed in owning Russia – he never even reached Moscow – but his hatred of Russians succeeded in killing 20 million of them.
Do the leftists really want self-proclaimed teenage transexual peeping Toms in the girls’ bathrooms? I doubt it, but what a great way to express the hatred in their dark hearts for our nation, our culture and our people.
And in their dark minds, they hope that maybe the chaos they wreak by ritually torching age-old cultural norms will destroy that culture.
Imagine how things would have been different for Hitler if, prior to his invasion of Russia, he had demoralized them with boys in the bathrooms of Russian girls, if he had grabbed the guns of the Russian civilians, if he had abolished the Russian border, if he had fueled race wars within Russia.
The hateful left and their naive Democrat enablers are playing the long game of history, not the short game of the next election. In taking the 20% side of these issues – the side of confusion and chaos – the left will certainly lose many battles for elections, but they could well win the war against our civilization.
There’s a Democrat in Texas (yes, really!) who lost a race for senator, and then lost a race for governor. He’s a designated loser.
His name is Robert but he has a nickname. Since he’s proven himself not exactly an Alpha, you might assume his nickname is “Beta.”
Close. It’s “Beto.” Beto has a lot more in common with “Beta” than with “Rambo.”
Beto/Beta attended elite private boarding schools and then Columbia where he took a degree in English Literature. It was probably Shakespeare that taught him not to be.
But Beto/Beta has a strategy to show his toughness and finally rise to leader of the pack. He says the F word. A lot.
When he lost the senate race, he informed his supporters, “I’m so f***ing proud of you!” He and his supporters promptly regrouped and went on to lose the gubernatorial race.
Offering incisive commentary on Donald Trump, he exclaimed, “What the f***?” Significantly, the object of his invective is now President; Beto/Beta is not.
His brave response to a mass shooting was, “This is f***ed up.” Shooters everywhere scurried.
His recent legal argument in opposition to the Texas rules requiring state legislators to, well, legislate rather than flee the jurisdiction, was, “F*** the rules!” The Democrat lawbreaking lawmakers caved yesterday. Beto/Beta fought the rules, and the rules won.
Other Dems have joined the f-fest. New York Senator Charles Schumer, formerly the Senate Majority Leader and one of the most powerful people in D.C., at least on paper, was asked whether the National Guard would be permitted to keep the peace in D.C. beyond just 30 days.
“No f***ing way” was his response. (But Schumer is already checkmated. Crime will be down during this 30-day period. At the end of the 30 days, Dems will then be in the position of saying they want it to go back up.)
Dems always had potty mouths – LBJ cursed like a Texas roughneck – but the election of Trump really unhinged them. They’re angry and frustrated. Turns out that advocating crime, boys in the girls’ bathrooms, racial quotas and open borders didn’t go over as well as they anticipated.
So . . . drop the f-bombs!
A Dem in New York who says he’s a “former journalist” (of course, there’s no such thing as a current journalist – they’re all former ones) has started a campaign to unseat a Republican Congressman with the erudite slogan “Unf*** our country!” That’s typical of journalistic eruditeness these days.
Another “former journalist” Dem running for Congress – this one a woman – declared in a video clip she posted on X that it was time for the Dems to, “Grow a f***cking spine.” How endearing. They even put the F word into their teleprompter speeches
Back when these potty mouths were future former journalists, I’m sure they were very careful never to let their political leanings get in the way of objective reporting. Uh huh.
Another sitting Congresswoman ejaculated on live TV, “Somebody slap me, and wake me the fuck up!” As for her second request, she seems plenty woke already. But I’d be happy to fulfill her first request.
So, why are Democrats spouting the F word as eagerly as fourth graders who just learned it?
Several reasons. First, they’ve always been just a step from the gutter. While conservative intellectuals like William F. Buckley, Milton Freidman and Thomas Sowell were slicing and dicing the Democrats so eloquently they didn’t know they’d been filleted until they saw their guts on the floor, the mob and their molls were infiltrating the JFK White House and the rest of the Democrat machine, from Chicago to Philly to San Francisco.
It’s all about raw physical power. The Democrats’ idea of intellectual debate for two generations has been, “Nice argument you got there, be a shame if something happened to you.”
Second, the Democrats truly are angry. They’ve lost the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures, most governorships, their lunch money, and their cookies. They’ve lost it all to people they hate, and, in their ignorance, despise and disrespect.
When people get angry, they often get profane. It feels good to express anger.
Third, much of the Dem f-bombing is to rally their filthy f***ed up base. They’re making a show of uncontrolled anger – in a controlled, manipulative sort of way.
This manipulative f-bombing does indeed rally the filthy Dem base, but that base is already rallied. They always are. They wouldn’t be filthy f***ed up Democrats if they weren’t on Adderall.
It’s the middle-of-the-roaders that the Dems need to rally. Those middle-of-the-roaders who decide elections are not paying much attention (that’s why they’re middle-of-the-roaders) but they don’t like hearing government would-be leaders shouting words that they would not let their children hear or speak.
So, bring it on, Democrats. See if you can f*** your way back into f***ing control of the f***ing government.
An alternative approach might be to change your language, change your tone and change your policies. Nah, f*** that!
Here’s a thought experiment. First, picture Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and other communist despots of the 20th century. (I could add to that list the head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but I don’t want emails purporting to correct me.)
Now imagine if part of their pitch to the public had been the following:
Men pretending to be women should compete against women in women’s sports, and, after the women lose to the men, they should be forced to shower with them;
People should be judged not on their merit or even their economic class, but on their skin color, and, moreover, those with skin colors who commit murder at 7x the ordinary rate should be judged more favorably;
Gay people should get preferences in admissions and hiring;
We should abolish our national borders;
Boys having adolescence issues should be called “girls” and have their penises cut off; and
Criminal laws are illegitimate.
If Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and the other communists had preached such nonsense, the result would have been fantastic. Because they never would have come to power. And so we would have avoided 100,000,000 deaths caused by communism.
Fast forward to today. In an incredibly lucky twist of fate, would-be socialists and communists calling themselves Democrats over the past two decades did pitch that nonsense.
Enough people paid attention and recognized it as the nonsense that it was, that the Democrats were finally voted out of power.
Yes, there was also the matter of their latest leader and his senility, corruption and incompetence. But in the absence of their culturally woke nonsense, the Democrats/socialists/communists probably would have overcome the drag of their bad leader. They probably would have won the last election, and we’d be well down the road to lethal, ruinous economics.
That’s because socialism polls surprisingly well. Although people understand that men in drag should not beat and shower with women, they understand basic economics less well.
Among young voters especially, there’s a convenient tendency to believe that the reason they aren’t as wealthy as they’d like is because rich people are stealing their money.
Many young people believe this because they’ve never heard of Marx, Lenin, Mao, or Pol Pot, or the destruction and misery they inflicted. That’s no surprise, for their “teachers” are mostly (not all, fortunately) socialists themselves.
Democrats are now at a crossroads. One road is the one they’re on – the road of socialism in combination with woke cultural issues. The other road lets go of the woke cultural issues while continuing the socialism.
It’s common wisdom, at least outside the fever swamps of academia, that the Democrats need to take the road away from woke cultural issues if they want to win elections. To win elections, they should focus on socialism, not rainbows and bathrooms.
I am praying they don’t take that advice. I’m praying they keep losing elections by staying on the road of woke cultural issues in combination with socialism. If they’ll just stay the course, the story of the 21st century might be the 100,000,000 lives that we didn’t lose to communism.
The nature of humans and their relationships is complex and interesting. It involves friendship, hate, cooperation, competition, love, impulse, greed, work, betrayal, family, tribes, envy, sympathy and dozens of other emotions.
Great writers and even bad ones have written billions of words on these powerful feelings, and how they function and dysfunction in groups of humans. Writers keep writing about them and their readers keep reading about them because they strike a chord within us. We witness them in our everyday lives.
Democrats have reduced it all to one thing: class struggle. In this class struggle, everyone is pigeonholed into one of two competing categories: the oppressed and the oppressors. But beware, there are some arbitrary exceptions because there’s something of a hierarchy of oppressors and oppressed.
For example, if your skin color is dark, then you’re oppressed. Unless you’re a dark-skinned Asian who wants to be judged fairly on merit, or a Black man like Martin Luther King, Jr. who wanted to be judged on the content of his character, or a political conservative like Justice Clarence Thomas or Professor Thomas Sowell or Secretary of State Marco Rubio – in which case you’re an oppressor.
If you’re a man who likes to pretend he’s a woman, then you’re oppressed. Unless, like Caitlin Jenner, you object to men pretending to be women competing against women in women’s sports – in which case you’re an oppressor.
If you like to do sexual things with people of your own sex, then you’re oppressed. Unless, like several of President Trump’s appointees, you happen to be politically conservative – in which case you’re an oppressor.
If you’re one of the 51% of humanity who is a woman, then you’re oppressed. (Never mind that you live six years longer than your oppressor.) Unless, like most women, you think men don’t belong in the women’s locker room – in which case you’re an oppressor.
If you haven’t made much money because you’ve chosen to use your time doing things other than working hard at well-paying jobs, then you’re oppressed. Same goes if you’ve made plenty of money but you’ve chosen to spend it all.
Enough about the oppressed. On to their oppressors.
If you’re a white man, you’re an oppressor. (That’s true even in Africa where white men are a distinct minority because . . . reasons.) Unless you’re a white man who chooses to use his time doing things other than working hard at well-paying jobs, and therefore has no money or has spent it all – in which case, as mentioned, you’re oppressed.
If you’re . . . well . . . hmm.
I planned to set forth the other types of oppressors but straight white men are pretty much the only ones. Oh, and Thomas Sowell, Martin Luther King, Jr., Clarence Thomas, and a couple billion Asians.
Credit this oppressor/oppressed view of humanity to Karl Marx, an intellectually feeble straight white man hiding behind a grotesque beard of pseudo-intellectualism. Of the myriad human emotions, he was blind to all but one: envy.
His envy led to his famous formulation for how to run an economy, which I paraphrase:
“From each according to his ability to make things, and to each according to his desire to have them.:
Marx’s formula doesn’t work for obvious reasons that are replayed predictably through the course of history. People who have the ability to make things stop making them if those things are taken away from them, and people who desire those things are never satisfied with what’s given to them if they aren’t required to expend any energy to get them.
Of course, the government can force people who are capable of making things to keep making them, even if they know those things will be taken from them. And that’s what socialist states wind up doing. But then you’re not running an economy, you’re running a slave labor camp. That’s not a sustainable plan.
The Democrats are blind to this logic and this history, perhaps because they want to see themselves as part of the oppressed du jour, to whom, conveniently, the oppressors du jour owe a living, and a good one at that.
Hence the Democrats’ obsession with heroizing losers who are failures in life, from the Rosenbergs to George Floyd to Hunter Biden. For a Democrat, the greatest achievement is to be a failure and therefore a victim, because that means you’re oppressed, and that means you deserve sympathy – along with the material things that your oppressors made and you want.
Give the Democrats some credit. They’re good at the first element of this non sequitur – the element of failure. I would say they’re still working on the other elements, but that would suggest they’re engaged in an activity they’re unwilling to engage in – work.
Until Democrats learn to achieve and celebrate more than just failure – until they learn to walk the walk of complex human emotions and relations – they still have talk. They can still talk the talk of oppressor/oppressed and perpetrators/victims. From such simple talk, they evidently derive great pleasure.
I think Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Faulkner might say . . . yawn. I know I do.
First, there were Marxists. The Marxists got a bad reputation for destroying economies. Seems the approach of taking from people in accordance with their ability to give, and giving to people in accordance with their ability to take, sounded nice but didn’t work well.
So, they rebranded to “communists,” as in community-ists. Everyone likes a community, right?
Same result, this time at the point of a gun. And murdering 100 million people in the “community” didn’t help their reputation.
Then they rebranded to “socialists.” What’s not to like about being social?
The socialists didn’t pack guns, but did pack prison terms for people who refused to pay confiscatory taxes. People liked the prison terms about as much as they liked the point of a gun.
Then they rebranded to “liberals.” That was shrewd, because it co-opted a word that meant the opposite of their Marxist, communist, socialist, censorious, confiscatory, murderous authoritarianism.
It took a while for the people to catch on, but they eventually did. The people came to realize that the “liberals” were anything but liberal in the true sense of that word.
Don’t even get me started on “woke.”
So, they rebranded to “progressives.” Sounds good – who could dislike progress? But it turned out that their idea of “progress” was to turn the clock back to nineteenth century Marxism, etc.
But this time they schemed to buy the votes of the few people who are oppressed – and the many who imagine they are – with “free stuff.” Free money in the form of free no-payback student loans, free health care, free or subsidized solar energy, free maternity/paternity/no-ternity leave, free vacations, free “working” from home, free federal government where the bottom 50% pay only 3% of federal income taxes, and free parking. (OK, that last one is made up.)
It worked no better that time around. Turns out, the “free stuff” was not actually free. It produced a multitrillion-dollar deficit and 9% inflation.
They deflected from the deficit and the inflation by suggesting that their opponents are racist. But people didn’t like being called racist any more than they liked the deficit, the inflation, the pointed guns, the confiscatory taxes, and the 100 million murders.
So, they lost another election. Big time.
Now they’re out of power. No White House, a minority in Congress and state legislatures and governorships, and they’re outnumbered 6-3 on the Supreme Court.
You might think they’d pause and reflect. Marxism/communism/socialism/liberalism/progressivism/free-stuff-that-ain’t-free might not be such a hot recipe for winning elections. Maybe they need a new idea or two?
Nah. Let’s just rebrand the free stuff, they say. Call it “abundance.” It’ll take people years to recognize that there’s no such thing as an abundant lunch any more than there’s such a thing as a free one.
Even then, they can be told that the abundant lunches provided for people who vote “correctly” are paid for by a tax on people who don’t. In other words, there may be no such thing as a free lunch, but there’s such a thing as lunch paid for by other people, and that’s almost as good. In fact, it’s better – because you get to punish the other guy for being more successful than you.
If that doesn’t work, they still have the race card. Maybe.
Tesla electric cars were cool a few years ago. They signaled all the virtue of a Toyota Prius, but without the ugly body shape and C-O-E-X-I-S-T bumper sticker. And they were a lot faster.
Electric vehicle devotees – you probably know some – hailed the immigrant behind Tesla as an engineering genius and good green guy. His immigration to the United States was not illegal, but even that wasn’t held against him. He was the liberals’ favorite African-American since the Hawaiian dude.
That’s all so 2023.
Tesla cars haven’t changed much. They’re still electric, still look better than a Prius, still come without the bumper sticker, still get you 0 to 60 mph in the bat of an eye, and still get you 0 to $7,500 with a lightning-fast tax credit paid for by conservative schmucks driving F150s.
But people didn’t buy Tesla’s for the car, or even the tax credit. They bought them for the cool. Liberals thought or at least believed that they could be cool by saving the planet, while being cool while showing people they were cool, while being cool.
How cool is that?
Ah, but their do-cool lacked due-diligence. Turns out, their darling EV immigrant from Africa is a Republican.
Egad!
And this Republican African-American (call him Uncle Elon) failed to mention his Republicanism when they bought the car.
Liberal buyers just assumed he was one of them. After all, only one of them would sell an overpriced car that might take hours to fill-er-up at electricity filling stations that are spaced wider apart than the car’s range – all for the sake of coolness.
But it turned out that this brilliant entrepreneurial scientist wasn’t one of them at all. Sure, he’d sold them exactly what he promised – a car deemed cool by the enviros – but he himself wasn’t enviro-certified.
By failing to inform his buyers at the point-of-sale that he was not a liberal, Uncle Elon had tricked them.
Liberals were then faced with a choice. Should they save the planet by driving an enviro-car made by a hated Republican, or save their coolness by ditching the car and nurturing their hate for the Republican?
Of course, they chose to save their coolness and nurture their hate. Liberals won’t let the damned planet stand in the way of their coolness and hate.
When it comes to their hate, they won’t even let the law stand in the way. They’re now vandalizing Tesla cars and torching Tesla dealerships.
To my way of thinking, that’s not cool.
There’s a broader point to be made. This Tesla trashing is a microcosm of something bigger. Liberals in general aren’t cool anymore.
Their peak coolness was with that Hawaiian dude. He was destined to stop the rise of the oceans (and he apparently did – they’re barely rising), save the planet, and “fundamentally transform” an America in need of it.
It went downhill from there. Joe Biden is remembered as a lazy, senile, corrupt doofus, stuffing his face with an ice cream cone. He was much worse than that, policy-wise, but you can get away with a lot of bad policy as a Democrat so long as you stay cool (see, Hawaiian dude). Joe didn’t.
Then, the Democrats hopped aboard the tranny train. At first, it seemed kinda cool. It reminded them of scenes they pretended to have participated in, like Woodstock and Selma.
But then the tranny thing got out of hand. There were pre-K tranny story hours, trannies in the girls’ bathrooms, and trannies beating and even crippling girls in sports.
Not cool. Trannies fell out of fashion.
Then, liberals decided to help poor, oppressed Latin Americans yearning to breathe free. All 664 million of them. Their help was in the form of abolishing the southern border to the United States, inviting them in, and giving them drivers licenses and welfare. A good many were criminals – even gang members.
Not cool. Illegal immigrants fell out of fashion.
So, what do you do?
Well, if you’re a liberal, you figure you can recapture your coolness with a few new props. Ditch the Tesla (tell the insurance company it was stolen) and buy a Ford F150. Get one with monster tires and a big chrome grill, and be sure to tailgate the Tesla in front of you.
And if you’re a conservative, well, you don’t want to be caught dead in a F150. Trade it in for a Tesla. You can get a good deal right now. When the monster pickup behind you tailgates and flashes his lights at you, be sure to tap the brakes and give him the one-finger salute.
And the first one now will later be last, for the times, they are a-changin’
It was predicted that the changing demographics of America – specifically, more racial minorities – would deliver permanent control of the government to the Democrats by now.
Instead, over the past few years the Democrats have lost the Presidency, the Senate, the House, a majority of governorships, a majority of state legislatures, and the Supreme Court.
This isn’t just about Donald Trump, though his approval ratings are higher than ever while Joe Biden’s (who?) are lower than ever. It’s broader than that. The approval ratings of Democrats are at historic lows in general, while the approval ratings for Republicans are near all-time highs.
In their rosy predictions of perma-control, here’s what the Democrats got wrong.
Americans don’t vote for their skin color, they don’t vote for their sexuality, they don’t even vote for their financial interests.
What they vote for is America. A Hispanic American does not vote for Hispanic illegals; he votes for America. A gay man does not vote for gays; he votes for America. Black men do not vote for Blacks, or at least less so than before; they vote for America.
Even middle-aged white men don’t vote for middle-aged white men; they, too, vote for America. Democrats used to mock white men in Kansas for being too stupid to “vote their interests.” Which meant that those white men – typically on the low end of the income scale – failed to vote for wealth redistribution that would benefit them personally.
But those men didn’t fail to understand that they personally would benefit from the Democrats’ socialistic wealth redistribution schemes. They understood it perfectly. They simply concluded that it was bad for America even if it might be good for them personally.
Democrats are unable to grasp that. They cannot fathom a person who puts the interests of America above his own personal financial ones – perhaps because those Democrats never would do such a thing themselves.
That’s something unusual and great about America. For all the divisiveness and emotion, we’re still a great melting pot of ethnicities and variations with the common goal of making the country great. People don’t care so much about the color of your skin or where you came from. They care about your ideas, your work, and your love for the country.
Ronald Reagan understood this sentiment, and shared in it. For that matter, so did John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and maybe even Bill Clinton.
Kamala Harris did not. Nor did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden. They thought a presidential campaign was all about assembling and pandering to a hodge podge of people with nothing in common other than grievances against The Man, whom they perceived as their oppressor.
Ironically, the Democrats have continued campaigning against The Man – the establishment – well after they’ve become him. It’s amusing to see leftist professors who comprise 95% of the faculty rebelling against their oppressors – who are presumably the remaining 5% that haven’t yet been purged.
Trump broke the fever. He offered a campaign founded on common sense and plain talk, spiced with an unrelenting calling out of the broke woke.
For that, they hated him. It wasn’t his policies per se, but his independence. He didn’t seek the approval of the establishment powers.
Trump instead spoke truth to that power. I’ll admit that sometimes he exaggerated the truth, to make his point. OK, occasionally he even fibbed.
But the outrage that the powerful expressed at his fibs was faux. They weren’t really outraged that he fibbed to them. He’s a politician, after all. Rather, they were outraged that he refused to bow to them.
Trump not only refused to bow to them; he refused to accept their legitimacy. They had forfeited legitimacy long ago with lies about Russian collusion, burying Hunter’s laptop, hiding Joe’s senility, deleting 30,000 of Hillary’s emails after Congress subpoenaed them, and telling us “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”
It’s one thing to disagree with the establishment. For that, they’ll merely beat you, a la Mitt Romney and John McCain. But if you challenge their legitimacy, they’ll hate and hound you forever because then you threaten their very existence. In Trump’s case, their hatred almost cost him his life.
The Democrats and their establishment cronies are unable to get past this hatred for Trump, and they might never. To use one of their favorite cliches, Trump is an existential threat.
And so, they will double down on mutilating the genitals of boys, trying to promote or pass over people on the basis of their skin color, urging a re-opening of the borders to illegal immigration and lethal drugs, and, as the Democrat leader of the House promised last week “fighting in the streets.”
They long for Antifa and BLM which, to them, were the glory days.
At this point, the Democrats’ policies are not designed to solve problems, but to milk them. They’ve forgotten the substantive bases for their failed policies, if there ever were any. Now, their policies are simply futile, destructive expressions of their raw hate against a person who rejects their mindless dogma, undermines their absolute power, and threatens their establishmentarian existence.
It’s scream therapy.
Expressing one’s anger in a dramatic fashion can be therapeutic, up to a point. But until the Democrats get past their grief, it will continue to cost them elections.
As Kamala continues her fall free-fall, the Democrats fear the worst. They fear that Kamala, like her predecessor and boss, has been found out. And the American people don’t like what they found out.
The people have found out that Kamala has always advocated an open border, is apparently ambivalent (at best) about Israel defending itself, wants taxpayer-funded “gender correction” surgery for male convicts so that women in female prisons can “enjoy” their company, and wants to double the capital gains tax.
In a nutshell, the Democrats fear that Kamala has been found out to be a hard-left socialist. Indeed, she has a voting record to the left of Bernie Sanders.
Hmm, now we know who makes the demands in the Obama household. But I won’t go there.
Of more interest than the Obamas’ personal life is how mail-in voting has dramatically increased the coercive power of demanding people. That’s because mail-in ballots are not necessarily confidential.
In traditional voting, the voting booth is generally a one-person affair. Nobody else – nobody – knows how you voted, unless you tell them (and you could always fib, to preserve the peace). But with mail-in voting, the “demander” of a household can fill out the ballot, demand that the demandee sign it (or simply forge the demandee’s signature), and mail it in.
I won’t accuse Michelle of advocating that sort of fraud. But even short of telling Democrats to engage in fraud, she is certainly telling Democrats to “demand” that people sharing the same household, over whom a demanding Democrat has influence or even raw power, such as a battered spouse or an elderly parent, vote for the Democratic candidate.
If such actions involved a different political party, they could be characterized as a threat to democracy.
Speaking of demands, next up in the shrieks from the left is a left-wing British newspaper called The Guardian which announced in an editorial that “Americans who believe in democracy have no choice but to vote for Harris.” When your foreign guardians say you have “no choice” then I suppose you’d better do what they say.
Another recent headline from this same foreign newspaper informs us that “There’s Nothing Wrong With Foreign Volunteers Working for Harris.” (This one seems to have been buried by The Guardian, but the link can still be found at Real Clear Politics.)
It’s true that there’s nothing illegal about foreign “volunteers” working for the Kamala campaign, and there’s nothing illegal about a leftist foreign newspaper defending that practice. But whether it’s right or wrong is a matter of ethics and American politics. A foreign left-wing newspaper has no standing or moral authority on the subject.
Ah yes, the allegation that Trump is a fascist, a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Stalin, a Pol Pot, a Mao, and a poo-poo breath. Let’s take those in order.
First, “fascism.” That word has lost its meaning, if it ever had one. Today, it’s simply the left engaging in name-calling against the right. One component of “fascism” that people generally agree on, however, is that it entails government control over the economy and censoring speech that is critical of the regime.
Compare the extent to which Joe Biden and Donald Trump, respectively, sought government control over the economy and over people’s free speech in their presidential administrations, and you will realize the extent to which Democrat allegations of Trump’s supposed “fascism” are pure projection.
On to Hitler. Lost or buried by history is that “Nazi” stood for National Socialist German Workers’ Party. It’s doubly ironic that socialist Democrats who want to eradicate the Jewish state of Israel (or let others do the dirty work of eradication) accuse Trump – a stout defender of Israel and a man with close Jewish relatives – of being something like the monster who sought to exterminate the Jews under the flag of . . . socialism.
Mussolini? A two-bit Hitler tag-along who died at the end of a rope wielded by his own people. To the extent he had any political principles, they were as a labor union leader – another leftist.
Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? Weren’t they leftists?
We can’t leave Hillary’s rant without noting her warning that Trump is a “clear and present danger.” Hillary might not recall that this person she warns is a “clear and present danger” has already been the target of at least two assassination attempts by people who viewed him as . . . a clear and present danger. Or maybe she does recall that.
Poo-poo breath? That one, I made up. I’m tempted to admit that Trump is a poo-poo breath, but I’ve actually changed my opinion of him over the years. He seems happy. Moreover, his breath may or may not be good but he’s a breath of fresh air in the fetid fever swamps of Washington DC.
Trump these days seems truly interested in people. Working the frier for hours at McDonalds seemed to make him happy, fun and – dare I say it? – full of Joy.
Maybe the experience of surviving two assassination attempts gives a person that.
I can’t quite imagine Hitler or Pol Pot working the frier at McDonalds and joking around with the customers and staff. For that matter, I can’t imagine that from Kamala – whose similar portrayals are all staged with actors and whose only connection to McDonalds is that she apparently lied about working there.
Then we have Kamala’s putative, putrid boss mumbling “lock him up.” Perhaps on Joe’s mind is the probable prison term to which his son will be sentenced for criminal felonies. The only offense for which he wants to lock up Trump is apparently the “offense” of ousting the Democrats.
Trump has beaten every single one of the Democrat’s lawfare schemes. But the “offense” of ousting the Democrats is one to which he will gladly plead guilty.
The national nightmare of wokeism, DEI, censorship, incompetence, disguised and undisguised socialism, open borders, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris is nearly over. As Ronald Reagan proclaimed, it’s almost morning in America.
A majority of Americans now think that Joe Biden is not up to the job of being president and that his administration is incompetent. But that’s not the worst of it. The worst of it for the Democrats is that they’re now accurately perceived as bullies.
The latest from the Department of (Social) Justice is that they are unleashing the FBI on parents who object to school boards teaching false, woke and politically correct tripe that America was founded on slavery. For opposing this anti-American propaganda that school boards force-feed to our children, the parents are labeled domestic terrorists.
The bland, neutered, omnipotent, unaccountable, establishmentarian, government censors (think of the Ghost Busters’ characterization of the raging pusillanimous bureaucrat, “It’s true, this man has no dick”) undoubtedly imagine that siccing the FBI on defenseless ordinary parents constitutes speaking truth to power, as leftists always do. How courageous of them!
the Aspen beat 