Throughout a good part of 2015 and all of ’16, assorted “reporters,” “pundits” and “advisers,” along with the rest of what makes up the professional political class in the Swamp, ceaselessly rattled off their dire warnings to the Republican Party. With the rise of Donald Trump, you are now the “party of racism,” they decreed in lockstep uniformity. “Own it.” The GOP was surely headed for certain and utter destruction. Result: Trump won the election.
Of course, while most of these people would have been happier with a President Hillary Clinton, that isn’t the point; money is. Stirring up outrage over nationalism is a profitable business.
Send in the Clowns
It is now 2019 and exactly nothing has changed. Utilizing his favorite weapon, President Trump tweeted out a blistering attack on four Democratic House radicals dubbed “The Squad.” He even urged Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) to “go back” to Somalia if she truly despised America, as so many of her incendiary comments seem to indicate.
Suddenly, it was 2015 again. “Colbert Scorches Trump Over Racist Tweets: ‘Racism Is Your Brand,'” screamed the headline in Vanity Fair. “I think he’s racist,” muttered Mickey Edwards, former chairman of the American Conservative Union.
Leftist publication The Atlantic ran a hilariously obtuse article that quoted two university “sociolinguists” on the proper definition of racism as it applies to white voters, aka Trump’s perceived voting base. Apparently, progressives are deeply angered whenever the term “racially charged” is used to describe what they see as incidents of racism. (Spoiler alert: They see everything as racism.)
“There’s a long history of white Americans being more afraid to be called racist than to do and say racist things, and taking away the sting is exactly the linguistic function of a euphemism,” Jessi Grieser of the University of Tennessee told the publication. “Racially charged doesn’t hurt people’s feelings, but it’s important to recognize that it’s usually just substituting for racist and generally doesn’t have [a] separate meaning on its own.” Got that? Words are meant to punish, and it’s vital that the proper punishing words be used.
It’s frankly amazing that almost three full years after Trump’s electoral victory all the usual suspects are still running the same grotesquely incompetent game plan against him. Does Vanity Fair really not know at this point that nobody outside of blue urban bubbles gives a single thought to what Stephen Colbert has to say about politics on his nightly network television talk show? Do GOP establishment hacks really believe they have sufficient moral standing with the grassroots ranks to allow them to persuasively condemn overwhelmingly popular party favorite Trump with the dreaded R brand? And how can a progressive outlet like The Atlantic still trot out the weirdest creatures from our culturally Marxist college campuses and truly feel they are convincing ordinary people that they need to accept being labeled as racists rather than the “racially charged” miscreants they would prefer to be let off as?
In the end, it’s all hot air that accomplishes nothing of substance once the 24-hour news cycle moves on to the next insta-made tempest in a teapot. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has drawn Democrat ire for stating the blatantly obvious. “I don’t have any trouble speaking to any of my constituents,” Cornyn said amid the Trump-Omar drama. “They don’t confuse me with what’s happening up here in DC. I know we are consumed by this here, but it doesn’t consume my constituents when I go back home.”
It’s not as if this simple truth wasn’t made crystal clear 1,000 times over during the insanity of the 2016 election. Trump was then accused of racism, sexism, and every other -ism a tenured sociolinguist could think up as the political establishment threw everything, kitchen sink included, at him. All to no avail.
Why Keep Playing a Losing Hand?
One would hope that at some point honest professional pundits and supposedly experienced political watchers would admit, “Hey, I was wrong. I thought the racism accusations were an important issue that would resonate with voters across the country. They do not.” Basic analysis of the presidential election results makes such a conclusion unavoidable. Voters care about the issues that affect their daily lives, such as jobs, the economy and, yes, unchecked massive illegal immigration into their communities and nation. Yet we never hear anything close to such humility by those who got the plot so horribly wrong in 2016. Why is that?
There are two reasons. First, it’s no big secret that these people make their living by stoking controversy. Cries of “racism” dominate our news telecasts and publications because they move product. A paid observer decrying racism today is the hammer salesman of the professional political class. To paraphrase the old saying: When all you have to sell is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.
It’s not just that these high-salaried servants of the political status quo are making money off of anti-racism. More precisely, they are making money off of globalism. These reporters, pundits, and advisers are directly financially tied to a globalist structure that provides them with a very comfortable livelihood. As such, they will not brook any jingoistic rubes thinking the interests of America should come first. That would threaten their money tree. Professional political anti-racism as practiced in the Swamp is primarily anti-nationalism.
Which leads us right into point two. These folks are not incompetent. They are merely acting in bad faith. They are not remotely engaging in a genuine effort to try to convince Trump supporters of the error of their ways. For they see Trump voters themselves as the bad guys.
“Trump’s naked hatred and cruelty was captured on live television, and along with it, so was the seething anger of the hard-core Trump base,” The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent wrote of the Trump rally in North Carolina, at which supporters chanted “send her back” as the president mentioned Omar by name.
Sargent went on to wring his hands in despair over the seeming inability to have a “benign” form of nationalism in the United States that does not quickly descend into a “more malignant, demagogic” form that “fundamentally rejects ideals of civic patriotism in favor of a racialized vision of the nation.”
This is the real end game of what is an otherwise obviously losing racial card being played to death by the political establishment. Even the risk of losing their own professional reputations does not keep these politicos from repeating the stale mantra. For the point must be constantly driven home that any sort of expression of an ideal that places national interest as paramount to American governance will not be allowed to stand in our new global economy. It is Wrong Think and must be bludgeoned with the harshest weapon imaginable. That would be a bloody truncheon stamped with an “R.”