Last weekend The N.Y. Times published an opinion piece by Maureen Dowd entitled “Donald Trump’s Insatiable Bloodlust.” The article is rife with references to Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” who, as he became king by killing his predecessor, is used as a symbol of Trump’s criminal lust for power evident in the Jan. 6 “insurrection” through which he was apparently trying to seize control of the government by force. As I have said repeatedly, Trump asked his supporters to demonstrate “lawfully” while also requesting reinforcements for the Capitol police. He was clearly not engaged in what Dowd calls a “raw power grab.” While his belief that the election was stolen from him may be attributed to his massive ego, evidence which people like Dowd would never consider acknowledging suggests that it was. The widespread suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, for example, perpetrated by those of her very own political bias, almost certainly cost Trump victory in 2020. So who, our question becomes, is guilty of a criminal lust for power, Trump or that host of Leftist “journalists” such as Dowd who basically defecated on the Truth to assure that their own guy would win the 2020 election?
A brief aside: A 71 year old woman, Rebecca Lavrenz, has been convicted of taking part in Trump’s “insurrection” and is to learn of her punishment on Aug. 12. Saying she went to the Capitol “to pray for my country,” she left after only 10 minutes, a fact validated by video evidence. Gee, perhaps the next time Trump decides to overthrow the U.S. government, he should be more selective in choosing his “insurgents.”
Maureen Dowd makes much of Trump’s violent rhetoric, citing his frequent references to “blood” in his various speeches. Should he not be re-elected, he has said, there may be a “blood bath” in the auto industry, clearly an indictment of Biden’s economic policies. In a Michigan speech, apparently, he referred to the “blood bath” at the Mexican border, this time indicting the Democrats’ immigration policy which he felt could have dire repercussions. Dowd uses such rhetoric to suggest he is little better than Adolf Hitler in his obvious obsession with violence. The fact that his father was German, she says, is no doubt responsible for his oft expressed opinion that there are people of [her words] “superior blood and inferior blood.” Such a view of the species, she implies, has nothing to do with objective reality but is simply designed “to stir racial hatred.” As evidence, she cites his reference last month to the migrants assailing America’s southern border as “animals,” his exact statement being: “I don’t know if you call them ‘people,’ in some cases. They’re not people, in my opinion.” Now clearly he is referring to the drug dealers, human traffickers and other species of criminals who have been allowed to enter the U. S. undeterred by Biden’s government. The phrase “in some cases” suggests he does not see all Hispanics as “animals.” At the same time his politically incorrect notion of the genetic diversity of the species is in fact validated by History. Paradoxically, of course, this gives no one the right to pre-judge another simply on the basis of their Race. But Trump, apparently, does not do so, as validated by a number of Black associates who insist he has never treated them unfairly. In the same way, gay “conservative” commentator Dave Rubin says he has never sensed the slightest hint of homophobia in his dealings with Trump. Yes, the man frequently expresses himself haughtily and irresponsibly, but his actions as president make Dowd’s references to his Hitler-like bloodlust absolutely outrageous. Moreover, is it possible the anger he exudes is not so much a product of his inherently violent nature as it is a reaction to the stupidity and arrogance which have increasingly come to characterize the contemporary Left?
As cited by The Blaze a couple of days ago, a CNN reporter in Texas recently asked a number of its citizens how they felt about Trump and how they might vote in the upcoming election. He was shocked by their responses. While many of them were clearly not admirers of Trump, they insisted they had no choice but to support him given the sheer absurdity of the economic and immigration policies pursued by Biden over the last 4 years. Gee, is it possible their outrage is the very thing feeding Trump’s anger? Is it possible he is motivated not by some Hitleresque bloodlust but by a simple desire to rescue America from the Neo-Marxist dementia threatening to turn it into a Third World country? Indeed is the Left’s obsession with Trump’s personal flaws not merely a way to avoid rational debate on the many issues seemingly troubling a majority of Americans?
The Irony of Dowd’s insistence that Trump is a monster motivated by hate, is that her article would seem to be dripping with hate. Comparing him to the greatest mass murderer of the 20th Century, for example, is clearly irrational. But such ad hominem attacks, I would suggest, have become commonplace on the Left because most of its initiatives are indefensible on a rational basis. Should I argue that Biden’s border policies basically spell the end of the Nation State, I will be denounced as a Racist. Should I argue that the introduction of the issue of gender ambiguity into a classroom of 10 year olds is insane, I will be denounced as Transphobic. Should I argue that Merit and Achievement have more to do with human outcomes than the Neo-Marxist concept of Oppression, I will be denounced as an ignorant White Supremacist. Such is the dominant stratagem of the contemporary Left. It is why this blog is called “the politics of hate.”
On April 18, The Blaze published a piece by Black conservative Jason Whitlock on the recently released film “Civil War.” A dramatization of the political division presently gripping the States, the film apparently ends with a Black female soldier killing a president who was refusing to leave office. The mainstream media, Whitlock says, is lauding the film as an objective portrayal of the contemporary U.S.. He, on the other hand, sees it as an endorsement of the assassination of Donald Trump. As I have not seen the movie, I can hardly attest to the legitimacy of his interpretation, but imagine the endless ranting of the Left were a “conservative” to make a film featuring the assassination of one who appeared to be a version of Joe Biden.
The irony of Trump’s at times obnoxious personality is that it allows the brain dead Left the luxury of focusing on his personal flaws while taking little responsibility for the often horrid repercussions of many of its policies. The paradoxical upside to Trump is that he’s not going to back down before the endless assault of their hateful denunciations.