How the Democrats got us here
At some point during the 20th century in America, racism became the biggest sin or at least one of them. This may have occurred during the 1960s, to the best of my recollection. But at any rate it occurred – and the Democrats, who had previously been upholding and institutionalizing racism (especially in the South) managed to pin the “racist” label on the GOP. How that occurred is a long story, but the gist of it can be found here.
Once that was done, by the time Obama campaigned for president he was escalating into what I called “playing the pre-emptive race card” (I describe it in this post, with links there to earlier posts of mine). Obama specialized in accusations of racism against the GOP opposition before any had occurred, and also of redefining all criticism of himself or his policies as racist. That seemed a real turning point to me.
Once it became racist to criticize him in any way, the idea spread that criticizing any black Democrat was racist. Strangely, that “racist” accusation didn’t apply when Democrats criticized black people on the right, because by definition those conservative Republicans were allying themselves with racists and were therefore race traitors and fair game.
Once all of that was established, when the Tea Party movement – which had zero to do with racism – came into being, it was also labeled racist.
As presidential candidate in 2015 Trump was immediately labeled racist , and MAGA hats were considered the equivalents of swastikas soon after. His “rapists” remarks were made a big deal of (see this as well as this), and then of course there was the twisting of his Charlottesville remarks into support for white supremacists. Once it was established that Trump and MAGA were Hitler and the Nazis, it became necessary to oppose everything he did. That opposition immediately established a person as virtuous, and so Democrats moved further and further into disapproving of commonsense popular policies and allowed – just to take one example – cities to burn in 2020, and biological men to play in women’s sports.
With Trump’s second term that dynamic has become even more apparent, if such a thing is possible. Here’s an article about that:
Politics is a game of numbers, and in a democracy, the most effective way to win is to align yourself with the majority. That’s where 80/20 issues come in—those political fights where 80% of Americans agree on one side, while only 20% back the other. The party that stakes out the 80% position secures a commanding political advantage, while the party clinging to the unpopular 20% is left flailing.
For the past decade, Republicans have increasingly found themselves on the winning side of 80/20 issues, while Democrats, blinded by ideological purity and activist pressure, have dug in on losing ground. This dynamic is shaping electoral outcomes, pushing independents toward the GOP, and forcing Democrats into an ever-smaller corner of American political life.
That’s it for the moment, anyway; I will never discount the possibility of its reversing itself through missteps on the right and/or the workings of the huge pro-left propaganda machine that is the MSM.
And periodically, Trump gives them ammunition, at least rhetorically. For example, he did that just the other day with his remarks about deporting “homegrown” criminals to a place like El Salvador. Was he referring to citizens when he used the somewhat ambiguous term “homegrown”? Or was he referring perhaps to non-citizens who were nevertheless raised here, as opposed to recent arrivals? Every article I’ve read about his remarks criticizes them using the assumption that he meant citizens – which, by the way, is an understandable assumption. But what did he actually say?
This is the sort of thing I found, which really doesn’t explain at all. He also says he’ll follow the law and is looking into it:
What’s going on here? Is he joking? Trolling? Serious? Is it about citizens? I haven’t yet seen a clear explanation from the White House, which seems to me to give the left a golden opportunity to criticize him on solid grounds. It seems like an unforced error to me.
He does shoot from the hip and sometimes makes unforced errors thereby. However, all he has to do, if it becomes an issue, is to say that of course US citizens can’t be bundled off to jails in other countries, and that will be that.
He was referring to other people like the subway scofflaws and tesla terrorists other people that libs dont care about there actions
Kate, it won’t be “that”, the left and media (but I repeat myself) will never let it go. On the other hand, as we saw with Charlottesville, if he *had* been more clear they would have just made up a lie.
The Left doesn’t care. They believe they are invulnerable, that THEY are historically and morally right, they actually believe if it came to armed conflict they would win easily
“they actually believe if it came to armed conflict they would win easily” Sennacherib
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure… that just ain’t so.” – Mark Twain
I don’t think there is much point in blaming Trump for the media-inflamed (or increasingly media-invented, since fewer people besides the elderly are paying any attention to legacy media) reaction to anything he says especially off the cuff.
The media has stooped very, very low in misrepresenting his words. For example, they truncated a quote from him on a school shooting into “these things happen.” That level of dishonesty cannot be guarded against by any amount of self-policing one’s words. The next level down is to assemble random words he said into damning sentences, ransom note style.