In this post (here), we pointed out that the buffoonish behavior exhibited by Donald Trump is nothing more than the very same behavior exhibited by the Democrat Party — leadership and candidates — for many years. For decades, in fact.
We presented this joke that we’d formulated ourselves:
Question: What’s the difference between Trump and President Obama?
Answer: One is an egomaniacal, power-hungry buffoon, with no regard for the Constitution whatsoever, who says and does outrageous, stupid, incendiary and irresponsible things, then amazingly, despite doing all that in everyone’s face, gets clean away with it… while the other is the leading Republican candidate for the Presidency.
We could have re-phrased that as:
Question: What’s the difference between Trump and the Democrat Party leadership?
…with a similar answer.
We also posed the question:
Have we on the right become so desensitized to the lies and slanders of the American left, that we become horrified only when a Republican does it?
In these very pages, since its inception, we’ve been telling Republicans to take off the gloves. And Trump has. Here’s the problem: when the Democrats took off the gloves permanently decades ago, from then on they said only really stupid things; stupid things that the media took as surpassing wisdom.
Same thing, though, with Trump.
What we have to do is take off the gloves too, and keep our discourse elevated and intelligent. The good news: that isn’t particularly difficult. It’s not as if the Democrats have set the bar all that high, after all.
An example: Bernie Sanders says one of the ridiculous things he always says, something like: “The reason we have so many problems in America is that the billionaire class keeps taking from hard-working poor and middle-class Americans.“
Our response should be, immediately, something like this: “Bernie Sanders is a socialist. No one should mistake him for someone who can speak intelligently about economics.”
Then, we should turn that retort into a television commercial. Then we should find a way to put it on a yard sign. Then we should put it on billboards in prominent locations around the country. Then we should send people all over talk shows saying the same thing. And so on.
We should be able to mount hard-hitting operations like that on a dime. That example was for Bernie Sanders, but he’s an easy target. Or he would be one, if we’d just take off the gloves.
Hillary’s even easier.
How about the same kind of operation, in which we get billboards, commercials, talk show talking points, yard signs, bumper stickers and the like all saying things like: “What in the world are they waiting for? A Republican would have been indicted long ago.” (With a big picture of Hillary on it. Maybe in silhouette so that it’s obviously not a pro-Hill billboard.)
Carly Fiorina — hooray for her! — went there in the recent debate. She said “Hillary shouldn’t be in the White House, she should be in the Big House.”
There’re a bumper stickers, yard signs, bullet points in interviews and the whole nine yards in that. How about: “Hillary exposed scores of our national secrets to any two-bit hacker in the world who wanted ’em. Guess who wanted ’em. Russia, China, ISIS, North Korea — you know the people who’ve been hacking into our super-secret installations of ours for years? Like: the Defense Department and the Pentagon. Yeah them. Do you think they could have made it into an unsecured server that the Secretary of State of the United States had? No need to answer that. We all know they did. Hillary Clinton thinks that now we should entrust her with the Presidency! Is she nuts?!? Is she totally out of her mind?!?“(1)
No bumper stickers or yard signs in all that (see the analysis of the passage, below), but certainly campaign commercials, and interview points, as well as press releases, and all manner of official communications from top Republican officials.
Here’s a yard sign, though: “Hillary gave our enemies our most important national secrets. Do you really think she should be the President?”
The point: We can take off the gloves and keep our discourse elevated way above that of the Democrats. Remember: they’re essentially reduced to “You’re a racist!” Or a sexist, or homophobe, or islamophobe, or transphobic, or xenophobic, or a thisophobe or a thatophobe.
They, the Democrats, do name-calling really well. That’s about all they do really well in debate. We do substantive. We can also do punchy, pithy, trenchant, no-holds-barred, and … gloves off!(2)
(1) This last loaded passage does all the following things:
- “Hillary exposed scores of national secrets to any two-bit hacker in the world who wanted ’em. ” — Makes the allegation that we will prove later in the passage
- “Guess who wanted ’em. Russia, China, ISIS, North Korea — you know the people who’ve been hacking into our super-secret installations of ours for years? Like: the Defense Department and the Pentagon.” — Tells, by implications, the repercussions of Hillary’s irresponsibility.
- “Do you think they could have made it into an unsecured server that the Secretary of State of the United States had?” — Teams up with the previous sentence to argue conclusively that real harm was done by Hillary’s irresponsibility.
- “No need to answer that. We all know they did.” — Reiterates the conclusion that real harm was done.
- “Hillary Clinton thinks that now we should entrust her with the Presidency!” — Suggests to all several things: (1) that we should not entrust Hillary with the Presidency, (2) suggests by implication the further harm that could come from a Hillary Presidency.
- “Is she nuts?!? Is she totally out of her mind?!?” Suggests, by iteration, then by reiteration, that we’d be nuts to allow her to be the President.
(2) If we do that, we’ll still be a whole heckuva lot nicer than the Democrats. One of our big problems on the right is that we’re constantly concerned with not being as down and dirty, as crappy as the left, with being nicer. When they, the Democrats, do it, they’re vicious. We can punch harder, and smarter, and more effectively, and still be nicer.