Sexism, Trump, and American Media

Almost everything has been said about that rather boring first presidential debate on Monday. One observation missing: It’s amazing how the progressive-liberal narrative categories have invaded even Republican understanding and vocabulary. Two examples.

During the first presidential debate, the moderator unambiguously presented as racist the “birther” preoccupation, the belief that Mr Barack Hussein Obama was not born in the US. It makes absolutely no sense why this should be considered racist. If a presidential candidate of Polish ancestry with blue eyes etc… had presented himself for years through his literary agent as born in Cracow, there would be those who would doubt aloud his constitutional qualification to be president. Those so inclined would be considered racist? If the answer is “no,” are we facing a situation where any negativity toward a black person is by definition racist? If a black-looking person steals a parking spot from me and I call him an “asshole” that makes me a racist although that’s exactly what I have called several white persons who have done the same to me in the past? Are we drowning in absurdity? Have we collectively lost the ability to recognize simple sense? In the parking case example above, a better case could be made, given my intemperate verbal habits, that not calling the black driver an asshole would be racist.

Second example. At the very end of the debate, when he placed the accent on the fact that Mrs Bill Clinton is the first female candidate nominated by a major party, the moderator qualified as sexist the Trump statement that Mrs Clinton does not have the stamina to be president. Same problem of logic. If Mr Trump had said this of any male opponent it would have been considered legitimate. Making the statement about a female candidate makes the statement automatically sexist. But the statement is sexist only because it concerns a female. It posed the question of whether there exists any negative statement about a female politician that is not sexist? I think the answer is quickly becoming “No!”

The wing of the Democratic Party now on the ascendant is deeply totalitarian. It shows in the small things, as in the two examples above. It knows no dissent that is legitimate when it comes down to it. It’s important to stop them even if we have to take the considerable risks inherent in the Trump candidacy. One sure thing about Donald Trump: He is not coherent enough to become a Mussolini.

6 thoughts on “Sexism, Trump, and American Media

  1. “Are we drowning in absurdity? Have we collectively lost the ability to recognize simple sense?”

    Well, in your case the answer is a resounding yes. I assume that your use of the plural means that you are referring to other cognitively challenged and morally bankrupt Trump supporters. The answer is still yes.

    On a related note do you believe that “Clinton is pure evil, hell-bent on extinguishing what remains of our freedom and prosperity. Fascist dictatorship is her goal, draped in red-white-and-blue bunting.”?

  2. I second the notion that Trump is not coherent enough to become a Mussolini. Hillary does have the coherence, cunning, etc. to pull it off. She would do everything in her power to extinguish what’s left of our freedom and prosperity.

  3. Suppose I told you that last night I looked out my window in Bloomfield, New Jersey and saw several thousand Jews pouring vials of a red fluid into a giant matzoh, eating it, dancing for joy, and exclaiming, “Thus to the gentiles! Let us spill the blood of Jesus once again!” Suppose that I knew that there was a rumor to this effect out there, and I exploited it. Suppose I knew that it would incite anti-Jewish sentiment. Suppose that, confronted with demands for evidence, I simply doubled down over and over with the insistence that we have a Jewish problem in this country, I saw what I saw, unlike others, I tell it like it is, and all those Jew lovers out there really ought to change their tune–indeed, if they come to my events, well, I might have to beat the shit out of a couple to make my point. Pointing out the coincidence of Judaism and Communism, I make the historical judgment that Jews should have been debarred from this country during the Holocaust (as they were) because at least some of those Jew-Skittles might well have sympathized with Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Kamenev, or Rosa Luxemburg (as many did). Yes, that would consign the rest to gas chambers, but so what? They’re Jews, so gas chambers are sort of par for the course for people like them. If we could, we’d even get rid of our Jew-citizens while we’re at it, but we can’t, because doing so would be too illegal to get away with (or so my advisors tell me to say). Not the legality really matters in my universe, since I’ll do anything it takes to get away with anything I want.

    I’ll assume that anti-Semitism is a form of racism. Would you call me an anti-Semite? If so, wouldn’t you have to call me a racist, too? And if I survived your first line of epithets, wouldn’t you be likely to up the ante until something stuck?

    Now suppose that I was a candidate for the presidency. Would it be more imperative to make sure I don’t get into the White House–or would it be more imperative to score rhetoric points for conservatism, criticizing my anti-racist critics for going overboard in their criticisms?

    It is unquestionable that liberals have over-extended the scope of the term “racism,” just as defenders of Israel have done for the scope of the term “anti-Semite” (and in that case, the further on the right they are, the more shameless they tend to be about character assassination with that term). But a commitment to principle requires keeping the whole picture in focus. The problem here is not just liberals going overboard, but conservatives throwing the epithet “anti-Semitism” around with abandon for *decades*, then boo-hooing about the liberals’ over-use of “racist,” then supporting (or half-supporting, or kinda supporting, or supporting-then-retracting-support-from, or making excuses for) a candidate who, if he were a Jew, would court comparison with Streicher. It’s really hard to have any sympathy for them at this point–as hard as it is to take the Fraternal Order of Police seriously when they tell us that they only want to “protect” us while they declare their support for Donald Trump. We live in a sick, infantile country and the rhetoric of the political right is a huge part of our problem.

    Terry is right that Trump’s supporters are cognitively challenged and morally bankrupt. The real loss of sense in this country is how an asshole like Trump can command the support of so many people. I don’t know, but then, I voted for HRC. And mailed my ballot in two days ago. I was a half-hearted Republican until last year. No more.

  4. Re: Would you call me an anti-Semite? If so, wouldn’t you have to call me a racist, too?
    No, and that is the problem, people don’t know what race means any more. I suppose the dumbing down of Americans is what got Obama elected the second time and will get Hillary elected. Donald Trump was not my choice but I sure won’t vote for Clinton, just too much points to her being crooked and avoiding her day in court. Like Trump said, what have we got to lose. And those who ‘fear’ Trump being in the White House are being fearmongers.

    • Lol. Yes, the dumbing down of Americans is proceeding apace. The Republican primaries proved conclusively that at least 14 million Americans are dumb as a bag of rocks.

Please keep it civil

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s