Skip to content

Month: March 2016

The quality of mercy by @BloggersRUs

The quality of mercy
by Tom Sullivan


King Midas with his daughter – Walter Crane
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

David Atkins comments on a piece from the National Review that displays the nihilist greed of the Midas Cult in the ghastliest terms I have yet seen. Atkins writes:

The establishment Republican ideology prioritizes capital above all else. For them, the market does not exist to serve people: people exist to serve the market. Unregulated capitalism can never fail; it can only be failed by those too lazy, useless and unproductive to serve and profit by it. It is a totalizing ideology as impractical as state communism but lacking the silver lining of its species-being idealism; as impervious to reason as any cult religion, but lacking the promise of community, salvation or utopia; as brutal as any dictatorship, but without the advantage of order and security. Worst of all, it blames its victims for its failure to provide solutions to their needs.

Too strong, you think? Consider this excerpt from the NRO piece in which Kevin Williamson condemns Trump’s supporters as apostates from the one, true faith — his (emphasis mine):

It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn’t. … They failed themselves.

If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy—which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog—you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that.

[…]

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible … The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.

Or else curl up and die, as Jesus taught. As Darwin’s theory demands. As the U-Haul-less Lower Ninth Ward died. This guy makes Scrooge look like Mr. Rogers. What do you bet there are more like him where he came from? And movement conservatives wonder why working-class white communities don’t want to vote for establishment Republicans.

The poor Williamson loathes are abusing medications not because the economy failed them, no, but because they failed the economy. Because they failed as Übermenschen. Repurposing their fraught communities is immoral to men with minds like spreadsheets and lumps of gold where hearts should be, the kind who poisoned Flint to balance a ledger, for whom a man’s worth is judged by his “net,” and the quality of mercy, if it cannot be measured in dollars, has none.

No wonder the white working class is flocking to Trump and shunning their Republican “betters.” Trump’s is a cult of personality, a salve to his insecurity which is, to be sure, yuuuge. His promises may be empty, but at least they are not open contempt. Whereas the Midas Cult serves up golden showers for underclassmen found wanting during rush week.

Your least surprising statistic of the week

Your least surprising statistic of the week

by digby

Gosh it sure does seem like Trump’s supporters are all drawn to him for a specific reason. I wonder what it is?



Jamelle Bouie has an important insight into this issue in this excellent piece at Slate:

For some on the left, Trump is the result of decades of divisive politics—the inevitable outcome of a Republican political strategy that stoked white racial resentment to win elections. “Trump’s campaign can best be understood not as an outlier but as the latest manifestation of the Southern Strategy, which the Republican Party has deployed for a half-century to shore up its support in the old Confederate states by appeals to racial resentment and white solidarity,” writes Jeet Heer in the New Republic.

For some on the right, Trump is the grassroots response to Republican elites who have abandoned their working-class voters to the whims of laissez-faire capitalism. “[T]he Republican Party, and the conservative movement, offer next to nothing to working-class Trump supporters,” writes Michael Brendan Dougherty in the Week. “There are no obvious conservative policies that will generate the sort of growth needed to raise the standard of living for these working-class voters.”

He goes on to point out that both of these issues have been present for decades and asks a more salient question: why now?

What caused this fire to burn out of control? The answer, I think, is Barack Obama.

There have been some conservative writers who have tried to hang Trump’s success on the current president, pointing to his putatively extreme positions. But in most respects, Obama is a conventional politician—well within the center-left of the Democratic Party. Or at least, he’s governed in that mode, with an agenda that sits safely in the mainstream. Laws like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act weren’t impositions from the far left; they were built out of proposals from the right and left, passed by a majority of Congress that was elected to pursue solutions on health care and the economy. Barack Obama is many things, but conservative rhetoric aside, he’s no radical.

We can’t say the same for Obama as a political symbol, however. In a nation shaped and defined by a rigid racial hierarchy, his election was very much a radical event, in which a man from one of the nation’s lowest castes ascended to the summit of its political landscape. And he did so with heavy support from minorities: Asian Americans and Latinos were an important part of Obama’s coalition, and black Americans turned out at their highest numbers ever in 2008.

For millions of white Americans who weren’t attuned to growing diversity and cosmopolitanism, however, Obama was a shock, a figure who appeared out of nowhere to dominate the country’s political life. And with talk of an “emerging Democratic majority,” he presaged a time when their votes—which had elected George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan—would no longer matter. More than simply “change,” Obama’s election felt like an inversion. When coupled with the broad decline in incomes and living standards caused by the Great Recession, it seemed to signal the end of a hierarchy that had always placed white Americans at the top, delivering status even when it couldn’t give material benefits.

In a 2011 paper, Robin DiAngelo—a professor of multicultural education at Westfield State University—described a phenomenon she called “white fragility.” “White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves,” she writes. “These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.”

DiAngelo was describing private behavior in the context of workplace diversity training, but her diagnosis holds insight for politics. You can read the rise of Obama and the projected future of a majority nonwhite America as a racial stress that produced a reaction from a number of white Americans—and forced them into a defensive crouch. You can see the maneuvering DiAngelo describes in the persistent belief that Obama is a Muslim—as recently as last fall, 29 percent of Americans held this view, against all evidence. It is a way to mark Obama as “other” in a society where explicit anti-black prejudice is publicly unacceptable. Consistent with this racialized fear and anxiety is the degree to which white Americans now see “reverse discrimination” as a serious problem in national life. For its American Values Survey, the Public Religion Research Institute asks respondents whether “discrimination against whites is a significant problem.” In last year’s survey, 43 percent of Americans—including 60 percent of working-class whites—said discrimination against whites had become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.

The one-two punch of the great recession combined with the first black president was just too much for these fragile folks. It’s the combination that knocked them for a loop. But I’m snot convinced that simply “helping” them economically will ever calm them.

I think Bouie is on to something important here. We know that the hostility to Obama is visceral and somewhat overwhelming for these folks. The dystopian America these people inhabit isn’t just a place where they have lost jobs and lost their grip on the middle class. They have, but it’s been going on for a long time and they had no problem voting for orthodox conservatives who dogwhistled to their prejudices while feeding them nonsense about corporate tax rates and “tort reform” as if that had any meaning to their lives. No, the straw that broke the camel’s back was that as the shit hit the fan in 2007, this country voted in a black president as if to spite them. The signature achievement they despise is even named after him. And here comes Trump, timed perfectly, the birther in chief who speaks to their fear and loathing in vivid, primal terms.

Bouie goes to great lengths to acknowledge the legitimacy of these voters’ economic grievances. In some places they are quite severe. And with all that comes many of the “pathologies” that many white used to believe were only present in minority communities. (They were always present in white communities as well, but the belief that racial superiority prevented such things from becoming widespread is no longer operative. The heroin epidemic is a good example of how such things are inescapable these days in poor white communities.

And he also acknowledges the argument some have made that Obama was too liberal in his policies, creating a backlash that wouldn’t have happened if he’d have been more moderate. (I would argue that the inability of them to take Obama up on his offer to cut spending in exchange for taxes on the rich rebuts that contention.)

Bouie says:

But this analysis ignores the extent to which Trump reflects specific choices by Republican and conservative elites. From indulging anti-Obama conspiracy theories to attacking him as an enemy of the United States, conservatives chose to nurture resentment and anxiety and distill it into something potent. You can draw a direct line to the rise of Trump from the racial hysteria of talk radio—where figures like Rush Limbaugh, a Trump booster, warned that Obama would turn the world upside down. “The days of [minorities] not having any power are over and they are angry,” said Limbaugh to his audience. “They want to use their power as a means of retribution.”

It also ignores the degree to which these voters likely would have found this hypothetical partnership inimical to their conception of their interests. Even if Obama had reached out, they would be mere partners in a larger coalition, when what they want is to be its driving force. Trump speaks to that desire, signaling—in ways subtle and otherwise—that he plans to “Make America Great Again” by making the white American worker the center of his universe.

He’s promised to deport millions of Hispanics and some number of Syrian refugees who are already here, ban Muslims from entering the country and return to some old-fashioned notion of “law and order” which is very evident in his defense of violence against Black lives Matter protesters and others.

I have said it more directly than Bouie does: He promises to make America white again.

Bouie doesn’t think Trumpism, if not Trump himself, is going away any time soon. I think he’s right.

Read the whole essay here.  I only touched the surface.

.

Trump’s revenge

Trump’s revenge

by digby

The level of hatred Trump feels for President Obama can’t be overstated. In that he’s not much different than his followers but in his case it’s personal. This story in the New York Times by Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns exposes how Obama’s humiliation of him at the White House Correspondence dinner propelled him to mount a serious campaign for president:

Donald J. Trump arrived at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in April 2011, reveling in the moment as he mingled with the political luminaries who gathered at the Washington Hilton. He made his way to his seat beside his host, Lally Weymouth, the journalist and socialite daughter of Katharine Graham, longtime publisher of The Washington Post.

A short while later, the humiliation started.

The annual dinner features a lighthearted speech from the president; that year, President Obama chose Mr. Trump, then flirting with his own presidential bid, as a punch line.

He lampooned Mr. Trump’s gaudy taste in décor. He ridiculed his fixation on false rumors that the president had been born in Kenya. He belittled his reality show, “The Celebrity Apprentice.”

Mr. Trump at first offered a drawn smile, then a game wave of the hand. But as the president’s mocking of him continued and people at other tables craned their necks to gauge his reaction, Mr. Trump hunched forward with a frozen grimace.

After the dinner ended, Mr. Trump quickly left, appearing bruised. He was “incredibly gracious and engaged on the way in,” recalled Marcus Brauchli, then the executive editor of The Washington Post, but departed “with maximum efficiency.”

That evening of public abasement, rather than sending Mr. Trump away, accelerated his ferocious efforts to gain stature within the political world. And it captured the degree to which Mr. Trump’s campaign is driven by a deep yearning sometimes obscured by his bluster and bragging: a desire to be taken seriously.

That desire has played out over the last several years within a Republican Party that placated and indulged him, and accepted his money and support, seemingly not grasping how fervently determined he was to become a major force in American politics. In the process, the party bestowed upon Mr. Trump the kind of legitimacy that he craved, which has helped him pursue a credible bid for the presidency.

“Everybody has a little regret there, and everybody read it wrong,” said David Keene, a former chairman of the American Conservative Union, an activist group Mr. Trump cultivated. Of Mr. Trump’s rise, Mr. Keene said, “It’s almost comical, except it’s liable to end up with him as the nominee.”

Repeatedly underestimated as a court jester or silly showman, Mr. Trump muscled his way into the Republican elite by force of will. He badgered a skittish Mitt Romney into accepting his endorsement on national television, and became a celebrity fixture at conservative gatherings. He abandoned his tightfisted inclinations and cut five- and six-figure checks in a bid for clout as a political donor. He courted conservative media leaders as deftly as he had the New York tabloids.

At every stage, members of the Republican establishment wagered that they could go along with Mr. Trump just enough to keep him quiet or make him go away. But what party leaders viewed as generous ceremonial gestures or ego stroking of Mr. Trump — speaking spots at gatherings, meetings with prospective candidates and appearances alongside Republican heavyweights — he used to elevate his position and, eventually, to establish himself as a formidable figure for 2016.

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he had encountered many who doubted or dismissed him before now. “I realized that unless I actually ran, I wouldn’t be taken seriously,” he said. But he denied having been troubled by Mr. Obama’s derision.

“I loved that dinner,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “I can handle criticism.”

Read on to see, step by step, how he got himself taken seriously. And then it was too late.

.

The nasty Huckabee to the rescue

The nasty Huckabee to the rescue



by digby

He and Trump are made for each other. He’s got exactly the right kind of nasty, wingnut populist vibe to work really well with Trump. His phony religiosity, as exemplified by his embrace of the psychopathic Ted Nugent perfectly reflects Trump’s “evangelical” supporters. He’s definitely VP material.

There’s goes that vicious sense of humor everybody loves so much.  I’ll bet members of the press laughed out loud over that one.

More from Huffington Post:

Asked during a brief interview whether he shared the concerns of Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) that Trump had created a “toxic environment” by frequently imploring his supporters to respond violently to protesters, Huckabee scoffed.

“No, I think it’s ridiculous to blame Trump for a bunch of thugs out on the street– people coming in and trying to shut down somebody else’s speech,” Huckabee told The Huffington Post. “If they don’t like Donald Trump, vote for somebody else, and don’t show up. And leave the place with empty seats. But to try to shut someone down, that’s not how America works.”

Huckabee’s use of the word “thugs” to describe the Chicago protesters echoed Trump’s own language. “The organized group of people, many of them thugs, who shut down our First Amendment Rights in Chicago, have totally energized America!” the real estate mogul said in a Twitter post.

Threats and promises

Threats and promises

by digby

Via TPM:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Sunday that he has instructed his team to look into paying the legal fees of the man who sucker punched a black protester.
Trump said he doesn’t condone violence. 

“But I want to see. The man got carried away, he was 78 years old, he obviously loves his country, and maybe he doesn’t like seeing what’s happening to the country,” Trump said. 

NBC “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd asked him to clarify if that meant he would pay for the legal fees.

“Well, I’m going to look at it. I’m going to see, you know, what was behind this because it was a strange event,” Trump said. “I’ve actually instructed my people to look into it, yes.”

He’s basically saying two things.  He’s instructing his angry minions to start disrupting Bernie Sanders’ (and one assumes Hillary Clinton’s) rallies. And he’s promising to back them up if they get into legal trouble.

A man known as “The Donald”:

Mr. Trump attended the New York Military Academy after years of rowdy and rebellious behavior at Kew-Forest, a more traditional prep school in Queens. Mr. Trump once recalled giving a teacher at Kew-Forest a black eye “because I didn’t think he knew anything about music.”

A man known as “Il Duce”:

Born on July 29, 1883, Mussolini gained a reputation for bullying and fighting during his childhood. At age 10 he was expelled from a religious boarding school for stabbing a classmate in the hand, and another stabbing incident took place at his next school.

It doesn’t prove anything, of course. But still … 


This is sort of interesting too:

With Italy’s leading non-fascist politicians hopelessly divided and with the threat of violence in the air, on October 29 the king offered Mussolini the chance to form a coalition government. But although the premiership was now his, Il Duce—a master of propaganda who claimed the backing of 300,000 fascist militiamen when the real number was probably far lower—wanted to make a show of force. As a result, he joined armed supporters who flooded the streets of Rome the following day. Mussolini would later mythologize the March on Rome’s importance.

After becoming prime minister, Mussolini reduced the influence of the judiciary, muzzled a free press, arrested political opponents, continued condoning fascist squad violence and otherwise consolidated his hold on power. However, he continued working within the parliamentary system at least somewhat until January 1925, when he declared himself dictator of Italy. Following a series of assassination attempts in 1925 and 1926, Mussolini tightened his grip even further, banning opposition parties, kicking out over 100 members of parliament, reinstating the death penalty for political crimes, ramping up secret police activities and abolishing local elections.

I believe he also said that he was going to make the country great again …

.

Unleashing the Furies by @BloggersRUs

Unleashing the Furies
by Tom Sullivan


Orestes Pursued by the Furies by William-Adolphe Bouguereau
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

A quick summary of pre-bobblehead reaction to this weekend’s developments.

If after the protests and violence at Donald Trump rallies over the weekend you wonder where this presidential campaign is heading, you are not alone. Dan Balz at the Washington Post wonders if Campaign 2016 isn’t on “a downward and dangerous descent.” Trump’s rivals are wondering the same thing. Asked whether he would support the eventual Republican nominee for president, Sen. Marco Rubio said “it’s getting harder every day.” Politico reports:

Both the Florida senator and Ohio governor, fighting to avoid campaign-ending losses to Trump in their home states on Tuesday, blamed him for fostering a climate at his campaign events that enables violence. That climate, Rubio said, has the country “careening toward chaos and anarchy.”
“We settle our differences in this country at the ballot box, not with guns or bayonets or violence,” Rubio told reporters.

“You wonder if we’re headed in a different direction today where we’re no longer capable of having differences of opinion but in fact now protests become a license to take up violence and take on your opponents physically,” he said. “This is what happens when a leading presidential candidate goes around feeding into a narrative of bitterness and anger and frustration.”

Trump clearly enjoys feeding the animus among his supporters. But those on the left determined to earn their merit badges in protest at Trump rallies simply make themselves live targets. Seriously, protest Trump events outside if you must. Attempt to disrupt the events themselves and you invite escalation and give Trumpists license to retaliate by disrupting yours. Why is that so hard to comprehend? But I digress.*

Cory Robin believes the right has even more to fear from Trump than impotent resistance from the left. This is perhaps what Rubio and friends really fear:

Trump hasn’t dared touch a lot of the orthodoxy of the right, including its penchant for tax cuts, which is the keystone of the conservative counterrevolution, as everyone from Howard Jarvis to George W. Bush understood. But without the fear of the left—listening to the Republican debates, you’d never know the candidates were even concerned about their opposition, so focused is their fratricidal gaze—Trump is free to indulge the more luxurious hostilities of the right.

And this, in the end, may be why Trump is so dangerous. Without the left, no one has any idea when his animus will take flight and where it will land. While counterrevolutionaries have always made established elites nervous, those elites could be assured that the wild Quixotism of a Burke or a Pat Buchanan would serve their cause. As today’s Republicans and their allies in the media have made clear, they have no idea if Trump won’t turn on them, too. Like Joe McCarthy in his senescence, Trump might try to gut the GOP. At least McCarthy had a real left to battle; Trump doesn’t.

Jelani Cobb distills Trump’s movement succinctly for the New Yorker:

Polls conducted during the Obama era have consistently shown that large pluralities of whites believe that they, not blacks, Latinos, or Asian-Americans, are the primary victims of racism in contemporary America. Donald Trump built his reputation as a real-estate developer, but he is primarily a salesman, and it did not take a great deal of market research to know that there was a pool of eager consumers for the product he’s been offering the public for the past eight months. His is not the conservatism of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater, it’s the conservatism of another Queens-born mouthpiece of white grievance, Archie Bunker. Trump is, in a very real sense, presiding over a White Lives Matter movement.

British novelist Matt Haig’s viral Facebook post explains that whether Trump wins the Republican nomination and/or the presidency, he has already unleashed the Furies:

Obvioulsy it would be worse if he became president but even if he didn’t, he’s already done damage. Not just in America but across the world. He has allowed the international league of closet racists to step out of their little wardrobes of hate. He has legitimised ignorance. He has shown that if the world watches The Apprentice for too long instead of reading books it slowly loses empathy and the power of critical thought. He has taken the legitimate torrents of anger of poor white people and managed to channel it downstream to the even more marginalised, rather than up river where it belongs. This new Emperor Nero, who makes Saddam Hussein’s taste in interior design look understated, has shown how you really can’t underestimate an electorate. He, with his vulgar Vegas towers and his golf courses and his shrugged-off hypocrisy, has shown the west that mad rulers don’t just belong in totalitarian regimes. They can belong in the west. Because democracy means little when it becomes another reality TV show.

But the most acerbic take comes from Matt Taibbi’s response to Trump’s fawning endorsements from “swollen-headed, oxygen-deprived has-beens” to “assorted freaks and weirdos from the political margins,” and lately from political rivals-turned lapdogs:

Trump’s ignorance is monstrous, but it’s nothing compared to that of his supporters, who apparently take “we don’t know who is who” to mean that ISIS could be just about anyone not wearing a NASCAR uniform. This is like the Red Scare all over again, only dumber and more racist. We’re like a week away from seeing Trumpshirts in Texas or Alabama gang-tackle a college student for eating tabouleh.

[…]

The way you build a truly vicious nationalist movement is to wed a relatively small core of belligerent idiots to a much larger group of opportunists and spineless fellow travelers whose primary function is to turn a blind eye to things. We may not have that many outright Nazis in America, but we have plenty of cowards and bootlickers, and once those fleshy dominoes start tumbling into the Trump camp, the game is up.

It is now 9 a.m. EDT and time for the bobbleheaded wise ones to explain it all to us in dulcet tones. Did we really move the clocks forward? It feels like backward.

* Update: As I said …

MoMA and dada by Dennis Hartley: “The Theory of Obscurity”

Saturday Night at the Movies


MoMA and dada: The Theory of Obscurity ***





By Dennis Hartley















I once unintentionally attended a Residents gig, at a club in San Francisco, circa 1980. Technically, they weren’t really there. They were “appearing” via (mesmerizingly weird) videos. The videos were being looped, concurrently on several monitors, in a small room isolated from the mainstage. This presentation functioned as a sort of passive “supporting band” for the act I was there to see, Snakefinger. Then again, as defined in a documentary called The Theory of Obscurity: a film about The Residents (and by the artists themselves) they’re not a “band”…so much as they are an ongoing art installation. So in that context, I’ll state unequivocally that I saw The Residents (you had to be there, man!).



“The Residents Ultimate Box Set” (Museum of Modern Art)
















Director Don Hardy Jr. has taken on the unenviable task of profiling a band who have not only refused to reveal their faces in any billed public appearances over a 40-year career, but continue to this day to willfully obfuscate their backstory (and the fact that publicity is handled through their self-managed “Cryptic Corporation” puts the kibosh on any hopes of discovery). As I inferred earlier, can you even call them a “band” with a straight face? Or are they more of an “art collective”? Or are they just elaborate pranksters? One thing that does become clear as you watch the film, is they are all of the above, and more.



Attempting to describe their music almost begs its own thesis-length dissertation; it’s best understood by simply sampling it yourself. Just don’t expect anything conventional. Or consistent; they are experimental in every sense of the word. Considering that they have over sixty albums to their credit, Hardy obviously can’t annotate their full discography in a 90-minute film, but he does spotlight some of their more seminal efforts, like The Third Reich’n’Roll (best album title ever) and the ironically entitled Commercial Album (40 delightfully dada 1-minute songs, which the band actually rotated as a 60 second spot flight on San Francisco Top 40 station KFRC in 1980…talk about a meta ad campaign!).



On a purely conceptual level (as pointed out in the film) The Residents could be seen as the antithesis of the Kardashians; whereas the latter are the poster children for those who are “famous for being famous”, the former are “famous” for shunning (and mocking) the Cult of Celebrity at every turn. Yet (paradoxically) they are lauded as innovative multimedia artists (Hardy shows how serendipity led these “failed filmmakers” into becoming a band, who then by necessity stumbled into becoming music video pioneers).



The Residents have also been more musically influential than one may assume; members of Devo, Primus, Ween and the Talking Heads are on hand to testify as such. I was a little surprised that Daft Punk isn’t mentioned, especially since they literally wear their influences on their sleeves (well, in this case, their heads). While The Residents are not for all tastes, Hardy has fashioned an ingratiating, maybe even definitive, portrait of them.



Opening in Seattle March 18 at the SIFF Film Center; also currently available on Vimeo.


More reviews at Den of Cinema
Dennis Hartley

QOTD: The Prez

QOTD: The Prez

by digby

There’s a debate inside of the other party that is fantasy, and school yard taunts, and sellin’ stuff like it’s the home shopping network,” Obama said. 

Obama also again mocked establishment Republicans who he argues say, “We’re shocked someone is fanning anti-immigrant or anti-muslim sentiment! We’re shocked! We’re shocked that someone could be loose with the facts. Or distort someone’s record. Shocked!” 

“How could you be shocked? This was the guy who was sure I was born in Kenya. And wasn’t letting go…As long as it was being directed at me they were fine with it. It was a hoot…and suddenly they’re shocked that gambling’s going on in this establishment,” he said. 

Obama called Trump “A distillation of what has been going on in their party for more than a decade. This is the message that’s been fed, that you just deny the evidence of science. That compromise is a betrayal. That the other side isn’t simply wrong, we disagree. The other side is destroying the country. Or treasonous. Look it up, that’s what they’ve been saying. So they can’t be surprised when somebody says, “I can make up stuff better than that.'” 

“The reaction is something they have to take responsibility for and then make an adjustment,” Obama insisted.

.

An average Joe’s view of Trump’s violence

An average Joe’s view of Trump’s violence

by digby

From Fox News:

Friday night, in a twist of irony, an angry mob of anti-free speech rabble rousers chanted “We stopped Trump,” seemingly oblivious to the fact that they were the ones who actually paved the way for Donald Trump’s candidacy. This mob of racist and clueless protesters also helped remind Americans what they would see more of if far-left policies, political correctness and the entitlement culture continue to take hold in America.

Donald Trump’s rise in the GOP primary is in part a result of the rejection of the very behavior that was on display Friday night in Chicago. Not only has the attitude of the protesters helped create Donald Trump the presidential candidate but they may have just helped propel him into the White House.

Want an example of just how stupid these people are? A rally that would have been attended by thousands and streamed by thousands more who already support Donald Trump was now seen by millions of people who may not be political ideologues and are currently undecided voters. They just got a taste of what a Bernie Sanders and perhaps Hillary Clinton presidency would look like. And they don’t like it. Suppression of free speech. Mob rule. Caving to the demands of a radical minority due to intimidation and the fear of the threat of violence. Americans know that a dangerous precedent is set when you allow folks like this to believe that they can control the narrative by intimidating others to accomplish their agenda.

The one characteristic that most left-wing protesters share is that they don’t really know why they are protesting. Fox News’ John Roberts was on the streets of Chicago to speak with some of the protesters.

“Why do you want to shut down Trump’s rally”, Roberts asked several individuals. “I don’t want to give my reason” replied one protester. In other words, “I have no idea why I’m out here but I got nothing better to do and I’m always up for causing some trouble.”

Another protester responded, “I’d rather not answer that question” – perhaps because they could not answer that question. I’m so passionate about this cause that I can’t remember why I’m here. Those were just two of the individuals who didn’t get the memo from the radical groups that typically organize these protests. Many others fell in line with the standard talking points straight from the left-wing protest playbook. Always say “We are against hate” when asked about your motives. Can’t go wrong with that answer. I think most of us are against hate.

How many of these anti-hate warriors would have turned out if Assad, Kim-Jung Un or the Ayatollah Khomeini had been giving a speech? To be fair, one can’t be everywhere and must prioritize. They only protest real hate like Republican politicians, conservative authors and talk show hosts. Genocidal dictators don’t quite represent the same level of hate.

So, who will win when thousands of “pajama boys” try to take down the Alpha-male? Donald Trump is not a conservative. Most of the protesters are not aware of that. They’re not really sure why they were there to begin with. Trump is a populist. Millions of Democrats and Independents have again witnessed the behavior of a relatively small number of radicals and will likely reject this behavior. Americans of all political leanings cherish their free-speech rights. But they do not condone the use of free speech as a means to suppress others’ free speech.

Want to know why Donald Trump is so popular with many Americans today? He is the antithesis to the culture that was on display in Chicago on Friday night. A culture that makes people think they are entitled to suppress the speech of others with whom they disagree. Maybe they felt like Trump was violating their “safe space” and it was their right to shut the rally down. The protesters celebrated what they perceived to be a victory last night. But they may have just helped the man they profess to loathe so much.

.