How do they hate thee; let us count the ways. Critics of President Trump came up with a variety of numbers for their hatreds after his State of the Union address last week.
80: The American Civil Liberties Union set their hate counter at “more than 80 times.” That was the number of times that Trump used the word “America.” Faiz Shakir, the ACLU’s national political director, said in a statement after the speech: “After a divisive first year, we hear and feel how exclusionary that ‘America’ is, with policies that have harmed so many vulnerable American communities.” Shakir’s ACLU, we should recall, is the American Civil Liberties Union. Is he being exclusionary when he hands some schlub his business card?
For Trump, “America” is the “Country-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named” but it’s okay for Shakir to use the word. His self-anointed status as Social Justice Warrior comes with privileges denied to those he regards as less virtuous mortals. For the sake of his mental equilibrium, he should change the name of the ACLU to something else. How about replacing the “A” with “E” for “Easily-Triggered?”
Shakir identified just one vulnerable community that he feels Trump is victimizing: “We cannot let America’s Dreamers be deported.” Since these folks weren’t born in America, isn’t this an example of that ghastly SJW sin, cultural appropriation? Not all come from Mexico, but those most vocal in their demands for amnesty appear to be Mexican nationals, if the many Mexican flags and Spanish-language signs on display at pro-amnesty demonstrations are any indications. They are proud of their heritage but unwilling to live in the land of their birth. Shouldn’t they be called “Mexico’s Dreamers?” Or even more accurately, “Future Democratic Party Dream Voters” who will vote for all the things the ACLU likes?
29: CNN, in conjunction with Social Science Research Solutions, a polling firm, came up with the number 29. Their “instant poll” of Trump’s speech reported 29 percent of those who listened had a negative reaction. Unfortunately, their measure of hate disappointed them for the same poll showed 22 percent had a “somewhat positive response” and 48 percent had a “very positive response,” yielding 70 percent with a positive response. Sixty-two percent of respondents also said Trump’s policies would “move the country in the right direction.”
The CNN pundits discomfort with CNN’s numbers was quickly assuaged when Wolf Blitzer asked CNN Political Director David Chalian to challenge the accuracy of the CNN poll. Chalian soothingly insisted that the listeners to Trump’s speech were more likely to be Trump supporters because his haters didn’t listen to the speech and consequently, weren’t well represented in the poll. When the poll reported that 43 percent weren’t confident that Trump could carry out his duties well enough to achieve his goals, Chalian reversed himself to insist the poll was proof of Trump’s inadequacy. One might suspect those expressing lack of confidence that Trump could get what he wanted might have been thinking of the opposition Trump faces in the form of a monolithically hostile Democratic Party that wouldn’t approve any Trump policy even if one was for free steak dinners seven days a week. The Dems’ anti-Trumpism is abetted by a media with a 90 percent anti-Trump record. CNN’s embarrassment over its poll must have been deepened when CBS reported 75 percent approval of Trump’s speech, confirming what CNN had tried to dismiss: listeners liked what they heard.
3: During Trump’s speech, Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), and Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) showed their respect for one of America’s longest political traditions—the president being politely welcomed into Congress to tell them about his plans—by not putting away their cell phones. Coleman read responses to her tweet describing Trump’s speech as “white nationalism.” Lawrence and her fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus wore African-themed drapery to the speech in protest of Trump’s alleged disparagement of African countries. Was this a statement of “black internationalism?”
Beatty reviewed a press release she was going to send out after the speech. It condemned Republican Trump as failing to be bipartisan for not abandoning the policies he ran on and enacting Democrat policies instead. When Democrats use the word bipartisan they mean “When we win, we do what we want; when you win, you do what we want.”
Unlike her two fellow members of Congress, Lawrence wasn’t using her cell phone to slice up Trump. She was playing Candy Crush.
When Trump spoke of record low minority unemployment, all three, along with the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus—a group set up supposedly to advance the lives of black Americans—showed no hint of pleasure.
When later asked her Candy Crush score, Lawrence’s staff didn’t respond and neither did she.
Uncountable and Unaccountable: The hatred from Hollywood must have lit up the western sky like the terrible fires that afflicted California weeks ago. Every actor, from A-list to Z-list, every lame comic who has stood in front of a fake brick wall in a two-bit comedy club, and a couple of ex-Star Trek actors with Internet access, had something nasty to say—the more obscene the better.
Many declared they wouldn’t listen to the speech because, using the supernatural abilities that celebrity virtue signalers possess, they knew what he was going to say before he said it. The late night talk shows, nearly all taped prior to the speech, also didn’t need to hear his words to criticize Trump. He’s racist, stupid, sexist, a climate change denier, a Russian stooge, has funny hair, has a wife who hates him, wouldn’t bake a cake for a gay wedding, and to repeat, is racist, as in really, really racist. No supporting evidence was necessary—just lots of snark.
For Hollywood, Trump Hate is the fashion of the moment and just as a starlet wouldn’t be caught dead on the red carpet in a potato sack (unless it cost six figures, had a designer label, and was dyed the correct symbolic protest color), you simply must hate Trump, my dear. Hate, hate, hate him. Everybody who is anybody does. Besides, if you said something positive about him, we’d hate you and ruin your life faster than piranha tearing up a cow.
5: The number for MSNBC host Joy Reid is five. After the speech and after dismissing those concerned about the vicious MS-13 gang (she was unmoved by the parents of two of the gang’s murder victims attending the speech), she tweeted:
Church … family … police … military … the national anthem … Trump trying to call on all the tropes of 1950s-era nationalism. The goal of this speech appears to be to force the normalization of Trump on the terms of the bygone era his supporters are nostalgic for. #SOTU
— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) January 31, 2018
The people of that “bygone era” were America’s “Greatest Generation.” They struggled through the Depression, fought and won World War II, contained Communism during the Cold War, and fostered the Civil Rights Movement. They led the post-war world in industry, agriculture, and education. They were at the front of the technical revolution that gave the world computers, the Internet, better crops, medicines that cured millions, and they reached the moon. They did these things and provided their children with the safest, most comfortable, most abundant childhood in history. Maybe that’s something worth being nostalgic about.
Some years ago, a television news show ran a bit where they showed a group of urban teenagers educational films from the 1950s meant to teach Baby Boomers good social behaviors. They expected the modern, streetwise kids to laugh at the square stuff their great-grandparents thought were important life lessons. Instead, the kids marveled at the stable nuclear families depicted. They couldn’t believe that families routinely ate dinner together, that a boy would pull out a chair for his mom, that he and his sister would avoid unpleasant dinner table talk so as not to spoil mealtime, or that dad would make a point of showing appreciation for his wife’s cooking. A film about how to behave on a date particularly moved a girl who marveled at how polite and respectful young men were once expected to treat the opposite sex.
The world of the 1950s wasn’t perfect but the values the educational films promoted were good and reflected the way people wanted—and apparently may still want—to live. Times change and some of the values of the past have been replaced by different beliefs. Some, but not all, are better. A blunt condemnation of the old for the new is at best foolish and at worst, betrays an aggressive desire to establish a new social order with snotty people like Joy Reid in charge. Who really wants to sign up for that?