Just How Far Will the Left Go?

For a run-down on what Trump’s political opponents have tried to pull since he won the election, this is very good:

Democrats privately acknowledge that Obama wrecked the Democratic Party—losing Congress, the presidency, state and local offices, and now the Supreme Court. But they must praise the forces of that wreckage and seek to trump them by becoming the party of hyper-identity politics. In other words, the Democrats know what sort of agenda might bring them back into power as it did in 1992. But they feel that Clintonesque cure is worse than the disease of being in the purer political wilderness without power.


So, for now, they rant, they rave, and they stew, accepting that they cannot do what might save them and therefore they only do more of what is destroying them. Out of that lose-lose dilemma was birthed Trump hatred. Without a persuasive argument, progressives came up with the mantra that Trump is a traitor, and that all they needed to do was to explain to supposedly dense voters that their current economic renaissance was actually jackbooted National Socialism.

Go read the whole thing.


16 thoughts on “Just How Far Will the Left Go?

  1. VDH is very good. His latest book, “Second World Wars”, is pretty good too.

  2. I really have no idea where this is going but between the crazed leftists and some of the more fervent second civil war fantasists I don’t see it ending well, especially if Trump (hopefully) wins a second term.

  3. Having first wandered onto the Interweb in 1994, I noticed at the time that there was a near-fanatical hatred among some US folk (at that point still largely seeming to be a small lunatic fringe) of Bill Clinton – or “Billiary KKKLintoon” as some thought it amusing to term him – and a monomaniac focus on every possible flaw and scandal. A dodgy law deal in Whitewater became a conspiracy involving hundreds of deaths – according to some Usenet posters’ .sig files it seemed that nobody in Arkansas ever died of natural causes. A TWA airliner exploding in mid-air off Long Island was shot down by the Iranians and covered up by Billiary, because… reasons. Except it was actually shot down by the US Navy to cover up… something, not sure, but Bill and Hilary did it. Probably personally. In between selling the country to China and inviting the United Nations to send troops over in black helicopters to impose a New World Order, Any Day Now, You Wait And See… and so it went.

    And then after the Mongolian goat orgy of Ken Starr’s hearings (where the promised revelations of malfeasance, fraud, treason and murder turned out to be “where exactly did Bill stick that cigar?” and “does getting noshed off by an intern actually count as ‘having sex’ even if you do it in the Oval Office?” we had the 2000 election… and the positions magically reversed.

    George Dubya stole the election, he defrauded the country, he dodged the draft (by flying F-102 Delta Daggers in the Texas Air National Guard – an unforgiving and dangerous type even by 1960s standards), he was a chimp and a clown… and then of course we had 9/11 (which “Bu$$$h” sponsored, or at least colluded with, or covered up…) followed by the hopelessly flawed invasion of Iraq which really was planned by the South Park Underpants Gnomes (Step 1: Invade Iraq. Step 2…???? Step 3: Peace and democracy!). With more people saying a lot more on the Interwebs, we had the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome” coined for those unable to separate criticism of individual policies (like, invading Iraq with no plan for Phase 4) for those who were convinced that Dubya was, like, y’know, literally Satan!

    And then after the hated, incompetent, Bush somehow, unthinkably stole a second election, Barack Obama got elected in 2008 (against McCain, who I’ve always regarded pretty well… and Sarah f’king Palin?) and – guess what? – we had a mass outbreak of Obama Derangement Syndrome with the stories of how “Barack Hussein Osama” was selling the country down the river to his Muslim buddies, he wasn’t a US citizen, his birth certificate was faked, et cetera… and, guess what, despite all this Obama won the 2012 election.

    The howling and wailing about Trump (who I really don’t like, which is unusual for me) is maybe more noticeable by its volume and downright delusional tone at times, but it’s not new – just louder and more obsessive, perhaps.

    That said, some of it is reminiscent of the British left’s hysteria about Thatcher through my teenage years, possibly for similar reasons – if the Great Leader is so hopeless, so unpopular, so hateful, then run a decent candidate against them and win! But instead, the US Democrats seem to be going the route of the British Labour Party in the 1980s, retreating into a comfort zone of invective and ideological purity rather than making the sort of messy compromises and difficult decisions needed to actually… y’know… win votes. Much easier to declare Tower Hamlets to be a nuclear-free demilitarised zone than to earn a majority in Parliament…

    But it’s notable that there was rather less of this sort of ranting and raving evident during Bush Sr’s time in office… and he was unseated when he came for re-election in 1992 (despite his smashing success in hoofing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait) by Slick Willy, while since then the screaming and shrieking of CDS, BDS, and ODS hasn’t stopped the incumbents winning re-election each time and probably won’t stop Trump either.

    Not that the derangees seem to learn that their antics seem to actually support the subject of their hysteria…

  4. The Trump derangement gets worse by the day. For example, today we have people telling us that Juncker’s capitulation to Trump on tariffs is the result of Juncker’s brilliance, facilitated by the skills he acquired leading Luxembourg. It is difficult to know where to start with this

  5. The view from the German media is that it has less to do with Drunker than with free-trade republicans tub-thumping and three US car manufacturers issuing, by sheer coincidence, simultaneous profit warnings.

  6. The Republicans will have exactly the same problem when they come to have to find a replacement for Trump, of course: another hyper-individual, uniquely fascinating candidate (who presented themselves, however accurately, as an ‘outsider’ bringing ‘change’ to a sclerotic ‘system’) who deformed the party in their own image, leaving them with an extreme non-mainstream base they can’t afford to alienate, but no way to reach the centre unless they do.

  7. I think Trump is likely to be re-elected, if at least three of the following factors exist:

    1. economy is OK or better
    2. no new war
    3. he doesn’t do anything outrageous for a couple of months before the election
    4. the Dem party does something flagrantly stupid, like running Hillary again

  8. Trump being re-elected will only make the Republicans’ problem when they have to find a replacement worse, as he’ll have been distorting the party for eight years instead of only four.

    Who could possibly follow Trump? He’s unique. Just like Obama was. The two parties have exactly the same problem: win by going extreme, with an unrepeatably huge figurehead character who galvanises the base who hate the other side the most, but alienates the centre.

    Then what?

    Civil war?

  9. S. Civil War? Er that mighty short. One sides wants the other has the govt, military, police, all the gun owners and god. Even if one is an athetist, beleif in god will motivate.

    The thing is people don’t seem to be noticing is that the Democratic machine is being destroyed. Unions are collapsing, closed gov jobs are being attacked and media discredited.

    What happens if the media fails in destroying Trump? It will be irrelevant going forward.

  10. The unusual thing about Trump Derangement Syndrome is it never stops. He lives in their heads 24/7. Conservatives hated Barack Obama, and hated his wife even more, but they would occasionally talk about something else, say, the weather.

  11. Jason Lynch–There are more than 120 mysterious deaths connected with the fucking Toxic Twosome. 120. The Arkenstone years were just part of a much bigger shitshow.

    But Snotnopes and you say there’s nothing in it so I guess there can’t be.

  12. It’s hard to see that replacing Trump will be hard for the Republicans. For a start whoever they choose will automatically look statesman like and restrained.

    The problem in the past is that candidates have blanded themselves down, so they come across as grey machines. The same people actually running for what they believe, rather than what focus groups tell them, would be far more credible. Trump has shown that if you don’t back down, don’t apologise for trivial infractions and say positive things you CAN get elected. You just have to have the balls to see the nay-sayers out.

  13. It’s hard to see that replacing Trump will be hard for the Republicans. For a start whoever they choose will automatically look statesman like and restrained.

    But that’s exactly my point. Trump’s appeal is partly because he doesn’t look statesmanlike and restrained, he gets those people who think the entire ‘statesmanlike and restrained’ normal order of politics is at best irrelevant to their lives and at worst actively out to get them. The ones who are mad as Hell and who want a president who looks like he is mad too.

    A Republican who looks ‘statesmanlike and restrained’ runs a big risk of alienating Trump’s extreme base by not being extreme enough, while not being able to compensate by attracting enough of the centre who have been turned off by Trump.

    But if they go for another lunatic, well, can they catch lightning in a bottle twice? Remember Trump’s win was on the narrowest of margins, and down to some canny/lucky (delete according to how generous you’re feeling) decisions about which states to concentrate campaigning in. It’s not like he’s left a guaranteed ‘play-book’, as the Yanks say (indeed, people thought that Obama had left a ‘play-book’ but it turned out it didn’t work for anyone but Obama).

    It’s exactly the same problem, in a mirror, as the Democrats had after Obama: he had attracted a load of the lunatic identity-politics fringe, and alienated the middle. They tried to tack to the centre with Clinton, but that just meant they lost a bunch of the extreme lunatics to Bernie Sanders or small-party candidates, while the centre who distrusted them over their social-engineering efforts still stayed clear (of course there were also Clinton’s personal failings as a candidate at play too. But anyone they picked would have had that struggle).

    Also, part of an American president’s job for their party is supposed to be helping out the local parties. Obama didn’t do that. Trump isn’t doing that. Both of them see the party as a vehicle for their own success, not them as servants of the party (which they can get away with because unlike our system, where even a sitting PM is always open to a leadership challenge form their party, a president can essentially, once elected, ignore their party, and those two did).

  14. The GOP’s problem has little to do with Trump. Their problem is that few of them represent American conservatives and most would prefer to be Democrats but found it easier to run on a Republican ticket. For over a decade American conservatives have been complaining bitterly that they keep sending Republicans to Washington and all they do is go along with whatever the Democrats want. A huge part of Trump’s success was his showing up mainstream GOP politicians for what they are, and promising to do things differently. Trump owes the GOP nothing – half of them didn’t even want him to beat Clinton – and he has done more to get the base voting a Republican into the White House than anyone else in the GOP has done in the past decade. What the GOP need to do is find candidates – lots of them – who listen to the Republican voters, are actual conservatives, and aren’t just Democrats wearing a different hat. Thus far they seem incapable of doing that, instead preferring to complain that Trump isn’t doing things the way they’ve always been done.

  15. What the GOP need to do is find candidates – lots of them – who listen to the Republican voters, are actual conservatives, and aren’t just Democrats wearing a different hat

    The problem with that is that there aren’t enough Republican voters to win an election.

    Just like there aren’t enough Democrat voters to win an election.

    In order to win an election, you have to not only get your side’s supporters to vote for you, but you have to attract enough of the undecideds in the middle to vote for you too.

    Both of the Yank parties have now got themselves into the position where the very things that get their own voters out to vote (for the Democrats, extreme identity politics; for the Republicans, being Trump) actively turn off the undecided voters.

  16. Both of the Yank parties have now got themselves into the position where the very things that get their own voters out to vote (for the Democrats, extreme identity politics; for the Republicans, being Trump) actively turn off the undecided voters.

    This is true for the Democrats, not for Republicans.

Comments are closed.