I'm sure we've all heard the expression I used to title this blog post. It's also the key to the tactics opponents of Donald Trump appear to be using to try to derail his Presidential candidacy. I emphasize once again that I'm not a Trump partisan. I don't know enough about him to be for or against him at this point in the election campaign. Nevertheless, the blatant, over-the-top onslaught against him is so mind-boggling in its all-or-nothing desperation that one simply can't ignore it.
Consider the following headlines from the past 24 hours alone (a very small selection from those out there):
The one thing that jumps out at any objective observer is that all these sources, and countless others besides, are 'piling on'. All their sources, and all the journalists and media involved, are parroting from the same playbook. "Donald Trump is a menace. He's unpredictable. He's out of control. He's got to be stopped before he destroys everything worthwhile in our society. You dare not vote for someone so out of touch with reality."
I remind you of an age-old military saying. "Once is an accident. Twice may be coincidence. Three times or more is enemy action." This overwhelming tide of vitriol, abuse and hysteria can only be the latter. There's no other logical, rational explanation.
This leads me to a further question. If Donald Trump were as black as he's being painted, surely there would be no need to worry about him? Surely, if (as French president Francois Hollande pontificates) he 'makes you want to retch', the electorate would be too busy retching to vote for him? Surely, if he's highlighting divisions within his own party, he'll alienate the votes of so large a proportion of that party (not to mention those who aren't Republicans) that he has no chance of winning? (I note that, in refusing to endorse Paul Ryan for re-election, he used precisely the same phrase about Mr. Ryan that the latter used when refusing to endorse Mr. Trump! "Sauce for the goose" and all that . . . ) Surely, if Mr. Trump is 'unfit' and 'woefully unprepared' for the Presidency, as President Obama has said, he'll have no chance of doing any better than Mr. Obama himself? (I remind you that our current President achieved almost nothing before his election except a single term as Senator from Illinois, and has no business or other achievements of any importance in the real world outside politics of which to boast. That being the case, if he was 'fit' and 'prepared' to be President with that background, how is Mr. Trump any less fit or prepared for that office?)
I submit that the torrent of abuse and negativity currently being directed against Mr. Trump has a threefold purpose.
- Those behind it are seeking to knock him 'off topic'; to force him to respond to their attacks, rather than continue to spread his own message to the voters.
- They're trying to shore up their own base of voters, particularly those (like trades union members in 'rust belt' states) who may be drifting towards supporting Mr. Trump instead of the party for which they've reliably voted in previous elections.
- They're trying to persuade undecided voters that Mr. Trump is too dangerous - too much of a 'loose cannon' - to warrant their support.
I suspect they're having some success in all three objectives; but I think they're also merely reinforcing the determination of many other voters to support Mr. Trump no matter what. It's a cliché that you'll know someone by his friends; but it's equally true that you'll know him by his enemies. Mr. Trump has united almost every progressive, liberal, left-wing constituency and individual in opposing him. People are recognizing that fact. A lot of voters appear to be thinking to themselves, "Hey, if he can piss off everyone who pisses me off, maybe he's worth supporting!"
I think this is also why the onslaught against Mr. Trump is coming from both sides of the political aisle. The 'establishment' in this country, as I've said before, is wealth rather than partisan politics. That 'establishment' has made sure that laws and regulations were passed that contributed to increasing its wealth. In particular, globalization has been to the establishment's benefit. By changing the rules of the debate, by focusing on what those laws and regulations and globalization have done to the 'ordinary people' of America, Mr. Trump threatens the establishment's wealth; therefore, it's using its money and influence to fund and coordinate an extraordinary onslaught against him and the threat he poses. The Last Refuge describes it as a 'globalist panic'.
The past 96 hours of media onslaught have evidenced what most of you already know, the ‘at risk’ financial interests of the UniParty are going hard against Donald Trump from every imaginable angle.
The timing is specific, the UniParty affiliates are trying to do the narrative damage before people become distracted with the Rio Olympic games.
. . .
The UniParty is fully aligned. It is no longer Democrats vs Republicans, it’s Globalists vs America-First Nationalists. President Obama, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Donohue, Mitch McConnell, the Koch Brothers, the Media, Wall Street, and the DNC are all aligned together, working hand-in-hand, toward a specific set of agenda items.
Candidate Donald Trump is the single existential threat to this carefully created UniParty construct they have spent billions to organize.
There's more at the link.
The Economist (pro-globalist to the Nth degree) highlights the dangers Mr. Trump poses to the progressive, globalist agenda.
America’s party conventions ... highlighted a new political faultline: not between left and right, but between open and closed (see article). Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, summed up one side of this divide with his usual pithiness. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,” he declared. His anti-trade tirades were echoed by the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.
America is not alone. Across Europe, the politicians with momentum are those who argue that the world is a nasty, threatening place, and that wise nations should build walls to keep it out ... Populist, authoritarian European parties of the right or left now enjoy nearly twice as much support as they did in 2000, and are in government or in a ruling coalition in nine countries.
. . .
... the question for pro-open types, who are found on both sides of the traditional left-right party divide, is how to win. The best approach will differ by country. In the Netherlands and Sweden, centrist parties have banded together to keep out nationalists. A similar alliance defeated the National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen in the run-off for France’s presidency in 2002, and may be needed again to beat his daughter in 2017. Britain may yet need a new party of the centre.
In America, where most is at stake, the answer must come from within the existing party structure. Republicans who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support Mrs Clinton. And Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. Her choice of Tim Kaine, a Spanish-speaking globalist, as her running-mate is a good sign. But the polls are worryingly close. The future of the liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.
Again, more at the link. It's worth reading the article in full to get a sense of how worried the global elite has become. Populism poses a deadly threat to their current domination of the international political and economic status quo - and they know it. That's why even a French President is weighing in on an American candidate for the US presidency. President Hollande knows that if a populist wins the presidency, globalists like himself will be on the ropes. He's terrified by the prospect. The US elections are none of his business; but since they may directly affect his own political survival, he's going to interfere in them, and damn the consequences.
Note the last sentence from the Economist above: "The future of the liberal world order depends on whether [Hillary Clinton] succeeds." That's precisely what's at stake here. The globalist, progressive, liberal powers that be understand this reality very clearly. That's why they're coordinating the current onslaught against Mr. Trump, and why they'll continue to do so from now until the election. They want to bury his prospects beneath a pile of steaming ordure so nauseating and repulsive (they hope) that no-one in their right minds will believe he's competent or qualified to be President, and therefore will not vote for him.
Remember the title to this article. The manure being spread by opponents of Mr. Trump is intended to persuade us not to support him . . . but it's also a telling sign that there really is a pony under there somewhere. It might be worth looking for it - precisely what the headline-writers and polemicists don't want us to do.
Peter
10 comments:
It seems to me Hollande is french toast at this point no matter what. It isn't clear to me of Sarko will manage to eel his way into being the establishment right candidate (Republican) or not, but if he doesn't it'll probably be someone similar. Either way that person is not going to take enough votes from the FN to stop the FN candidate (Mme Le Pen) making it into the second round. The question is whether it's the Socialist or Republican who is the other one (if there's a continuation of the current terror campaign there may not be a second round, Le Pen will get 50%+ in the first round and that's it), but the chances seem extremely high that it will be the Republicans. This is because Hollande has managed to piss off everyone.
However that Economist article is beautiful. The globalist sneering classes are panicking right now and that's a wonderful thing. Mind you I don't think the nationalist (demagogue) politicians fighting them are going to fix things - or even do much to make things better, but they are going to take some well deserved chainsaws to the globalist project and cut it down to size. With luck they'll manage to also kill some of the regulatory kudzu at the same time, though that's harder.
Trump or Clinton...in either case folks will cast a vote in favor of one or the other, despite any misgivings they may have, if only to prevent the "other guy" from winning. South Park had it right so many years ago...people are faced with a choice between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. And our third party option might be called Skin Tag (uncomfortable, but not a danger to our wellbeing). There are no good choices this year. I would caution folks not to vote for someone simply because you hate the other candidate more. I don't know what the alternative is, but I know it isn't the current terrible options.
I don't like Trump, but I'm increasingly becoming anti-anti-Trump.
I stopped voting when I saw the choice was between McCain or Obama.
I realized they would never give us a legitimate candidate- i.e. one who would act constitutionally.
I am pretty sure Trump has already promised to do some unconstitutional stuff, so if these morons would stop lying like idiots, I'd probably continue to stay home and not vote.
But these idiots are irritating me. Already, it is likely that we will get less war, certainly a reduction in the likelihood of nuclear war with Russia, if we get Trump. And all of these people are bankrupt. Hollande is presiding over the ethnic cleansing of his own people.
So I figure it's possible they barred entry to ideologues and grass roots campaigns, but didn't see a billionaire coming. And, while his policies aren't perfect, his incentives are. He's already rich and powerful, so he won't be using the presidency to secure any of those things. He wants the reputation. He wants the legacy.
The elite (globalists) are thieves and need to protect their "thief"dom (play on "fiefdom") at all costs. It's going to get worse as time goes by. for now, and to this end they are initiating the old axiom "Throw enough scat against the wall and some of it is going to stick." Throw enough scat at Trump and some of it is going to stick. Dirty him up, regardless of how imaginative, or just plain dishonest, the charges may be. As has been pointed out, this election is the most black and white of any in history. Pure and simple, it's nationalist vs. globalist. God help us all if the useful idiots prevail, because stupidity is as killing as a bullet.
Ratcheting up: Don't be surprised when, just a week or two before the election, The Donald is hit with a number of law suits, (anyone from the IRS to the DMV and any number of private organizations as well) most if not all of them bogus and designed to destroy him personally and professionally. Useful idiots will fall for the ruse. Then, once the election is over, defeated or not, they will all just magically go away ("mischief managed" as is said in Harry Potter). I think it's called "dirty politics" and the Dems seem to be far more proficient at it than the Repubs. There is a reason that the jackass is the symbol of the Democratic Party. I've worked with livestock in the past and a jackass is a special breed. They aren't all that smart, and not necessarily dumb either, but they are always a jackass.
California Willie
I've been saying for several weeks now that if Trump doesn't tighten up his message and stick with it, loud and long, he will lose to an organization that does that. His history, just form the primaries, is that he is unable to ignore slights and let them go on by. As a result, the Dims will get him chasing his tail and his campaign will become more chaotic with time. I've seen no reason to change that prediction.
The more the globalists and media attack him the more I'm motivated to not only vote for him but to actively assist his campaign. I'm even going to give him money which I haven't done for the republican party in 2 decades.
remember you have the right to cast a write-in vote.
use it.
It's worthwhile to look a bit deeper. Not only is Hillary Clinton stunningly incompetent, she's also so thoroughly corrupt as to require a new definition for the word. The thing is, the only people she knows and associates with are just as incompetent and corrupt. When a president moves into office they bring about 3500 bodies along to fill administrative positions, from cabinet secretaries on down to 3rd or 4th tier admin management levels; those people will become entrenched in the bureaucracy for decades, one of the problems we're facing now with Clinton/Bush/Obama leftovers.
There's plenty of left wing criticism of Trump - and now the antti-populist right is joining in because they see their rice bowls threatened - but with whom does Trump associate, and who among those groups will he seek to induct into his administration? I suspect that's a foundational issue for the opposition coming from those on the right, so-called Republicans, because they foresee Trump's admin folks won't be "club members" like themselves.
It would not surprise me to see a President Trump seek to hire a cabinet secretary and charge them with the job of shutting down the agency to which he assigned them. That's what has the ruling members of the Uniparty so scared.
Excellent commentary, Peter.
Post a Comment