Kamala Harris' cackling brings up a question I have often asked in the past 20 years: What if Democrats — along with leftists the world over — turned out to be nothing but sophomoric individuals snorting with laughter as they stick it to the man, as they fool the grown-ups, and, with the true teen-age mentality they possess, as they love to cosplay as senators, presidents, governors (remember the glee of Katie Hobbs at the Arizona inaugural after "defeating" Kari Lake?), diplomats, filmmakers (on both sides of the camera), and — last but not least — journalists?
What if all that leftists love to do is cosplay as heroic individuals and knights in shining armor — fighting, among other things, to protect various minorities, to save democracy, and to defeat the West's inhumane monsters, i.e., racists, sexists, Nazis, fascists, and other Adolf Hitlers?
This is why leftists have dystopian fantasies (we must display our intelligence!) and are crisis creators (we must display our bravery!), in addition to why they can't debate and regularly refuse invitations from the right to do so (unless, perhaps, they use "neutral" moderators (sic) to assist them while said moderators attempt to demonize their opponents): the Drama Queens know that their fairy tales would be eviscerated in no time. Regularly, Dennis Prager recounts how he has often, over the years, suggested a debate to leftists — even one in which he is outnumbered 5 or 6 to 1 — and they do not dare take him up on it. (Indeed, this is how Larry Elder "turned" Dave Rubin…)
As Jonah Goldberg
wrote in Liberal Fascism,
That is how the liberal Gleichschaltung works; contrary voices are regulated, barred, banned when possible, mocked and marginalized when not. Progressive voices are encouraged, lionized, amplified — in the name of "diversity," or "liberation," or "unity," and, most of all, "progress."
Needless to say, the cosplay imagery has been used before, slightly differently, notably by Iowahawk for years now, with his oft-Instapundit-linked lefties manual on how to take over "a respected institution" and thus all of society ("while demanding respect" is a synonym of "while requesting you to shut up"), with David Burge's wearing the "carcass as a skin suit" equivalent to my description of a cosplayer:
From London, a jokester enjoying “the wisdom of calling Donald Trump weird” writes with mirth that
When running for the Senate, [Lyndon Baines] Johnson let it be known that one of his opponents enjoyed the carnal pleasure of one of his farmyard sows. “That isn’t true,” one of LBJ’s aides said. “I know,” LBJ replied, “but I’m going to make the bastard deny it.”
I don't deny that this sounds funny or that it is worth a chuckle. At the same time, all of us — especially those raving endlessly about defending democracy — should ask, is calling your opponent a pig-humper (or, for that matter, a rapist of a unbalanced woman in a department store's changing room) truly the way to engage in debate? But Democrats and leftists don't ask that sort of questions; after all, they're engaged in demonizing opponents, i.e., fighting the "bastards" that said opponents truly are…
The LBJ story is somewhat reminiscent of Harry Reid telling tall tales in 2012 about the Republican candidate not paying taxes and then rebuffing criticism in interviews with the words, Mitt "Romney didn't win, did he?" This is acceptable, indeed desirable, in a simplistic (i.e., in a sophomoric) worldview consisting of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables.
This explains Donald Trump's mean tweets, along with his (alleged) "petty insults and his dark obsessions" — they are only mean in that they describe exactly the kind of people that he sees. Just like the boy at the end of The Emperor's New Clothes. After the boy's outburst, according to what Hans Christian Andersen seems to have expected, the boy and all the bystanders in the streets ought to have referred to the tailors as scam artists and to their ruler the emperor (in the original Danish, it is a king) as some variant of a fool.
In real life, according to modern-day Western mores and thanks to the eggings-on, overt and other, of the tailors themselves and their allies and sympathizers, the boy was probably vilified as a "tailorphobe" and canceled for daring to have the gall of engaging in hate (filled) speech. UPDATE: It turns out that I have used the Hans Christian Andersen imagery in the past, as did Mark Steyn during a September 2015 visit to Copenhagen…
The Economist's Lexington writes, with unhidden glee, that after
Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota and now Ms Harris’s running-mate, started calling him [Trump] “weird”, and as she and other Democrats joined in, the former president foolishly took the bait.
"Foolishly took the bait"? Is that supposed to be part of a debate in "defending democracy"? (Maybe "debate" in fact means "the bait" pronounced Italian-style for the Left?!)
In last week's editorial — the very one bemoaning Trump's "petty insults and his dark obsessions" — The Economist went on to say that
It may seem unfair to criticise Ms Harris for being sparing about her policies. Her overriding task is to defeat Mr Trump, and it is a vital one in which guile and cunning are permitted.
A "vital [task] in which guile and cunning are permitted." In the wake of a(n in)famous Bernie Sanders quote ("No, I don't think she's abandoning her ideals. I think she is trying to be pragmatic and do what she thinks is right in order to win the election"), leave it to a "respected" MSM outlet to spill the beans and tell the truth about the basic psychology ruling the members of the Democrat Party and other leftists — not excluding (as we can see) the mainstream media outlets themselves — the world over.
No comments:
Post a Comment