This year's presidential election, perhaps more than any in American history, has been colored as an ideological struggle not between competing governing philosophies as in years past but between such elemental forces as love and hate. In an era in which the nation's political dialogue has been dominated by millennials and young people most adept at the latest mediums of self expression, we have allowed emotionally immature grown-up children at college to dictate the frame of this conversation. Rather than taking each position based on the content and merits of their arguments, stupid people with small brains in sociology departments across the country have evaded ever having to consider the uncomfortable reality of this nation's steady decline by instead fixating on "language" and rhetorical delivery.
Tune into MSNBC and you will notice that the discussions of each sycophantic panel of bitter intellectuals and race hustlers are focused not on content, but rhetoric. Fox News may be a shouting match between loud, dusty, badly dressed old men and Roger Ailes' hand selected catalogue of buxom blonde babes; but as ugly as it gets, there are differing opinions and passions because these are real Americans making important arguments about the direction of their nation. There are no dust ups on Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews because a quaint discussion on rhetorical style cannot rouse conviction; because it doesn't matter.
This is how conservatism has evolved in public perception, into a fanatically religious hate group that is out to get minorities and poor people; and this is how a flawed man with a big heart has become the left's caricature of conservative hate in this presidential election. It is common for low information independents, moderates, and liberals to complain about "gridlock" and "polarization." This is owed to a culture insistent on the absurd assumption that liberalism is the only moral ideology and that any disagreements necessarily derive from ignorant, primitive hate.
Examples of this abound. When Donald Trump proposed his now infamous border wall in August of last year, this very simple and benign proposal was not given a fair hearing in the press. There was no discussion about the costs and benefits associated with our present de facto policy of open borders with Mexico and all of Central America. Outside of Breitbart and Ann Coulter's righteous crusade, there was no talk of the national security risk, the downward pressure on wages, or the cultural implications which result from an open border policy. Instead we were attacked with sophomoric platitudes about building bridges and not walls, about how we are a nation of immigrants, and about how somehow ethnic diversity makes us stronger in some intangible, spiritual way.
Predictably, this trend has continued until the present day. The proposed ban on Muslim immigration in the wake of one of the worst terror attacks in the history of Europe was condemned, DOA, as islamophobic, and somehow reminiscent of Hitler. Because Trump is a man, because he yells, and because he calls his opponents what they are, all of these unrelated connotations sum to the physical embodiment of conservative rage. In truth, there is a great deal of conservative rage, but it does not come from a place of hate.
The wall, the ban on Muslim immigration, the war on terror, and all the rest are the necessary evils of an honest people in a dangerous world. It would be wonderful to live in a world where all cultures were equally civilized and reverent for liberal democratic principles. It would be wonderful to live in a world where that culture which has promoted the most vile acts of violence and brutality against innocent civilians since the seventh century could be loved into the twenty first century. But we conservatives know that this is simply not the reality. There is no joy in foreclosing on the warm, romantic idealism of blissful ignorance and youth; but we recognize that it is a necessary and courageous axiom from which to govern in order to preserve the country, its values, and its people which we love.
Therefore the rage of the right is the passion of the loving guardian of company and country. In turn, the masked rage of the left is a reactionary personal vendetta against reality; against the illuminating truth which casts away the shadows of their Utopian vision. The embodiment of this counter crusade is Hillary Clinton, a woman who has risen to prominence alongside fellow Democrat crooks and swindlers merely by telling these aggrieved idealists the words they want to hear. They want to be told that "it's time for a woman to be President." Why? They don't know, but wouldn't that be so progressive?
This week, at long last, Hillary Clinton took off her mask and exposed for the whole world to see that her and her ideology are the true party of hate. Her scandalous labeling of the millions of Trump supporters as a "basket of undesirables," of "xenophobes, racists, homophobes, islamophobes," is the most explicit and mainstream articulation to date of the left's hatred for the right. Many have tellingly compared this to Mitt Romney's "47%" scandal in 2012 in which he, in a similar setting, told donors that the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes could not be won over by a fiscal conservative.
Notice the difference: The two are compared as equal in rhetoric but are strikingly different in their content, tone, and intent. Mitt Romney was talking about the best way to utilize limited time and resources in order to win the election. More likely than not, the 47% of people who don't pay taxes would be highly unlikely to vote for a man who has promised to make them pay taxes; therefore he ought to spend time and money winning over those in the middle and on the left who are not dependent on the dole which he may compromise. Hillary Clinton's statement is to generalize a faction of millions of diverse Americans as morally repulsive people. While Mitt Romney made no judgement on those 47%, Hillary Clinton thought it was perfectly appropriate to draft in her speech that people who vote for Trump are bad and stupid and undesirable.
But has this not been the narrative of the left for eight years? That the Republican friends and family of Democrats are bitter, clinging to their guns and their Bibles. That Americans are mean and racist. That people who like Donald Trump are stupid and racist. What comparable rhetoric has come from the Trump camp? Of course he said that illegal immigration has brought drugs, crime, and rape; but this cannot reasonably be interpreted as a clear indictment of the entire lot, merely an assessment of the consequences sown by open borders. Moreover, his call to ban Muslims was not an indictment of all Muslims but an acknowledgement that the vast majority of terror attacks are executed under the banner of Muhammad.
Neither of these are indicative of a hateful man. Trump has spoken about his love for country since he came on the scene in the late 70s. He talks of the workers and taxi drivers, he has respect and admiration for women and for the hard work of every race of people. In his rallies and at his speeches Trump frequently closes by shouting "Thank you!" or "I love you!" Nearly his entire campaign is funded by small contributions, evidently, I am not the only sucker who has faith that Trump genuinely loves his country and its people.
Can a single person even conceive of Hillary Clinton telling her audiences of 100 people "I love you?" Does anyone for one second believe that she isn't full of contempt for the radio hosts she snaps at, the Secret Service members she assaults, or the campaign staffers whom she has made cry? The majority of Americans do not find her honest or trustworthy, and apparently her forty some percent of supporters have not made the connection that deceit is the fruit of disrespect and contempt. So many liberals are blind to this reality; because they have been indoctrinated into the progressive consensus that without accepting the anti-intellectual and factually wrong tenets of multiculturalism, an individual can never be equal with those hive minded liberal who embrace the one true vision of the anointed.
The Bible says of men that you will know them by their fruits. Barack Obama has wrought more division, more animosity, and more hatred than any President since possibly Lyndon Johnson (coincidentally another progressive Democrat). After nearly thirty years in "service" of the public, Hillary Clinton has no major legislation to show for it. Her legacy includes a sleazy, disgusting, sex scandal, a deadly state of anarchy in Libya, the death of four Americans in Benghazi, the compromise of US national security, and the most corrupt State Department in US history. Which is America's party of hate?