WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2016 — Back in 2013, left-wing watchdog MediaMatters complained that Fox News personalities “attacked Obama using violent rhetoric that warned of civil war, revolution, and insurrection.” Oh, and Fox “conservatives compared the president to Hitler and Stalin and invoked Nazi Germany to oppose his policies.”
That was before Donald Trump became the seemingly unstoppable political force in the Republican primaries and the key GOP candidate within striking distance of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton (USA Today/Suffolk-Trump +2, Quinnipiac-Clinton +1).
Media ethicist Kelly McBride posted a commentary on the Poynter Institute website, an organization that fancies itself “a global leader in journalism,” saying news organizations “need to hold him [Donald Trump] and the Republican Party accountable for the damage he does.”
No animals – or humans for that matter – were physically harmed in the making of this potential U.S. president. The “damage,” therefore, can only be the result of Trump’s thoughts and words.
What bothers McBride and many in the mainstream media is that Trump has control of his message. He’s brash and doesn’t mince words. When pressed by the media about his political vocabulary – Fox’s Megyn Kelly for his verbal attacks on tedious bores who just happen to be women, or a reporter who insisted the candidate use a term other than “anchor baby” – Trump refuses to comply and apologize, says what he wants and moves right along with his day.
“Can Trump win?” asks McBride. “It seems unlikely… Of course that is what the media said about a funny-looking spewer of hate with an odd mustache who was dismissed as an awful public speaker and not a serious candidate in Germany in the 1930s… Hitler became chancellor of Germany… competing in a melee that bears some resemblance to today’s Republican primary.”
The two Hs: Hate and Hitler.
“Hate,” we now know, is defined as thoughts or words not approved by, well, the McBrides of the media.
But more than this, McBride’s protestations indicate a rising level of desperation that media voices no longer influence outcomes – whether it’s policing ideas and language or narrowing the public’s choice of “electable” candidates.
The rise of speech codes on college campuses, where slight deviations or challenges to tenuous leftist orthodoxies are defined as “micro-aggressions” and invasions of “safe spaces” is indicative of the media’s loss of mass influence.
Nothing is more frightening to the left than a world filled of independent, politically incorrect free thinkers.
“Leave aside whether a direct comparison of Trump to Hitler is accurate,” says Harvard political theorist and Washington Post contributor Danielle Allen, “That is not my point. My point rather is about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.”
Allen’s main thesis is stunning and very telling:
“Republicans, you cannot count on Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her, but it is also the case that she is a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton and Trump would be unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.”
And there you have it.
It is the duty of Republican primary voters to help Democrats secure the presidency for one of the FBI’s most wanted, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As a Republican voter, therefore, you must nominate an unelectable, lifeless stiff in mold of John McCain or Mitt Romney.
You see, choosing a Republican presidential candidate capable of defeating Hillary this November rises to a level of evil not seen since, well, the days of Hitler.
“There is us,” says the left, “and then there is everybody else.” All outsiders are defined as variations of that “odd,” uniformed and mustachioed Teutonic tyrant.
Now, I ask you, doesn’t that claim strike you as a little demagogic? And wasn’t that a tactic employed by… you know.