It’s an enduring myth told by the national media that President Trump is all gloom and doom, and Democrats are filled with only sweetness and light.
The non-deluded know this is a lie, even while they readily acknowledge that Trump is a jerk with a massive chip on his shoulder.
But for the media, having never changed their tune since 2015 when they decided Trump should be outcast from society and never spoken of again (unless it’s to talk about how racism still rages throughout America), Trump really is a confusing ball of hate and anger.
Anthony Scaramucci, the short-lived White House communications director who now delights liberal journalists by trashing the president on CNN, tweeted Tuesday this really smart analysis: “Name one Hollywood movie where the bully won? Exactly. We can defeat [Trump] and we will.”
It’s time again to define what it means to be a “bully.” The word in itself does not refer to someone who mocks or insults with glee. It’s not someone who threatens retaliation for perceived mistreatment. It’s not someone who says things that sound mean.
A bully is a person who targets people weaker than himself. Trump holds the most powerful office in the federal government, but what does that get him when the entire Democratic Party, the entire national media, all of Hollywood, and even some in his own party (still) are working to undermine him? It might get him reelected by the one group that matters (voters), but otherwise, it’s not as though he sits unscathed by the massive wall of opposition he has faced every single day since he launched his campaign in 2015.
There is no power imbalance at play when Trump is facing down a monolithic beast of a culture in Washington and Hollywood.
As for the charge that Trump is excessively, gratuitously divisive, it would be easier to take that seriously if the people making that claim weren’t the ones who are actually divisive.
On his show Monday, CNN’s Chris Cuomo said Trump would be unsuccessful in the election if he can’t “keep people pissed off and frustrated.” He said Trump “needs people at each other’s throats. He needs you at your worse, your most suspicious,” and, “ He has nothing else to offer. He doesn’t have anything that captures the imagination of a hopeful America.”
Spoken like someone who still has no clue why more than 60 million voters chose a celebrity real estate developer over a former secretary of state to be the next president.
The truth is that no candidate can win a national election with a negative message. It can’t be done.
In 2012, Republican nominee Mitt Romney sealed the fate for his loss when a recording of him surfaced, wherein he’s seen telling a private gathering of supporters that there’s simply nothing he can do to get 47% of the electorate to vote for him. It was defeatist and hopeless.
By contrast, Trump in the 2016 campaign said out loud that he would win every vote that Democrats rely on. He would win California and New York. He would win Latinos and blacks.
Of course none of that happened, but he either maintained the level of support any other Republican might have received or even grew some of it, as he did with the share of Latino votes. And that’s despite the national media day in and day out calling him a racist.
Why is it always Trump, or really any other Republican, who is “divisive”? Democrats carve people up into categories of race, gender, and sexuality with zeal. But we’re told that’s not division, that’s diversity.
Trump says, hey, maybe we shouldn’t allow all of Latin America’s destitute people to pour into our country needing free food, housing, and healthcare. The media call that nothing more than a maneuver to “keep people pissed off and frustrated.”
It’s not true, and people outside of the media know that.
