Where he leads, they follow: Right wing blogosphere continues to defend Trump
Despite many within the GOP’s establishment having — albeit superficially — denounced President Trump’s recent, juvenile and sociopathological Twitter displays of sexist misogyny and anti-press violence, many if not most within the right’s fervent blogosphere continue to support Trump no matter the cost.
While this should come as no surprise, it is worth examining the outright hypocrisy purported within; as authors and audience alike tend to overlook even the most recent of historical accounts in an effort to paint their president as nobly honor-bound.
One such effort has been audaciously put forth by popular grass-roots right wing blog American Thinker; a moniker which rings of absurd irony considering the positions and topics championed by the publication.
In one of its latest posts, author Patricia McCarthy insists upon Trump’s strength and fortitude by way of claiming his disgusting, disparaging remarks regarding MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were “well deserved.”
McCarthy (assuming not a nom de plume) is seemingly intentioned on the vilification of the left at any cost — truth and accountability be damned — as evident in some of her recent posts entitled Who knew journalists were just snowflakes?, The reptilian visage of the American left and The Obamas: The Kardashians 2.0.
Obviously, not exactly Pulitzer stuff here. But then again, the right never seems to show much interest in the written works of actual intellectuals.
Now, I am quite certain that any number of blogs, news sites and opinion pieces can aptly debunk the inane assertions in this post and others like it (and have already), but I want to spend some time dissecting — section by section — the outright shameful and indefensible ideas wrought by this author in particular in the slimmest of hopes that perhaps someone might better question the publication’s vision and its establishment as a right wing standard of sorts (the article itself was in fact recently retweeted by Fox News host Sean Hannity).
To begin, the author opens her piece with a quote by Christopher Hitchens; one of my favorite authors and journalists who — obviously unknown to McCarthy — was a famed atheist and self-proclaimed enemy of the religious right (she forgot to cite that part in her quote). Perhaps his best complete work — God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything — takes sharp and devastating aim at some of the very tenets inherent in American Thinker, while his experiences in and adoration for Cuba would probably make most on the right shudder.
Truth be told, however, Hitchens’ quote was the best part of her post due largely to his awesome way with words and expert ability to back up educated opinion with invincible facts. In other words: the opposite of what McCarthy has slapped together.
Here, I offer to McCarthy, a far more apt Hitchens quote to better suit her logic:
“Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just ‘people of faith’ but theocratic bullies.”
See no evil
See no evil
“The ever-execrable Joe Scarborough and Mika Brezenski (sic) are basking in the glory of mud of their own making,” wrote McCarthy, “ they think they are heroes of a kind because Trump tweeted something crass about them. Indeed he did. But it was well-deserved. The pair host a morning program on the anti-Trump MSNBC each morning to which they dedicate nearly every moment to trashing Trump in every conceivable way, mostly personal.”
The spelling of Mika Brzezinski’s name isn’t the only thing the author got wrong in her opening paragraph. Contrary to McCarthy’s defenseless assertion, the MSNBC duo’s “trashing of Trump” consists largely of criticisms of his self-made issues; policy, experience, history, finances, lies and, yes, his personal demeanor as it affects millions of Americans. He gives them no shortage of material to reflect upon as he treats the public to week after week of inane, anti-truth and grossly disparaging personal innuendo.
“They are cruel and vicious like the worst ten-year-old bully at a rough elementary school,” she continued. “They rarely discuss policy; they would not have a clue. They know nothing about health care, immigration, tax reform, national security, etc.They are thoroughly ignorant of all things substantive.”
Joe Scarborough is a former U.S. Congressman (Florida) and card-carrying Republican who has often fought on both sides of the aisle, on and off screen. Mika Brezinski is an established and educated author and politico in her own right (a visiting fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics) who has notoriously critiqued and often embarrassed politicians on both sides of the aisle as well, and she happens to be the daughter of decorated former Diplomat and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who died only a few weeks ago.
I would say their resumes — combined or taken one at a time — are for more “substantive” than even the President himself, let alone a blog author who cannot even have the foresight to Wikipedia someone’s name.
Despite pedigree, however, the author equates the Morning Joe cast to “all hired thugs who betray their declared professions by being so easily purchased…shameless professional Trump bashers.”
Even the staunchest “leftist” would disagree, as both Scarborough and Brzezinski have received oodles of well-deserved criticism from the left for having played a huge part in the now-President’s meteoric, media-based rise to power throughout the Election 2016 cycle.
Recklessness needs to be checked
“Trump finally retaliated after eight months of tolerating their vitriol.”
Not even close to true; as their “vitriol” was clear and definitive professional criticism of the president’s abhorrence to truth and accountability as well as his notoriously “unpresidential” reactions — via social media or otherwise — to the events of the day.
Trump’s behaviors, lies, backtracking and deflecting are indicative of a liar unhinged — pushing the line of pathological and sociopathological — and whose daily outbursts overwhelmingly strike a nerve of concern for his own mental health and stability literally the world over.
This is not “fake news,” rather it is a global threat as a clear indicator of the dangers potentially wrought by the most powerful nation in the world at the helm of a deranged lunatic.
“[Trump’s Tweets were] well-deserved payback for months of vindictive nonsense that Joe and Mika spew each day. Good for Trump. Was it distasteful? Yes, it was. Are we Americans unaccustomed to such a ruthless reprisal from our President? Yes, we are. We have for too long accepted the spiteful language of the left. Because conservatives have better manners, we take it lying down.”
In the author’s eye, Trump’s “distasteful” behavior is allowable simply because it is now deemed acceptable for a President to unabashedly stoop lower than the lowest common denominator. In her reasoning, the office of the president should be held to no standard of discourse or rationale; that attacks of a personal nature and outright fabrications are valid discourse. She also insists that this is something apparent only of the Trump administration; conveniently disqualifying the near-decades’ long onslaught of vile, personal attacks against the Obamas, the previous administration or any and all “left” politicos caught in the crosshairs of Fox News, its audience, commenters, and lesser-established cells like American Thinker.
“There is no question that the silly duo Joe and Mika deserved every hard-bitten word. They are the bullies; they attack Trump and conservatives all day long from their cushy on-screen chairs and have the audacity to be jolted when someone, anyone, fights back.”
In other words: “No I’m not, you are!”
This is the funniest part yet, as Trump has built a global brand by actually being a bully; a tactic he himself admits. McCarthy has obviously never read a single, educated sentence that critically and informedly dissects Trump; who he is, why he is, and what he both represents and endangers. His harsh words, actions and faculties do not exonerate his own history. They exemplify it. They exaggerate his nature and are a testament to exactly why he should never have been voted into office in the first place.
“The butt of Trump’s tweet, Joe and Mika, are as mind-numbed as mind-numbed lefties can be. They do not think critically about any policy debate and cannot discuss one intelligently. All they know is the politics of personal destruction of the opposition.”
Again, McCarthy was apparently asleep between 2008 and 2016, when her very own brood of abhorrent, self-serving, right wing personalities consistently led the charge of personal, brutish attacks. How can any reader take this drivel seriously? Is “mind-numbed” something with which she is acutely experienced?
A little self reflection may help
McCarthy concludes her piece by “highlighting” — aka “regurgitating” — Trump’s factless claims against MSNBC’s ratings as evidence of her cause, as though sensationalism and spectacle were indicators of truth.
What she fails to mention, observe or barely acknowledge is that the case(s) against Trump stand on their own merits without the help of any supposed left-wing morning show anchors. Trump has cemented his own stature as a national embarrassment and bully-in-chief who is losing the respect of even his own Republican cohorts.
McCarthy and bloggers, journalist and politicians like her are satisfied to ignore the president’s pathetically juvenile persona and seemingly adore his WWE-like character bashing while lamenting the left’s audacity to call him on either.
And there is an inherent danger to all this to which they seem — to borrow the author’s own term — “mind-numbed.” Her own and other’s blind acceptance of Trump’s malignant defamation of decorated American thinkers, soldiers, politicians, journalists community leaders and — perhaps most damning — the office of the president itself is precisely the kind of anti-intellectual belligerence that threatens the nation’s longevity in the years to come.