Trump Supporters Need to be Held Accountable

by C. Edmund Wright5/6/16

Enough with the sore winners pity party already. I and many other columnists, commentators, and speakers have been accused of being a sore loser a few thousand times on this and other sites — and for the sake of argument I’ll admit those charges might have merit.

But keep in mind, a sore loser is one thing, but a sore winner is something else altogether.

Consider: In his first American Thinker column (5/5/16) — “The War on Trump Supporters Must Be Stopped” — John Kudla closes with the passive aggressive sarcastic pout that  “clearly, I just do not understand because I am too low information, too foolish, too emotional, and too stupid. After all, I am just a hick.”

I do not know Mr. Kudla, nor have I read anything else from him. So all I can do is use his own words yesterday to indicate that indeed he does not understand the conservative opposition to Trump at all. Keep in mind that I am at least doing Kudla the courtesy of reading his piece before countering it and actually addressing his points. None of the nearly four thousand posts to my articles this week involved either exercise.

Think about that in context of your complaint.

Kudla’s article seems to indicate that he thinks all opposition to Trump is from the establishment/elitist/liberal point of view. None of those words make you a hick or stupid, but I would argue that they indicate a lack of information if not low information. They also indicate emotion over logic. And there’s no war on you anyway. It’s called debate.

Now about some of your other specific assertions:

You are all hicks and worse! You are hicks because you want decent good paying jobs, and you are sick of American companies moving overseas.

No one has ever claimed that, but it’s true that you have no idea how to keep American companies from moving overseas. You do that by rolling government back, not by threatening them, Stalin-style. So please sir, enough with the hick stuff. No one is using that word.  And quit thinking you are the only people on the planet in favor of good jobs. It’s simply a matter of how to achieve this. You don’t own the sentiment.

You are hicks because you want a wall on the border and illegal immigration stopped.

You need to stop seeing Lindsey Graham or John McCain under every rock. First, many conservative opponents of Trump agree with him largely on immigration. Second, most conservative opposition to Trump has nothing to do with the wall or continued immigration, but with the realities and nuances of his deportation plans. There are others who doubt Trump’s commitment to his deportation rhetoric, questioning his “touch back” plan and his interview with the NY Times. But to your point, there is little or no pushback against Trump supporters on the general idea of a secure border. None.

You are all hicks because you like your doctor and you want to keep your doctor.

But is Trump committed to that? Maybe some think you are a hick because you ignore Trump’s statements on health care. The vast majority of the conservative opposition to Trump has to do with the fact that he’s favored the idea of universal care most of his long long life, and to this day utters words that sound dangerously statist on health care. Trump was for ObamaCare before he was against it. To try and take the high road on healthcare in defense of Trump is, as some hicks say, bass ackwards.

You are hicks because you want your kids to learn something in school besides which bathroom to use and why they should hate America.

Another red herring. Trump is incoherent on public education in the area of state versus Federal control, but most conservatives were way ahead of Trump on Common Core. Most were warning against it while Trump was donating to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Thus it’s beyond absurd to try and paint him as a leader on this topic.

And in case you haven’t heard, Trump fumbled and bumbled the bathroom answer regarding North Carolina. (Along with inviting “Caitlin” Jenner to use the ladie’s room in Trump Tower.) You are, at a minimum, misguided on this point.

You are hicks because you think military veterans are less likely to die in combat than they are standing in line at the VA.

No one has ever said any such thing. You must be thinking of another candidate and another set of opposition than the one in today’s reality.

You are hicks because you think the Bill of Rights actually means something.

No, but it’s your man Trump who never mentions the Bill of Rights. He rarely mentions the Constitution. He never mentions limited government or liberty. Another alternate reality assertion.

Since early March, Trump voters have endured some of the most insulting malicious attacks ever in the print, online and social media, except this time the charge is not being led by the left-wing media or the Democrats, but by other Republicans.

Early March? Trump and his supporters coarsened the flavor of the debate in August of last year. Yes, you dragged everyone into the gutter with you, but you and your candidate were there many months before anyone else. I know you won’t agree, so we’ll have to agree to disagree on this – but the record of history is crystal clear.

The attackers have been supporters of the #NeverTrump movement and of the remaining Republican challengers, most notably supporters of Senator Ted Cruz.

That is true on the surface, but much of the #NeverTrump movement (and that does not include me) are people who have been in the trenches fighting government and fighting for liberty long before you have been. The internet indicates this is all very new to you. I submit Mark Levin, Andrew McCarthy, David Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Brent Bozell and many more have impeccable anti-Washington anti-establishment anti-liberal credibility. As for yours truly, I’ve been in this fight since 1992. My anti-establishment work has even earned me a personal insult from Karl Rove.

You are nothing but an inconvenience to the politicians who want lifetime employment offering their services to the highest bidders. You are nothing but a campaign problem to the billionaires who want to fatten their wallets at your expense.

You mean an inconvenience to those like Donald J. Trump? Wow.

Why don’t you keep in your place and do what you are told? Who do you think runs this country? How dare you threaten the powers that be?

Again, most conservatives were fighting the establishment when Trump was donating to them. We simply reject your argument here totally.

It was not long ago we knew who our enemies were.

I would submit maybe you never did know. At a minimum, you are confused on this now. You lump people with extraordinary conservative and anti-establishment credentials and histories with establishment hacks, big donors and liberal Democrats. Your assumption that my problem with Trump is the same as Jeb Bush’s or Rachel Maddow’s or Lindsay Graham’s is just totally inane.

Look, I’m sorry you think there’s a war on Trump supporters. I’ll probably pull the lever for your boy ultimately — I live in a purple state — but I will continue to expose the incoherence and dishonesty of much of his support and the man himself. The best I can hope for now is that those of us who opposed the man can somehow install some guard rails lest he fly way off the left side of the road.

CEdmundWrightC. Edmund Wright is contributor to StubbornThings, American Thinker, Breitbart, Newsmax TV, Talk Radio Network and author of WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again. • (904 views)

This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Trump Supporters Need to be Held Accountable

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One of the things Wright points out, if only by example, is the delusional aspect of the more vocal Trump supporters. Perhaps God only knows what they expect Trump to do because you can’t count on their familiarity with facts or reality to make a prediction.

    And palpable is their sense of victimhood. They’ve won and yet they’re still acting like cry-babies. This is why I refer to the Trump movement and their supporters as the right’s version of Occupy Wall Street. Incoherence, babbling rhetoric, unhinged anger, a maudlin sense of victimhood, and a very soft familiarity with facts and reality are the norm.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Note that Wright points out several red herrings which Mr. Kudla uses as if they were fact. Mr. Kudla’s remarks are similar to what one hears from many Trumpkins, except he replaces vulgarity with sarcasm. Either way, he is either aggressively dishonest or stupid.

    Mr. Kudla argues like a Leftist, i.e. facts are not important. Too many Trumpkins do the same and this is another thing that worries me.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Either way, he is either aggressively dishonest or stupid.

      Why choose?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I’ve noticed this about Trump, and it’s also true of his supporters: they behave like leftists. Note that Kudla not only ignores facts, but also seeks to see himself as a victim and looks at politics in tribal black-and-white terms, wherein “anti-Establishment” is defined as “pro-Trump” and “Establishment” is defined as “anti-Trump”. Prime leftist behavior — and very Orwellian.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Jonah Goldberg has some entertaining thoughts on the presidential race being a factor of entertainment. Which is, I guess, all we can expect from political punditry these days. No outrage. No call to action. Just flyover analysis that keeps one’s hands clean. Still, I think he makes a good point. And certainly it is one I’ve owned for some time: Our entertainment culture has boiled over and begun to dominate the political realm.

    Where’s my big check, Mr. Lowry?

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Charles Krauthammer asks an interesting question, which I’ve bolded:

    Not just let down or disappointed. Betrayed. By RINOs who, corrupted by donors and lobbyists, sold out. Did they repeal Obamacare? No. Did they defund Planned Parenthood? No. Did they stop President Obama’s tax-and-spend hyperliberalism? No. Whether from incompetence or venality, they let Obama walk all over them.

    But then comes the paradox. If insufficient resistance to Obama’s liberalism created this sense of betrayal, why in a field of 17 did Republican voters choose the least conservative candidate? A man who until yesterday was himself a liberal. Who donated money to those very same Democrats to whom the GOP establishment is said to have caved, including Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton.

    Trump has expressed sympathy for a single-payer system of socialized medicine, far to the left of Obamacare. Trump lists health care as one of the federal government’s three main responsibilities (after national security); Republicans adamantly oppose federal intervention in health care. He also lists education, which Republicans believe should instead be left to the states. As for Planned Parenthood, the very same conservatives who railed against the Republican establishment for failing to defund it now rally around a candidate who sings the praises of its good works (save for the provision of abortion).

    More fundamentally, Trump has no affinity whatsoever for the central thrust of modern conservatism — a return to less and smaller government. If the establishment has insufficiently resisted Obama’s Big Government policies, the beneficiary should logically have been the most consistent, indeed most radical, anti-government conservative of the bunch, Ted Cruz. Cruz’s entire career has consisted of promoting tea-party constitutionalism in revolt against party leaders who had joined “the Washington cartel.” Yet when Cruz got to his one-on-one with Trump at the Indiana OK Corral, Republicans chose Trump and his nonconservative, idiosyncratic populism.

    And now the kicker:

    True, Trump appealed to the economic anxiety of a squeezed middle class and the status anxiety of a formerly dominant white working class. But the prevailing conservative narrative — of anti-establishment fury — was different and is now exposed as a convenient fable. If Trump is a great big middle finger aimed at a Republican establishment that has abandoned its principles, isn’t it curious that the party has chosen a man without any?

    Krauthammer, who is yet another semi-liberal in conservative clothing, is hardly in a position to tsk tsk the Trump nomination. Krauthammer’s often mindless Establishment punditry has been part of the problem. But that doesn’t mean he can’t make a good point, which I think he does, although, of course, he offers no real analysis but the vague term “populism.” So, again, we have little more than “descriptive conservatism” coming from the conservative punditry. It’s like describing an automobile accident that you’ve witnessed. You can go on and on telling the officer that you saw the blue car swerve into the other lane and hit the red car. You could describe all sorts of details of the crash. But left out would be the reason for the crash. Perhaps the driver was drunk. Perhaps he was a “distracted driver” and was texting. Perhaps his car suffered a mechanical failure. Perhaps he was serving in order to avoid hitting something in the road. Saying that Trump’s nomination is due to “populism” is like say that that car crash was due to “stuff happens.”

    Conservative punditry is full of mere descriptive rhetoric that stays on the surface. But to be fair, as Timothy might say, we’re all scratching our heads trying to figure out why all the conundrums that Krauthammer mentioned came to pass.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Good words from Kevin Williamson:

    ‘Not Hillary Clinton’ isn’t good enough As soon as it became clear that game-show host Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee, the usual radio ranters and Fox News mouths began the inevitable litany: If you aren’t for Donald Trump, then you must be for Hillary Clinton — it’s Himself or Herself. There is more to this than A/B testing. “If you aren’t for Trump, then you’re for Clinton” is a cheap rhetorical ploy. I’d write that any thinking adult would be ashamed for falling for that kind of sixth-grade debater’s stratagem, but a Republican electorate capable of choosing Donald Trump as its standard-bearer is incapable of shame.

    The angry insistence — him or her! — is, for the moment, mainly an attempt to forestall further criticism of Trump. That criticism consists of stating a fact that is not a matter of degree but a binary proposition, a yes/no question. It is not that Trump is less mentally stable than Mrs. Clinton (probably true) or that he is more dishonest than Mrs. Clinton (difficult to say) or that he might do even more damage to the republic, or any other point of comparison between the candidates.

    The issue, instead, is this:

    Donald Trump is unfit for the office.

    He is unfit for any office, morally and intellectually.

    A man who could suggest, simply because it is convenient, that his opponent’s father had something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy is unfit for any position of public responsibility.


      All well and good as far as it goes. But if we accept, arguendo, that Trump is unfit for any public office, we are still left with the stubborn fact that the one and only alternative is Hillary. Is she more fit for public office than Trump is, with her insatiable lust for power and a history so unethical she makes the dirty-dealing Trump look like a boy scout by comparison?

      I understand there are many good people who won’t vote for Trump (I myself will do so unless I become convinced he’s truly deranged) and I have no intention of picking fights with any of them. But I think they must understand that by doing so, they are (willingly or not) helping Hillary win the election. I would say that anyone determined not to vote for Trump should first convince himself either that (1) He would be more destructive as President than Hillary; or (2) The long-term interests of Conservatism (as in saving the country) are best served by allowing Hillary to win, as they would have been had Jeb! been the nominee.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Is she more fit for public office than Trump is, with her insatiable lust for power and a history so unethical she makes the dirty-dealing Trump look like a boy scout by comparison?

        One thing we can say is that we are aware of her level and type of incompetency. And to steal a line from her, “What difference does it make?”

        And that truly is at issue here. What difference will it really make if it is the incompetent Trump or the incompetent Hillary who is chief executive of the United States? Nothing in Trump’s past, or current garbled rhetoric, suggests he would be better. And the line “Well, he might do one or two of the good things he’s promised” are hollow words. Trump is far too quixotic to give credence to that hope.

        Our best bet is keeping majorities in the House and Senate as a check on Hillary. At least there will be some instinctive R-vs.-D turf battles built in, no matter how collaborationist the typical RINO is. On the other hand, it’s easily foreseeable that Trump as president would not receive as much needed push-back.

        I’ll be voting for the libertarian.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Our best bet is keeping majorities in the House and Senate as a check on Hillary.

          That strategy has not worked well with Obama. I think it might even be worse with Hillary as she is not the outsider Obama was and knows all those pulling the strings in New York and D.C. Collusion will, likely, increase.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            It’s less a strategy, Mr. Kung, than one of the various scenarios that we have. The point is, the (what do we call them now? what is this movement we are facing?) Occupy Squirrel Street movement that Trump is heading will inevitably collapse and leave wreckage. The point is, is it better for the country that this happens in the campaign (with a loss) or in office as president? Neither is a particularly inviting prospect.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Very good points, but for most of us it’s actually irrelevant. There probably isn’t even a theoretical possibility that Trump will carry Illinois or the Fire Witch will carry Kentucky or Texas. So 3 of us in this discussion can vote as we wish without actually affecting the final result. Brad in Washington might be a different matter, but even there it’s extremely unlikely his vote will decide the result there.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Jim Geraghty reports:

    Within 24 hours of becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump had reversed his positions on tax increases, paying down the debt, raising the minimum wage, and self-financing his campaign. It was a busy day.r

    He quotes Trump:

    “You know, when you put out a tax plan, you are going to start negotiating,” he said. “You don’t say, ‘Okay, this is our tax plan, lots of luck, folks.’ There will be negotiation back and forth. And I can see that going up, to be honest with you. . . . During a negotiation, I could see that going up. I don’t want middle to go up at all, but I could see that going up. And I think that will probably happen. “

    Trump is either delusion or a liar. I suppose I should take my own advice. Why choose:

    In an April interview with the Washington Post, Trump boldly promised to eliminate the country’s $19 trillion debt in a period of eight years without raising taxes. A campaign spokesman later suggested a Trump administration would sell off about $16 trillion in government assets to pay down the debt. (The General Accounting Office calculated the federal government’s reported assets at about $3.2 trillion as of September 30, 2015.)r

    Sorry, but anyone who votes for this man has a screw loose. I’m not sure what the third way is yet. As bitter of a pill as this would be to swallow, I’d rather the Establishment select Romney or Ryan via the House of Representatives. But who to run in order to split the vote to make sure that no one has enough electoral votes? My first thought was Arnold Schwarzenegger, but for the political-celebrity culture, he’s sort of old news.

    Do you suppose we could get Caitlyn Jenner to run on the Gender-confused ticket?

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Some very good analysis from David French:

    That’s not to say that congressional Republicans have been as effective as they should have been, or that they are by any means beyond reproach. But I’ve changed my mind on the extent of the allegedly “justifiable” anger at the establishment. The more I hear the arguments of the most enraged voters, the more it sounds as if what they mean to say is, “I don’t know how things work, I don’t know what Republicans have stopped, and I don’t really care about either. Just fix everything. NOW.” They’re calling for a strongman. One wonders how many of them realize it.

    This is how you start to lose a democracy. When an unprincipled elite exploits public ignorance to trample the rights of those out of power, it builds resentment. But unless the resentful are informed and aware, they’re vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation by their side’s own “elites” and its demagogues. Thus, here we are, facing the most miserable presidential choice in generations, with two major-party candidates competing for the right to desecrate the Constitution to their own ends.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A nice article (and, by the way, I love your challenge to Trumpbots below). My own criticism of the Beltway Bandits was that they failed to fight back except for a few symbolic votes (“failure theater”) against Obamacare. Above all, they did a wretched job of explaining things to voters. The shutdown might have worked if they had told people — repeatedly, in major press conferences — what they had done and why, what they were doing to deal with emergencies, and why so many gross inconveniences were being created by the Spite House. But they acted as if they expected the synoptic media to report all this honestly. And their gross failures after the 2014 election were unconscionable.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        French is way way too easy on the Republicans in my opinion. Still, he makes a point that an uninformed, abused, and frustrated public are easy for demagogues to manipulate.

        But it goes way deeper than just Republican failures. Mr. Kung has opened my eyes on one particular point: The Republicans in Congress likely see just how uninformed, if not deranged, the voting class is. (Evidence: they just nominated Trump.) It’s all well and good for me to sit here behind the keyboard and expect them to stand up to Obama by, at the very least, using the power of the purse. But what if you know beforehand that your voting base is so uninformed and gullible that you’re sure to be tarred for doing the right thing?

        I’m not saying that the Establishment Republicans don’t have other motives such as getting rich, or that there are other prime factors, such as cowardice or lack of ideological rigor.

        But read this article by Daniel Greenfield at Frontpage Magazine. Actually, don’t do that. It’s enough to glance at the headline, although I did read the entire thing, painful as it was.

        This insanity has become mainstream. It was, ironically, likely a factor not only in voter discontent with the GOP Establishment (who surely on some level was well aware of this insanity and thus tempered their actions) but this low-information insanity surely was a factor in choosing the poison-pill of Trump.

        We’re always learning here, hopefully never getting stuck too deeply in a rut and willing to take on new information and perspectives. But, jeepers, I almost want to look up Marco Rubio and apologize for being so tough on him. He’s a breath of fresh air compared to what we actually have now.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Ye gods, but I couldn’t get far. Alcee Hasings, having been impeached and removed, should never have qualified to hold further public office, not that the alternative would likely be any better. Since spreading trees around is considered one of the ways of slowing global warming, we should figure out some way to use this. Perhaps we could point out that Hastings is the equivalent of a “denier”, or that the alarmists are creating racial traumas. But this sort of idiocy has to be used against liberalism.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            That guy is a sap.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            This is more than idiocy, it is evil. Such people cannot be reasoned with and should be, at a minimum, shunned. The problem is that the Left in general hates Western Civilization and clearly many Leftist blacks hate whites which they see as the personification of Western Civilization.

            That such scoundrels gain any purchase with their lunatic thoughts and demands, is a clear indication of the sickness upon us as a culture. In sane times, these people would be working at McDonald’s or the like and people would neither hear nor care what they said.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Mr. Kung has opened my eyes on one particular point: The Republicans in Congress likely see just how uninformed, if not deranged, the voting class is.

          The dearth of knowledge and thoughtfulness displayed by a rather large percentage of the American electorate is shocking. This is especially so given the ease with which one can inform one’s self, these days.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s a thought experiment for Trump voters: Name the things that you don’t like about Hillary that don’t apply to Trump.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      She is married to Bill.

      She served the Watergate Committee and was so dishonest that the Dems threw her out. Of course, today’s Dems would give her a medal.

      Her voice is more irritating.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *