The Wall Street Journal Has Regrets
The Wall
Street Journal’s editorial “Trump Has Regrets” (July 19th, 2019) offers a perfect example of the “ugly political moment” it condemns
with an argument so arrogant it blinds itself to how juvenile and preposterous
it is. Starting with the incredible claim that Trump’s regret of the “Send Her
Back” chant is “the moral equivalent of an apology”, (what exactly is the
“moral equivalent of an apology? I regret the extermination of six million Jews
and therefore I’m sorry I caused it?) it continues with a cynical dismissal of
the 2016 chants of “Lock Her Up” at Trump’s presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton
as “raucous partisan spirit” and foreshadows the twisted path this editorial descends.
Stating that “Mr. Trump
lambasted Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar for hating America” without the least
attempt to question his outrageous claim is a flat out accusation in itself. We
are then offered a lofty proclamation: “the crowd’s chant shows how easily an
ill-thought presidential comment can inspire ugly expressions of mass
psychology.” followed by another lofty proclamation masking another baseless
allegation: “But Wednesday’s chant was meaner in targeting Ms. Omar not merely
for what she has said but that as a naturalized citizen who should be banished
from the U.S. The impulse was raw nativism.”
This not so subtle circuitous propaganda
is everywhere these days. Two very serious accusations thinly veiled by
self-righteousness are thrown at Rep. Ilhan Omar: she hates America and she
said so. After an attack every bit as blatant as Trump’s tweets and his
supporters’ chants, what’s a good Wall Street Journal editorial to do? How
about the icing on the cake quote from a North Carolina Republican who was at
the rally? “Her history, words and actions reveal her great disdain for both
America & Israel.”
Let’s move on from
“the moral equivalent of an apology” to complete exoneration: “’I was not happy
with it. I disagree with it. But again, I didn’t say that, they did.’ Mr. Trump
said. That absolves himself of his tweets that expressed similar statements
about Rep. Omar and three colleagues.” Take it from the Wall Street Journal my
fellow Americans, the next time you whip your fellow citizens into a racist
chant of “raw nativism” make sure to
say you weren’t happy with it, that you disagree with it and that you didn’t
say it, they did. Once you’re absolved of “ugly expressions of mass psychology”, you can whip your followers into doing anything you want: the mass incarceration and ethnic cleansing of Hispanics, African Americans, Palestinians, protesters, people guilty of "thought crimes", etc. and as many "final solutions" as necessary.
But these bizarre
attacks and absolutions need something more to raise them (or lower them) to
true power driven, arrogant propaganda and the Wall Street Journal offers a perfect example of one of the most important tools in a rising dictatorship's ammunition clip, the rewriting of history. The editorial equates the “Send Her Back”
chant with another “indulgence of such group targeted demagoguery” when “FDR
railed in his 1932 campaign against ‘the Ishmaels and the Insulls, whose hand
is against every man’s.’ That was an anti-Semitic jibe against disgraced
Chicago utilities magnet Samuel Insull.” Actually no, that quote was at the end of a 4000-word speech by Roosevelt decrying
corporate greed and abuse in the depths of the Great Depression. The figure of Ishmael, who “shall be a
wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against
him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen” (Genesis 16:12) is the biblical
definition of a sociopath. It is from the Old Testament, the Torah and the
Koran. To call it anti-Semitic is imbecilic. Samuel
Insull was an American businessman
whose greed caused the collapse of his company resulting in the ruin of tens of
thousands of his fellow citizens. Insull, like Ishmael cared nothing for his
fellow men and that was the focus of Roosevelt’s comment. The point of
Roosevelt’s speech was that if greedy American industrialists do not take
responsibility for their power over the American economy and the rest of
America suffers for it, government must step in.
That’s exactly what
Roosevelt did when he became president and that so terrifies the editors of the
Wall Street Journal that they offer this jaw-dropping conclusion. “The 2020
campaign is shaping up to be vicious even by recent political standards, and
mass antipathy is hard to control once it’s unleashed. Americans will hold Mr.
Trump and Republicans responsible if yahoos take Mr. Trump’s words as a license
for violence.” followed by “there’s plenty to criticize the Democrats for on
their views and rhetoric without denigrating immigrants or classes of people.
By all means call a policy socialist if that’s what it is.” In other words, Democrats
can be defeated in 2020 because they are socialists but an ugly chant might
result in violence that could hinder Trump and Republican chances in the
elections. Again, Trump’s words
(and this editorial) could result in violence that
might hurt Republicans in the 2020 elections.
Just let that sink
in. These Ishmaels will have
regrets if Trump and his enablers, The Wall Street Journal included inspire mass
slaughter, physical and mental maiming for life, the destruction of families and
the nail in the coffin for American society because Americans will hold them
responsible and their chances in the 2020 elections could suffer.
Could we ask a
question of the editorial staff of The Wall Street Journal? Have any of you
ever seen what a round from an assault weapon does to the human body?
I guess all one can
offer The Wall Street Journal is “Thoughts and Prayers”.
Richard Talbot Hill
Copyright
2019
No comments:
Post a Comment