What I said, but he says it better


Muzzle tov in San Francisco

How the P.C. Police propelled Donald Trump, by a Trump hater.

Tom Nichols:

The American left created Donald Trump.

When I say “the left,” I do not mean the Democratic Party—or, solely the Democratic Party. Rather, the pestilence that is the Trump campaign is the result of a conglomeration of political, academic, media, and cultural elites who for decades have tried to act as the arbiters of acceptable public debate and shut down any political expression from Americans with whom they disagree. They, more than anyone else, created Donald Trump’s candidacy and the increasingly hideous movement he now leads.


It’s pointless to try to explain Trump in terms of political platforms because Trump himself is too stupid and too incoherent to have any kind of consistent political views about anything beyond hating minorities and immigrants. Nuclear weapons? “With nuclear, the power, the devastation is very important to me.” Drugs? “That whole heroin thing, I tell you what, we gotta get that whole thing under control.” A random word generation program could do better.


To understand Trump’s seemingly effortless seizure of the public spotlight, forget about programs, and instead zero in on the one complaint that seems to unite all of the disparate angry factions gravitating to him: political correctness. This, more than anything, is how the left created Trump.


I am not referring here to the daily political correctness that became normal after the 1970s, the reflexive self-editing that we’ve all learned to do, almost unconsciously, in the name of being nice to other people. This early “correctness” was always awkward and artificial, but it wasn’t overly onerous.


Today, however, we have a new, more virulent political correctness that terrorizes both liberals and conservatives, old-line Democrats and Republicans, alike. This form of political correctness is distinctly illiberal; indeed, it is not liberalism at all but Maoism circa the Cultural Revolution.


The extremist adherents of this new political correctness have essentially taken a flamethrower to the public space and annihilated its center. Topics in American life that once were the legitimate subjects of debate between liberals and conservative are now off-limits and lead to immediate attack by the cultural establishment if raised at all. Any incorrect position, any expression of the constitutional right to a different opinion, or even just a slip of the tongue can lead to public ostracism and the loss of a job. (Just ask Brendan Eich.) There is a huge vacuum left by this leftist attack on speech, and Trump is filling it.

Gay marriage is a good example. Liberals wanted gay marriage to win in the Supreme Court, and it did. Leftists wanted more: to silence their opponents even after those opponents completely lost on the issue. Ugly language that good liberals would normally deplore emerged not in the wake of defeat, but of victory: actor and gay activist George Takei, for example, actually  called Justice Clarence Thomas a “clown in blackface” and said Thomas had “abdicated” his status as an African American. That’s heavy stuff, and it would likely scan better written in Chinese on a paper dunce cap.


I could reel off many other examples. When The New York Times tells the rubes that it’s time to hand in their guns, when The Washington Post suggests that Jesus is ashamed of them for not welcoming Syrian refugees the week after a terrorist attack, people react not because they love guns or hate Syrians, but because their natural urge to being told by coastal liberals that they’re awful people and that they should just obey and shut up is to issue a certain Anglo-Saxon verb and pronoun combination with all the vigor they can muster. And if they can’t say it themselves, they’ll find someone who will, even if it’s a crude jerk from Queens who can’t make a point without raising his pinky like a Mafia goon explaining the vig to you after you’ve had a bad day at the track.


These brutish leftist tactics radicalized otherwise more centrist people toward Trump not because they care so much about gay marriage or guns or refugees any other issue, but because they’re terrified that they’re losing the basic right to express themselves. Many of these people are not nearly as conservative or extreme as the white supremacists, nativists, and other assorted fringe nuts who are riding along on Trump’s ego trip. But they are cheering on Trump because they feel they have nowhere else to go. And for that, liberals—especially those who have politely looked away as such methods were employed in the public square—must directly shoulder the blame.


Filed under Uncategorized

28 responses to “What I said, but he says it better

  1. Cos Cobber


  2. Walt

    Dude –

    Absolutely 100 % spot on. But what is amazing, STAGGERING and perplexing, is you have a reader, AND I QUOTE, who say “There is no ‘“progressive” assault on free speech’ again, because the GOVERNMENT IS NOT INVOLVED”. They are deaf dumb and blind. That is what is really frightening. They can’t see the beast about to eat them. They are either ignorant to it, or FEVERISHLY CHEERING IT ON!! Insanity. Retardation.

    Free speech is under TOTAL ASSAULT by the progressives, and it has to be stopped. The only good news, is it has swung so far to the left, they are starting to eat their own:


    Your Pal,

    • It is interesting. Left wing nuts aren’t usually given to introspection, so allowing a bit of reason to appear on the Daily Beat’s pages is almost unprecedented. Trump must really scare them.

  3. Anonymous

    Spot on. I haven’t seen it explained so eloquently before.

  4. Kensington Smythe

    Jolly good! What a lovely essay on those superfluous snots.

  5. Political correctness has gone so overboard that one can’t use the word ‘niggardly’ (look it up). And one can’t root for the Washington Redskins, Dartmouth Indians, etc. etc.

    Think for a minute why newspapers never show photos of gang members, rape gangs, prisoners, etc. Because too often all the men are black. If the 5 rapists or thieves are all black, that photo simply doesn’t run because it doesn’t fit the political view of our liberal masters.

    Your media is busted, example # 583,905.

  6. Anonymous

    Bobby Jindal’s piece in today’s WSJ on how Obama created Trump…

    President Obama doesn’t get enough credit for his accomplishments. I know this because he often tells us it is so. I happen to agree that he doesn’t get enough credit. No, not for slowing the rise of the oceans or healing the planet, as he immodestly claimed he would, even before taking office. He has succeeded handsomely, though, in living up to his vow to be a transformative president, like Ronald Reagan, and not an incremental one in the Bill Clinton mold. Mr. Obama has accomplished many changes—they just aren’t the ones we were waiting for.

    Mr. Obama has alienated allies like Israel while encouraging adversaries like Iran and Cuba. He has fostered Americans’ record-breaking dependence on government programs and record-low participation in the workforce. He has expanded the power, size and expense of the federal government in unprecedented ways, all at the expense of Americans’ freedom, standard of living and economic well-being.

    But the president truly doesn’t get enough credit for creating one of the most polarizing forces in American politics today. No, not Hillary—that is more Bill’s doing. Let’s be honest: There would be no Donald Trump, dominating the political scene today if it were not for President Obama.

    I believe that voters tend to act in open-seat presidential elections to correct for the perceived deficiencies of the incumbent. In 1980, after four years of President Carter’s telling us to turn up the thermostat and wear a cardigan, while the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and the Iranians invaded the U.S. Embassy, the fed-up American people elected a cowboy to the White House who made it clear that the evil empire’s days were numbered.

    After eight years of President Reagan’s supply-side economics and broadsides against welfare queens, we got a kinder, gentler President H.W. Bush. After four years of international diplomacy without the “vision thing,” we got a loquacious Arkansas governor promising to invent a third way forward focused on the economy at home. After eight years of Clintonian empathy and skirt-chasing, we got a plain-spoken President George W. Bush, who promised to restore integrity to the Oval Office. After Hurricane Katrina and post-Hussein Iraq, we got the professorial President Barack Obama, who seemed to many to promise competence.

    After seven years of the cool, weak and endlessly nuanced “no drama Obama,” voters are looking for a strong leader who speaks in short, declarative sentences. Middle-class incomes are stagnant, and radical Islam is on the march across the Middle East. No wonder voters are responding to someone who promises to make America great again. You can draw a straight line between a president who dismisses domestic terrorist attacks as incidents of workplace violence and a candidate who wants to ban Muslims from entering the country.

    Mr. Obama likes to bemoan the increasing partisan divides across the country, as if he were merely a passive observer at best and a victim at worst. Uncharacteristically, the president is being too modest. He has created the very rancor he now rails against. Imagine how different things would be if Mr. Obama had pursued a stimulus bill that included targeted tax cuts and infrastructure spending balanced with gradual entitlement reforms—instead of a stimulus that merely dusted off congressional Democrats’ wish list of pork-barrel projects and ideological experiments.

    Imagine if Mr. Obama had actually worked with Republicans in an open process to bring down health-care costs—instead of pushing through, on a partisan vote, the largest expansion of government-welfare programs in a generation. Or if he had listened to the message that voters sent in the first midterm election by putting Republicans in charge of Congress—instead of petulantly relying on executive orders, and using an eraser and whiteout on the Constitution, to shove the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies deeper into Americans’ lives.

    Over the past seven years America could have been transformed in an inspiring way if its education system had been opened up, if its energy policy had been liberated, if the entire approach to governing had been overhauled. President Obama chose the opposite approach, favoring a closed education system that fails millions of children and an energy policy that chains the economy to his green agenda.

    President Obama loves to construct straw men so he can contrast his heroic self against them. But Donald Trump needs no characterization; he is capable of being absurd on his own, no outside help required. Without President Obama, there is no Donald Trump. Mr. Trump often diagnoses the ills Mr. Obama has caused, but his prescriptions are just as often wrong. America deserves better.

    Mr. Jindal is the former governor of Louisiana.

  7. Anonymous

    Amen to this article. Exhibit A: The recent Oscar telecast was the most UNWATCHABLE, un-fun show I have seen in a lifetime. The PC of it spewing ever single second was just disgusting.

  8. Trigger was a horse

    I’ve been trying to put into words how the new speak transmitted by the new tech is essentially going to be our demise. This explains it perfectly.

  9. Anonymous

    Trump’s support is not mostly a response to political correctness. While one factor, Trump is primarily filling a very deep pent-up desire for a candidate who represents voters instead of the Washington lobbyists. Trump knows that the establishments in both parties have thrown their middle-class constituents under the bus, to do the bidding of the special big business and other interests who finance political campaigns and the other elements of the Washington establishment.

    The existing political order provides billions for the campaigns, political advisers, lobbyists,Think-tanks, media and other elements of the existing system, regardless of which party is in power. Trump represents an uncontrollable element that could disrupt that gravy train. This may be a key reason for the movement to have a brokered convention that would almost guaranty a Hillary victory, Many in the Republican establishment might favor that to a Trump victory, just to maintain the status quo.

    • Publius

      “Trump knows that the establishments in both parties have thrown their middle-class constituents under the bus, to do the bidding of the special big business and other interests who finance political campaigns and the other elements of the Washington establishment.”

      Trump knows this because he too has thrown the middle class under the bus, whether it be in NYC or AC. Trump’s status quo is in NYC not DC. He is part of the special interest real estate crowd in NYC. NYC real estate operates on a quid pro quo with all the elected officials regardless of party. Trump U in a few bullet points
      – Have a father who became rich in the real estate business
      – Get a 7 figure loan from your old man
      – Donate $$’s to various politicians in NYC
      – Get favored tax abatements and other favors in return
      – Rinse, repeat

      That sir or madam is the very essence of Donald Trump. The only difference between DT and DC is geography.

      • Anonymous

        Exactly because he’s done all of the things you list, he knows how to curtail the Washington establishment.

    • Spot on Anonymous @ 3:35pm. Publius, Trump has not thrown the middle class under the bus – he’s created thousands of jobs for them. Aside from those jobs, he is actually speaking about policies (admittedly not fleshed out but the same is true of Hillary’s plans, Rubio’s plans etc.) that will help the middle class. Most of all, as Anonymous explains, Trump is very obviously not controlled by the media or the Washington insiders of either party. They are extremely afraid of him and losing the control they currently enjoy.

  10. AJ

    Ted Cruz eats a booger at the debate. His swan song? He’s toast.

  11. AJ

    Everybody wants Trump to get specific; why should? He’s winning. What they mean is they want him to put himself in a position they can attack. uh-huh.

    Donald Trump, smarter than you think:

  12. Walt

    Dude –
    The stench of retard is strong today. Many names.
    Your Pal,

  13. Anonymous

    Trump is the only Republican with a chance to beat Hillary. She and Bill know exactly how to campaign against a Rubio, Cruz, Kasich or any other regular Republican politician. Trump is a wild-card who will constantly confront her with unexpected..

  14. He’s a wild card all right. So is the guy who takes a crap on the counter at McDonald’s.
    To back the Donald takes a great deal of male peacock-strutting, a good amount of disgust, and very little if any actual thinking.

  15. This is by far the best piece I’ve read about the rise of Trump. As vulgar as he might be, just the thought of another 8 years of Clintons in the White house (and believe me, once they get in there, you won’t be able to get rid of them after 4 years!), gives me the creeps. However, I think society thinks it’s time for a woman president and that’s the end of that.

  16. The Baumber

    Peak politics. Donald Trump, the bubble candidate. Amazing to watch the lemming like behavior of human beings. Great opportunity to make money on the other side of this irrational exuberance like there always is when a bubble forms. Trump will win and most people on this website will vote for him because I can already read how people are trying to justify doing what they cant logically defend – just like they did with tech stocks in 1999 and houses in 2006. The big short is apparent on the other side of Trump so I am building that position – think about the securities you want to sell, its a no brainer in the Trump world. And the lemmings march to the polls just like they did buying tech stocks in 1999 and houses in 2006. The madness of crowds……

  17. Why would markets crash only with Trump, but not with Hillary? NIRP and ZIRP kill the financial system (and savers) either way….