Image courtesy of DonkeyHotey
Every so often, it is important to remind ourselves that liberalism may indeed be, or at least represent, a form of mental illness (was that enough qualifiers for you?)? Relax, just kidding. But then again…
Just how else can one account for the left’s increasingly unsteady, self-destructive, even sociopathic behavior since the election of Donald Trump? The fact is, when you strip away the sideshows, the left is losing the argument with the 45th president on most every front. They have been repelled by Trump as Dracula is by the sun, and are doubling down on the creepy and repudiated progressivism of the dearly departed administration. Have you seen the two seriously radical leftists being widely promoted for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee?
This all happens as Trump has commanded the stage, selecting a most impressive and widely heralded cabinet, shaming the media for the partisan hacks everybody knows they are, and daily trumpeting new American jobs and investments even before he took office. The left knows perfectly well that its clock is getting cleaned, so they have been reduced to table pounders. You know the old saw in legal circles about trial strategy – if you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table.
Trump is making them crazy.
And one of the most delicious parts of this entire storyline is when that exemplar of the rabid left, NY Times columnist Paul Krugman, writes drivel that would be laughed off if it was penned by some random writer hired specifically to caricature the left.
Krugman holds the distinction of being reliably wrong on every issue 100% of the time (alright, alright, he was right in one paragraph of one story last year, so sue me). But it’s one thing to be wrong. People are wrong all the time. It’s quite another thing to consistently argue the opposite of the truth. That’s a higher standard. Or lower standard, I suppose. In any case, a standard well met by the Krugster.
But things have certainly changed since the election, haven’t they? The stunning reversal of fortune on November 8 has produced a delightful new reality just dawning on so many of us – we can now actually enjoy the Krugmans of the world, something unthinkable during the endless years he made our skin crawl. We can now laugh to our heart’s content as we watch the Krugmans circle the drain, kicking and screaming and cursing fate for their utter humiliation.
Yes, with a blissful absence of self-awareness and a heaping helping of hubris and self-delusion, the Krugmans are spinning into oblivion. They have become cartoon characters. Dripping with sound and fury, flagrant hypocrites throwing darts in the dark at imaginary boogeymen. They seem not to realize they have been disgraced, and thus evacuated of their previous and inexplicable relevance.
Oh! How they pine for a return to the salad days when polite Republicans like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney would lose, and do so as gentlemen. But Trump’s triumph and associated Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has rendered Mr. Krugman a gravely-wounded predator backed into a corner.
Krugman’s latest diatribe in the NY Times might rightfully be labeled “a new low, even for him.” Except that it’s not. It’s just par for the course. Indeed, in his inauguration week column With All Due Disrespect, he reminds us afresh of just how far off the deep end he’s been swimming for all the years he has been inflicted upon us like a plague on the land.
After once comparing Trump to Benito Mussolini, his latest column refers to Trump as “dear leader,” a term until now reserved for the world’s most barbaric totalitarian dictator, Kim Jong-Il.
But wait, there’s more. Much more.
“the victor was rejected by the public, and won the Electoral College only thanks to foreign intervention and grotesquely inappropriate, partisan behavior on the part of domestic law enforcement…..Did the Trump campaign actively coordinate with a foreign power? Did a cabal within the FBI deliberately slow-walk investigations into that possibility?…..Hillary Clinton would most surely have won if the FBI hadn’t conveyed the the false impression that it had damaging new information about her, just days before the vote.”
Right. The Obama Justice Department was inappropriately partisan against Obama’s chosen successor. Still haven’t worked that through with your analyst, huh?
Weighing in on the John Lewis controversy: “Is it OK, morally and politically, to declare the man about to move into the White House illegitimate? Yes, in fact it’s an act of patriotism.”
“No president-elect has had less right to the title.” Guess he didn’t notice that Trump won the electoral college by 14 percent – 57% to 43%.
“What we’re looking at, all too obviously, is American kakistocracy – rule by the worst.” Wonder how long he had to drill down in the thesaurus to dazzle us with that one – guess “kakistocracy” can rest alongside “Dystopia,” which we learned in the midst of the left’s unhinged rants after the election.
“Saying that the election was tainted isn’t a smear or a wild conspiracy theory; it’s simply the truth.” Quick quiz – can you name which of the world’s 196 countries did not try to influence the election by whatever means available to them? Right, thought you couldn’t. And oh, by the way, did Obama and his minions not try to covertly undermine Benjamin Netanyahu and influence the outcome of the last Israeli election?
This guy and his fellow leftists have made hypocrisy an art form. They lectured us on the existential threat posed by Trump’s refusal to preemptively accept the outcome of the election…and are now acting the fascist by proceeding to do exactly that themselves.
But to seal the deal and remove any doubts you may still have about his derangement, we take you back to something tweeted by the NY Times columnist shortly after the election: Thought: There was (rightly) a cloud of illegitimacy over Bush, dispelled (wrongly) by 9/11,” he wrote on Twitter. “Creates some interesting incentives for Trump.” Yes, you read it right. He thinks Trump would gin up another 9/11. This is on the same continuum as the 9/11 truthers who persist in their belief that George W. Bush himself orchestrated the worst terrorist attack in American history.
So, is this the righteous posture of the esteemed godfather of progressive economics – or the plaintiff wailing of a desperate loser whose relevance is now limited to the darkest corners of the internet alongside the likes of Keith Olbermann? Or are those two descriptions now interchangeable?
This guy represents the soul – the moral high ground – of a left wing which wears “tolerance” on its sleeve? Paul Krugman is a beacon in the dark night which is Trump’s America?
