When pointing out blatant hypocrisy, rarely are two situations similar enough to avoid “the circumstances are different” rationalizations for such double-standard deceit.
But in honestly reviewing Democrat attacks on Trump while ignoring, excusing, or even praising nearly identical actions from within, it’s impossible to argue that “no matter what” he says, supports, or accomplishes, such ad hominem attacks are based less on what he does than who he is.
And the clearest indication of such “no matter what” partisanism is playing out before our eyes in the omnipresent Democrat outrage over ICE raids in removing illegal and often criminally violent immigrants from our nation.
Demonizing ICE agents as ruthless masked thugs or Nazi Gestapo, Trump’s actions have been characterized by the mayor of Los Angeles as “the acts of a dictator,” by the California governor as “militarizing cities” and “arresting opponents,” and by Kamala Harris as intending to “spread panic and division.”
Yet, in relentlessly attacking Trump for working to mitigate the immigration disaster authored by his predecessor, the president’s statements and actions are no more draconian than those respectfully accepted or even praised during Democratic administrations.
Moreover, perfectly aligned in the “no matter what” category, instead of blaming Biden for opening the border in the first place, Trump, after securing our border within six months, is farcically condemned for not keeping our nation safe humanely enough.
In fact, that same Democrat Party and their media allies attacking Trump’s border actions hailed Bill Clinton when, in 1995, he stated that “all Americans are rightly disturbed by the large number of illegals entering our country… that they impose burdens on our taxpayers… [and] that’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders.”
And hardly a shrinking violet in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants into our nation, Clinton received a standing ovation that same year during his State of the Union address, in affirming, “We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation… to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”
Yet, contrastingly, Hillary Clinton blamed Trump for inflaming the recent protests of mass deportations in Los Angeles by absurdly implying that the president likes anarchy because “chaos is good for Trump.”
But even a more obvious “no matter what” hypocritical condemnation exists when comparatively noting that during Barack Obama’s term, more than five million illegals were deported without widespread riots, media criticism, or even protests, and most without even a hearing from an immigration judge.
And that number, exceeding any other administration, was greater than the sum of all other presidents in the 20th century.
More specifically, during Obama’s first term alone, he oversaw the removal of over three million illegal immigrants, which was well over a million deportations more than in Trump’s first term.
Yet even though as “Deporter-in-Chief” Obama received tacit approval for issuing more migrant removal orders than any other president, and for stating that “real reform means stronger border security,” he, unlike Trump, was rarely, if ever, attacked for supposedly insensitive or xenophobic immigration policies.
So, what has changed to create such “no matter what” criticism by those applauding similar statements and policies by anyone not named Trump? Perhaps such hypocrisy has much to do with the proliferation of media outlets into numerous, unambiguous, and often singularly liberal biases.
Before the explosive growth of such distinctly focused political networks, podcasts, websites, and print venues, news was the province of a few nationally available resources. And because these services had to appeal to the broader masses commercially, their political commentary was presented squarely down the Cronkite middle.
However, today the masses can feed their political interests on sources fine-tuned to their position on the political spectrum, which acts as an echo chamber niche, reinforcing their beliefs to negatively unyielding extremes.
The result is our current closed-minded situation, where political enemies are attacked for doing or saying exactly what political allies were previously celebrated for doing or saying.
Thus, everything Trump does is bad, evil, or a threat to democracy. Or as Mark Cuban recently opined, the “underlying thought of everything the Democrats do [is that] Trump sucks.” Even if he “says the sky is blue: Trump sucks [and] that’s not the way to win. It’s just not.”
But while true, it’s also not the way to reimagine political discourse without hatred, division, and an unwillingness to work together to accomplish a more perfect union. And that is also true, no matter what.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
