Righteous Balls of Hate

I borrowed the title of this post from a novel I recently read.  It seemed particularly apropos as a description of many on the left since President Trump's election.

I see it in the mainstream media, as every Trump decision is derided as evil and nefarious.  I see it in the posts on social media, in which the President's actions are misunderstood and misrepresented to paint them in the darkest light.  And I see it in the now-daily protests against everything from the man himself to the decisions he makes and the actions he takes.  (Do these people not have jobs?)

We need to put all of this hate in its true context.

I've seen Facebook posts that have stated as fact that the executive order on repealing and replacing Obamacare has already eliminated coverage for dependent children to age 26, and coverage of pre-existing conditions.  This is patently false.  The EO directed various Congressional committees to begin the work of developing a viable replacement for Obamacare - which, let's face it, has become an unmitigated disaster.  (Note that no one on the left seems to care that some families' health care premiums have more than doubled.)  The President himself has stated that he wanted to preserve the age 26 and pre-existing conditions coverages from Obamacare.

Of course, he's an evil liar who cannot be trusted to keep his word (even though he's fulfilling campaign promises at a rate unmatched by any POTUS in memory).  I bet he hates puppies, too.

I've seen other posts decrying the recent EO "banning Muslims."  Again, read the order.  It has nothing to do with religion.  It specifies seven countries from which we will not accept travelers.  Those countries were selected because a) they have a history of supporting and/or exporting terrorism to the West, and b) it is relatively more difficult to properly vet people from those countries.  Imagine our Secretary of State - if one had been confirmed by now - calling his counterpart in, say, Syria or Somalia and requesting background information on one of their nationals.

And I've seen posts that were downright hysterical over the notion of building a wall on our southern border (I'll probably devote a future post just to the topic of immigration).  Never mind that Hillary Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which provides the legal mechanism for the construction of Trump's wall.  So did Senators Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.  Under Obama's presidency, most of the existing 700-mile border fence was constructed.  So a physical barrier on our southern border is not without precedent, and the aim is the same: to at least stem the tide of illegal immigration and the importing of drugs from our neighbors to the south.

This is an all-too-common thread in the attacks on the new President: previous Democrat administrations have done similar things, but there was no fake outrage over that.  Obama, Carter and FDR implemented temporary bans on immigration from countries that would do us harm.  They are revered by the left.  As noted, Obama supported a border fence, and built much of it.  He is idolized by the left.  Obama promised that if we liked our coverage, we could keep it, which turned out to be untrue.  The left would grant him sainthood if they could.  Bill Clinton molested and abused numerous women.  He is fawned over by the left.

This hypocrisy is evident in the posts themselves.  Trump was widely criticized by many - myself included - for some of the language he used during the campaign, often stooping to petty, childish name-calling that would be more at home on an elementary school playground than in a presidential campaign.  Yet the Facebook posts of many who criticized him for that very thing resort to the same tactics.  "President Tiny Hands" seems to be the favored moniker of the left these days.  How cerebral.

I've seen other posts that lamented the new era of "hate and fear-mongering" that we've supposedly now entered, then went on to say they hate Trump and his supporters, and to claim that Obamacare has already been repealed and Muslims are being banned.  Fear-monger much?

I will submit that the actions taken to date have not been perfect.  The immigration ban, for example, was effected before its ramifications could be properly coordinated by the affected agencies, including Homeland Security.  A number of snafus resulted.

However, if just one San Bernardino can be prevented, I'm all for waiting until we have more robust vetting processes in place, and I don't care whose tender feelings may get hurt in the process.  The left is worried that if we don't bring all the refugees here post-haste, they may die, but they don't give a good damn about a couple dozen people being gunned down during a holiday party at work (they call that "workplace violence," conveniently ignoring the perpetrators' sworn allegiance to al-Baghdadi).

And I'm skeptical about the effectiveness of a border wall.  If people want to come into this country illegally, some of them are going to find a way to do it.  And if money can be made smuggling drugs into this country, some of them are going to find their way here.

But I'm in the business of risk mitigation.  And we have to recognize that some of our risk responses - those things we do to mitigate exposures - provide only partial mitigation.  But the alternative - leaving oneself, one's business or one's nation completely exposed - is unacceptable.

Considering the hypocrisy noted above brings us a bit closer to understanding what's truly behind all the anti-Trump rhetoric and sentiment.  But to complete the picture, let's focus our attention on the recent Women's March.

Let me first say that I fully respect and support the right of any American to engage in peaceful protest.  I have relatives who participated in the march, and I love, respect and support them.  I am tolerant of their views, regardless whether they are tolerant of mine.

That said, what was the march about?  Human rights?  Women's rights?  The things Trump said about women in the past that were revealed during the campaign, or were stated by him on the debate stage?

In determining the answer, consider two facts:

1. There were no women in pink hats marching in the streets after Bill Clinton's inauguration, and let's not forget what he did to numerous women over his political career.
2. Women who wanted to participate in the march but were pro-life were told they were not welcome, and at least one pro-life organization that volunteered to sponsor the march was denied.  I guess those on the left only believe in their own right to participate in a protest, not in anyone else's.

These facts, combined with the left's blind eye toward similar actions taken by Democrat Presidents while castigating Trump for doing the same things, reveal what's behind all the outrage:

It is, pure and simple, D vs. R.  The Women's March was a march against a Republican actually being elected President - nothing more.  It was a march in support of permanent Democrat Party rule.  And the same is true of all of the outrage on social media, and on CNN, ABC and MSNBC.  Whatever a Democrat President does or says is okay, but if a Republican says or does the same thing, there'll be hell to pay.

On that note, I want to close by addressing one more Facebook comment I read.  The comment, a follow-up to a post that decried Trump in general, was this:

"We should hold everyone accountable for voting him in too!"

Ominous.  The very idea that one is to be held to account for whom they voted for is antithetical to the basis of democracy.

Moreover, I have a question for anyone who believes that way: how, pray tell, do you propose to hold those people accountable?  Imprison them?  Publish their names to be publicly humiliated, harassed and threatened, as happened to the red-state electors?  Shoot them?  (You're probably anti-gun, so I don't see that happening.)

The likely remedy such people would propose is to strip them of their right to vote in future elections, since the end game is to ensure that the Democrats always win, and the Republicans always lose.

I'll just say this: anyone who ever wants to try to hold me to account for the way I voted had bloody well better come prepared.  People have bled and died for my right to vote as I see fit, and I will honor their sacrifice with equal vigor.

I am The Economic Curmudgeon, and I approve this message.