By Erik Rush
Now that the Iowa caucuses are behind us, I suspect that we can count on this election season to become even more hyperbolic all the way around. I am basing this on the trends I’ve seen to date, with the increasingly bizarre deportment of all concerned. Conservative voters and pragmatists are aware that the stakes are higher than they’ve ever been, taking into account the incomprehensible damage that has been done to this nation by the current administration.
Meanwhile, the election cycle is showcasing two of the most dangerous leftists the Democratic Party could conjure up as presidential hopefuls: the larcenous, ambulating obscenity Hillary Clinton – who is probably more personally evil than anyone in the Obama cabal – and the geriatric Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , whom the conservative press references as a socialist, though his political views are more closely aligned with communism.
While I am well aware that many voters’ assessment of candidates is a function of the biased reporting of the establishment press, on one level I am astounded that either Clinton or Sanders would be capable of garnering more than a few dozen votes in the general election. Given their unabashed socialism, it is hard to reconcile so many Americans’ failure to see that it is precisely such policies that have brought America so low. Indeed, it is not outside the realm of possibility that despite her many crimes, the porcine former secretary of state may well, like some psychopathic Muppet, adroitly joke and gape her way into the presidency, from which lofty perch she will administer the coup de grâce to a cowering Lady Liberty.
Whomever their favorite candidates might be at present, in general, conservative Republican voters wish to secure a GOP nominee who is not going to govern as another RINO establishment crony capitalist Washington beltway insider. As the guy for whom the term “progressive” carries a similar connotation to “registered sex offender,” I can definitely empathize.
Informed conservatives realize that if we do elect another “campaign conservative” who winds up governing as a progressive (George W. Bush being a stellar example), becoming dedicated preppers may be the last slim hope for long-term quality of life.
Getting back to subjective evaluations of hyperbole: While it has served him well to a great extent, the biggest demonstrable liability Iowa runner-up Donald Trump has could be his penchant for frankness. Across the board, whether one examines his television persona or his political one, the common denominator has been his willingness to frame issues in the bluntest terms he can think of.
Though image-conscious billionaires have the resources to keep themselves looking pretty well-preserved, Trump is an old-school guy and hearkens back to the time when you could call women “broads” and no one would get offended. Today such colloquialisms are readily seized upon by the nauseatingly squishy, politically correct press as confirmation that one is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte for whom we should definitely not consider voting.
Ted Cruz , who won Iowa despite having been behind Trump for many weeks, is also not far behind him with regard to being a dangerous reactionary, as far as the press is concerned. Both have been called nasty, Nazis, racists and portrayed as men who desire to destroy America for no apparent reason, and with no quantification of this destruction cited. These days, such exaggeration is calculated to influence only the woefully misinformed and genuine knuckle-dragging troglodytes. Liberal power players believe that the latter group encompasses most Americans, by the way.
Largely, Donald Trump has been called to task for his frankness in articulating the threats posed by Islamists, particularly on our soil, and the slow economic death represented by allowing nearly unfettered illegal immigration (we don’t need to go into how, for very good reasons, this has resonated with millions of Americans). Ted Cruz has been similarly mischaracterized by the press because he is by most accounts a real conservative who may actually enact some of the policies Trump has outlined (such as closing radicalized mosques and enacting authentic immigration enforcement), though he’s left it to Trump to communicate them.
Engendering squeamish, outraged reactions to frankness and harsh language (excluding the outright profane, which liberals relish) has been a key weapon in the left’s arsenal in recent years. One can flout the Constitution, alienate our allies, embolden our enemies, commit treason, engage in crimes against humanity, sell baby parts and subvert all notions of morality – but say something unflattering about people who want to kill us all and you’re beyond redemption.
Well, this back-and-forth between candidates and each other, as well as members of the press, is definitely nothing new. People would know this if American history were still taught in our schools. During the election season of 1800 (wherein President John Adams ran against Vice President Thomas Jefferson), the president of Yale University wrote that if Jefferson became president, “we would see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution.” During the same period, influential journalist James Callender wrote that Adams “behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character.” In the 1828 presidential campaign, supporters of John Quincy Adams published materials calling opponent Andrew Jackson’s mother a prostitute and his wife an adulteress.
If anything, it would appear that political campaigning has become more civilized over the years rather than less so. This is something voters would do well to put into perspective, as well as the bigger picture – this being that our avaricious, whorish, entrenched political class has navigated us to the brink of such delights as another world war, collective economic destitution, and generational enslavement, to name but a few.
Originally published in WorldNetDaily