As the election draws nearer and the propaganda more desperate, certain tendencies become painfully apparent. Once again, we have to wonder just how stupid Leftist propagandists think we are. Or maybe I misjudge them — maybe they actually believe what they tell us.
Consider the following:
Phil Lowcock, a (presumably) obscure adjunct faculty member in the Health, Sport, and Exercise Science Department at Kansas University, apparently advocated the execution (via firing squad) of male voters who would not cast their votes for Kamala Harris. He seemed to believe that their decision would be based on Harris’ gender. As a result of this remark being made public, Lowcock subsequently lost his job at KU.
Former President Barach Obama, in an attempt to sell candidate Harris to black men, made various claims about Harris’ back story and indicated that resistance to her, particularly from “the brothers,” might be, as Lowcock suggested, because of her gender.
A video ad in which a number of men, apparently meant to represent stereotypical “macho” males, has appeared, in which the manly males — reputed to all be actors — present themselves as being ultra-masculine and supporters of Harris. The ad disclaims connection to any official candidate or party site, though clearly pro-Democrat and pro-Harris. The men presented are supposedly all “manly” enough not to be afraid of women (or something) and therefore will vote for Harris.
Finally, another message, slightly different but I think in a similar vein, is received from actor Michael Keaton. Keaton informs us that Trump is not one of us (“us” meaning “regular guys” apparently — Keaton even wears a plaid flannel shirt and a baseball cap in the video to drive home his regular guy status). He tells us Trump and Vance do not respect us, and are laughing at us behind our backs. (How Keaton knows what Trump and Vance are doing behind our backs is not explained.)
What can we make of these four notifications from the public realm?
Lowcock first: You have to admire the economy of his argument. He tells us, in effect, that men aren’t so smart, and then goes on to support that with himself as the case in point.
I don’t approve of his being fired from his job. People need their livelihoods; they shouldn’t be removed because of political differences. All right, if Lowcock really means to put Trump voters in front of a firing squad, that is unacceptable — but I doubt that he meant it literally. (I hope not anyway.) He was probably just venting his ill nature in the overstated way that many people do when speaking casually. (He probably thought he was speaking casually.) His clear assumption, that the only reason you wouldn’t vote for Harris was because she’s a woman — because we non-Harris voters are all sexual bigots — is stupid in the extreme. And it shares a belief with the Obama “brothers” message and the “manly” ad: Our only objection to Harris is her gender. We all vote based entirely on identity group stereotypes. These first three events listed are all saying that.
Do Leftist ideologues believe that, because they think in identity group stereotypes, everyone else does too? Do they really think that this is how our opinions are guided, or is this just a desperate attempt to direct our attention away from Harris’ many failings as a candidate? To goad men into proving our correctness of thought, to prove that we aren’t sexists, by voting for Harris?
This notion of Obama’s, Lowcock’s, and the manly ad people suggests that wevoters are not guided by the the record of a candidate’s past performance in office. We apparently don’t care about their publicly stated and demonstrated adherence to, or divergence from, policies we believe will most benefit ourselves and our country. These factors have no bearing on our decisions, are just meaningless phantoms.
Such simplistic thinking may be the underlying factor in Lowcock’s case. Maybe he just isn’t very smart. But what about Obama? He seems smart enough and as a life-long professional politician, he must have some sense of what makes an individual a plausible candidate. He must know Kamala is not in that category. I assume he is guided by party loyalty rather than intelligence, and does not want to address the Harris candidacy honestly. Instead, he tries to distract us by talking about group clichés.
The manly ad is silly enough to speak for itself, and anyway the message is the same: Identity group associations trump individual history and merit. What should we expect? It is an ad made by actors who live in a cloistered Hollywood bubble.
Which brings us to Michael Keaton.
Keaton gives us the other side of the identity group argument: Rather than focus on Harris, he tells us Trump and Vance are not our friends. He tells us we will have no personal relationship with them if we vote for them. I.e., we won’t be invited to their barbecues; we won’t be drinking buddies; we won’t hang out.
This message from Mr. Keaton is akin to me telling him that voting for Harris, as I assume he intends to do, does not mean that he will hook up with her down the road. They won’t be lovers. That statement may seem absurdly unnecessary, but the logic it confronts is identical to what Keaton is telling us about our relationship with Trump/Vance: Personal relationships will not follow. OK, got it, Michael.
Keaton further tells us that Trump and Vance have no respect for us, are not our “bros”. News for you, Mr. Keaton: Neither are you. Flannel shirt to the contrary notwithstanding, you’re not my bro. You live in the above mentioned clustered Hollywood bubble, wealthy enough to be untouched by inflation, outrageous gas prices, endless taxes, unaffordable housing, and all the rest of the stuff that I doubt you understand. Trump may not live at a middling economic level either, but at least he appears to grasp the concerns of those of us who do.
How about lack of respect? Since you, Obama, and the manly ad people seem to think that we Trump voters choose our candidates based on the dumbest of motives — stereotype group prejudices and personal social ambitions — I have to conclude that none of you have any respect for us. Trump voters are … what? Knuckle-dragging, beetle-browed types who don’t realize they’re being talked down to by the likes of you, Obama, and half-wit manly ad?
Again: How stupid do Leftist ideologues think people are?
Progressives are so immersed in their own opinion circles that they’ve convinced themselves that anyone who disagrees with their politics must be an idiot. We get ads and messages from them that clearly reveal this assumption. It would seem the Progressives believe their own propaganda, their own representations of their ideological opponents.
Let me state the situation in as straight-forward manner as I can:
Jesus Christ is not on the ballot. Neither is the Buddha, Socrates, Confucius, Charlemagne, Solomon, the Virgin Mary, Pericles, Joan of Arc … We have to play the hand we’re dealt. The hand we’re dealt in this case is Trump and Harris.
I suppose this choice might be characterized as a rich guy from a privileged background versus a woman who cannot articulate any real policy and appears to be a nonentity. Pick your poison, I guess, but at least the rich guy seems capable of decisive action. The other candidate doesn’t seem to actually offer much of anything.
Even we idiots can figure out that choice.
Ain O’Malley
November 4, 2024