Myth Busted: Democrats as the Party of Unity

During a recent appearance on CNBC, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren alleged that President Trump wants to “set working people against working people, black working people against white working people.”  She made this statement in an attempt to paint the Democrats as the party of unity as opposed to the divisiveness of Republicans and President Trump.  Anyone who thinks the Democratic Party has a monopoly on inclusion inhabits a “fantasy world,” as Bill O’Reilly pointed this out in a brilliant talking points memo called “The Inclusion Delusion,” which he delivered shortly after the 2016 Presidential Election.   

For starters, no group of people has relied more heavily on class warfare than the Democratic Party.  The Democrats have convinced a large group of Americans to blame the rich for all of their problems.  Many seek to raise the top marginal tax rate to as high as 90 percent, which will have the effect of punishing success thus removing the incentive for people to work hard. After all, why should they bother to put in all of that blood, sweat, and tears when the government will just end up confiscating a majority of their wealth?  Comedian Jon Lovitz, one of a handful of former Saturday Night Live cast members who have come out in favor of at least some conservative principles, called President Obama a “f***ing a**hole,” specifically citing his rhetoric on “class warfare.”  Kate Obenshain, who made regular appearances on “The O’Reilly Factor,” wrote a book on President Obama called The Divider in Chief: The Fraud of Hope and Change. The book argues that while President Obama talked a good game about unifying the country on the campaign trail, his policies had the effect of ripping America apart; setting off a social civil war that has reached its boiling point in the Trump administration.

In addition to class warfare, the Democrats and their allies on college campuses have also relied heavily on gender warfare.  They have convinced that a large group of women that they can trace all of their problems back to the patriarchy and “toxic masculinity.” A University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Professor suggested implementing “toxic masculinity” training for children as young as five years old.  

A recent piece in The New York Times complains that New Hampshire needs to become “more diverse,” citing that 94 percent of its population is white. In spite of its toxic whiteness, New Hampshire still voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election, albeit by a very narrow margin and gave the Democrats one of two pickups in the Senate, reducing the Republican majority from 54 to 52.  In spite of its tendency to vote Democratic at the Federal level, Republicans took complete control of the state government after the 2016 election.  New Hampshire’s neighbors of Vermont and Maine, where whites comprise an even higher share of the population, also voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election; the former by an overwhelming margin. 

The article complains that many minorities feel out of place in New Hampshire. Well, now they can sympathize with Republicans who reside in the Bronx and Detroit, where roughly 90 percent of the population voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election.  The left has very little respect for ideological diversity, as evidenced by their vitriolic and violent tantrums when anyone even slightly to the right of Karl Marx dares to show up on their college campuses.         

If the Democrats set up a permanent power base in New Hampshire, everything that makes The Granite State one of the most attractive states in the northeast to live in will begin to disappear.  New Hampshire has the most representative government of all 50 states, with each member of the state’s House of Representatives representing about 3,300 people.  To put that in perspective, each member of the United States House of Representatives represents around 700,000 people.  That number will only increase as the population of the country as a whole continues to grow while the membership in the House remains unchanged at 435. In addition, New Hampshire has no income tax and boasts one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country.  Perhaps the Democrats resent New Hampshire’s success because it really throws a wrench into their theory that “Diversity is our strength.”

The Times op-ed comes just two years after then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid complained that Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to hold Presidential caucuses and primaries, were “too white to decide the future of the country.”  Reid made those comments in an effort to justify the existence of superdelegates, elected officials and who got to vote for the candidate of their choice, regardless of how the people in their state voted.  Reid’s comments also came not long after his chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost both of those contests.  If Reid had bothered to look at the results of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, he would realize that Iowa’s substantial white population does not make it a racist state; Barack Obama emerged victorious from that contest.  In addition, President Obama carried both Iowa and New Hampshire in his two Presidential contests.

The obsession over racial diversity serves as just one example of how Democrats use the issue of race to divide and conquer.  In 2017, Evergreen State College in Washington State mandated that all white students and faculty members stay home or attend events off-campus as part of a “Day of Absence” while minority students and faculty got to attend workshops. Biology Professor Bret Weinstein, a self-described liberal, refused to comply with the orders and faced the wrath of the SJW mob.  Weinstein has now left his post at Evergreen State; during his final months at the college, he had to conduct his class in a public park because the campus police told them that they could not protect him on campus.   Even though he probably agrees with most left-wing policy positions, he would probably get the Ben Shapiro treatment should he decide to give a speech at Berkeley.     

The New York Times has also done a great deal of damage to its reputation as a racial unifier when it hired Sarah Jeong, who has made a series of disparaging tweets about white people, men, and cops.  Taken to an extreme, the rancor against whites could lead to an unfortunate situation along the lines of what has taken place in South Africa; where black Marxists feel justified in seizing land from white farmers, resorting to killing the farmers if necessary.  Americans have already experienced what has happened when anti-police rhetoric has gone to the extreme.  The anti-cop atmosphere first began to take shape in 2014, following the death of Michael Brown.  Groups such as Black Lives Matter began chanting phrases like “pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon.” Tragedy struck just one week after left-wing activists marched in New York City chanting “What do we want? Dead cops!  When do we want it? Now!”  Two New York City police officers lost their lives at the hands of Ismaayil Brinsley, who travelled all the way from Baltimore, Maryland to shoot them execution style to avenge the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.  Prior to carrying out this horrific act, Brinsley posted some anti-police threats on his Instagram page, such as “I’m putting wings on pigs today,”  and “They Take 1 of ours…let’s take 2 of theirs.”  Yet social media giants still see Prager University and Diamond and Silk as the greatest threats to peace and tranquility.    

In addition to dividing and ostracizing people based on their physical characteristics such as race and gender, the Democrats have also done their best to patronize people based on their political beliefs.  Hillary Clinton smeared half of the supporters of Donald Trump, her opponent in the 2016 Presidential Election, as a “basket of deplorables,” describing them as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic-you name it.”  Ironically, a lot of the people the Democrats want to come in the country, especially from the Middle East, meet the actual definitions of these terms as opposed to the “liberal” definitions.  I have created a chart to lay out the distinctions between the two sets of definitions:

Term	Actual Definition	Liberal Definition
Racist	a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.  (Google Dictionary)	1.      Anyone who wins an argument with a liberal 2.      Anyone who supports implementing voter ID laws 3.      Anyone who does not believe in the nanny state 4.      Anyone who does not support affirmative action
Sexist	Relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex (Google Dictionary)	Anyone who does not believe in subsidized birth control
Homophobic	Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people (Google Dictionary)	1.      Anyone who believes in the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman 2.      Anyone who does not support exposing children to “male adult nudity,” “debauchery,” and “simulated sex acts” that have become synonymous with gay pride parades
Xenophobic	Fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or anything that is strange or foreign (Merriam-Webster)	Anyone who supports securing the border with Mexico by building a wall, implementing e-Verify, and implementing a merit-based immigration system
Islamophobic	Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force (Oxford Dictionary)	Anyone who thinks we should think twice about admitting people into the country who hail from terror-prone countries

 

As the chart above demonstrates, liberals have weaponized these terms to smear anyone who does not agree with their hard-left philosophy.  Since very few people seek out these labels, liberals hope that repeatedly using them against those with right-of-center positions will bully people into silence.  In many cases, their scheme has worked.

While people on all sides of the political aisle could certainly do a better job in unifying the country, the left and the Democrats have certainly not done their part.