It's easy to listen to Democratic pronouncements on everything Trump – and conclude that the entire party has gone insane.
In fact, it's difficult to conclude otherwise. In the three years of Trump's presidency, life has improved for nearly all Americans, and especially for low-income Americans who voted for him. Promises kept.
Considering this led me to wonder: Could there possibly be an argument made that the Democrats' behavior – so extreme, their hatred so unhinged – during Trump's presidency has in fact been entirely rational?
If we look to the Democratic Party's well-being as a future governing party, the behavior and pronouncements of individual Democrats are damaging in the extreme. Put more bluntly, the Democrats are setting themselves up for many terms – even generations – of political life in the wilderness. If they survive at all.
Public views change over time, and we are witnessing some big ones in transition: abortion on demand, gun confiscation, border security, illegal citizenship, welfare vs. work and the role of law enforcement in protecting the public over coddling criminals. This list is not exhaustive, either.
TRENDING: Jihad against Christians is due to … climate change?
In all these cases, Democrats, from the least to the greatest, have chosen to attack the public for their changing attitudes! Attacking your own voters for their viewpoints is not the way back from the political wilderness. It is the route to political oblivion. But surely these Democrats must know that? So many of them are career politicians.
There are, however, certain circumstances under which Democrat railing against public shifts in political preferences could certainly make sense. Here are a couple.
First, the Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Burisma gas company director's fees and Ukrainian prosecutors. Trump's telephone call to the Ukranian president must have set off alarm bells among Democratic politicians in the know. Perhaps their continuing political power via the 2016 election was crucial to avoiding exposure and ultimately prosecution for widespread political corruption. Given that circumstance, Democratic behavior in attacking Trump, despite all his accomplishments, is entirely rational. Would you agree?
Second, it is assumed that Democrats' permanent support for on-demand abortion is all about empowering women, by leaving the life or death decision regarding the unborn baby they are carrying entirely up to them. What if, in fact, Democrats' support for a woman's right to choose is more about the product of an abortion? What if aborted babies are being used on a large scale for medical experimentation? Is the public ready to accept live human experimentation? How is that different than Nazi experimentation on Jewish concentration camp prisoners?
What would happen if widespread human experimentation were exposed to the public today? What if the money abortion providers receive from taxpayers, which is mandated by Congress, is primarily for the providers to funnel back into Democratic campaign coffers around election time? Why would taxpayer money be needed if abortion providers are adequately funded already by selling their product? Might those be adequate and entirely rational reasons for the Democrats to behave exactly as they are?
Sometimes the difference between sanity and insanity is abrupt and obvious. Sometimes the difference between sane and insane is a continuum. And sometimes, the difference between sane and insane behavior depends on what the observer sees from where he or she stands.
Is there another dimension to this battle? Reconnaissance, The Creator Returns.