First question for the off-the-rails, late-stage TDS-riddled Democrat Party: Who is "we" — as in "We are at war!?"
We'll demonstrate the answer throughout this article, but first:
Following the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Democrats across the fruited plain have lost their minds. Make that: "...lost whatever minds they had left after the 2024 presidential election campaign and Trump's decisive thrashing of Vice President Kamala Harris."
Democratic leaders (see: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer et al.) have continued to ramp up their dangerous rhetoric past the point of what should be embarrassing, if not concerning, to the party — but clearly is not.
From violent protests and planned assassinations directed against Trump Administration figures, to rude outbursts during Trump nominee confirmation votes to calling on rank-and-file Democrats to “fight in the streets” to lunatic California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters making a fool out of herself as she hysterically tried but failed to enter the Education Department building, Democrats appear to believe that their out-of-control rage rhetoric can win over the public. Why?
Other than pure delusion, I mean.
Trump was the first Republican presidential nominee to win the popular vote since George W. Bush in 2004. He won overwhelmingly because a strong majority of Americans were sick and tired of the disastrous policies of the Biden-Harris administration. From Biden's intentional illegal alien crisis to out-of-control grocery prices to the insanity of DEI — including males beating the snot out of females in women's sporting events — voters could not have sent a stronger message to the Democrat Party in November.
To paraphrase a line from the classic movie "Network," "We're sick and tired of Democrat policies and ideology, and we're not going to take it anymore!"
So again, my Democrat friends, who is "we" in your faux "war"?
Noted law professor and political commentator Jonathan Turley wrote in a column posted on Saturday:
Many of those fueling the anger are familiar names. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, Mass.) declared “Elon Musk is seizing the power that belongs to the American people.” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D, Md.) claimed on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” that Musk and Trump were conducting a “rapidly expanding and accelerating coup.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) appeared to be working off the same talking point and declared that a “coup” was being carried out. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) warned that Musk was “taking away everything we have.”
Despite voting to impeach Trump for calling for his supporters to “fight” against his opponents (while adding to do so “peacefully”), many used the same rhetoric to spur the left to action.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Cal.) said “We are here to fight back.” Sen. Cory Booker (D., NJ) called on citizens to “fight” and declared “We will rise up.”
Not to be outdone in the rage fest, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D., TX) yelled, “We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your a–es, and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it.”
Rep. LaMonica McIver (D., N.J.) added: “God d—it shut down the Senate!” Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., said. “WE ARE AT WAR!”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called for Democrats to fight “in the streets.”
And on it goes. As I asked in the headline, where is Democrat rage rhetoric headed?
Hard to say.
While the Democrats' hyperbolic temper tantrums are entertaining and usually amusing, my gut (along with past events (i.e., "peaceful BLM protests") tells me this isn't going to end well — and perhaps, God forbid, it will end in tragedy.
Let's call it "the law of unintended consequences," but if we've learned anything from the left over the last months and years, it's that nothing these people do — nothing — should surprise us. Ever.
ALSO READ:
So again, where are we headed?
'The Lure and Danger of Extremist Rhetoric'
In a 2007 article, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences said the following about the potential consequences of extremist rhetoric (emphasis, mine):
In a democracy, controversy is healthy. Complex issues as far-ranging as immigration, health care, military interventions, taxation, and education seldom lend themselves to simple, consensual solutions. The public interest is well served by robust public argument.
But when disagreements are so driven and distorted by extremist rhetoric that citizens and public officials fail to engage with one another reasonably or respectfully on substantive issues of public importance, the debate degenerates, blocking constructive compromises that would benefit all sides more than the status quo would.
As we have seen all too vividly, extremist rhetoric has become par for the course of democratic controversy in America. It dominates cable TV news. (Talk radio is even more extreme.) The public issues discussed are complex and important, but little light is shed on them. The entertainment is that of a wrestling match, with far less demonstrable skill.
Again, that was in 2007. Eighteen years later, rage rhetoric is arguably worse than ever and with far more at stake. The article continues:
Serious extremist rhetoric has two defining features. First, it tends toward single-mindedness on any given issue. Second, it passionately expresses certainty about the supremacy of its perspective on the issue without submitting itself either to a reasonable test of truth or to a reasoned public debate.
Moreover, the 2024 general election proved to be the most definitive public debate in years.
Finally, Jonathan Turley wrote:
[Rage rhetoric] can inspire unhinged citizens who actually believe that this is a war against a coup. That relieves some of any qualms about taking violent action. It is the type of rhetoric that can prompt anti-Republican Nicholas John Roske to try to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh or [Bernie] Sanders supporter James T. Hodgkinson to try to massacre [Congressional] Republican members playing softball.
I think I'll just leave this one right here. Call it "food for thought."
