Trump’s victimhood game is no longer convincing

Victimhood is a game everybody can play in U.S. politics. Indeed, the most avid players are the most undeserving of pity: President Donald Trump and his band of retainers, financiers and other enablers.

Consider the backlash over Rep. Joaquin Castro’s tweet listing the names and businesses of 44 constituents who had maxed out the contribution limits to Trump’s campaign. Castro, a Democrat representing Texas’ 20th District, which includes half of San Antonio, is the twin brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro.

Castro clearly explained his intent: “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’ ”

As if following a talking points memo, Republicans responded with wounded dudgeon.”People should not be personally targeted for their political views. Period. This isn’t a game. It’s dangerous, and lives are at stake,” tweeted Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La. “I know this firsthand.” Indeed he does, having survived being shot in an assassination attempt.

What these Republicans ignore is that their party has inexorably rolled back regulation of campaign contributions on the specific ground that they constitute “speech” and are thus protected by the First Amendment. If contributions to Trump are “speech,” what is Castro doing other than merely quoting them?

Of course, contributions to Trump are not merely speech, no matter what a Supreme Court majority fatuously ruled. They are acts with consequences.

Ask the survivors of the gun assault in El Paso by a white supremacist that murdered 22 victims. Ask the bereaved families.

Ask Latinos who fear arrest even if they are citizens of this country.

Examine the attacker’s alleged manifesto. The fourpage screed opens by saying the attack “is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.” The writer rails against “open borders,” “free healthcare for illegals,” Hispanic “invaders.”

The author pledges that there will be no need to “send them back” given the incentive to flee that he and other “patriotic Americans” will provide.

Does that language sound familiar? It should.

The writer took pains to stress that his views predated Trump’s presidency. In doing so, he highlighted the link. The heinous thoughts of a young man believed to be a mass murderer ring with the tone, and much of the messaging, of the president of the United States.

In light of this, it’s a fair question to ask Trump’s funders if they are still willing to pledge their loyalty to him with their wallets.

The campaign donation information is public record. Castro broke no laws. An individual’s vote is private. His or her contribution to a candidate for federal office is not.

Trump’s many slurs against Latinos are well cataloged, as are the countless social media ads his campaign has disseminated referring to the “invasion” of America by Latinos.

Trump and his apologists deserve to be pressed about where they stand on the president’s dangerous verbal antics.

Absurdly, Trump insists that his rhetoric “brings people together.” If he believes that — and I’m not sure he does — he is delusional. His words and gestures are understood by white racists, and it should surprise no one that they are echoed in manifestos and social media ramblings right-wing fanatics, including, apparently, the one who attacked in El Paso.

In 2016, voters could still claim that they were naive to the Trump’s unsavory edges. No longer.