Fifty years of ‘re­sis­tance’

While grow­ing old, Democrats have never grown up

The Washington Times Daily - - COMMENTARY - By R. Em­mett Tyrrell Jr.

Ihave ex­pe­ri­enced de­feat in pres­i­den­tial pol­i­tics many times. Ac­tu­ally, I ex­pect most Amer­i­cans have. You win some and you lose some. first ex­pe­ri­enced de­feat in 1964 when Barry Gold­wa­ter went down, though in that year I was not even old enough to vote. I ex­pe­ri­enced it in 1968 and again in 1976 when my can­di­date was Ron­ald Rea­gan. It was a par­tic­u­larly bit­ter pill to swal­low in 1976, for Rea­gan was old and — so I was told — never likely to run again. Af­ter 12 years of the Rea­gan and Bush pres­i­den­cies for­tune

was against me again in 1992 when the nicest of the Bushes lost to a hick who ob­vi­ously had hoked up his re­sume and brought his left-wing wife into the White House with him. She had worked for a com­mu­nist lawyer named Robert Treuhaft in San Fran­cisco and la­bored at Yale on the Yale Re­view of Law and So­cial Ac­tion when it pub­lished car­toons of pigs dressed as po­lice of­fi­cers. As for the hick, he had dodged the draft and demon­strated against the Viet­nam War.

The elec­tion of 2000 brought vic­tory, but af­ter eight years of Ge­orge W., 2008 brought de­feat once again. Though, at least Amer­ica would now be free of the in­cubus of racism. The vic­tor was a pleas­ant black man, and there was, for me, some con­so­la­tion in that. At least the is­sue of Amer­i­can racism had now been put to rest, had it not?

Then came 2016, and a po­lit­i­cal new­comer made his ap­pear­ance. Don­ald Trump was from my gen­er­a­tion, the one that came of age in the 1960s, and Mr. Trump had no trace of protest or rad­i­cal­ism in his back­ground. In­deed, he be­came a busi­ness­man, a very suc­cess­ful busi­ness­man. He promised to “Make Amer­ica Great Again.” Who, other than a 1960s as­so­ciate of com­mu­nists or a sup­porter of the Black Pan­thers, could be hor­ri­fied by that?

Well, Hil­lary Clin­ton would be hor­ri­fied by that, and come to think of it, she was both an as­so­ciate of com­mu­nists and, at least fleet­ingly, a sup­porter of Black Pan­thers. So were many of her like-minded sup­port­ers. Their de­feat crushed them in a way that no de­feat ever crushed me. Now they are adopt­ing the word “re­sis­tance” as a re­sponse to their de­feat in 2016. I never thought of adopt­ing the word re­sis­tance when Ron­ald Rea­gan lost back in 1968 and 1976. Hil­lary does. She imag­ines a vast throng join­ing with her in re­sist­ing the elec­tion of Pres­i­dent Trump. This should not sur­prise me, I have watched the left wing of my 1960s gen­er­a­tion for years in de­feat and in vic­tory. They never grow up.

Hil­lary and her cadres will leave pub­lic life much as they en­tered pub­lic life some 50 years ago. Then they took their first baby steps into pol­i­tics. It was called cam­pus pol­i­tics or protest pol­i­tics. They were wear­ing di­a­pers, strug­gling to speak, shak­ing rat­tles and men­ac­ing the adults over­see­ing them. Even­tu­ally their rat­tles be­came more men­ac­ing. Their strug­gles to speak be­came shouts. Their in­fan­tile whines be­came full-blown protests.

They prac­ticed “re­sis­tance” then. They took over much of the Demo­cratic Party, the party of the Kennedys, of Hu­bert Humphrey, of Lyn­don John­son. They brought us to the ad­min­is­tra­tive state and “po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness.” Now Mr. Trump seeks to lib­er­ate us from all this. He is, con­trary to his crit­ics, mak­ing com­mend­able head­way against the ad­min­is­tra­tive state, and Hil­lary is wal­low­ing in “re­sis­tance.”

Al­low me to make a pre­dic­tion. Hil­lary is less pop­u­lar to­day than when she lost to Mr. Trump on Nov. 8. She will con­tinue to be un­pop­u­lar. My guess is she will be even more un­pop­u­lar. She is not an agree­able pres­ence on the po­lit­i­cal scene, and the Amer­i­can peo­ple know it. Think back to her ten­ure as first lady. No other first lady was con­sis­tently so un­pop­u­lar as Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton. More­over, the Amer­i­can peo­ple do not ad­mire a sore loser. Hil­lary will be known as the sor­est loser in Amer­i­can his­tory.

Now here is an­other pre­dic­tion. If Hil­lary and her cadres in the Demo­cratic Party along with the main­stream me­dia con­tinue to “re­sist” the 2016 elec­tion, Don­ald Trump will al­most cer­tainly be re-elected in 2020. Hil­lary and the Democrats’ “re­sis­tance” will re­pulse the Amer­i­can ma­jor­ity. Hil­lary and her left-wing co­horts will sup­ply me with a gaudy show un­til the end.

Some laughed at me in 2016 when I was among the few who picked Don­ald Trump a win­ner. Some sim­ply ig­nored me. I won­der what their re­ac­tion will be when Don­ald wins again.

THE WASH­ING­TON TIMES

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.