This Thanksgiving, Democrats can be thankful that they have scores of deluded scribblers making excuses for Kamala Harris' blowout loss to a man they've spent years calling a rapist, a convicted felon and America's Hitler. (All I can say is, fellas, the Pulitzer Prize isn't going to win itself.)
One point they want to make absolutely clear is: TRUMP DID NOT WIN IN A LANDSLIDE!
OK, fine, if that makes you happy, liberals.
In an interminable column in The New York Times, David Wallace-Wells spreads the good tidings that Democrats didn't lose on account of their woke positions because they lied about their woke positions.
What do you say NOW, Trumpsters?
He proceeds to lie himself about Harris' long-standing support for taxpayer-funded transgender operations for prisoners, claiming it was one innocent little remark she made in a 2019 ACLU questionnaire. I know the Times has nurtured and husbanded this lie, but there's an internet, and Harris is all over it, bragging to a transgender interviewer about how, as attorney general, she made damn sure that trans prisoners in California would receive "gender-affirming" surgeries.
Wallace-Wells goes on to muse that perhaps Harris should have had a "Sister Souljah moment" on transgenders -- then immediately denounces his own idea as "morally grotesque."
Way to fake out the voters, David!
Praising Democratic phonies like Sen. Jon Ossoff for "pointedly disavow[ing]" a slew of Harris' clearly held positions, like the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, defunding the police and abolishing ICE, Wallace-Wells argues, "it is really hard to see which if any supposedly toxic left-wing positions made their way into public policy or even campaign ads or speeches on the trail."
Yes, exactly. Democrats' positions are so toxic that smart Democratic politicians are forced to repudiate them. (Something Kamala never did.) That illustrates the toxicity of wokeness; it does not contradict it.
But Wallace-Wells can't understand why Americans "continued to associate a social-justice agenda with Democrats, if so few of them have been publicly pushing those positions over the past five years."
[Waving my hand frantically.]
Let's take a look at the Democrats' official 2024 party platform! It's difficult to claim the voters were confused about what the Democrats stand for when party's written declaration of what it stands for begins with a "Land Acknowledgement" about how we stole our land from the Indians:
"We honor the communities native to this continent, and recognize that our country was built on Indigenous homelands. We pay our respects to the millions of Indigenous people throughout history" -- and more such glop, for three more paragraphs. (How about you guys acknowledge the half-sheet of paper you wasted writing this stupid land thing?)
Has any group of people ever hated their own country as much as Democrats hate our country? This week, we'll get rafts of these "We Suck" histories in honor of Thanksgiving, as media outlets, schools and universities publish their horseshit versions of our country's past.
Take the Smithsonian Institution's "Everyone's history matters: The Wampanoag Indian Thanksgiving story deserves to be known":
"The spirit of amity of the first Thanksgiving evaporated" [on account of the settlers'] "fear, xenophobia and self-righteousness ... [F]ew English bothered to learn the Algonquin languages. ... Resentment among sons and daughters [of the Indigenous] who had seen their fathers humiliated, threatened and robbed of their heritage could not be contained." (Worst of all, they forgot the mini-marshmallows on the sweet potato casserole.)
That was written in 2017 by Lindsay McVay, a midwit senior at Central Florida University, who now goes by "They/Them" as "Global Communications Specialist" for Planned Parenthood. It remains on the website of one of our most esteemed national institutions and appears near the top of any Google search for "the true history of Thanksgiving."
Sounds like Lindsay hates her own sex, live babies and America, so, really, who better to comment on our history?
I ask again: Has any group of people ever hated the accomplishments of their own ancestors as much as liberals hate our Founding Fathers? (Possible explanation: Perhaps their ancestors weren't America's Founding Fathers -- another problem with mass immigration.)
For example, there are lots of political parties in Israel, many of them quite liberal, but it's inconceivable that any would begin their party platform with an "acknowledgement ... that our country was built on Palestinian homelands. We pay our respects to the millions of Palestinians people throughout history blah, blah blah ..."
Does the Israeli Smithsonian have a write-up of the Israelis' "fear, xenophobia and self-righteousness," or the "sons and daughters [of Palestinians] who had seen their fathers humiliated, threatened and robbed of their heritage"?
Even when the superseding culture is not manifestly superior to the culture it replaced, as Israel and America's are, do the winners anywhere else spend centuries apologizing to the losers? Do the Zulus in South Africa "acknowledge" that they're living on land they stole from the Ndwandwe and Dutch? Do the Red Chinese begin party meetings with groveling apologies to Chiang Kai-Shek?
It's like a guy wins you over from your old boyfriend and you're now happily married, but for the rest of your lives, before you have sex, he has to read an acknowledgement: "We honor your previous boyfriends and recognize that our marriage was built on the foreshortened romances with [Jack, Joe, insert names of ex-boyfriends here]."
It's perfectly obvious that the Democratic Party is full of deeply disturbed individuals. This Thanksgiving, the rest of us can be thankful that voters noticed. In a landslide.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member