Article content continued

Hence, too, this ridiculous appropriation (a real example, for once) of the term The Resistance. The Resistance is a Second World War term. It speaks to the fight against the most — may I borrow a term — deplorable force, Nazism, the world has perhaps ever seen. The implications of the term are not healthy. It pictures the democratic victor as a Nazi. It summons up the darkest imagery. It is mean and weird at the same time. Presumably on the other side of the mirror it has equally ludicrous flatteries to offer Trump opponents, though the idea of Mrs. Clinton as Winston Churchill will take more than time to accommodate.

Liberals are feverish at rhetoric-policing the right. Liberals, in this case, should clean their own barn

Most of all it is strongly suggestive (and that’s a delicate phrasing of the matter) that the “other side” is evil, a threat to all, fascism rearing to leap out on American soil. Which is a polluted form of absolute hysteria. But in a week in which Republican congressmen at a baseball game came under rifle fire, leaving Representative Steve Scalise in critical condition and a lobbyist with serious wounds, with two police officers and an aide lightly injured, perhaps the liberal side of the aisle will give some thought to their rhetoric. They do not, at all, represent a resistance: they represent poor losers.

Liberals are feverish at rhetoric-policing the right. Look what The New York Times offered this week with its disgusting (and later, after a backlash, amended) editorial linking Sarah Palin to “direct incitement” in the shooting of Gabby Giffords by the deranged Jared Lee Loughner six years ago. Liberals, in this case, should clean their own barn.

Most of all, they should cease using the excesses of Trump’s manner as a shield for their own incapacity to act as adults when they lose an election, and lost it mainly because they ran their campaign so poorly, and chose a candidate who had everything except a reason for her candidacy. See Shattered.

National Post