We need to start trolling. Not exactly in the way Merriam-Webster defines it: to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or other offensive comments or other disruptive content.”
Instead, the sort of trolling I’m recommending takes place beyond Internet platforms. Still deliberate, but with relevant objectives, it would disrupt the established narrative of the Democrat-media complex. And this trolling would be offensive — but only to the Democrats who push extremist policies and ideas but are loath to explain how they are to be implemented or their long-term economic or social impact.
“Pinning down” opponents as “extremists” on “hot-button issues” was actually the strategy outlined in a memo by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) leaked to CNN back in 2009. The memo asserted that Republican opponents felt “pressure from the extreme right in their party” and suggested an “aggressive effort” to get them “on the record.”
Fast-forward ten years, when it now seems as though the DNC has issued a strategy memo to urge its candidates to actually be the extremists. From late-term abortion, the Green New Deal, reparations, Medicare for All, etc., Democratic politicians have overall significantly moved toward the extreme left fringe of their party.
Let’s get these extremist Democrats on the record in our own “aggressive effort.” But we should do more than just pin them down on the issues, since most have already done so themselves. We need to engage in a form of trolling that rhetorically gives them a push onto the well-worn, media-protected tracks of their do-gooder, “who we are” narratives, and sends them hurtling on the logical yet terrifying ride down from every slippery slope they stand atop — and forces them to describe the place where they land at the bottom. The voters deserve that information. And we should help bring it to them.
“Let’s Jamaican bobsled down the slippery slope,” encouraged John Zmirak of The Stream. Zmirak was writing in response to the story of the woman at one of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s town halls who ranted about eating babies to fight climate change. Approving of the stunt, he wrote: “Candidates who claim that every child born helps to end the world within a decade should be forced to clarify that they don’t want us eating babies.”
Eventually the “eat babies” outburst was revealed to be staged by the LaRouche PAC, described in a Washington Post piece as having a history of disrupting political meetings and creating “a kind of chaos.”
Yes, a disturbance was created, but instead of the result being the fact exposed and emphasized — that the Democrats’ thinking on climate change “science” logically makes every one of us a threat to the planet every time we, babies and adults alike, breathe and emit carbon dioxide — the attention was focused on how “AOC” handled the disruption.
So we need to be smart in how we troll. Our trolling must be designed, using exaggeration as necessary, to draw attention to the very real repercussions of these leftist policies. The resulting impression mustn’t be about who orchestrated the troll and/or how the politician handled it; but rather, at a minimum, one that leaves the uncomfortable questions and horrifying possibilities ringing in the ears and hanging in the minds of voters: “Could this be where this policy/program/proposal would take us?”
As an example, Zmirak noted, “Wouldn’t it have been nice, before Obergefell v. Hodges, if hecklers had forced Dems to deny that they wanted state governments to force Christian bakers to make Satanic sex toy cakes? Yeah, it would be great to have the Democratic governor of Colorado on the record there.”
If we follow the past strategies of the Dem-media complex, though, we really don’t even have to specifically ask the governor, or any politician. For example, recall what the complex did to Sharron Angle, the Republican challenger to Sen. Harry Reid in 2010. Simply because of an endorsement Angle linked on her campaign website from a PAC whose website happened to contain one link in support of a “birther” (Terry Lakin), The Huffington Post (apparently following the guidance of that DSCC memo) ran this headline: “Sharron Angle, Birther? Nevada Senate Candidate Hasn’t Confirmed She’s Not a Birther.”
Was Angle a “birther”? The reporter hadn’t even talked to Angle about her views on the subject before the piece with that headline was published. But how many people read past the headline or Tweet anyway?
I once argued that the 2012 Romney campaign should use a similar ploy against Obama with a line like: “Does Obama want babies left to die if born alive after botched abortions? He hasn’t said he doesn’t.” But that line was not just a sick, cleverly worded contrivance. On the floor of the Illinois Senate, Obama actually said something to that effect, essentially because he didn’t want abortion to be restricted by the proposed law.
How about these headlines: “Do Democrats Want to Allow Viable Fetuses to be Killed? They Haven’t Said They Don’t.” Or following the recent transgender custody case in Texas: “Do Democrats Want to Protect Mentally Immature Little Boys from the Harmful Long-term Effects of Puberty Blockers? They Haven’t Said They Should.”
Or go to an Elizabeth Warren town hall and ask her, “Why do you want the government to come between me and my doctor? Doesn’t Medicare for All force everybody to have all of their care approved and managed by the government? Sounds like rationing to me!”
The serious reasoning, lengthy articles, or speeches that may resonate with us conservatives just don’t generate the impact of trolling. As an example, recently this headline ran on MSN: “Bernie Sanders and Ilhan Omar Want to Provide 3 Meals a Day for All Children in the U.S.” In response, Jeryl Bier tweeted, “This is going to get ugly. It will be framed as people who want to feed vs. starve children instead of ‘what are the appropriate functions of the federal gov’t?’”
But arguments about the “appropriate functions of government,” while true, lack the emotional oomph needed to respond to an accusation (and you know it’s coming) of Republicans wanting to starve children. How about going on the offense instead of defense and turning the narrative around with this headline: “Sanders and Omar Propose Universal School Meal Program Because They Think Parents are Starving Their Children.” Or ask trollish questions of the pair such as: “Do you think we need this program because families are starving their children?” or “Don’t you think parents should feed them?” or “Are you saying the government does a better job of feeding children than families do?”
Don’t let the Dem-media complex round-the-clock focus on the impeachment of Trump distract from their proposed policies — which have nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with shifting our nation ever leftward. If the recent survey of Millennials is correct — that a growing majority are favorable to socialism and communism — then it’s imperative we go to whatever lengths necessary to expose the ugly truth of where these ideologies ultimately lead and as history has proven: to the death of millions.
Troll to force the Left to take the dive into the logical implications and results of their imagined policies. Describe with colorful terms. Get creative. Use catchy slogans. Write startling headlines. Ask shocking questions at town halls. Like the “eat babies” lady, force the Dem-media complex to cover the story.
The same trolling tactics can be used against the NeverTrumpers. Goad them into explaining how their work against the reelection of Trump will keep us out of that socialist abyss the Left is literally dragging us down into.
When confronting them, you don’t have to call the NeverTrumpers “human scum” (even though they’ve been more creative than Trump in calling us much worse), but words like David French’s overused “troubling” are too nice, for example, when pushing back on his assertion that having Drag Queens read to children in public libraries — not about ABCs, but LGBTQs — are “blessings of liberty.”
Ask the NeverTrumpers how, after rooting for a 2020 election that rejects Trump, how their “principles” will feel, much less survive, the morning after when they wake up to a Democrat like Elizabeth Warren as president and Democrat majorities in both houses.
Make the NeverTrumpers defend Bill Kristol, who once tweeted that he was finding his “inner socialist” and that “’MAGA’ and ‘America First’ are boob bait for the bubbas,” and whether the socialistic Medicare for All is boob bait for “principled,” “rule of law” “conservatives” like him.
Ask Ben Shapiro — who found Michael Anton’s seminal “Flight 93 Election” essay “mind-numbing horseshit” and the Green New Deal “stupid” — about the moral degrees of difference between the eventual results of the shittiness or stupidity, and at what point support and a vote for Trump become absolutely necessary.
The Flight 93 election is now a reelection. We’re still storming the cockpit into 2020. Let’s troll.