If it’s one thing I admire about the Democrats, it’s their discipline in crafting a message and sticking to it. They’re the undisputed masters of the talking point—even if I happen to find those points noxious, destructive and ultimately poisonous to the body politic. Still, there’s no denying their unity on that front.
Toward that end, it also helps the Democrats tremendously to have most of the national news media firmly in their corner. For instance, when Democrats tried to torpedo Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court with specious accusations of sexual misconduct, the media went all-in with completely unsubstantiated tales of drunken attacks and rape gangs, where practically no innuendo, no matter how flimsy, failed to meet the standard for publication. Never mind that the media completely ruined what was left of their credibility in the process. As staunch allies in the war to advance the Democrat narrative, they did whatever it took—even though they ultimately failed in their mission to destroy Kavanaugh.
That circus, however, still served as an example for future nominees, sending a clear warning about what they can expect if they accept a call to serve from Donald Trump. It also illustrates a very important point that everyone should understand about how the news media cover the Trump administration: Nothing happens by chance. Every subject, every headline, every story, is created in such as way as to advance the overall narrative—whether or not any particular story happens to be true. And that narrative is carefully coordinated with the Democrats, so as to advance their political and electoral objectives.
As my colleague Steve Berman pointed out recently, this is more than just mere speculation on the part of conservatives. The New York Times gave the game away during a recent crisis town hall with executive editor Steve Baquet and newsroom staff, during which Baquet admitted that the paper had totally oriented itself to cover Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump-Russia collusion—but since that fizzled, they had to find some other way to stay on the attack against the administration. And just what might that be?
As Baquet himself put it:
[T]his one is a story about what it means to be an American in 2019. It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred, but it is also a story that requires imaginative use of all our muscles to write about race and class in a deeper way than we have in years. In the coming weeks, we’ll be assigning some new people to politics who can offer different ways of looking at the world. We’ll also ask reporters to write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions.
So the narrative has shifted from “Orange Man is a Russian Puppet” to “Orange Man is a Racist.”
Now, you might be tempted to say, “So what?” After all, accusations of racism have been hurled by liberals for decades as a way to demonize their opponents and shut down debate on topics ranging from welfare reform to climate change. Why wouldn’t the Times go after the same low-hanging fruit that has nourished the progressive project for so long? Well, there’s a little bit more to it than that, as a recent story at the American Spectator brings into sharp relief:
A mounting number of voter polls show that, despite shrill denunciations of the president by the Democrats for his alleged racism, Trump is enjoying a dramatic increase in his approval ratings among minorities. This isn’t, as some liberal news outlets and pundits have suggested, wishful thinking based on outlier polls. The trend began showing up in surveys early this year and appears to be gaining momentum. Some polls now show his approval numbers at 25 percent among African American voters and 50 percent among Hispanic voters. If those figures hold for the next 15 months, they will render Trump unbeatable in November of 2020.
If this claim seems over the top, it should be remembered that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite garnering only about 8 percent of the black vote and 29 percent of the Hispanic vote. Put another way, Clinton lost the election despite winning nearly 90 percent of the African American vote and two-thirds of the Hispanic vote. In other words, they simply can’t beat the president if he holds them to significantly lower percentages of these key voting blocs. [Emphasis added.]
Starting to get the picture?
The racism angle isn’t just some random thing that the news media all just started to emphasize at the same time. They’re also tuned to the polls that show Trump making significant gains among blacks and Hispanics. And since Democrats count on blowing out Republicans among minorities in order to carry elections, they can’t afford to lose any of those votes.
Hence the scare campaign to convince minority voters that Trump hates them. The media are hoping that they’ll forget all about their better jobs and fatter wallets, and vote for the Democrat instead. Whether or not this will work depends largely on how the economy is doing next year; but if it keeps chugging along, you can be sure that the stories of Trump’s racism—and, by extension, the racism of everyone who supports him—will get much worse, no matter how much collateral damage results.
Like I said, nothing happens by chance.