Last Friday Mayor Wheeler of Portland released an open letter to President Trump rejecting his offer of federal help to restore order to his city. “We don’t need your politics of division and demagoguery. Portlanders are onto you.” Division…racism…. Donald Trump is as often charged with the one as with the other: in the second case without a scrap of supporting evidence, in the first with a total lack of logic.
Consider how this works: Human societies from their origins in the middle Paleolithic period have been what contemporary liberals and conservatives alike call traditional societies, arranged according to social patterns basically unchanged and unchallenged, though with cultural variations in certain parts of the world, for 100,000 years. Then, sometime in the 20th century, minority elements within modern societies began imagining and experimenting with alternative forms, structures, and patterns for societies to choose from; until, just before the end of the century, they succeeded in persuading half the populations of Western countries to embrace the new, wholly artificial, and unnatural forms (they call them “preferences”) and reject the traditional and natural ones. The converted half, though numerically about equal to its traditionalist opposite, still represent a statistically unmeasurable fraction of all the human beings who ever walked the earth; a fraction so minuscule that to call it a minority is mathematically and rhetorically absurd. Nevertheless, early in the twenty-first century postmodern, anti-traditional people are a force to be reckoned with. They have used their power and influence to impose their will on society by employing the strategy of divide first, then conquer.
It took a while for the traditional half of America to pull itself together to challenge them and their agenda, and Donald Trump (“The Donald” of New York society in the 1980s and 90s) was the improbable leader they elected to get the job done. Trump has been surprisingly effective in this work of standing on behalf of the traditionalists and traditionalism against the Great Dividers who, though perfectly free to secede from traditional society and go their own way (exactly where that might be would be their problem), are determined instead to seize control of the whole of it and subject the opposing half to their regime. The Dividers, having divided society against itself, intend next to cut it away from the course of history as it has run down to the beginning of the 21st century.
Only liberals would have the nerve to abuse the English language, and reality itself, by calling the man who resists this Great Division of theirs the Divider-in-Chief. This is a supreme example of what psychologists call “projection.” Liberals do a lot of that. It’s how they live their lives, in fact.
“Dividing us” means nothing more, or less, than doing, or saying, something that offends and angers the progressive left. The only way “we” can be “brought together” is for the right to surrender unconditionally to the progressives’ agenda. If the right refuses to do that, then the right is responsible for the left’s response, however extreme it may be.