It was written before Donald Trump surged to an easy victory in the state’s primary, but a New York Times piece on the South Carolina Republican handwringing perfectly illustrates how misunderstood Trump and his voters are. The story emphasizes the supposed contrast between South Carolina’s “inclusive” Republican politics and the popularity of Trump, who is of course a dastardly demon who – according to the liberal elite – might as well be running his campaign while wearing a white hood and robe.
“The fear among Republican leaders here is that a smashing victory for Mr. Trump would say more about the party, and about the state, potentially undermining South Carolina’s image as a more welcoming place that is no longer defined by figures like Strom Thurmond, the former segregationist presidential candidate who served in the Senate until 2003,” writes the Times.
Oh brother. Can the Times or any other media outlet please point out where Trump has presented a message that would run counter to an ethnically-diverse Republican Party? Has Trump ever suggested that Nikki Haley is a bad governor because she has an Indian background? Has he ever quibbled over the presence of African-Americans in the party? This is nothing new, of course, but the media’s picture of Trump is so much different than the man himself.
Trump’s electoral results, says the paper, have “alarmed more traditional Republicans, who fear a Trump nomination would solidify for nonwhite voters an image of Republicans as an angry and intolerant party.”
Well, it might. If traditional Republicans get all of their opinions from the likes of the New York Times and MSNBC, you could see how that might be a concern. If they instead form their own opinions by actually listening to what Trump has to say, they’ll find no cause for concern.
Illegal immigrants…not a race.
Muslims…not a race.
Is Trump “angry and intolerant?” Well, he seems to be when it comes to terrorism, trade deficits, and the rampant exploitation of our weak border, but that’s hardly enough to recommend him for the Hall of Shame. Why are Republicans letting the Democratic Party define what is and isn’t racist?
Even after all this time, it’s still depressingly shocking to see the viciousness with which the Republican Party has attacked their surprise frontrunner. If you took a secret ballot of the party leadership, you might seriously find that they would prefer President Hillary Clinton to President Trump. It’s just…phenomenal. Phenomenal and sad.
But here’s what’s sadder.
It’s all well and good that Republicans can point to Haley, Tim Scott, Mia Love, Marco Rubio, and other minorities who represent the party. But do they understand that it doesn’t make any difference? Do they see how the media treats these people as token representatives at best and traitors at worst? You’re never going to out-do the Democrats when it comes to “diversity” and identity politics. As far as liberals are concerned, the word “Republican” is synonymous with the word “racist” no matter what. Just listen to Obama and Clinton; every chance they get, they relish in telling voters that the rest of the candidates are just as intolerant and evil as Trump. Republicans should open the doors of the party to minorities with cogent arguments, not superficial pandering.