Phyllis Beveridge Nissila
I was struck by the stark contrast in analyses on Democrat front-runner Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, that appeared in two recent articles in the online news source American Thinker.
The first one, appearing Saturday, October 5th, 2019, by frequent AT contributor Monica Showalter, entitled “What I saw at the Elizabeth Warren rally” described Warren by the well-planned choreography of her campaign stop in San Diego where she appeard fit, energetic (with maybe only a few cosmetic enhancements), and above all, nice. Showalter describes her followers also as nice. According to Showalter, Warren and her campaign were:
Very nimble and organized. They were almost all friendly and helpful, and their setup and swift cleanup, as well as crowd communication, and policing of lines and sections in the operation, were very good. Only a couple of staffers acted frazzled, maybe from overwork, or maybe just from being leftists. The Warren political machine overall was practiced and proactive, with staff very helpful, fair, and accommodating to attendees.
As for Warren herself, Showalter continued,
She was slim and fit as a 30-year-old, and her hair and natural-looking makeup were flawless. Seeing her up close, it was possible to conclude that she probably had some “work” done on her face and neck, but it was good work and natural enough to not be noticeable unless you were looking for it.
Showalter adds, “(Warren) got several things down well for a political speaker.”
If you go by appearances, that is, I suppose, true.
Although there was passing mention of Warren’s far-left, socialist wrinkles, many commenters wondered, as did I, has Showalter succumbed to the politician’s dog and pony show?
Or, perhaps, is something else at work, here (see below)?
The second article, appearing yesterday, October 6th, 2019, written by another frequent AT contributor, Jeffrey Folks, entitled “Trump vs. Warren: Trump Builds, Warren Destroys,” pulls the curtain back to expose Warren’s website which details the not so nice side of Warren and her campaign, the side she may not want to expose in certain public venues. According to Folks,
That kind of antagonism toward America [he cites former President Obama’s antogonism] is shared by Elizabeth Warren today. She does not speak with awe of the Greatest Generation that saved the world from fascism and communism. Nor does she celebrate the greatness of our capitalist economy, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, the right of religious expression in the public sphere, the need for a strong military and police force (including ICE), the crucial role of the family, or even the debt we owe to our legal immigrants.
Instead, Warren is pushing the transformation of America farther. Her official website offers no fewer than 46 “plans” for changing America. It says nothing about preserving what is good about our country.
A closer look at her plans reveal nearly the same far-left schemes as the Democrat Socialist, aka Justice Democrat, crowd who auditioned and hired AOC from her obscure background as a bartender in Queens to be their congressional pop star.
So what gives, Monica?
And what gives, Elizabeth?
Hard to tell, here, as her articles normally expose the hypocrisies of the left. Maybe it was the courtesy extended to her and her disabled, elderly mother that touched her heartstrings and influenced her analysis.
I can think of a few things that might be influencing the far-left Democrat presidential hopeful. As I have observed her over time in videos of her campaign appearances, her behavior in Congress, and her platform in print, I am of several minds.
First, she’s a typical politician, glad-handing and goading supporters and opponents, respectively.
Secondly (but highly unlikely unless she has never read real history), Warren is the worst kind of blind Pollyanna who actually believes that socialism is good for the country. This is highly doubtful, however. She is old enough to have gone through basic education before it was so heavily infiltrated by the anti-America, anti-God ideologues.
Thirdly, she is frightfully ambitious. You can see this in the strain of her neck muscles and tendons (despite plastic surgery, if, indeed, she had some) and hear it in the shrillness of her voice, particularly when she employs various rhetorical mechanisms, as well as volume, to blast her opponents.
Fourthly, although she appeared to apologize for her lie about being part Native American, she blamed her family for that, and I don’t believe she’s yet to have evidenced a true change of heart by, say, reimbursing Harvard for her education, or endowing the college with funds to offer real minority students the opportunity that her lie netted her.
And it’s in the realm of non-apology apologies coupled with a clearly short-sighted view of the dangers of socialism (which, in the hands of its promoters generally means rights are restricted “for thee but not for me” as they pocket fortunes and persecute dissidents) that my thoughts turn to other possibilities.
Am I the Only One?
I doubt it.
I’m not a psychologist, but I’ve had occasion to do a fair amount of research on the two syndromes both professionaly and for outside research interests, and the results give me pause–not to mention serious concerns–when I observe political operatives who lie seemingly without conscience and who subscribe to socialism (and its twin, but with firepower, communism).
There used to be a slogan in politics not that many years ago that went, “Character matters.” We don’t hear that so much these days.
When blatant hypocrisy and bald-faced lying take center stage–without so much as a blush–one cannot help but think of the personality disorders that gloss over guilt and sin so slickly and so smugly–and how people who operate in them turn, after the “love bombing” (“nice bombing” would be synonymous) stage has served its purpose, as in, a very different face and set of behaviors emerge. No need to schmooze anymore.
And it helps when most of the fourth estate not only abandons their real jobs but also have the backs of those who would tell such blatant lies and operate with such blatant hypocrisy.
There are, of course, other reasons people become poseurs.
But once character doesn’t matter anymore, anything goes.
For example, if the socialism-mongers in Congress get their way, out go many of our Constitutional rights, particularly several of those detailed in the First and Second Amendments, not to mention the danger that the Constitution itself is presently in*.
However, I do think the real message is becoming more and more clear as the days wear on and the seduction of niceness wears off. I hope and pray, anyway, that more people become aware.
Because in the case of deceptive politicians as well as narrcissists and sociopaths, the love bombing phase will end at some point, as noted above. The “nice mask” will slip off to reveal the angry face beneath.
And if they gain the power to execute whatever plans they have been hiding behind the curtain, then the real danger begins.
*For the danger our Constitution may well be in just now, here are a few additional thoughts.