In a remarkable Sunday edition of The Boston Globe, the paper’s editors go all in for the fight to block GOP frontrunner Donald Trump from winning the Republican Party’s nomination.
“The GOP Must Stop Trump,” blares the title of the paper’s Sunday editorial. In addition to the editorial, the editors crafted a fake “front page in Donald Trump’s America” edition of the Boston Globe dated Sunday April 9th, 2017.
In their editorial, the editors seem to propose that Party elites use Sen. Ted Cruz as a cat’s-paw to deny Trump the nomination, then ultimately give the nomination to someone who is not currently running — such as Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney.
Although the paper seems to advocate giving Mitt Romney the nomination, the paper endorsed Barack Obama over Romney in the 2012 election. In 2016, the Globe endorsed Hillary Clinton and John Kasich.
The paper’s editorial board argues that Trump is no different than the “demagogic strongmen” who have risen to power throughout history. The editors make this comparison while seemingly unaware of the fact that it is President Obama who has used unprecedented executive powers to rewrite and nullify immigration laws, which have put thousands of American lives at risk and have allowed criminal cartels to roam free. The paper writes of Trump:
It is easy to find historical antecedents. The rise of demagogic strongmen is an all too common phenomenon on our small planet. And what marks each of those dark episodes is a failure to fathom where a leader’s vision leads, to carry rhetoric to its logical conclusion. The satirical front page of this section attempts to do just that, to envision what America looks like with Trump in the White House.
The “satirical front page” and the editorial itself attack Trump’s signature policy positions on trade and immigration. However, data from exit polls suggest that the Republican electorate has been receptive to Trump’s positions on these issues.
For instance, Wisconsin’s exit polls showed that 7 out of 10 GOP Wisconsin voters support a temporary pause Muslim migration — a position that has not been articulated by any candidate aside from Trump. Similarly, a majority of Wisconsin Republicans (54%) said that foreign trade deals take away U.S. jobs. Again, Trump is the only candidate in the GOP field campaigning against globalist trade pacts and arguing that the trade deals of recent decades have not benefited American workers.
Trump’s campaign has declared Sen. Cruz has consistently opposed efforts to crack down on Chinese currency cheating and has argued that Obama’s fast track trade authority would help “to win a fair deal for the American worker.” Cruz has also stated that the loss of U.S. jobs in manufacturing and other economic sectors is not the result of our nation’s trade deals. “Working men and women have been hammered across this country, but it hasn’t been because of free trade,” Cruz said in a June radio interview defending his earlier vote for fast track trade authority.
Among the editors’ many predictions blazed across the front page of the satirical Boston Globe edition, some of the most notable include: predictions of an imminent trade war, predictions about the disastrous economic impact for U.S. employers caused by enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, and predictions about the blacklisting of Megyn Kelly.
- In a 2017 “article” titled “Market sinks as trade war looms,” the editors attack Trump for their imagined future trade war, which they believe will occur as a result of his plan to implement “tariffs as high as 45 percent for all Chinese imports.” The editors make no mention of the fact that Ronald Reagan implemented a 45% tariff on Japanese motorcycles to save the Harley-Davidson Motor Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The paper also does not mention the fact that in 2012, Mitt Romney argued that a trade war is already occurring and the U.S. is losing. “There’s one [i.e. a trade war] going on right now, which we don’t know about it. It’s a silent one. And they’re winning,” Romney said at the time. While the publication is worried about the hypothetical consequences of standing up to foreign cheating, they seem unconcerned about the actual documented consequences of not standing up to illicit trading practices. Between 2001 to 2013, the U.S. lost 3.2 million jobs to China due to the growing trade deficit.
- The fake front page of The Boston Globe also seems to indicate the editors’ general opposition to cracking down on sanctuary cities, which have resulted in the death, rape, abuse, child sexual exploitation, maiming, and permanent disfigurement of thousands of American citizens. The editors warn that Trump’s vow to defund sanctuary cities in order protect American lives will spark protests that would inconvenience “scores of attendees at an elite Harvard/MIT tech fest” by forcing them to “evacuate Kendall Square and take the MBTA’s #1 Bus across the Charles River to alternate site in Boston.”
- The editors sound the alarm over what would happen if America ceases its longstanding policy of refusing to enforce our immigration laws. The editors warn that should the nation enforce the Congressionally-passed immigration laws, dishes in San Francisco restaurants will go unwashed:
Already in California, armed ICE agents confronted 30 illegal strawberry pickers on a Santa Barbara County farm and bused them to a detention center to await prosecution and a government chartered flight back to Mexico. State officials held a press conference shortly after the raid to express concern about the economic impact if “dishes go unwashed in the kitchens of San Francisco restaurants and if our $3 billion strawberry crop is ultimately left to rot.
The editors make no mention of the fact that American citizens wash dishes in every city in every state all across this country. Nor do the editors mention that dishwasher and busboy positions have traditionally been an entrance for young Americans to make their way into the workforce. Deporting illegal labor would thus open these jobs to American citizens, produce higher wages, and help unemployed black and Hispanic youth, currently dogged by high unemployment, join the workforce.
Yet not only do the editors attack the GOP frontrunner and his policies but they also attack his supporters. In their editorial, the editors suggest Trump supporters are violent and unpredictable, warning that if Trump is denied the nomination, “who knows what Trump’s fervent backers are capable of if emboldened by the defeat of their strongman at the hands of the hated party elite.”
The editors’ fears of violence rings hollow, as the recent violent protests in Chicago were carried out by anti-Trump, far-left radicals. Moreover, while the editors are left imagining what kind of action Trump supporters “are capable of,” the editors seem uninterested in the actual violence that is occurring all across America as a result of our immigration system. The liberal-leaning Migration Policy Institute estimates that are nearly one million illegal aliens in the United States with criminal convictions (820,000). This figure does not include an estimation of the total crimes committed by illegal aliens but only those who have been successfully arrested, tried, and convicted.
The editors go on to suggest that Party elites should use Cruz to prevent Trump from receiving 1,237 delegates but should then give the nomination to a candidate who is not currently in the race:
If the party can muster the courage to reject its first-place finisher, rejecting the runner-up should be even easier. The Republican Party’s standard deserves to be hoisted by an honorable and decent man, like Romney or Ryan, elected on the convention floor. It is better to lose with principle than to accept a dangerous deal from a demagogue.
The editors’ analysis seems to comport with the analysis of Pat Caddell and others who have suggested that Sen. Cruz’s candidacy is an essential ingredient necessary for the Establishment to choose their preferred nominee.
Ironically, the editors bash Trump as being “anti-immigrant” for his America first platform — but then seem to wonder why he’s so popular in the first place:
At some point, after the election, Republicans will also need to ask themselves some tough questions about how their actions and inactions made the party vulnerable to Trump. After all, a candidate spewing anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, authoritarian rhetoric didn’t come out of nowhere; the Tea Party has been strong enough long enough that someone like him shouldn’t be a surprise. Chasing short-term political gains, the GOP missed a lot of chances to fight the hateful currents that now threaten to overwhelm it.
The talking point that Americans are anti-immigrant or hostile to immigrants is the typical slander employed by the proponents of mass migration like Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and Paul Ryan, who believe there should be no pause or cessation in record migration even if it means more crime, overcrowded schools, and depressed wages.
The editors do not seem to consider the possibility that Trump’s popularity stems from the fact that the Republican electorate is tired of its leaders taking marching orders from cosmopolitan commentariats like The Boston Globe, who see no problem with the social, economic, and cultural effects of mass migration.
Indeed, while GOP Party elites have a long history of pushing trade and immigration policies opposed by its base, Trump himself has explained that his success is a result of his position on those two issues. In his victory speech following his thumping of open borders advocate Marco Rubio, Trump said unequivocally that those issues sparked his success from day one of his campaign:
We came down the escalator, and it was about trade and it was about borders. And what happened is pretty quickly after that – and we were, we shot right up. I shot right to the top of the polls, and have been leading in the polls almost from the beginning, without fail.