Kamala’s narcissistic rage: What we’re up against, continued

Kamala was stabbing the air with her index finger, fuming; Bret Baier had touched a nerve when he informed Kamala that 79% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, and she’s the incumbent. Then he had the audacity to allow Satan himself speak — via video clip — by playing his — I mean Trump’s — response to Kamala’s claims. That was the paper straw that broke the McDonald’s employee’s back. Her famously vicious temper appeared; we’d heard the reports of it surfacing behind the scenes at her staff when Kamala exposed her vacuity. She once attempted to deflect a reporter’s question about why she, the “border czar,” hadn’t been to the border with a flippant “and I haven’t been to Europe.” She blamed that, reportedly, on her aides. Consequently, over 90% of her staff quits. With Baier, Kamala was furious and she showed what we’re up against.

We’re up against her narcissism and the collective narcissism of the left. Narcissism is characterized by delusions of grandiosity. As in my last American Thinker article, “The Advent of Idiocracy,” one of the defining characteristics of American liberals is their pretensions to be “the best and the brightest.” Such pretensions lead to visceral reactions to any dissent. If narcissists claim that Trump’s “the enemy within” comments are threats to use the military to crack down on domestic critics, pushing back on that absurd claim, regardless of how politely the rejection is delivered, “will be considered an attack on their superiority.” (The irony that they’re exhibiting the same intolerance they’re ascribing to others is invisible to them.) The result is “narcissistic rage.”

That is what we witnessed when Kamala was stabbing her finger in the air and furiously declaring, “You and I both know [something that neither Baier nor any informed person knows].” (Truth to the narcissist is what the narcissist insists it is.) In her fury, Kamala charged, Trump “has talked about turning the American military on the American people.” (Actually, he hasn’t, but don’t let the facts get in your way, Kamala.) “He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest.” (In 2020, she raised funds to release rioters and now she’s fabricating charges against Trump for suppressing peaceful demonstrations.) “He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him.” (She is just making stuff up.) “This is a democracy.” (I know, it’s a constitutional republic, but let’s let that slide for now.) “And in a democracy, the president of the United States, in the United States of America” (typical Kamala verbiage) “should be willing to be able to handle criticism without saying he’d lock people up for doing it.” (She can’t handle pointed questions without exploding into narcissistic rage.) “And this is what is at stake.” Indeed.

What’s at stake is our “democracy,” although not in the way she defines it. When Kamala talks about “democracy,” she means the rule of the “demos” — the people — who vote for her. The emphasis is on “our” and that doesn’t include you. Their rule is in danger from Trump because he might persuade enough people to vote for him. If that happens, “democracy” — in her understanding — will have been lost. For the narcissist, “Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all” (Frank S. LaBella). So, the only “demos” who matter are those who exist to meet the needs of the Democrats to be elected. The rest of us may as well not exist at all. They are “democracy,” even when we win elections.

More