By John B. Carpenter
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.
Last year, I wrote here about how the left is full of people who are so convinced of their correctness that they cannot fathom how anyone could see things differently. They can assure Elon that they share his vision of an open marketplace of ideas, yet they will immediately censor Matt Walsch’s What Is a Woman?. They genuinely believe they are champions of “democracy” even as they suppress opposing opinions. They equate their opinions with the truth, viewing any deviation from them not merely as an error but as an act of hate. And they’re permitted to hate what (and who) they deem hateful, which means, for now, Trump, eventually you. That’s what we’re up against. Kamala is cut from that same cloth.
So, when, for the first time in this presidential election, she was seriously questioned, the veil of niceness and joy™ slipped, revealing her narcissistic rage. Her handlers frantically waved to Baier to end the interview.
Narcissistic rage is an intense emotional reaction when the unquestionable — like the high-caste Kamala, child of professors — sense a threat to their grandiose self-image. Narcissistic rage manifests suddenly and disproportionately. Baier inquired about feelings of discontent among many Americans and allowed Trump to speak for himself via video. Her furious reaction was out of proportion to the question, which could hardly be described as a provocation. Unlike typical anger, which usually has a clear trigger, narcissistic rage is incited by perceived slights or criticisms, such as daring to question her highness. It’s also triggered when the narcissist feels she is not receiving the admiration she’s certain she deserves. Hence the stabbing finger, the fury at Baier for not schmoozing and effusing about how good she smells, like a previous interviewer.
What’s at stake for Kamala is her “democracy,” her people ruling through her. Depriving her of that, even if with the truth and fairly won elections, if possible, is, in her view, unacceptable. It deserves rage because she deserves — with certitude in her mind — the presidency.
William Butler Yeats warned us that in the coming times, the worst would be “full of a passionate intensity.” Now, one of those “worst” is running for president.