The day President Trump defended Walt Whitman at Mount Rushmore, a professor writing for the Washington Post argued it is time to rethink the global legacy of American independence founded on racism and predicated on white supremacy. This wasn’t just media bias. The timing and tone betrayed an agenda.
There is a reason many Americans consider corporate media and academia the twin enemies of the people. These two entities place themselves not as neutral arbiters and analysts of historical events, but as cheerleaders for the official opposition, effectively declaring themselves against half the country’s population and their views. As Rich Lowry pointed out in National Review, judging by the media’s coverage of the Mount Rushmore speech, the entire concept of nationalism and patriotism is slowly being joined with the accusation of “white supremacy.”
The larger issue, however, is bigger than that. It is not just about media coverage or bias. It is about academic concepts — formerly fringe thoughts that used to be relegated to ivory towers — now percolating through the institutions, which has resulted in hubs of unadulterated, unchecked propaganda.
Increasingly, even as Trump might be an unlikely cultural conservative messenger, structural forces are placing him in a curious situation where he finds himself the defender of the patrimony in an ongoing cold civil war. This is not a matter of choice anymore. Purveyors of academic Trumpism, or the “Trump Doctrine,” stand no chance of being objectively analyzed or judged on merit. This is an uneven fight. …
… Taken in combination, [Trump’s] speeches argue for a revival of classical education and art, preservation of culture and history — appropriately recognizing Anglo-American heritage, a restrained foreign policy abroad, and strong law and order at home.
Of course, none of that is fairly represented in corporate media.