This piece argues that Democrats consistently accuse others of the very faults they display, using cultural events, rhetoric, and policy choices to illustrate what the author sees as projection, hostility toward conservatives, and selective compassion.
Democrats have perfected projection, blaming opponents for the things they themselves do. Instead of owning bad ideas or mistakes, they label critics violent, racist, or intolerant. That tactic keeps the focus off their failures and on manufactured moral superiority.
Take the reaction to the Super Bowl Halftime Show: some on the left celebrated the performance as “joyous,” and John Kasich called the program a “celebration of Latino culture.” Yet many conservatives find the act and its lyrics vulgar and tone-deaf, especially when prominent Democrats insist everything about it is wholesome.
That contradiction matters because cultural signaling often masks deeper political motives. The animus aimed at President Trump, his administration, and his voters doesn’t look like love; it looks like relentless hostility. When party figures and commentators pivot from policy debate to personal attacks, it hardens divides instead of closing them.
The rhetoric on the left has grown sharp and personal. Examples pile up: one commentator suggested the country needs a “fumigation” of MAGA, while others have attacked private citizens and families in brutal terms. Elected officials and influencers sometimes push language that treats political opponents as moral enemies rather than fellow citizens.
In the policy arena, that hostility shows up in proposals to punish federal agents and public servants. One gubernatorial hopeful vowed to make life a “living hell” for ICE agents, promising to strip licenses and block employment for people enforcing federal law. Other local moves seek to exclude federal officers from state jobs, a strategy that substitutes retaliation for constructive reform.
Some on the left openly discuss weaponizing institutions against political foes. Commentators have argued to “to weaponize the federal government against” conservatives who support the former president, and social posts from medical professionals have even suggested withholding care from patients with certain political views. Those ideas turn civic life into a zero-sum battle and risk eroding trust in essential services.
These examples aren’t isolated. A nurse was fired after urging followers to poison ICE agents, and videos circulated of healthcare workers wishing harm on expecting mothers with conservative views. Another provider boasted he might withhold anesthesia from “MAGA” patients during surgery. When political disagreement bleeds into threats or denial of care, it crosses a line.
“They’re not going to refuse care for someone who choses [sic] not to disclose pronouns on a medical form or with a hatred for ‘wokeness’ (unfortunately), wrote Baranowski.
“Unfortunately?” replied Basham. “You feel that medical treatment should be refused for political opinions?”
“If those political opinions drive fascist regimes that cause tangible harm to the environment and minority groups, yes,” Said Branaowski. It’s not JUST your opinion here — it’s your support for abhorrent s***.”
On immigration, Democrats’ selective compassion becomes obvious. Dozens of Americans have been harmed or killed by illegal immigrants in recent incidents, yet many left-leaning leaders refuse to engage with victims’ families. At the same time, open-border advocacy and sanctuary policies show a willingness to prioritize political symbolism over secure borders.
There are also stark examples of double standards. When President Trump extended asylum to White South Africans, many on the left labeled those refugees “white supremacists.” Conversely, the same circles often defend or excuse actions by millions of newcomers whose legal status is uncertain, especially when those newcomers are cast as part of a voter base favorable to Democrats.
And on abortion enforcement across state lines, governors in blue states have declined to assist with extradition in cases of alleged illegal abortions, citing “reproductive rights.” That selective noncooperation raises questions about equal enforcement of law and whether political alignment now determines who gets help from the state.
All of this feeds a narrative: Democrats express affection for particular groups and causes but show contempt for large swaths of American voters. If love really were more powerful than hate, as some on the left claim, there would be more outreach and less scorched-earth rhetoric. Instead, the public sees a party that often prefers punishment to persuasion.
So, where’s the love, Democrats? ‘Cause I’m not seeing it.
