Political Hatred: When Attacks Turn Personal Instead of Policy

A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues. — Theodore Roosevelt

(Opinion)

In a recent Facebook reel viewed over 5.8 million times, Virginia State Delegate Nick Freitas laid out a stark observation about modern political discourse: “Do what we want or else you’re racist.” He followed it with, “Same grift…different day…just don't care anymore.” Freitas, a Republican known for his straightforward commentary, was highlighting what he sees as a recurring tactic—using accusations of racism not to debate ideas, but to shut down opposition and force compliance. This isn't just rhetoric; it's a pattern that reveals a deeper issue in American politics: the shift from policy critiques to personal vilification, particularly from the left toward figures like Donald Trump.

Freitas's words serve as a launchpad for a common-sense examination. If we strip away the emotion and look at the facts, do these attacks focus on policies that could harm the nation, or do they target the person to avoid substantive debate? Let's compare undeniable examples from recent years, drawing from documented statements, actions, and outcomes. The goal isn't to pick sides but to expose the hypocrisy and encourage Americans to demand better debates on merit, not mudslinging. Let's take a listen.

The Pattern:

Personal Attacks Over Policy Debates

I think Freitas's point boils down to this: When opponents label someone "racist" without tying it to specific actions, it's often a shortcut to discredit the individual rather than engage with their ideas. This mirrors a broader trend in which criticism veers toward the personal, especially against conservative figures. Consider these comparisons:

• Border Security and Immigration: Trump's policy of building a border wall and enforcing immigration laws was frequently called "racist" by left-leaning figures. For instance, in 2019, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi described the wall as "immoral" and implied it stemmed from prejudice, stating it was "rooted in fear of people who are different." Similarly, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2019 compared detention centers to "concentration camps," focusing on Trump's character as "cruel" rather than debating the policy's effectiveness in reducing illegal crossings (which dropped 90% in some sectors during his term).

  
  

  In contrast, when Democratic administrations pursued similar measures—like Obama's record deportations (over 3 million from 2009-2016)—critics on the right debated the policy's humanitarian impact without blanket personal attacks like "racist." The focus was on outcomes, not the president's motives. This double standard exposes the tactic: Attack the man to dodge the merits.

  
  

• Criminal Justice Reform: Trump's First Step Act (2018) reduced sentences for non-violent offenders and was praised by bipartisan groups, including the ACLU, for addressing racial disparities in prisons. Yet, critics like Sen. Kamala Harris (in 2019 debates) accused Trump of being "racist" based on past statements, ignoring the policy's benefits (e.g., releasing over 3,000 inmates, many minorities).

  
  

  Compare to Biden's 1994 Crime Bill, which expanded prisons and was later criticized for disproportionately affecting Black communities (increasing incarceration rates by 50% for African Americans). Right-leaning critics focused on the bill's flaws (e.g., mandatory minimums), not personal smears against Biden as "racist." The left's approach skips policy autopsy for character assassination.

  
  

• Economic Policies and Trade: Trump's tariffs on China were labeled "xenophobic" by opponents like Rep. Ilhan Omar in 2019, who tied them to anti-Asian sentiment rather than debating their impact on U.S. manufacturing (which saw job growth in key sectors).

  
  

  In comparison, Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) aimed to counter China but faced right-wing criticism on job losses, not personal attacks on Obama as "anti-American." The debate stayed on economics, not the man. This pattern shows: When policies challenge the status quo, pivot to the person.

  
  

• Foreign Policy and Peace Deals: The Abraham Accords (2020), brokered by Trump, normalized relations between Israel and Arab nations without new wars. Critics like former President Obama implied Trump's motives were self-serving, calling his approach "chaotic" in personal terms.

  
  

  Contrast with Democratic-led interventions, like the Libya operation under Obama (2011), which faced policy critiques from the right (e.g., lack of congressional approval) but not character smears like "warmonger." The left's focus on Trump's "instability" over the deals' success highlights the personal bias.

The Undeniable Hypocrisy: A Side-by-Side Look

To make it crystal clear, here's a comparison table of attacks vs. actual policy debates. The left's pattern—per Freitas' "do what we want, or else you're racist"—emerges when personal labels replace factual critiques, while the right tends to stick to outcomes.

Issue	Left's Attack on Trump (Personal Focus)	Right's Critique of Left Policies (Policy Focus)	What It Exposes
Immigration	"Racist wall-builder" (e.g., AOC's 2019 "concentration camps" label)	"Open borders endanger security" (debating Biden's 2021-2024 migrant surges, which hit 10 million encounters)	Personal smear vs. data on effects (e.g., crime stats in border states).
Criminal Justice	"Bigot ignoring disparities" (despite the First Step Act)	"Defund the police harms communities" (critiquing 2020 movements that led to crime spikes in cities like Chicago)	Character hit vs. outcome analysis (e.g., 20% homicide rise post-2020).
Economy/Trade	"Xenophobic tariffs" (Omar's 2019 claims)	"Inflation from spending bills" (debating Biden's $1.9T American Rescue Plan, linked to 9% inflation peak in 2022)	Motive attack vs. economic metrics (e.g., wage stagnation under Biden).
Foreign Policy	"Chaotic threat" (Obama's 2019 comments)	"Weak on adversaries" (critiquing Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal, costing 13 U.S. lives and $85B in equipment)	Personal chaos vs. tangible failures (e.g., Taliban resurgence).

These examples aren't cherry-picked—they're from public records and show a consistent tactic: When policies succeed or challenge norms, default to personal hatred. Freitas nails it—this "grift" confuses the debate, turning politics into a character contest.

Why This Matters for Americans

Freitas's reel exposes a divide: If debates stayed on policies, we'd see progress. Instead, personal attacks foster hatred, eroding trust. What happened? Trump's 2024 landslide (312 electoral votes) showed Americans want results, not rhetoric. What is happening? Continued smears distract from issues like inflation (down from 9% but still high at 2.5% in 2025). Likely outcomes: If unchecked, this hatred deepens polarization, as polls show 70% of Americans are tired of negative politics. Common sense says: Demand policy talks. Expose the tactic, and let's build on facts, not fury.

The Bigger Pattern:

From Alinsky's Rules to Communist Blueprints

Exposing the Roots of Personal Attacks in Politics

Freitas's observation isn't an isolated grievance; it's a symptom of a calculated strategy with deep historical roots. This tactic of personal vilification—labeling opponents "racist," "fascist," or "threats to democracy" to sidestep policy debates—echoes the playbook of Saul Alinsky, whose 1971 book Rules for Radicals has influenced generations of activists and politicians on the left. Alinsky's rules emphasize disruption and division over dialogue, with key tactics like Rule 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon," turning opponents into punchlines rather than engaging their ideas; Rule 12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it," which isolates individuals through character attacks; and the often-paraphrased principle of projection: "Accuse your opponent of what you are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt." These aren't abstract; they've been weaponized in real time. When Trump proposes border security, he's not critiqued on feasibility but branded "racist"—a personalization that freezes debate and polarizes voters, just as Alinsky prescribed. Meanwhile, the accusers overlook their own policies' failures, like record migrant surges under Biden, creating confusion and deflecting scrutiny.

But Alinsky's influence is just one thread in a longer tapestry. Dive deeper, and we connect to the 45 Communist goals outlined in Cleon Skousen's 1958 book The Naked Communist, which were read into the Congressional Record in 1963 as alleged objectives for infiltrating and undermining American society. These goals include infiltrating schools and media to promote division (Goal 17: Get control of the schools; Goal 20: Infiltrate the press), discrediting leaders through smears (Goal 42: Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition), and fostering dependency to erode self-reliance (Goal 27: Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion). Sound familiar? The relentless personal attacks on Trump—framing his economic nationalism as "xenophobic" while ignoring policy merits—align with Goal 40: Discredit the family as an institution and Goal 41: Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents, by sowing cultural division through character-based rhetoric. This long-running strategy isn't about debate; it's about destabilization, using hatred to advance an agenda that chips away at constitutional principles.

At the core of this lies the foundational blueprint: the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848), which outline steps toward a classless society but, in practice, centralize power and diminish individual freedoms. Plank 2 calls for a heavy progressive income tax (mirrored in modern tax policies that redistribute wealth); Plank 5 advocates centralization of credit in state banks (echoed in calls for government oversight of finance); Plank 10 demands free public education (now a vehicle for ideological indoctrination, per Goal 17). When the left attacks Trump's tax cuts as "racist" giveaways to the rich, they're sidestepping debate on Plank 3 (abolition of inheritance rights) or Plank 8 (equal obligation of all to work), which align with dependency-creating programs that erode self-reliance. Instead of policy scrutiny, personal hatred distracts, allowing these planks to advance unchecked—think expanded welfare under Biden, tying into Plank 6 (centralization of communication and transportation) via regulatory overreach.

This isn't a coincidence; it's a continuum. Alinsky's tactics operationalize the Manifesto's planks and Skousen's goals, using personal attacks to confuse and conquer. What happened? Decades of this playbook have polarized America, from McCarthy-era smears to today's "threat to democracy" mantra. What is happening? As Freitas notes, it's the "same grift," with attacks on Trump masking the prior administration's failures, like economic stagnation or border chaos that President Trump is currently fixing. Likely outcomes: If unexposed, it erodes the Constitution's republican framework, pushing toward the centralized control warned against in the Federalist Papers. Americans demand facts over fury—expose the tactics, reclaim the debate, and protect the principles that built this nation.

The only thing people like me can do is expose the deception in a way that is undeniable for anyone with a normal functioning brain. But you have to be angry about it, which should motivate you to take action. I have mentioned this numerous times in my writing: there is no shame in being conned by individuals who are experts at manipulation. This situation is essentially a small scam within a much larger scheme. The only real shame lies in allowing it to persist once someone has made you aware that you are being lied to and manipulated. If you find yourself getting upset with the person trying to inform you about the scam, rather than with the actual con artists, that is a sure sign that you are being deceived, manipulated, or even brainwashed.

The patterns are clear, guys, we just need to open our eyes and see them. ~Ghost

---