The Role of Projection in Democrat Politics

Back in the 19th century, famed Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud identified a psychological defense mechanism in human beings that he termed “projection.”

Freud’s concept of projection encompasses the notion that in order to avoid facing uncomfortable feelings about themselves, individuals will impose the same negative characteristics upon another person.

In my assessment, which results from my academic coursework, professional background, and ethics studies, there is another kind of projection that exists, which takes place within the moral realm of human consciousness, one that I term “moral projection.”

Moral projection occurs when an individual experiences feelings of guilt over acts that he or she has committed or omitted. This individual may subsequently find the uncomfortable feelings difficult to confront and/or manage. The conduct, or lack thereof, which evoked the feelings of guilt, also frequently becomes very difficult for an individual to own.

Using the defense mechanism concept, an individual may assign to another individual or group the same attitude and behavior that initially generated his or her own attendant guilt.

In other words, take your blame and pin it on another.

Moral projection has been used extensively by Democrats in their ongoing war against anyone who would get in the way of their agenda du jour. It continues to be wielded as one of their main political and propaganda weapons.

The idea that the concepts of good and evil are mere opinions, which have an elasticity in application that is dependent upon a situation, is often referred to as “moral relativism.”

The infiltration of conceptual moral relativism into our schools has degraded the consciences of generations of students at every educational level.

Simultaneously, it tilled the soil of young minds into fertile fields that were susceptible to the planting of left-wing doctrine. This was one of the ways in which the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our American Republic depends were supplanted.

A significant portion of young people who were infected with the poisonous weeds of moral relativism now endorse the ideas and actions of hate-based radical organizations and violent anti-American groups.

Saul Alinsky, an icon of liberals and leftist extremists, once wrote, “To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.”

The resultant loss of a shared moral sense has enabled and even encouraged the use of political tactics that are devoid of conscience. Moral projection is one of the most blatant.

It is a horrible experience to be accused. For those who adhere to an ethical code, it is what keeps many in check from too freely accusing others.

Here are but a few examples of the moral projection arrows that the Democrats have recently pulled from their quiver and shot at adversaries:

-In order to deflect from the fact that the Democrats and their media allies have for months enabled violence in cities across the country, they falsely claim that the violence was caused by, as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden recently said, “white supremacist groups menacing our communities.”

-In order to distract from candidate Biden’s numerous mental lapses, Democrats publicly accused President Donald Trump of having mental focus issues following his medical treatment for Covid 19.

-Democrats and the complicit media are fomenting fears over whether President Trump will accept the results of the upcoming election, while former 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton publicly advises Biden not to do so “under any circumstances” and the campaign hires hundreds of lawyers to go to court to contest election results.

I am not sure where the Democrats and their media cohorts can go to get their consciences back. But I do know where the American people can go to get their country back.

Democrats Launch Health-Scare Attack on Judge Amy Coney Barrett

It seems as though Democrats have settled on a scheme to undermine the nomination to the Supreme Court of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Apparently already ruled out is a boycott of the hearings by the Democrats. Such a ploy would actually speed up the nomination process, and they look to be hell-bent on doing just the opposite.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his campaign strategists may be coaching Biden’s running mate Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., on how to use the proceedings to grab the media spotlight, as was done during the hearings for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently boasted that she and her colleagues have a few “arrows in [their] quiver,” at this point it is unlikely that the Democrats will pursue some of the more off-the-wall options, such as attempting to impeach the president a second time, launching an effort to impeach Attorney General William Barr, or forcing a government shutdown.

It is probable, however, that they will try to delay the proceedings in every way possible. Arcane Senate rules could be employed, as some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have used in the past to gum up the legislative works.

Another delay tactic may be the advancement of a false narrative, suggesting that the nomination of Judge Coney Barrett is somehow illegitimate.

Additionally, the questioning by committee members of Judge Coney Barrett may include an attempt to entrap the nominee into hypothetical predictions about how she might rule in a case that involves one of the more heated topics, such as abortion, discrimination, or immigration.

The primary focus of the Democrats, along with the left-leaning organizations with which they are aligned, has routinely been messaging.

It looks like Democrat leaders have already shown their cards and decided to go the health care route. They are quite experienced in trying to scare the wits out of folks.

Some Democrat strategists are of the opinion that the Democrats were successful in gaining a majority in the House of Representatives during the 2018 mid-term elections by talking about the imminent loss of health care coverage for pre-existing conditions at the hands of the Republicans.

Well they’re at it again. Health care seems to have become the main attack angle with which Democrats are going to try and harm, pump the brakes on, and/or completely halt Judge Coney Barrett’s confirmation.

Specifically, Democrats are using an upcoming case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court shortly after the election, that involves the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare.

In a letter to Senate Democrats, Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., provided some of the details of the sly Dem plan to de-rail Judge Coney Barrett’s nomination.

There will apparently be an attempt to convince Senate Republicans to forestall a vote on the Supreme Court nominee until after the election.

According to Sen. Schumer, in order for this to be accomplished “public pressure on Senate Republicans” must be exerted. Lo and behold, the minority leader surmises that “health care remains the best way to keep the pressure up.”

Sen. Schumer followed his own wily advice and did so with some reckless rhetoric. Here are some of his recent over-the-top statements:

–“By nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, President Trump has once again put Americans’ healthcare in the crosshairs.”

–“A vote for Amy Coney Barrett is a dagger aimed at the heart of the healthcare protections Americans so desperately need and want.”

Democrats themselves have frequently cautioned against the use of language that could potentially prompt on the part of those so inclined hostility and/or aggressive behaviors toward others.

Use of loaded words such as “arrows,” “quiver,” “crosshairs,” “dagger,” and the like evoke an ugly imagery that may oftentimes precede acts of violence.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi focused on “pre-existing conditions,” declaring that Judge Barrett’s “nomination threatens the destruction of life-saving protections for 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions together with every other benefit and protection of the Affordable Care Act.”

Former Vice President Biden’s campaign managed to additionally tie the coronavirus to the nominating process, saying, “If President Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19, like lung scarring and heart damage, could become the next deniable pre-existing condition.”

Regarding another facet of the health care-related scheme, Democrats are zeroing in on a book review by Judge Coney Barrett, written in 2017, in which she agreed with the author of the book that Chief Justice John Robert’s legal reasoning in the 2012 Supreme Court case that upheld Obamacare was faulty.

It is important to point out that the above-referenced was a book review, not a court decision or ruling. She has not opined from the bench about the health care law in her capacity as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

The single passage that Senate Democrats will likely cite from the book review has no predictive value in determining how Judge Coney Barrett would potentially rule on an individual case that has not yet been argued in front of the High Court, including the one that will be heard in November.

Democrats Implement ‘The Big Reverse’

safe_image-14

“The Big Lie” is a form of propaganda that has been used over time by manipulative figures in and out of government, politics, and institutions. It has generally been adopted and applied with the specific intent to surreptitiously alter the beliefs of large groups of people.

Adolf Hitler utilized “The Big Lie” phrase in his 1925 book “Mein Kampf,” describing a lie that was so enormous in size those hearing it would be compelled to believe it.

As members of the human race, the positive side of our nature does not allow for us to accept the notion that any of our fellow human beings would ever lie to us in such a massively brazen way. Our line of reasoning, as well as our unconscious processing, leads us to believe that the lie we are hearing just may be the truth.

Hitler put it in the following way: “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

And so it is that if the lie is big enough, people will oftentimes come to the conclusion that it is true, particularly if it is repeated over and over again.

Chiseled on an unholy invisible stone tablet, the insidious principle persists to this day. It was embodied in a quote from Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, which read as follows: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Our customary psychological defenses endow us with the ability to filter out falsehood from truth so that we are able to deal with the commonplace types of lies that we encounter in everyday life.

However, “The Big Lie” is so extraordinary that it is able to pass through psychological defenses that exist within us. Our minds are temporarily short-circuited and ultimately manipulated to a sufficient degree that allows the lie to emerge as “truth.”

Various members of the Democratic Party have either wittingly or unwittingly come upon a variant of “The Big Lie,” which they have used in their “resistance” efforts against President Donald Trump, his administration, his personal relationships, and his family.

I have given this variant of “The Big Lie” the label of “The Big Reverse.”

Lying, of course, is part and parcel of “The Big Reverse.” However, “The Big Reverse” involves an additional component with an individual or group displaying a sudden and dramatic turnaround of language and conduct. This creates in the recipient population what media psychology refers to as “cognitive dissonance.”

Cognitive dissonance is an intellectual and psychological discomfort caused by the intake of information that involves a conflict between what has been said or done in the past and what is presently being said or done.

As human beings, we will instinctively seek to alter one of the opposing beliefs or behaviors to restore the sense of balance that needs to be maintained for individual stability and functionality.

How does all of the above information relate to where our country finds itself in a political, psychological, and societal sense?

Some recent examples may be instructive.

“Impeachment is a very serious matter. If it happens it has to be a bipartisan initiative,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated in the spring of 2018. “Unless you have bipartisan consensus, impeachment is a divisive issue in the country.”

In an interview with The Washington Post in the early spring of 2019, Pelosi remarked, “I’m not for impeachment. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

Then the turnaround occurred.

It was the fall of 2019. Without a single Republican vote, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to approve an impeachment inquiry. Two hearings were then conducted, where partisan rules were imposed, restrictions were placed solely upon Republican committee members, witnesses that Republicans wished to call were denied, and evidence, fairness, and due process were ignored.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives brought the articles of impeachment up for a vote. Not a single solitary Republican voted in favor. In the most partisan way imaginable, the articles passed.

In another turnaround example, Democrats stoked the flames of fear and anxiety for months about the urgency that existed to remove the president from office. They even used the culturally familiar phrase “clear and present danger.”

Democrat committee chairs Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler had pushed through the proceedings without having waited for the judicial branch to decide on the legality of the president’s assertion of executive privilege.

After the articles passed the House, Pelosi suddenly put on the brakes. Shirking her constitutional duty, she held back the articles from the Senate for almost a month.

During the impeachment process, the Democrats went to great lengths to portray themselves as being “prayerful” and the process itself as being a “solemn” and “somber” one.

Then the impeachment signing ceremony happened.

Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues celebrated with abandon. Pens with Pelosi’s name stamped on them were actually handed out as souvenirs.

This caused a bit of short-lived cognitive dissonance on the part of otherwise Democrat-adoring personalities on cable news shows.

CNN’s Dana Bash commented, “We are used to seeing signing ceremonies handing out pens at moments of celebration, when a president is signing legislation.” She added, “It was unusual to see that kind of ceremony and handing out the pens and smiling for a picture in this kind of situation where the House speaker has bent over backward to say publicly and privately that this is somber, this is not a time for celebration.” And Bash’s colleague Nia-Malika Henderson called the odd festivities “a little jarring and certainly off message…”

Note of caution in the upcoming days: Expect to see more use of “The Big Reverse” in the Senate impeachment trial.

Trump Weathers the Democrat Subpoena Storm

donaldtrumpmgn4

President Donald Trump is experienced in the art of litigation.

As a successful real estate entrepreneur, he was able to acquire the skills necessary to maneuver the legal playing field in the rough and tumble Manhattan marketplace.

The president has now made a strategic decision to litigate rather than comply with the attempt by Democrats to use their oversight powers to keep a discredited narrative alive.

Recently, a significant change took place in the legal approach that the Trump White House adopted.

For the past two years President Trump’s administration fully cooperated with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. More than a million documents were produced, officials were allowed to freely testify, and executive privilege was not exercised.

However, following the release of the Mueller report, the administration has decided to take a different legal approach with respect to what appears to be an unnecessary use of congressional investigative powers.

The president has recently indicated his opposition to having White House personnel submit to the subpoenas peppering Pennsylvania Avenue from overzealous congressional Democrats.

By challenging the Democrats’ efforts to perpetually investigate rather than fulfilling their congressional duties, President Trump increases the likelihood of the Democratically controlled House to be perceived as a “do-nothing” chamber.

White House attorneys are objecting to Democrat subpoenas, which probably means that protracted legal battles will ensue.

The Trump Organization has filed a lawsuit against House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., seeking to block a subpoena for the president’s years-old financial records.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin allowed a deadline to pass, which was given by the Democrat House to turn over the president’s tax returns.

The White House instructed its former personnel security director Carl Kline not to testify before Congress about the process by which the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner obtained their security clearances. The House has since held Kline in contempt.

Personal counsel of the president Rudy Giuliani pointed out to Politico that the president’s position on the House subpoenas is justified, when considering the partisan political motives of congressional Democrats.

“I think it’s exactly the right legal strategy, Giuliani said. “I doubt there’s anybody in America that thinks this has some legitimate governmental purpose.”

“This is like a judge saying I’m going to hang you, but I’ll give you a trial first,” Giuliani added.

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., fully supports the president’s policy of not complying with what Graham rightly referred to as “a complete partisan thing now.”

With the Muller investigation wrapped up, the Russia-collusion narrative debunked, and an obstruction of justice charge eliminated, Graham accurately compared Democrats to filmmaker Oliver Stone attempting to come up with a plot line for a film dealing the Kennedy assassination.

“I think Congress is going crazy here,” Graham told The Associated Press.

One of the things that has been driving many of the Democrats in Congress insane is the prospect of bringing in former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify. Because the Trump administration has indicated that it may use executive privilege to prevent Congress from subpoenaing McGahn, the media have been invoking the specter of former President Richard Nixon in an attempt to portray the invocation of the constitutional privilege as an illicit act.

The president is legally empowered to resist subpoenas originating from the legislative branch that are designed to obtain information or testimony relating to the executive function. The Supreme Court has viewed this presidential privilege as a part of the separation of powers doctrine, derived from the president’s ability to carry out the duties held by the commander in chief under the Constitution.

The privilege to prevent staffers from testifying and/or withhold documents arises because of the unique need to protect the confidentiality of the advice that assists presidential judgments.

Despite the stilted coverage of most of the media, prior presidents have engaged in similar battles. Former President George W. Bush clashed with Congress after his administration attempted to block testimony from top aides over the firing of several federal prosecutors.

Former President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege to withhold documents related to the gun-trafficking scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in the House holding then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt.

The Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon held that when executive privilege is at issue, “…coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course.” The judicial branch is therefore forced to deal with “the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives.” Such a proceeding “pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances.” The court concluded that “constitutional confrontation between the two branches are likely to be avoided whenever possible.”

Consequently, when dealing with confrontations between the executive and legislative branches, the courts have avoided direct intervention.

In such legal proceedings, the wheels of justice move even more slowly than usual and are likely to slog through the court system eventually making their way up to the High Court.

The bottom-line result will be that the president’s legal battles with Congress are likely to last beyond the 2020 presidential election, thus denying the investigation-obsessed Democrats both their narrative and their pound of flesh.

In the Aftermath of the Mueller Report, Democrats Are Deeply Divided

hoyersteny_071918am2_lead

Over the course of the past two years, President Donald Trump has stoically endured two congressional investigations, a counterintelligence probe, and a pervasively broad special counsel investigation, while the Mueller Report has essentially obliterated the Russia collusion narrative, which was repeatedly pitched to the public via partisan politicians and news outlets.

Much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party, the president projects an even greater strength than when the attempt to neutralize his agenda first began.

The former outsider is now an incumbent in the highest political office in the land, having acquired invaluable experience over the last two years as well as important knowledge. The president and the American people know so much more about the high-profile federal agencies and corruption on the part of some.

It turns out that the total deconstruction of the Trump/Russia narrative has actually harmed the Democrats, serving to deeply divide its members over the question of whether to pursue impeachment, which is a major priority for its activist left-wing base.

Political leaders in both parties are aware that if the House of Representatives were to hypothetically impeach the president, the Constitution requires a trial in the Senate, whereby a two-thirds majority would need to be secured in order to remove the president from office. Of course, this scenario is highly unlikely, since the GOP holds a 53-47 majority in that chamber.

Over this past weekend three Democrat committee chairmen refused to let go of the idea of moving forward towards an impeachment of the president. Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) made it a point to keep the impeachment door wide open.

Those who use reason as opposed to emotion to analyze the situation realize that continuing to participate in a small-minded and vengeance-based pursuit of the president is an ill-advised strategy. Leaders of the Democratic Party are no doubt aware that the House takeover during the mid-term elections was fueled in large part by Democrat candidates who were running in red or purple districts, and who assured voters that they were moderate or even conservative in their political ideology. These candidates oftentimes further asserted that they would not be pulled toward the radical side of the political spectrum.

It stands to reason that those who came into office touting middle-America bona fides are likely to be hurt by an attenuated and seemingly spiteful impeachment process against a president who has been cleared of the false collusion charges that were lodged against him. With this in mind, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer recently characterized an impeachment agenda as inadvisable, echoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) warning that impeachment would divide the country.

“Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point,” Hoyer told CNN. “Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months, and the American people will make a judgment.”

Why would the Democrat leadership speak publicly against the pursuit of an impeachment investigation? The answer emerges from the numbers with which Democrat politicians are mesmerized.

A meager 31 percent of rank and file Democrats who self-identify as liberal or moderate view impeachment as worth pursuing, according to a recent Business Insider poll. However, 50 percent of those who see themselves as “very liberal” would like to see Democrats in the House pursue impeachment.

The far-left base, which by all appearances is the center of energy and media attention in the current Democratic Party, embraces the radical rhetoric of the freshman trio of congressional representatives: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).

Media figures aligned with the Democratic base have propagandized the subject of impeachment on television and radio shows as well as websites, using out of context language found in the gossipy second section of the Mueller Report. And so-called progressives use amplified social media posts to keep the impeachment option alive.

However, the enlightened know that party unity is a fragile commodity. It is also a mandatory one, if national elections are to be decisively won.

The Democratic Party currently finds itself in the precarious position of being deeply divided on whether to go after the president. The liberal wing, which typically dominates the presidential primaries, is pressuring Democrat presidential candidates to adopt a pro-impeachment position.

They do so at their own peril.

Taylor Swift Gets Political

sub-buzz-15428-1513722794-2

For quite a while now the Internet has had a peculiar obsession with pop star Taylor Swift’s self-imposed political silence.

Liberal-minded Twitter and Facebook users have been posting comments pressuring Swift to join the ranks of myriad other celebrity activists who use their fame capital to move the political bar ever further to the left.

Up until now digital bully tactics have had little effect on the singer-songwriter. However, times have apparently changed in a big way, and Swift, who is currently on a “Reputation” concert tour, uploaded a photo to Instagram that virtually announces her candidate picks for political office in the state of Tennessee.

Swift previously nurtured an image of being above the political fray. In stark contrast, she has now chosen to take very specific positions on a number of polarizing issues in addition to her candidate endorsements.

Letting it be known that she will be voting as a Tennessee resident in the 2018 midterms, Swift announced her support for two Democrat candidates in her home state, one who is running for the U.S. Senate and another who is striving to secure a seat in House of Representatives.

Along with her endorsements, Swift let loose with an over-the-top slam of Republican Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn, who although of the female gender has the seemingly incorrect party affiliation attached to her name, at least according to leftist celebrity activists.

Swift informed her fans that Marsha Blackburn was running for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee and conveyed her emotion-laced opposition.

“As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me,” Swift shared.

Accompanying her post was a black and white photo in which Swift wears a flannel shirt that makes her look like her old country music singing self.

A number of Swift’s A-list BFFs, including Blake Lively, Karlie Kloss, Katy Perry, and Chrissy Teigen, “liked” the post.

In her political Instagram post, Swift referenced her former approach to avoiding political expression.

“In the past I’ve been reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions, but due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now,” Swift wrote.

Swift’s habit of abstaining from political discourse had become part of her public image. In a 2012 interview with TIME, she said that in spite of keeping herself “as educated and informed as possible,” she does not discuss political subjects.

“I don’t talk about politics because it might influence other people,” she told the publication at the time.

In November 2017, a blogger criticized Swift for her political silence and actually accused her of enabling an alt-right and white supremacist fan base.

Meghan Herning wrote a piece titled “Swiftly to the alt-right: Taylor subtly gets the lower case kkk in formation,” which was published in PopFront Magazine. Herning asserted that Swift’s single “Look What You Made Me Do” contains “dog whistles to white supremacy in the lyrics.”

Additionally, referring to the clothing worn in Swift’s related music video, Herning wrote that “Taylor lords over an army of models from a podium, akin to what Hitler had in Nazi Germany.” Herning added that “the similarities are uncanny and unsettling.”

Essentially condemning Swift for her silence, Herning wrote, “And while pop musicians are not respected world leaders, they have a huge audience and their music often reflects their values. So Taylor’s silence is not innocent, it is calculated.”

Herning received a letter from Swift’s attorneys, demanding she retract the article and threatening a lawsuit. The American Civil Liberties Union promptly came to the aid of Herning.

That same month, the left-leaning UK Guardian published an editorial titled “The Guardian view on Taylor Swift: an envoy for Trump’s values?”

The newspaper implied that, in part, because of her silence, Swift was a stealth Trump supporter.

“… a notable voice has been missing from the chorus: that of Taylor Swift, the world’s biggest pop star. Her silence is striking, highlighting the parallels between the singer and the president: their adept use of social media to foster a diehard support base … their laser focus on the bottom line; their support among the ‘alt-right,’” the editorial read.

The Guardian claimed that Swift’s songs “echo Mr. Trump’s obsession with petty score-settling in their repeated references to her celebrity feuds, or report in painstaking detail on her failed romantic relationships.”

In a Politico piece titled “The Weird Campaign to Get Taylor Swift to Denounce Donald Trump,” which summarized the pressure being mounted at the time on Swift to jump on the anti-Trump skateboard, Swift was labeled “studiously apolitical.”

Stats on the pop singer reveal that she has garnered 112 million Instagram followers, 84 million followers on Twitter, and 72 million “likes” on her Facebook page.

It is arguable that she is at the apex of the celebrity pyramid, as liberals who have pressured her to join their ranks are no doubt aware.

Her level of fame grants her greater endorsement power than many of the other celebrities who have been visible participants in left-of-center protests of late.

With all this in mind, there is now a question of whether Swift will be able to hold on to her popularity, and additionally whether she can maintain her sizable social media platform after the public becomes fully informed of her newfound politics.