Meryl Streep Slams Trump’s Deplorables: ‘Let Them Eat Wrestling’

By John Zmirak Published on January 9, 2017

Last night at the Golden Globes in her speech denouncing Donald Trump and his voters, Meryl Streep reminded millions of Americans why we rejected Hillary Clinton, her party, and the media elites that tried to stuff Clinton down our throat. It’s also why Hollywood keeps making expensive politicized failures that choke at the box office, like the sordid anti-gun potboiler Miss Sloane.

We’ve suffered through eight long years of Obama’s preening, class-president speeches and empty, “virtuous” gestures. We have seen him and his designated successor fawned on by tame (debate-question-leaking) Ivy-schooled reporters and gorgeous, empty-headed celebrities. We know perfectly well that America’s media and political elites consider us the great unwashed, which is why they’ve been fire-hosing us for decades with toxic solvents like anti-male feminism, anti-Western multiculturalism, and anti-family hedonism.

And we’ve learned a thing or two. We’ve learned that pretty people who are talented at acting are pretty good at saying things which they know aren’t true — and doing so convincingly. After all, that’s their chosen craft. We’ve also learned how to recognize and dismantle the Elitist Lie 2.0.

That’s a whirring little time-bomb that lefties like to plant in every “narrative” they get their hands on, from Islamic terror attacks (they blame the truck, the bomb, or the gun — whose motives it is “too soon to determine”) to the kidnapping and torture of a handicapped Trump supporter (just kids being kids, where are their parents?).

Streep reached into her goodie bag and produced her own Elitist Lie 2.0, which she tossed out to America like a trinket we should treasure. This device has three active components:

1. A Phony Claim of Victimhood to Seize the Moral High Ground

In Streep’s speech she managed to cast as persecuted victims a roomful of fantastically overpaid actors, and the coddled film critics of Hollywood’s foreign press, who today are still picking through the goodie-bags they got from billion-dollar movie studios. She took up for these hapless victims as “the most vilified segments in American society right now…. Hollywood, foreigners, and the press.” From Streep’s account, you would think that cross-burning Klansmen were attacking movie theaters for showing films where interracial couples kiss, while Inquisitors burned piles of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker in public squares across America. What really happened? The Democrats lost an election. But that’s not supposed to happen.

Did Donald Trump threaten to end all immigration? No, he promised to enforce our democratically enacted laws that regulate the process.  Did he campaign against “foreigners”? No, he warned of those criminal aliens who’ve evaded our laws, with the help of “sanctuary” cities and others who help aliens to flout the law. Has he threatened to infringe on the First Amendment, to silence the media which he considers biased? No, he has gone on Twitter to dispute things he disagrees with.  Has Trump spoken of jailing those who criticize his position on immigration? Never — unlike Germany’s Angela Merkel, whose government has jailed those who oppose her influx of Islamists.

2. An Unearned Claim of Moral or Intellectual Superiority

Streep listed a number of actors from working class origins or foreign countries, and presented them as moral exemplars because of their “compassionate” performances which taught Americans how to “enter the lives of those who are different from us.”

Let’s try to unpack that. Apart from those who play themselves in cameos, every actor is paid to portray someone “different” from himself. And every movie we watch (apart from home movies) is about people “different” from us. That’s why it’s entertaining. All that Streep has done here is to describe what happens in drama — while trying to spin it as a form of heroic altruism. So the actors in 50 Shades of Grey were improving America’s moral tone by teaching millions of theater-goers about sexual activities that are “different” from what they’re used to — and those who made that movie should not just be highly paid, but considered part of a virtuous elite that is improving America’s ethics. Got it? We actors, by our very profession, are better than the rest of you helots.

Then she went on to peddle the false claim that President-Elect Trump mocked a reporter’s disability. That media myth is debunked in detail here. So Streep uses a false account of what a real politician said in his own defense while fighting for his political life in response to a reporter at America’s top newspaper, to cast Trump as a bully and moral monster, compared to those heroes of empathy (actors) who read the lines they’ve been given in the dozens of crass, trashy, manipulative movies that Hollywood dumps on the public every year.

Streep jeered at the ignorant rubes which she imagines lowing and grazing in vast, lumbering herds between the Hudson River and Hollywood, staring slack-jawed at wrestling matches.

3. An Implicit or Explicit Threat of Punishment

Standing atop the papier-mâché moral high ground which she claimed, Streep included a nasty, elitist little warning to the rest of America: “Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners and if we kick ‘em all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.” Now, of course this is a jibe at the ignorant rubes which Streep imagines lowing and grazing in vast, lumbering herds between the Hudson River and Hollywood, staring slack-jawed at wrestling matches.

It’s also a threat: You common people need us, and if you keep voting the wrong way, we might just go on strike. We will turn up our noses at the million-dollar paychecks we collect for reading back the words that writers put there for us, and starve America of “the arts.” So watch your step, or we will walk. Seriously, that red carpet leads all the way to Canada. We mean it this time. …

Others who think like Streep are much more menacing, more open about their hatred for the low-rent, red-state millions. Tech-executive Melinda Byerley offered up the long form of Streep’s one-liner in this by now infamous Tweet, where she jeered at Trump voters who are unemployed or disadvantaged, and promised that they would stay that way until they reformed their political, cultural religious views to match those of America’s financial and cultural elite:

These are people who voted, campaigned, and fund-raised for Hillary Clinton, confident that she could pack the Supreme Court with justices who would pluck every critical issue out of the grubby hands of voters. Meanwhile, our Meryl Streeps would offer cinematic carrots, and our Byerleys wield the stick, until every American learned to be worthy of his masters, or starved in rural obscurity.

Gotta love those Golden Globes!

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • autarchical1

    I never cared for her acting, but I guess it was pretty good after all. She’s been a complete idiot all along and I never realized it until now.

    • Wayne Cook

      I never cared for her acting and I’m in the biz.

  • Gary

    The “entertainment industry” is immoral and corrupt, according to people who have been in it. I would like to know how many men, and/or women, Streep had to have sex with to get where she is now.

    • Dean Bruckner

      You can read about Hollywood and places like it in Revelation chapters 17-18. They have not yet fully entered their phase of murder and mayhem toward Christians, but some day they will.

  • Aaron Brown

    Bravo Mr. Zmirak! This is pretty much what I was thinking but you put it much better than I can.

  • Wayne Cook

    Great analysis, John! BTW…36 of 38 lib governed city has higher than average black crime rates, and more unemployed…companies have already left them….the lib dream is for significance…which they will never have. Remember Flint, Michigan? Yeah…undrinkable water…were libs there to help? Nope.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Yeah, I have endured a measure of exasperation at the convoluted conclusions conspiring cons of the Hollywood elite get away with on a celebrated basis by idolators almost daily. Possibly the worst performance of Ms. Streep’s stellar career transpired last night at what should have been a humble acknowledgement for the recognition of her peers. Instead we get a diatribe of cleverly phrased coined comments encapsulating the consensus of all but two celebs in the audience. Were the preparation & research given to her most accomplished roles comparable to the research which complimented this global recitation , her Oscars would have been collected for character assassination’s & not credible performances. Her incredible lack of perspective is surpassed only by her hubris, as Mr. Zmirak so accurately catalogs.

  • Dean Bruckner

    Hollywood has streep throat: a condition of the larynx during which only narcissistic lies are spoken. Only cure is repentance from dead works and faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

  • faithntrust

    M Streep’s dialogue reminded me of the ‘little speech’ Michelle Obama sharing her disdain for Trump’s locker room talk – while hyper-campaigning for a Clinton White House dynasty [mafia]! Wow! Just wow!

  • Linda

    As a conservative I’m in the minority in my social circle, so the large majority of my friends and family are liberals. I would like to see your anger turned down towards them exercising their first amendment rights to make statements such as Ms. Streep made. Liberals do not consider you “the great unwashed”. They see the multi-millionaires and billionaires that Trump associates with. They know that a minority of people could ever afford to play golf on his courses or stay in his hotels. They see his wife preferring her NYC penthouse over the lowly White House. These liberals care deeply about the poor and needy. Zmirak understates what Trump said about immigration – remember “ban on all Muslims?”? Chants of “build that wall”. That’s hardly a balanced approach to enforcing legislation. You say Meryl Streep’s speech to her peers proves why the Democrats lost. I say your response is why they couldn’t bring themselves to consider Donald Trump.

    • Dean Bruckner

      You have an incredible case of psychological projection. You describe rich DEMOCRATS in great detail, which is what Donald Trump was. Liberals are generous only with other people’s money. They are notoriously tight fisted with their own. Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out (David Horowitz). Many God open your eyes to the true idolatrous nature of Progressivism.

      • Linda

        Bill Gates charity is legendary, as is Bono’s, and Angelina Jolie’s, as well as other Hollywood folks. It’s their own resources they give, not other people’s money. Donald Trump’s charity is negligible at best.

        • David Marshall

          Arthur Brooks showed that on average, conservatives give far more to charity than do liberals. But that reflects religious influence: pious believers in America give several times as much as secularists on average, whether left or right, only more believers are on the right.

        • faithntrust

          Many want their “charity contributions” publicized [applauded & admired]. The Bible believers prefer to stay in the shadows & receive their reward in heaven – not kudos on earth!

    • Howard Rosenbaum

      Yeah, but they voted for Hillary. You do well to offer consideration for the rational that motivates your friends. Hey, there are always two sides to every story, Sometimes even three. The point though that you may be missing is it’s not necessarily animosity that inspires many of us on the “other side” to rant & rave as we may be perceived by some to do. While the mainstream media, academia , Hollywood & much of Wall St continue to vilify the incoming administration & most of it’s constituents , it;s hardly not “fair & balanced ” to “Breitbart” their positions ( to coin a phrase ) Hillary as history will attest was the worst possible candidate imaginable in a free democracy . Her duplicity, dishonesty , demagoguery & perhaps devious devotion to self would have damaged our nation possibly for generations. As conservatives, a lot of us fashion our world view on Judeo – Christian values. Consequently it becomes more than personal when we witness those values being trashed by those who accuse us & subsequently those values as well as being deplorable. You would do well to take a small step back from your empathy towards your friends viewpoints . They being your friends & family should understand there’s more than one viewpoint to consider , even if they’re convinced your wrong. Oh & yes being objective is something we all should hold in high esteem.

      • Linda

        Hillary has absolutely nothing to do with their enmity towards the Republican ethos. Conservatives should stop bringing her up as a defense to deflect honest concerns about Trump. Republicans had 17 candidates to choose from and they chose Trump as their best representative. Therein lies the almost insurmountable damage. I could have defended the platforms to my liberal circles if Carson, Cruz or Fiorini had been selected, but they were passed over.

        • Howard Rosenbaum

          So Trump is the problem, not Hillary ..?!

          • Linda

            Yes he has made it impossible to justify the GOP. Other candidates, especially someone like Ben Carson, would not be wasting their position spewing childish and vengeful tweets and comments at every opportunity, eg, attempting to vilify Alec Baldwin and Meryl Streep which ends up making him either a laughingstock or more of a villain. His pulpit should be used for important and/or encouraging announcements that would give a chance for us to open a healthy dialogue with left-leaning people. His nasty, petty personality has closed that door completely, it’s impossible to convince them to overlook it. I doubt any of the other 16 presidential candidates would cause this irreparable damage.

          • Howard Rosenbaum

            Curious, as it is Trump who has welcomed a number of his earlier adversaries to voice their concerns . His “Make America Great Again” campaign( which is a reference to the Reagan years, not the racial discrimination of an earlier time) has openly invited those w/a more left leaning perspective to be heard. Hey, it’s the “other side” which by & large seemly reject this PEOTUS hands down, & in so doing diminish the respect due our country & the political process that has contributed to it’s exclusivity for over 200 years. Social media on the other hand, has been a tool that Mr. Trump has at time used masterfully. Though, I will agree that there are times when the animosity on both sides of the tweeting universe seem not much more than gratuitous . Theres a bigger picture , both objectively & practically than you seem to be willing to address.

        • Gary

          Liberals would have opposed anyone they considered to be conservative. It is what Trump says he wants to do that they don’t like much more than Trump himself.

          • Linda

            I agree liberal hardliners would reject any conservative President no matter their personality (same as Republicans give Obama no credit whatsoever), but those who aren’t hardened could have been won over by a respectable but brutally honest person like Ben Carson.

          • Gary

            Aren’t all liberals “hardliners”?

          • Linda

            Wasn’t Trump a liberal until a year ago?

          • Gary

            I don’t know. I don’t think of him as a conservative. But the opposition to him by the liberals suggests he isn’t a liberal.

        • Zmirak

          But the goal isn’t to nominate a losing candidate whom you can defend to your liberal friends. It’s to win an election, which Trump did while others would lose. The national interest is bigger than your social circle. Make new friends, why don’t you?

          • Linda

            Wow, your smugness is most unappealing. Shall I get a new husband, sisters and in-laws too? Jesus loves you.

    • Gary

      Having watched and listened to liberals for fifty years, it seems to me that they are a liability to the country instead of an asset.

    • Zmirak

      Linda, I appreciate your situation, but I honestly don’t believe that ONE of your liberal friends would have seriously considered Ted Cruz–whom i backed vs. Trump. If they say otherwise to you, they’re blowing smoke. What outraged the left in Trump is his ability to channel ordinary people’s inarticulate but correct feeling that the U.S., with much of the West, is out of control because of massive immigration (highest level since 1880s, when we needed cheap labor–which now we don’t). As for Muslim ban–it’s reasonable, constitutional, moral and sane.

    • Irene Neuner

      If liberals (or any politician) cared about people other than themselves they would have made certain that 1.our government was not impoverishing the next generation though incredible debt (which currently stands at 250k/person) and 2. Children in every school district had class sizes of 12 and had teachers and principals that were accountable.

      10k of funding per child added up in a school of 600 students is 6 million dollars. That is plenty of money every year for an excellent education!

Inspiration
The Safest Hiding Place
Nancy Flory
More from The Stream
Connect with Us