Staff Reports
In an unprecedented twist of irony, a progressive publication is suggesting that President Trump could take lessons from none other than Adolf Hitler on how to handle U.S. science funding. This wild assertion from The American Prospect, aptly equating fiscal responsibility with totalitarian governance, reveals the depths of absurdity to which leftist reasoning has plummeted.
It’s not surprising that the author of the piece seems to exist on a wacky cocktail of antidepressants and heartburn medication—after all, who else would think that a former president ought to emulate a genocidal dictator to improve NIH funding? The article’s premise is laughable: it posits that Hitler knew how to adequately support science, disregarding that his regime was more concerned with eugenics and military advancement than actual research. It’s essentially a leftist green light for Trump to adopt policies that would supposedly result in scientific progress, while simultaneously throwing logic and ethics out the window.
The absurd logic unfolds further when the writer claims that Trump’s government funding cuts are tantamount to destruction. Recent changes from the National Institutes of Health limit overhead costs on research grants to 15 percent while exposing wasteful practices at elite universities. The figures are stark, with many institutions, including Harvard and Yale, boasting overheads well over 60 percent. Yet, instead of examining why such exorbitant costs exist, the piece languishes in lazy blame, mirroring the left’s penchant for fiscal irresponsibility.
Progressive Rag The American Prospect Says Trump Could Learn Something From…Hitler – PJ Media https://t.co/owGhF0pUix
— Deenie (@deenie7940) February 11, 2025
Interestingly enough, the slandering of efficient financial management comes from individuals who can’t seem to grasp basic economics. The prospect of examining overhead costs in scientific grants is greeted with bafflement because, apparently, the mere act of providing researchers with less funding while expecting them to innovate is too radical—even for the American left. The article reveals a reluctance to engage in meaningful discussion about potential inefficiencies concealed within these revered institutions, all while advocating for keeping the cash flow status quo.
Ultimately, this misfired comparison only underscores the intellectual bankruptcy of leftist rhetoric. It shows a desperate need to cling to past narratives of Trumpian authoritarianism while flip-flopping on the actions of actual tyrants. It’s a remarkable feat of cognitive dissonance where danger lies not with the economic reforms taking place, but with the increasingly odd habits and views that liberal elites are embracing. Encouraging the left to continue on this path may just blow their conspiracy-laden narratives wide open.
