As New York Times columnists David Brooks, Gail Collins, Nicholas Kristof, et al. go with their anti-Trump vituperations, there goes Bret Stephens, formerly of the Trump-agnostic Wall Street Journal, to join them.

Surprise, surprise.  The anti-Trump Bret Stephens has left The Wall Street Journal for the anti-Trump New York Times.

Simple question: Does The New York Times really need another columnist to inspire The Resistance to, quoting from the title of Mr. Kristof's April 13 column, "Stand Up to Trump and Win"?  So many columnists, writing so many vitriolic effusions, attacking just one individual – and all on A.O. Sulzberger, Jr.'s dime.

Mr. Kristof, in his April 13 column, advised the elites to stop being so "lofty" and get down to the bread and butter.  He then suggested that the movement aim for numbers and ease up on "purity."  Finally, Mr. Kristof noted the importance of "ridicule."  In that regard, he might have cited this from Mark Twain's notebook, set down about the time Twain wrote A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court: "Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense."

Thing is, our friends on the left don't seem to have much sense of sarcasm and irony, left alone a sense of humor.  Consider candidate Trump's reaction to claims that the Russians hacked into the computers at the Democratic National Committee. Candidate Trump hoped the Russians would release all of Hilary Clinton's emails – and the Democrats immediately claimed that Mr. Trump was in cahoots with the Russians...and haven't stopped, have they?

Only last week, Hillary Clinton elevated her claims of Russian hacking to the level of aggression against the USA.  Compared to this accusation, her additional explanations for losing – the "misogyny" problem (henceforth, should men be barred from voting?) and the Comey factor – seem to be mere trifles.  It must be noted that Ms. Clinton delivered her explanations in the course of being interviewed at the Women in the World Conference by Nicholas Kristof.  What a coincidence!  (Mr. Kristof devoted one of his Times columns to the interview but omitted Ms. Clinton's contention that her defeat is attributable to Russian aggression.)

As a member of the "what if" crowd, this observer cannot help but think, "what if" Russian aggression had not served to block Hillary Clinton from returning to the White House, in her own right, this time?  How would the sense of political humor fare?  Certainly, Stephen Colbert would not be enjoying revived TV success, nor would the career of Alec Baldwin have rebounded – unless, that is, you are certain that either of these gentlemen would have relished skewering Hillary Clinton as they regularly ridicule President The Donald.

Seems to this observer that political humor in the age of President H. Clinton would have been frowned upon – to the point of becoming a basis for hate speech prosecutions, and the First Amendment be darned.  After all, if misogyny helped elect President Trump, how could misogyny not be the basis of criticism of President H. Clinton delivered in ridicule?

Mr. Kristof ended his April 13 column with this observation: "Trump can survive denunciations, but I'm less sure that in the long run he can withstand mockery."

Anyone doubt that any New York Times columnist, including, now, the newly hired Bret Stephens, would tolerate even a smidgen of "mockery" directed at Hillary Clinton – or any Democrat, for that matter?  (They do seem to support, if sub silentio, the vulgar anti-Trump rants of the new chair of the Democratic National Committee.  Talk about "deplorable.")

By the way – the stench of elitism reached the Times crossword Monday, April 10.  (The easiest Times Crossword day of the week.)  The clue for 69 across was "Joe___ (ordinary sort)."  The answer consisted of these five letters: "SCHMO."  Gosh, crossword editor Will Shortz, you couldn't have made it DOAKS?