Posted on 01/20/2017 4:52:34 AM PST by SJackson
How can conservatives stop the Democratic Party’s drive to dismantle the constitutional foundations of the nation and reshape its social order? To answer this question, Republicans and conservatives first need to know exactly who their adversaries are. That means not just Hillary Clinton or Tim Kaine or Bernie Sanders but the progressive movement they have committed their political lives to advancing. What are the motivations of the millions of Americans who are part of this movement? What is their agenda? In the first place, it is not just a matter of specific policies and programs. It is a matter of the powerful, almost religious convictions of the progressive movement. This movement is too powerful inside and outside the Democratic Party for an individual leader to deviate too far from the progressive path. Individual policies and programs are but the tips of the iceberg; what you see is not what you eventually get, for policies and programs can be—and are—tailored to the political moment, then abandoned and revived in more radical forms. Obamacare is a prime example. As Republicans long suspected, it was designed by its architects to fail so that after laying the groundwork for socialized medicine, they could expand Obamacare with a “single-payer” plan—that is, total government control of the nation’s health.
.
What is important is not the specific policy but the ideology behind the policy, the long-term vision that a policy like Obamacare is the instrumental means of achieving. Republicans will agree that the failure to name our adversary in the so-called war on terror is a severe—possibly even fatal—handicap when it comes to defeating the enemy. But this is also true of political conflicts. Without understanding the motivations and intentions of one’s adversaries, it is difficult—perhaps impossible—to defeat them. For half a century now, conservatives have been mainly losing the political and culture wars with the left because they do not understand what their adversaries are up to—what drives them and shapes their means and ends.
So we must begin with that. When we set out to defend our country and its constitutional framework, whom are we up against? What is the inspirational goal that underlies their calculations and justifies their deeds? How do they see us? What are they prepared to do to defeat us? What laws will they break, what deceptions will they employ, and what acts will they commit?
An answer to the question “How do they see us?” was provided by Donald Trump during the second presidential debate. The answer was so harsh in its judgment it was probably unprecedented in the annals of modern presidential politics. Trump turned to the audience at one point to say, “Hillary has tremendous hatred in her heart.” It was the kind of politically incorrect character description that had become a signature reflex of Trump’s election campaign. Never before had one presidential candidate so bluntly confronted another. Never had any Republican dared to characterize a Democratic opponent in such damning moral terms to a national audience. Pre-Trump Republicans were generally too polite to blurt out such conclusions even when they were just.
The same cannot be said for Democrats or Hillary. It was Hillary who provided the occasion for Trump’s remark. His judgment of Hillary’s character did not come out of the blue. It was a direct response to the attacks that had been the focus of her campaign. It was really her core message, which was a vicious and personal attempt to condemn Trump and his supporters as “unfit” to lead the country. The trigger of Trump’s remark was a statement she had made on the campaign trail and had not retracted. Addressing an LGBTQ event a month earlier, Clinton had dismissed Trump’s supporters out of hand. In as casual a way as one could make such dehumanizing comments, Clinton had said that half of Trump’s supporters belonged in her “basket of deplorables,” then added that they were “irredeemable.” Nor did she leave these characterizations hanging in the air for others to imagine what she could have meant by such remarks. Instead, she rattled off an itemized list to clarify exactly what she had in mind: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” Reaffirming this demonization of Republicans and their candidate right to the end of the campaign, both Hillary and Obama suggested in ads and appearances that Trump was the candidate of the Ku Klux Klan.
Out of the other side of her mouth, Hillary regularly invoked her “favorite quote” from Michelle Obama: “When they go low, we go high.” Closer to the truth would have been “When they go low, we go lower.”
Of course, such demonizing epithets are hardly peculiar to Hillary Clinton, nor is the reflexive damning of those who disagree with her. These are the familiar anathemas of the politically correct deployed against people whose opinions they don’t like. What her “deplorable” remark tells us is that Hillary Clinton is not alone in having tremendous hatred in her heart for Republicans and for all those who do not share her political views. What the anathemas tell us is that Democrats, and progressives generally, harbor the same hatred for their political opponents. Republicans don’t really need to be told this, since they have ample personal confirmations. What Republican has not had these same hateful words applied to them by a Democratic opponent?
The chief strategy of Democratic political campaigns is to use character assassination, otherwise referred to as “the politics of personal destruction,” as the weapon of choice. Any strategy for resisting these attacks has to begin with an understanding of this brutal fact. The first requirement for any strategy to stop their progressive agenda is to understand that they have tremendous hatred in their hearts for those who oppose them. The second requirement is to know how to confound that hatred. If your opponents are prepared to demonize you as a racist and you have no equally powerful response, you might as well quit the field of battle.
Why do progressives have hatred in their hearts for conservatives? Why do they sound like hellfire-and-damnation preachers when they are on the attack? Because they are zealots of what can only be described as a crypto-religion modeled on the Christian narrative of the Fall and Redemption—the difference being that they see themselves as the redeemers instead of the divinity. To progressives, the world is a fallen place—beset by racism, sexism, homophobia, and the rest—that must be transformed and made right. This redemption was once called communism and is now called socialism, or “social justice.” Theirs is a vision of a world that has become a “safe place”—where there are no deplorables, or where such irredeemables are outlawed and suppressed.
Progressives dream of a world of political correctness and politically enforced equality, where everybody is taken care of by taxing the rich until there are no more rich, universities and schools admit no ideas that are hurtful or offending, environments have no pollution, countries have no borders, and nations have no armies. Progressives are so enthralled by their dreams of a heaven on earth that they see those who oppose their dreams as evil, which is why they hate them. For what decent soul would be against a world in which everyone was taken care of, guaranteed a “living wage,” and provided with free education and health care, food and housing—a world in which all needs are met and there is social justice? What decent person could oppose the idea of open borders that would recognize all the diverse people in the world as part of one big human family? It’s a beautiful dream, and to one degree or another every progressive shares it. Progressives are social redeemers. They see themselves as saving the vulnerable and saving the planet. Consequently, they regard themselves as the army of the saints and those who oppose them as the party of the devil.
This is why Democrats go forward in lockstep while Republicans march to the beat of their own drums. Closing ranks is almost an instinct with Democrats, while solidarity in the line of fire helps them prevail in political battles. How much of an instinct is the lockstep mentality displayed by progressives? Consider one pivotal moment in the recent election campaign—the moment when the polls took a dramatic turn against Trump after an 11-year-old “sex-talk video” was unearthed by the pro-Clinton Washington Post. Democrats responded across the board with outrage, much of it bizarre considering what Democrats—Hollywood Democrats in particular—regularly put up with when sex talk and abusive behavior appears in their own ranks. This particular revelation triggered an immediate exodus of Republicans announcing they could not support their party’s candidate and would not be part of his campaign. It was a bridge too far. “I am sickened by what I heard today,” Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement notable for its political correctness, as he boycotted a Trump event. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified.”
Now try to name one Democrat who defected because they were sickened or appalled by something their candidate actually did, as opposed to merely said. Hillary Clinton violated the espionage laws; she broke her oaths of office; she lied to Congress and the FBI about her illegal server, which exposed classified secrets to America’s enemies; she lied to the general public to hide what she did and repeated her lies over the course of a year; she lied about the number of illegal, unsecure handheld devices she used, and she destroyed or “lost” all of them to hide what she had done; she obstructed justice—a felony—by destroying her e-mails days after Congress had subpoenaed them and warned her not to destroy them; she lied to the American public and the world about the deaths of four American heroes, including an ambassador who was her friend and whose demise came about ias a result of circumstances in which she had played a significant role; she lied to the mothers of the dead over their coffins. Yet through all this disgraceful and criminal activity, which would have disqualified anyone else as a presidential candidate, not a single Democratic elected official—not one—said, “This is a bridge too far; I can’t go along with her on this.” Not one.
Why not? Because she was their candidate and, more important, the standard bearer of the progressive cause; because they were going into an election that would shape the nation’s future and advance the cause of social justice. Because breaking ranks would be giving aid to the enemy, to those who oppose the beautiful dream: the racists and sexists, the deplorables.
ping
The framing of our constitution, the behavior of the citizenry controlled by
the rule of law, to them is an intolerant unyielding government that
subjugates women and minorities.
This is a very good article. It illuminates.
The “progressives” can tolerate and accept any crime, sin, or destructive behavior, if a sophist can make a case that it advances their agenda.
The fact that their agenda destroys civilizations, and has failed everywhere it has been tried, is simply dismissed out of hand.
For the last couple weeks I’ve been listening to David McCullough’s John Adams.
And it’s quite an intimate look at one of our Founding Fathers.
For some reason, Adams has not gotten the historical praise that Jefferson received, but the book shows he deserves it.
The book is essential education for every American. It’s far more valuable than reading a history of wiki of American Revolution facts, because you’re able to understand the founding fathers in the context of their times.
So much about what the leftists get wrong is failing to see the historical context. John Adams was opposed to slavery, though many other patriots were not. It takes time to gain a consensus: accommodating slavery was an expedient for enabling the 13 colonies to unite in the first place.
I think it’s fairly obvious through the actions of Hollywood, the Media, McLame, and the Democrats who the truly intolerant are.
Happy Inaugural to you, Liz.
Barack Obama often spoke of Declaring War On ‘Extremism’ and the need to crack down on “extremism”.
FR Posted 1/13/15 by seekandfind
A list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” or “potential terrorists” in official Obama-era U.S. government documents. This list will really give you a good idea of what Barack Obama means when he uses the word “extremist”. Each of these 72 items is linked (at web site). ......this list potentially includes most of the country.
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in
paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
A haiku:
Heard him at UC Berkeley
A sea of dirty hippies
I almost got beat!
(When I was a young FReeper, I was going to meet another FReeper and hear Horowitz speak. We never hooked up. I went in alone.
The hall was full of dirty America haters.
I had to run to my car at the end.
This was around 2000.)
Horowitz brilliantly fleshes out what he once noted about the left via a quote from a 60s radical:
“The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”
Horowitz gets it.
The key thing to understand about the Progressives is that they view language as a weapon of propaganda and not a method of honest communication.
That is why debating with them is useless—they have no interest in facts—their sole goal is to bamboozle their audience with emotion.
Hillary is guilty of major criminal acts—whether she is above the law or treated as one in a nation of equals will tell you all you know about our civilization.
All the whining, foot-stomping, finger-pointing, name-calling and other assorted denials of the “Progressives” can’t hide that simple fact.
Obama fits his own extremist definition:
Anti-Catholic
Imposing Strict Religious Laws (Muzzie Sharia)
They got it backwards. God has already promised what they are working for, utopia, heaven is the word God uses. But since they are men of the left (unbelieving satan cads) they think they are better than God Almighty and can "create" their heaven on earth utopia without God.
David Horowitz explanation of their ultimate goal of heaven on earth without God is so spiritually dark, all we can do is pray and believe they will not make progress toward this goal.
Just as dark if not more so, is their New Man project. These spiritually dead, “unbelieving satan cads,” imagine they can perfect a New Man which in every instance (i.e., the new Soviet Man) turns out to be nothing more than the ‘old man,’ the spiritually dead natural man. All around us today we can see their New Man failures rioting in the streets, threatening to blow up the White House,men dressed like females sharing the women’s restrooms, and so on ad nauseam.
This is the world in which the mass of humanity has been reduced to nothing more than livestock that exist solely for the purposes of their owners.
I think that many of the rank-and-file "progressives" support this because they imagine themselves as the one in power. They don't realize that those who hold the reins of power in such a system will never give them anything and will crush them brutally if they ever get themselves noticed.
bump
David Horowitz knows what he’s talking about when he talks about the left. He was a big leftist himself in the 60’s, so he’s intimately familiar with its inner workings. He turned into a rabid conservative after he realized that leftists are the ultimate hypocrites and totalitarians.
One of his early book “Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey” describes his transformation from a dedicated leftist to the outspoken conservative he is today. I highly recommend it.
An answer to...“How do they see us?” was provided by Donald Trump during the second presidential debate....so harsh in its judgment it was probably unprecedented in... modern presidential politics. Trump turned to the audience at one point to say, “Hillary has tremendous hatred in her heart.” ...Never before had one presidential candidate so bluntly confronted... a Democratic opponent in such damning moral terms to a national audience.
Does it go at all into WHO? Does it mention the puppet masters, the globalist evil cabal who has created a fake ideology for the stooges and puppets to “fight for” and be temporarily useful in?
What is the point of the book if it only spends 300 pages talking about the ideology created for the “progressive intellectuals” to believe in like Santa Claus and recruit and perform, but doesn’t discuss who wants it, who has created it, and what THEY are going to do with this whole false “fight?”
Yikes!!
Wonder if that other FReeper is still around, lol.
The other FReeper was named, IIRC, “Cool Guy” and was an Indian from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, their owners being government. Except the USA, established on the rights of humanity which government is subservient to. A shame our ideals haven't taken root elsewhere, though the expansion of individual liberty beyond our borders wasn't the idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.