Posted on 12/29/2018 9:34:16 AM PST by jazusamo
Washington has long been a stranger to principle ... other than the principle of self-advancement. Yet, something new seems to be emerging in the country. Politicians have long felt the need to disguise raw political agendas in the pretense of principle. That pretense is now gone.
In this age of rage, voters seem to have no patience, let alone need, for leaders speaking of abstract principles. They want immediate, unequivocal action in supporting or opposing President Donald Trump. For Democrats, that unequivocal, all-consuming purpose has led to the abandonment of core unifying values, including many that first drew me to the Democratic Party. While they would vehemently deny it, Trump is remaking the party in his inverse image. This past month has shown just how far that transformation has gone.
The remaking of the Democratic Party was most evident last week with the reaction to Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria. There was a time when a sizable number of Democrats opposed undeclared wars and unending military campaigns. Now, however, Democrats are appalled that Trump would not continue a war in one of the myriad countries with U.S. troops engaged in combat operations. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the withdrawal a “Christmas gift to Vladimir Putin,” while Sen.Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and others called it “irresponsible” or “hasty.”
Of course, this “hasty” move is occurring after seven years of intervention in the civil war, including personnel on the ground since 2012. We also have been in Iraq since 2003, and in Afghanistan since 2001. A 2017 study put the real costs of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan at $5.6 trillion since 2001. More importantly, thousands of military personnel have been killed and tens of thousands have been wounded. Yet, Democrats now espouse the same lines that once were denounced during the Bush administration.
Popular cable programs with Democratic and liberal viewers are equally full of recriminations over withdrawing from these wars. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow criticized the plan to withdraw troops as merely an effort to distract the public, despite Trump campaigning in 2016 on promises to withdraw from such wars. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” host (and former GOP congressman) Joe Scarborough denounced Trump as a “quivering coward” who failed to understand that we fight “enemies like ISIS abroad, so we don’t have to fight them in our own schools, churches and airports.” Liberals once rejected the premise that we should engage in continual wars in other countries or face terrorism on our streets.
Democrats are now defined by Trump the way that anti-matter is defined by matter, with each particle of matter corresponding to an anti-participle. Take the secrecy. Democrats once were the party that fought against the misuse of secret-classification laws by the FBI and other agencies. They demanded greater transparency from the executive branch — a position that I have readily supported. Yet, when congressional oversight committees sought documents related to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation of Trump associates, Democrats denounced the very thought that Republicans would question the judgment of the FBI that any such disclosures would be tantamount to “jeopardizing national security.”
Party leaders like Pelosi declared that the committee had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice Department and the FBI.” Likewise, the House Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Minority Member, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), expressed shock that the FBI was not given deference in withholding the information.
Yet, when the information was finally forced out of the FBI (including the disclosure of previously redacted material), it was clear that the FBI had engaged in over-classification to shield not national security but to shield the bureau itself from criticism. It included discussion of the roles of high-ranking FBI officials and their reliance on such sources as the Steele Dossier, which were already publicly known. Democratic House members like Schiff presumably knew what was in the redactions and, nevertheless, demanded deference to the classification decisions of the FBI.
Likewise, in supporting the investigation of Trump, Democrats have embraced ever-expanding definitions of crimes like obstruction, conspiracy, and the like. Historically, Democrats have resisted such efforts to stretch the criminal code to criminalize broader and broader areas of conduct. Yet, during the Trump administration, Democrats sound like legal hawks in demanding criminal charges for conduct long treated as civil matters, such as campaign finance violations and foreign-agent registration violations.
In pursuing Trump, the Democrats have also adopted a type of “red scare” mindset. While Republicans long pumped up the Russian menace as a political Cold War narrative, Democrats are now adopting the same type of rhetoric over the Russian attempt to interfere with the 2016 election. Democrats have spoken about how Russians “stole” the election or destroyed the legitimacy of the results, with little empirical data to support such irresponsible, unfounded claims. While many of us support the Mueller investigation and the need for sanctions against Russia for its interference, Democrats now routinely refer to Russia as our “enemy” and accuse people with alleged connections to Russians as “traitors.” Special counsel Robert Mueller may have more to reveal on Russian hacking, but there is little evidence that either the trolling operation or leaked emails of the Hillary Clinton campaign had a material impact on the 2016 presidential election.
In building up the Russian menace, Democrats ignore that we have not only hacked the emails of our enemies but of our allies as well for years. Moreover, we have routinely intervened in or influenced foreign elections. Likewise, other nations — from Israel to Mexico to China, and many more — have long tried to influence our elections. Still, Democrats are escalating their calls for greater action against Russia, including criticism of being too dovish in not confronting Russian military elements around the world.
A party requires more than an all-consuming hatred for an individual. A party has to stand for something that transcends the immediate or the visceral. Yet, in the age of Trump, the public is not interested in nuance or niceties. The watchword is “resist” and that means resist at all costs — even to core values. In other words, the question is not what the Democratic Party will do but what it will be, after Donald Trump eventually leaves office.
Liberals have always accused social conservatives of bringing religion into politics, but liberals have done something far worse, and far more radical: They have made politics their religion...What they really want is liberal Sharia law, a secular theocracy.
The minimum wage, gender equality, nationalized health care, and global warming—whatever their practical virtues—are not just expedient policy prescriptions. They are essential aspects of the liberal fatwa...Question them and you are not just wrong—you are a heretic.
You wonder why the left is having a nervous breakdown in the wake of Trump's election? It is because, for them, politics is the means to secular salvation. This means that, to them, political failure is not just a setback on the road to a more stable society—it is a blow to their very worldview. Opposition to their program is not just wrong-headed, but evil.
I agree that "Democrats are now defined by Trump the way that anti-matter is defined by matter, with each particle of matter corresponding to an anti-participle.". However, this is nothing new; I've seen conservatives not give the devil his due during Dem administrations and visa versa. It has happened before, it happens now, and it'll happen henceforth.
What is more interesting is the "why" behind the hysteria. The High Priests of Secular Theocracy came within 78k votes of Madame President, which would have been DEVASTATING for lovers of liberty. And thus, we are seeing the left engaging in a Secular Crusade.
We need to respond by red-pilling centrist citizens to join the MAGA train. We need waves of new Deplorables to counteract this liberal fatwa, or else we will be whining about President Kamala Harris and VP Spartacus in 2 years.
The difference in Trump and the rest 9f these POWER WHORES, is Trump doesn’t need this stinking job he is wealthy AND powerful in his own right!!!! The rest of these SCUM have lived off of BIG DONORS and government their entire lives!!!
Every Democrat is a violent totalitarian thug.
> “While many of us support the Mueller investigation and the need for sanctions against Russia for its interference”
Turley may be doing his business but he is still full of crap.
The Democrats are now showing their true colors, hate of America and their true love of Evil.
I guess you could call baby-killing “child abuse”.
><
That goes without saying. You must not have gotten my point.
That is an excellent article.
They are evil and would haul us off tomorrow if they could do so.
Let’s turn this war and Russian talk on its head.
I think Trump will need to turn up the heat against the Chicoms. The Chicoms are the primary existential globalist threat. The Dems are in the Chicoms pocket and it’s time for them to choose sides and be exposed as traitors.
Interesting.
Thanks for posting this excellent article.
I believe in staying engaged and I think the risk has, so far, been worth the investment in Syria.
That said, I think we can protect our interests with forces outside of Syria.
He is causing many putative Republicans to show their true colors also.
That’s for sure.
And they’d rival Stalin or Hitler if they ever get the chance.
Professor Turley has long impressed me as being one of the few nationally prominent Liberals who has some intellectual honesty.
I agree. As Liberals I respect both he and Alan Dershowitz.
Fundamentally..?
Doesn’t mean we can’t fight them on the other side of The Wall rather than in the US.
If we were really serious, we would invade Mexico, El Salvador, and any other country that sends these gangs to the US, and we would wipe every gang/cartel member out. Hell, most of the rank-and-file Mexicans and Salvadorans would probably thank us. But alas, we haven’t been a serious country in many years.
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.