There had been a lengthy gestation period in politics and culture over several decades but it was only during the Obama years, particularly beginning in the run up to the 2012 campaign, that 21st century Progressivism burst full blown on us, like the scene in Alien, when the creature bursts out of John Hurt's chest and proceeds, with its inexorable urges, to start a chain of events destined to destroy everything in its path in order to create a safe and comfortable environment for itself and its progeny.
Here is the comment from Dreher's reader:
I’ve been intentionally tuning out all things Kavanaugh today – because really, what will I learn? – but I found it instructive this morning to revisit the famous “The Flight 93 Election” essay that Michael Anton wrote. These two paragraphs jumped out at me:
A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.
It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.
I can’t stand Trump. I didn’t vote for him and for the moment don’t plan to in 2020. But where else to turn? What we have learned in the last two weeks is that the left will crush anyone who does not support The Agenda. Our elite institutions will crush The Agenda’s opponents (take it from me – I work in a university, where I have to maintain a careful silence about virtually everything). Do we really think this will stop with Kavanaugh? Do we really think they won’t come for all of us? I have a son – what am I supposed to tell him? “Be romantic and treat women well… but also get a notarized consent contract for every interaction you have.” What kind of world is the left pushing us into? We all act shocked at China’s new “social credit” surveillance system, but does anyone doubt it’s coming our way? Does the left not see that the endpoint of this road is total surveillance and records of all interactions?In 2016 I thought Anton's essay was overwrought. I am less certain of that now.
As the commenter notes we were told George W Bush was Hitler-like. George Soros claimed that America under Bush reminded him of Germany in the 1930s. Michael Moore powerfully reinforced the image of imminent repression, an image bought into by many of Bush's opponents. When the inoffensive John McCain ran, civil rights icon John Lewis told us it reminded him of the George Wallace campaign. And who can forget Joe Biden going into African-American churches during the 2012 election to tell congregants that Mitt Romney was "going to put y'all back in chains"?
When Progressives were shocked by Trump's victory in 2016, they immediately dubbed themselves the Resistance, projecting all the things they would do if in power upon Trump and his supporters.
Who was it who tried to disrupt rallies of their political opponents during the 2012 campaign? Progressives, not Trump supporters.
Who beat up supporters of their political opponents outside their opponents rallies? Progressives, not Trump supporters.
Who unleashed a wave of "hate crimes" after the 2016 election? Progressives, with hundreds of fake crimes they attempted to blame on Trump supporters.
Who, after the inauguration, tried to shut down opposition speakers, sometimes with violence? Progressives, on college campuses and elsewhere, not Trump supporters.
Who was it who attempted mass murder at Congressional baseball practices, physically attacked a U.S. Senator, attempted to run a Congressional candidate off the road and attempt to stab another Congressional candidate? Progressives, not Trump supporters.
Who is it who demands social media silence voices it disagrees with? Progressives, not Trump supporters.
Who is it who wants social media to allow all voices to be heard? Trump supporters, not Progressives. (1)
Here is how free speech works in a Progressive world. In 2018 the Supreme Court heard arguments in Minnesota Voters Alliance v Mansky regarding a Minnesota statue broadly banning political apparel in polling places. When Andrew Cilek went to vote in 2010, he wore a shirt bearing the image of the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag and a button that read “Please I.D. Me.” The poll worker asked him to remove the shirt and button because it supposedly violated the state law. Cilek filed suit challenging the law. At argument, Justice Alito engaged in a discussion with the attorney for Minnesota who was defending the statute.
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with a rainbow flag? Would that be permitted?In summary, according to progressive Minnesota rules, the rainbow flag, “Parkland strong,” a Colin Kaepernick jersey, and the text of the First Amendment are all non-political and therefore could be worn at a polling place. Meanwhile, an NRA shirt, “All Lives Matter,” and the text of the Second Amendment would be forbidden as being too partisan. I bet the attorney for the State didn't see the slightest thing wrong with that. Speech is protected in a Progressive world only if it is the correct speech by its standards.
MR. ROGAN: A shirt with a rainbow flag? No, it would — yes, it would be — it would be permitted unless there was — unless there was an issue on the ballot that — that related somehow to — to gay rights.
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt that says “Parkland Strong”?
MR. ROGAN: No, that would — that would be — that would be allowed. I think - I think, Your Honor -
JUSTICE ALITO: Even though gun control would very likely be an issue?
MR. ROGAN: To the extent -
JUSTICE ALITO: I bet some candidate would raise an issue about gun control.
MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, the — the - the line that we’re drawing is one that is - is related to electoral choices in a -
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what’s the answer to this question? You’re a polling official. You’re the reasonable person. Would that be allowed or would it not be allowed?
MR. ROGAN: The — the Parkland?
JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah.
MR. ROGAN: I — I think — I think today that I — that would be — if — if that was in Minnesota, and it was “Parkland Strong,” I — I would say that that would be allowed in, that there’s not -
JUSTICE ALITO: Okay. How about an NRA shirt?
MR. ROGAN: An NRA shirt? Today, in Minnesota, no, it would not, Your Honor. I think that that’s a clear indication — and I think what you’re getting at, Your Honor -
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment?
MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, I — I — I think that that could be viewed as political, that that — that would be — that would be -
JUSTICE ALITO: How about the First Amendment?
(Laughter.)
MR. ROGAN: No, Your Honor, I don’t - I don’t think the First Amendment. And, Your Honor, I -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No — no what, that it would be covered or wouldn’t be allowed?
MR. ROGAN: It would be allowed.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It would be?
MR. ROGAN: It would be. And — and I think the — I understand the — the idea, and I’ve — I’ve — there are obviously a lot of examples that — that have been bandied about here –
JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, well, this is the problem. How about a Colin Kaepernick jersey?
MR. ROGAN: No, Your Honor, I don’t think that that would be under — under our statute. And I think -
JUSTICE ALITO: How about “All Lives Matter”?
MR. ROGAN: That could be, Your Honor, that could be — that could be perceived as political. And I — I think obviously, Your Honor, there — there are some hard calls and
there are always going to be hard calls. And that — that doesn’t mean that the line that we’ve drawn is — is unconstitutional or even unreasonable.
JUSTICE ALITO: How about an “I Miss Bill” shirt?
(Laughter.)
MR. ROGAN: I’m sorry, Your Honor? I didn’t –
JUSTICE ALITO: “I Miss Bill,” or to make it bipartisan, a “Reagan/Bush ’84” shirt?
MR. ROGAN: Yes, Your Honor, I believe that that’s political.
As usual The Babylon Bee captures the situation perfectly, "Movement That Demands Forceful Silencing Of All Opposing Viewpoints Unsure Why Nation So Divided".
For many non-Progressives who disliked Trump what happened to Brett Kavanaugh was a turning point. The Kavanaugh hearing brought home that anyone not fully aligned with Progressives would be subject to personal destruction with the full support of the media. No one was safe. Many already knew they were at risk in their personal and professional lives if they spoke up at work, in academia and elsewhere (as an example read this piece by a young man who understands his career and livelihood is in danger if he expresses his opinions). I feel fortunate to have ended by full time working career just before we entered this new era of intolerance. It never occurred to me that hiring or promoting an employee should be based on anything other than how they did their work.(2) I guess I'm old fashioned that way.
Many of us already realized it, having seen the demonization of the Koch Brothers, who supported increased immigration, abortion rights, gay marriage, prison reform, drug legalization, reduced defense budgets and an end to corporate subsidies by the government. But because they weren't fully on board with Progressives they needed to be destroyed. There is no compromise, no halfway point with 21st century Progressives.
Any remaining illusions of non-Progressives have dissolved as they've witnessed the treatment of sexual harrassment and assault allegations against Joe Biden. In Biden's case, the complainant is documented to have worked with then-Senator Biden, unlike Kavanaugh, for whom there is still no evidence he ever even met Christine Blasey Ford. In Biden's case, there is evidence the complainant informed others at the time of the incident, unlike Ford who informed no one. I have no idea if the allegations against Biden are true, but what anyone can see is the media has treated them completely differently than with Kavanaugh, the only reason being they support Biden but opposed Kavanaugh.
As with so much of its satire this Babylon Bee piece from 2018 reflects today's reality.
On the other hand, I can see the point Progressives are trying to make. After all, Kavanaugh was a high school kid in the 1980s and should have known better, while Biden was a United States Senator in the 1990s and it is quite unfair to hold him to contemporary standards.
What is the point of all this? The goal is nothing less than creating America Year Zero. We've reached an age in which the New York Times reads as though it was written by members of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. The Times refuses to "normalize" Donald Trump but spent a year "normalizing" mass murder and repression when done by communists, a tactic it continues to use. The paper's most prestigious effort of the past year was the launching of the 1619 Project. Let's leave aside its juvenile understanding of history and economics and focus on its underlying intent. Throughout American history, partisans of every stripe have always appealed to the principles embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution to support their causes, whatever they may be; Whig, Federalist, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, socialist, progressive, libertarian alike. The 1619 Project tells us it was all an illusion, an illegitimate farce played on the American people. A new start is needed for a new age, one that harkens back to tribal notions of race, gender and ethnicity but with a modern, enlightened twist. It demands a new type of justice where the voices of reaction will be silenced. It is only under those conditions that the people can be properly instructed how to vote and act in accordance with what the party vanguard believes to be in their best interest. (3)
The Real Resistance knows this is the threat we face. The challenge is daunting as large swaths of our culture have fallen prey to dark forces; academia, NGOs, media, the federal bureaucracy, high tech, with Progressives readying to sweep the table should they control all branches of the federal government again. It is our duty to Resist repression however hard the task knowing, "if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. This predates the election of Orange Man, as Kevin Williamson noted in a December 2015 article:
"Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.
On the college campuses, they shout down unpopular ideas or simply forbid nonconforming views from being heard there in the first place. They have declared academic freedom an “outdated concept” and have gone the full Orwell, declaring that freedom is oppressive and that they should not be expected to tolerate ideas that they do not share. They are demanding mandatory ideological indoctrination sessions for nonconforming students. They have violently assaulted students studying in libraries and assaulted student journalists documenting their activities. They have staged dozens of phony hate crimes and sexual assaults as a pretext for persecuting unpopular organizations and people.
What they cannot achieve by legislation or litigation, they seek to achieve by simple violence, left-wing activists having smashed, looted, and burned portions of Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, where Koreans and other Asian minorities were specifically targeted. As on college campuses, they have made a point of assaulting journalists documenting their violence. They have rioted in Philadelphia and in other cities."
I'll add that Democrats and the media didn't normalize Trump, but they did normalize violence by the Left.
2. There was one exception. In the mid-80s I learned the law firm of a lawyer I'd recently hired had added Bernadine Dohrn as a paralegal. I told the lawyer, who was outstanding and with whom I had a long association thereafter, that Dohrn was not to work on any case of mine and if I found she billed any time to us, even accidentally, I would fire the lawyer. Dohrn was a former leader of the Weather Underground, praised the Manson murderers, an unrepentant terrorist who believed then, and now, that Bobby Kennedy deserved to be killed since he voted to sell military jets to the Jews, and still describes herself as a communist revolutionary. You can read more about this disgusting person in The Company You Keep.
3. In a 2008 speech Michelle Obama revealed the New World we would be required to enter, one in which every part of life was politicized:
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed….You have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eight years from now, you will have to be engaged.It took a decade to get there but Progressives believe the time is now. The shrinking flock of traditional liberals are not going to enjoy it.
We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.
I really enjoyed your blog but it is scary.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to distinguish the socialist progressive party from communism.
The democratic party we knew growing up is no longer alive.
If Trump had no been elective we wouldn't know how corrupt Washington is.