By the end of the 1920s, however, the Party was in a position
to enforce ideological conformity…the new technological intellectuals
were willing to be told, were willing to believe, that the task of speaking truth to power was now redundant, because truth was in power.
Red Plenty tells of the failure of economic development planning in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. The finest book on the twenty years after Stalin's death, described in the Sunday Times (UK) as "so weird and yet so wonderful".
Mayor Mamdani gave a brief address denouncing Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu as a war criminal and genocide perpetrator but announced that, regretfully, he cannot order his arrest if he attends the annual UN meeting in New York City in September. However, he did encourage his followers to commit violent acts if Netanyahu shows his face.
Oddly, the Mayor and the Prime Minister have some interests in common regarding the upcoming UN meeting and Netanyahu's potential visit because of the upcoming Israeli elections in October. Current polling shows Netanyahu's coalition losing to the opposition. If Netanyahu comes to NYC in September and faces more outrage from Mamdani and protestors it will help his reelection chances. It is in the Prime Minister's interest that such demonstrations occur and the worse, the better for him.
For Mamdani, who knew all along he had no authority to arrest the PM, he gets to level a factually inaccurate but inflammatory set of accusations which pleases his supporters. It is also in his interest to foment unrest in the city if Netanyahu comes in September, precisely because his goal and the PMs are similar. They both want Netanyahu to be reelected. From Mamdani's perspective, Netanyahu is the perfect villain and having him continue in office advances the Mayor's objectives - the isolation and eventual destruction of Israel. Many of those who have taken the pro-Hamas side blame everything on Netanyahu, including experienced but delusional types like Tom Friedman and Chuck Schumer, thinking if only he were gone everything would be nice and calm. Mamdani knows the truth that when it comes to Hamas there is not a lot of difference between Netanyahu and his opposition. Mamdani and the groups that support him want Israel destroyed. They do not want a two-state solution. They recognize that continuing to personalize the enemy via Netanyahu is to their advantage.
The mayors of the two next largest American cities, Karen Bass in LA and Brandon Johnson in Chicago, are incompetent and not very smart (Johnson is downright stupid). Mamdani is an evil man but he is clever, charismatic, and dangerous. Mamdani claims it was his hatred for Israel that set him on the path to becoming a socialist.
My paternal grandfather Louis came to the U.S. in 1905 after deserting the Russian army. He promptly joined the U.S. army, serving two 3-year enlistments, being discharged as a sergeant and gaining his citizenship (we still have his discharge and citizenship papers). Louis spoke six languages but insisted that only English be spoken in his presence. As a Jew he encountered prejudice but he was proud to be an American. This was his country.
My maternal grandfather Nate was born in the U.S. three years after his parents emigrated from Russia. Unlike Louis, who passed before I was born, I had the opportunity to know Nate and learned his hero was Abraham Lincoln. As a Jew he encountered prejudice but was proud to be an American. This was his country.
My parents were the same. They taught me to be grateful for the opportunities we had in America. Yes, they had some criticisms of conditions but they were proud to be Americans which they considered the best country in the world.
What about Zohran Mamdani and his upbringing?
His father is Mahmood Mamdani, an Indian born Muslim who grew up in Uganda, but was educated in the United States, obtaining a doctorate from Harvard (the worst anti-Americans are created by Ivy League universities). Mamdani and his family were expelled from Uganda in 1973 by the crazy Idi Amin, returning in 1980 after Amin's overthrow. Since then Mamdani has spent most of his time in the United States and Uganda where he has a villa. He remains a citizen of Uganda and is not an American citizen.
After serving as director of Columbia's Institute of African Studies, in 1999 he became the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at Columbia, a position he still holds.(1) From 2010 to 2022 he was also executive director of the Makerere Institute of Social Research at Kampala University in Uganda.
Professor Mamdani's life work can best be summarized as blaming every problem in the Third World on Western Colonialism. In his work, people and institutions in the Third World have no agency or ability to influence events, even after colonialism ended. This requires tortuous convoluted "logic", leading to writing that the genocide in Darfur was not a genocide but whatever bad that did happen there was the fault of the U.S.
He's argued that America pioneered "settler-colonialism" and genocide and ethnic cleansing, which influenced later projects, including Nazi Germany. And who was the American figure most responsible for these atrocities? None other than my grandfather Nate's hero! Mamdani claimed:
"With the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln generalized the solution of reservations. they herded American Indians into separate territories. For the Nazis, this was the inspiration - Hitler realized two things: one, that genocide is doable. Second thing Hitler realized is that you don't have to have a common citizenship."
Mahmood married film maker Mira Nair in 1991 after they met in Uganda. Zohran is their only child. Born and raised in India, Nair attended (surprise!) Harvard in the mid-70s and is a naturalized U.S. citizen. She's had a very successful career making theatrical (we enjoyed Mississippi Marsala) and TV films as well as documentaries. She opposes the existence of Israel.
A very affluent, privileged couple given education, refuge, and acclamation in America, a country they despise. In their view both Israel and America are settler-colonialist societies which deserve to be destroyed.
Regarding her son, Nair gave an interview in 2013 in which she stated:
"He is a total desi [South Asian]. Completely. We are not firangs [Westerners] at all. He is very much us. He is not an American at all. He was born in Uganda, raised between India and America. He is at home in many places. He thinks of himself as a Ugandan and as an Indian."
Until 8th grade Zohran attended the expensive tuition Bank Street School for Children, which proudly announces its progressive bona fides on its website. After attending the Bronx High School for Science, Zohran went to Bowdoin College, a small progressive liberal arts school in Maine where he majored in Africana Studies (one of those new majors that is about indoctrination) and founded the college's Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter. SJP calls for the dissolution of Israel and celebrated Hamas' October 7 attack as a "historic win for the Palestinian resistance".
Zohran was designed from birth by his parents as a weapon against Israel and the United States. His purpose is to gain the political power that allows him to accomplish those goals. He's learned to be slicker than his parents about how he shows his contempt for America but it shines through when he speaks about Israel.(2)
Zohran Mamdani became a naturalized American citizen in 2018. He should never have been allowed to become a citizen with this background and he perjured himself by taking the oath of citizenship requiring him to defend the Constitution. This points out the importance of this country becoming more diligent and responsible in deciding who is granted the privilege of citizenship. Screening is essential because once citizenship is granted, the person is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and due process of his fellow citizens. Zohran makes a powerful case for enhanced immigration and naturalization restrictions.
(1) That Mahmood Mamdani holds an endowed chair from the family of Herbert Lehman is an insult to a real American and a sign of how degraded Columbia University has become. Lehman served as Governor and Senator of the state of New York. The Jewish Lehman also served on the boards of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti Defamation League.
(2) Mamdani plays a word game in which he always refers to Judaism as a religion but not to Jews as a people. We are both. From his perspective a religion should not have a country; I know that is inconsistent with the 22 Arab Muslim states and the 50+ state members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation but never mind. In his world view, Jews would be fine practicing their religion as long as they are subordinate to his politics and would be tolerated as long as they follow his rules. It is a rejection of the idea of toleration as not something bestowed, but that which we owe to each other, as George Washington expressed in his letter to the Jewish congregation of Newport, Rhode Island. Just another aspect of Mamdani's reject of American ideals.
A couple of things I noticed in the past few days, which seem related.
Minnesota attempted to avoid the deportation of a immigrant from Laos who had been convicted of raping, on multiple occasions, a 10-year old girl, and had lost his legal status as a result of the conviction. In a final desperate attempt to thwart deportation, the state's Board of Pardons, consisting of Governor Tim Walz, AG Keith Ellison, and Chief Justice Hudson voted to pardon the rapist. Despite this, Secretary of State Rubio properly ordered his deportation.
Commenting on Rubio's decision, Governor Walz protested that "we can't all be judged on our worst day". Since there were multiple rapes it's too bad no one asked Walz which was the rapist's "worst day". Probably were some pretty bad days for the victim also.
Just another example of the privileged status of those here illegally and of the moral obtuseness of their defenders. For more, see Footnote 1 in The Death of Compromise.
--------------------------------------------
From Jeff Giesa, with the legend "This is what the panel that sends you to the gulag will look like." In the Gulag, the "professional" violent criminals, called Urki or Blatyne, were used by those running the camps as enforcers against the political prisoners (called Zeks).
In preparation for this future, SS (Smarmy Smile) Zohran Mamdani went to Rikers Prison to build some loyalty to him by watching the World Cup semifinals with inmates While enjoying the match Mamdani sat next to an inmate who had strangled his wife to death. I'm pretty confident the mayor didn't waste any time thinking about the woman.
We spend summers in Maine, returning to Arizona in October Last September I started seeing lots of posts in my Facebook feed from a guy named Graham Platner, mostly yelling about genocide in Gaza and using the usual code phrases regarding Jewish influence. Seems he was running for the Democratic nomination for Senate. I thought he was just some nut who'd get wiped out in the primary. Instead he drove the incumbent Democratic governor, a solid progressive, out of the race and won the nomination.
That's despite:
- the Jew bashing
- the Commie loving
- the Nazi tattoo wearing(1)
- the phony background story
- enlisting in the Army, not because of patriotism or a sense of duty, but because he liked killing people
- mocking the death of his fellow soldiers
- the rape fantasies (to be fair he said he'd only rape to establish dominance not as a sexual thing)
- sexually assaulting a Republican woman
No, what it took to finally drive him out of the race was sexually assaulting a Democratic woman. Tells you a lot about the state of the Democratic party in Maine. None of the other stuff mattered - and the Jew bashing was seen as a positive by D voters. You could also already tell how bad Platner was just by looking at the Senators endorsing him early on - The Bum (Sanders), The Cherokee Princess (Warren), The Dirtbag (Gallego), and The Callow Youth (Murphy).
Actually, it's a bit misleading to say it was the sexual assault on the D lady that did it. The truth is that a week ago, polls in Maine showed Susan Collins (R) edging ahead of Platner in the Senate race. Usually, Collins trails the D challenger, only pulling ahead in the final couple of weeks of the campaign, but here she was beginning to open a lead on Platner in early July, spelling his doom. Time for the D's to pull the plug in time to insert another candidate, so time to come forward with the sexual assault claim.
Platner is a strong indicator of where the Democratic party is headed in Maine but there was another story, under covered in the media, that really tells you about the danger Maine Democrats (and those similarly situated elsewhere) pose to our democracy.
In early 2025, a Republican State Representative, Laurel Libby, posted a photo of a local high school track meet on Facebook. One of the winners in the girl's competition was a boy who claimed he was a girl. The representative stated in her post that this was wrong and boys should not be allowed to compete in girls competitions.
The Maine House of Representatives is narrowly controlled by Democrats, 75 to 72. The House voted on party lines to censure the Republican representative and, until she apologized, banned her from speaking and voting in the House. Not even one Democrat representative saw anything wrong with this action.(2)
Rep. Libby filed a federal court action seeking an injunction against the House for stripping her constituents of representation in the legislature. In the District Court, a Biden appointed judge saw nothing wrong with the silencing of Rep. Libby and refused to grant the injunction. Libby appealed to the First Circuit but a three judge panel of Biden appointees saw nothing wrong and declined to grant the injunction.
It finally took an appeal to the United State Supreme Court to get Libby's request granted (Sotomayor and Jackson dissenting). After the Supreme Court action, the legislature lifted the sanctions.
What happened to Rep Libby is as much an indicator as Platner's primary win, of how radical Maine Democrats have become. Libby was opining on a public issue, taking a position that all polling shows is the majority position of all Americans nationwide. Yet every Maine representative voted to silence her, and Democratic appointees at the District and Appellate Court levels refused to intervene.
What has become ever more evident over the last few years is that Democrats have convinced themselves they are entitled to use all measures to suppress dissent, and will use any excuse to do so. To them, democracy is when they win everything. They oppose diversity in viewpoints. Look at their hysteria over losing control of just one social media platform - twitter when Elon Musk purchased it. They have an insatiable need to control every avenue of opinion, every institution, every organ of government. What happened in the Maine state legislature in 2025 is just the front of the new wave of repression. If the Democrats attain a trifecta at the federal level and stuff the Supreme Court with radical justices, a plan they have adopted as their goal, in the future elected opposition figures like Rep. Libby will be successfully suppressed. There is no "moderate" wing of the Democratic Party left.
Taken together, the path forward for Maine Democrats is to find a new candidate who is Jew-bashing, Commie loving, and thinks boys should play on girl's teams and be allowed in their bathroom, but does not sexually assault Democratic women.
- ----------------------------------------------
(1) Best quip I saw on this was that Platner's autobiography is called Maine Kampf.
(2) The nominal justification for the sanctions was that Rep Libby included a photo and name of the boy in question. Here's how the game is played; whatever a Democrat says or does is free speech, whatever their opponents do is, even it is speech, is the equivalent of an action and deemed harmful or unsafe and thus justifies suppression. Here's how it works if your actions break the law but are in support of a Democratic favored cause. Recently, several members of Antifa were convicted and sentence to prison for violent acts in Dallas as part of their anti-ICE activites, including shooting a law enforcement officer in the neck. In Democratic circles this was reported as being sentenced because of "protests", so it becomes another example of Trump's "fascism".
After completing my July 4 post on President Coolidge's speech on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, I went on to read and listen to a couple of other historic speeches celebrating America's independence. One of these was Frederick Douglass' magnificent 1852 oration What To The Slave is The Fourth of July? While doing so I came across on YouTube an NPR presentation of the speech, produced in 2020 and recited by descendants of Douglass. It is highly edited to be deliberately simplistic and misleading in order to ensure NPR listeners miss the point more than Michael Bay missed the mark when he made Pearl Harbor. As a reminder, at the time, NPR still received taxpayer funding so you paid for this piece of agitprop. Since then NPR has continued its descent into madness, naming authoritarian Katherine Maher as its CEO (for more on Maher read The "Real Trouble").
I've written of Douglass several times over the years; about his relationship with President Lincoln as well as the misuse to which he's been subjected to by our current educational system (Lincoln Douglass); on his Freedman's Monument Speech in 1876; as part of a prior July 4 post (citing to his 1852 speech); after reading his first autobiography (see Readings On Slavery). Douglass was a courageous and thoughtful man who could eloquently express complex and provocative ideas. His story should be known to all Americans.
The 1852 speech had two purposes. One is a lengthy, searing, and accurate indictment of American slavery and the complicity of white American society in its horror. It is to this topic that the NPR edited version of the speech, which has 1.6 million views and 2,700 comments, is exclusively devoted to (the NPR version also contains a coda, the reflections of Douglass' descendants regarding today's America, a topic to which I will return to after discussing the speech). The second, ignored by NPR, is Douglass' case that the Constitution is a "glorious liberty document . . . entirely hostile to the existence of slavery". The reverence with which Douglass regards the Constitution (and the Declaration, as he states elsewhere in the speech) would undermine what NPR is trying to accomplish. It also decontextualizes the speech though it is important to understand why Douglass is making this argument. And it adds a false contextualization placing it as somehow linked to the death of George Floyd and the riots and protests that occurred in its aftermath.
The speech was given on July 5, 1852 at the Corinthian Hall in Rochester, NY, the city Douglass moved to in 1847, an event organized by the Rochester Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society. Two years before, slavery became "nationalized" with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act as part of the Compromise of 1850, heightening sectional disputes over slavery, as many in the free states who had not been engaged in the slavery issue now felt they had been made complicit by the passage of the Act. More importantly for purposes of the 1852 speech, Douglass had split with the mainstream of the abolition movement and its leader and his former mentor, William Lloyd Garrison, over the interpretation of the Constitution. Garrison's organization, the American Anti-Slavery Society, the leading abolitionist group, had taken the view that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document and the only solution was to dissolve the Union and for the free states to form a New Union under a new Constitution. In 1851 the Anti-Slavery Society passed a resolution denouncing any paper opposing this belief.
After escaping slavery Douglass initially agreed with Garrison but as he studied the Constitution and the Declaration came to the conclusion they were anti-slavery documents and had broken with Garrison and started his own newspaper the North Star to promote his views. It was to address this controversial dispute within the abolitionist movement that Douglass spent so much of his speech on this topic. In the Coda to the NPR version one of the young people asserts that Douglass was speaking to those who already agreed with him but, in fact, the purpose of the Constitutional argument was to persuade a divided audience. For more on contemporaneous views of the Constitution consistent with Douglass' reading see Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States 1861-1865 by James Oakes and Natural Law and the Antislavery Constitutional Tradition by Justin Buckley Dyer.
Douglass' speech can be broken into three parts.
The first section expresses hope that America, as a young nation, can find the correct course of action and to express admiration for the Founding generation.
The second to highlight contradictions and hypocrisy regarding white Americans and slavery. The excerpts in the YouTube video are only a sampling of the examples given by Douglass.
The final section expresses his belief that the Constitution is a glorious liberty document that provides the blueprint for the end of slavery.
At the end of the post you will find excerpts from the first and third sections.
As you can see all of the excerpts in the NPR video are from the second section with the exception of one passage from the conclusion of the speech; "Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have
this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this
country". The following sentences are not included; "There are forces in operation, which must inevitably, work the downfall
of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of
slavery is certain." The video contains nothing from Douglass' conclusion explaining why he does not despair, because it would undercut what NPR is trying to sell you.
And that brings me to the context in which the video was made and the significance of the coda portion.
The video was posted on YouTube on July 3, 2020 and it was specifically linked to the death of George Floyd several weeks before. NPR's description reads:
In the summer of 2020, the U.S. commemorated Independence Day amid nationwide protests for racial justice and systemic reforms in the wake of George Floyd’s death. That June, we asked five young descendants of Frederick Douglass to read and respond to excerpts of his famous speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”. It's a powerful, historical text that reminds us of the ongoing work of liberation.
The description notes that the video consists of excerpts but the title of the video and the description if you do a Google search implies it is the full text. The description also pulls a sleight of hand. Douglass' speech is about slavery and its relation to the Constitution but NPR links it to the "ongoing work of liberation". Like the video, NPR never directly states what that work is, nor its relation to Douglass' speech and the propositions set forth there. Instead the description and the video artfully avoids any discussion of Douglass' proposition as it must because NPR's viewpoint is that the U.S. was defective from its founding. The video is edited and put together in support of the thesis of the infamous 1619 Project, while the opening and closing of Douglass' speech are a refutation of its thesis. That Douglass' argument is both a refutation of the argument of the 1619 Project as well as of the similar historical arguments of John C Calhoun and Alexander Stephens, Southern politicians who argued that slavery was a "positive good", illustrates that we have entered into a world of strange ideological alliances in 21st century America.(1)
The video was released in the midst of not just "protests" but also in the midst of riots and violence that resulted in thirty deaths in the short term and the most property damage (much of it to minority owned businesses) of any riots in American history.(2) The impacts were worse longer term. As it turned out that large cities governed for decades by NPR-type Progressives were hotbeds of racism, those mayors and city councils withdrew police and let loose their paramilitary wings. Prosecutors resisted filing charges or reduced charges against those causing violence and destruction and leftist groups raised bail and paid for lawyers to defend the perpetrators. One result was a massive increase in violence in minority areas. The increase in black homicide victims of violence over baseline of recent years for the period from May 2020 to the end of 2022 amounted to more than the total number of black lynching victims from 1882 to 1968 (for more on that tragic history read Strange Fruit). In what way was that liberation? How did the protests and violence contribution to any positive solutions? In what way is the current situation of Black Americans similar to that of the slaves Frederick Douglass was discussing? None of that is addressed. It is simply implied that they are the same.(3)
And that is the saddest thing in the video - the coda. These young people seem to believe nothing has changed since Douglass' speech. But why? They've clearly absorbed in their upbringing and education the notion of oppression, one even saying "pessimism is a tool of white oppression". We have a 20 year old claiming he is "exhausted" and near the end another says "we are still slaves to the notion that it will never get better". That last remark is double-edged. In the context of the video I think he's saying it has not gotten any better since Douglass's speech but we shouldn't lose hope it will get better. I also see it as a warning to everyone in that video that they have been slaves to that notion even though objectively things are much better than 1852.
For decades we've lived in a country where opportunities for minorities are plentiful and, in fact, privileged in education, government employment and contracts, and the corporate world. The "system" which did once work to maintain white supremacy is gone and had been for many years. The "system" now works the other way. Yet the very education system which is part of those growing opportunities, teaches the opposite - that things haven't changed and further, those same educational system at the K-12 levels in cities with large minority populations is failing those populations, failing to generate the pipeline of students who can take advantage of those opportunities. More than 40 years ago, Eddie Murphy parodied this attitude on Saturday Night Live:
But what use is it to teach children that the deck is stacked against
them, when they, in fact, have opportunities if they can seize them?
In doing research for this post, I came across a 2014 article by a history professor who has studied Frederick Douglass in which he complains that the version of What To A Slave Is the Fourth of July? being used to teach in our schools is the same as that presented by NPR. In other words, a deliberately truncated version, omitting Douglass' context and view of the Constitution. It is part of an effort to undermine the very foundations of this country and to indoctrinate the next generation that an end to the U.S. as we know it is the only solution. Knowing that Douglass held the Declaration and Constitution and those who wrote those documents in such high regard is too dangerous for students. They might draw incorrect conclusions.
The technique here is to keep everything vague, except to instill the feeling of massive racism and oppression. The discussions we need are "what are the specific problems we are trying to solve" and "how would proposed solutions specifically help to solve them". And that is always avoided, instead we are flooded with generalities and statements built upon false assumptions.
Excerpts from opening section of the speech:
The eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is young, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence. May he not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation older, the patriot's heart might be sadder, and the reformer's brow heavier. Its future might be shrouded in gloom, and the hope of its prophets go out in sorrow. There is consolation in the thought, that America is young.
To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when, to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men's souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems un fashionable in our day.
Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the RINGBOLT to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.
Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too—great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.
They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests.
They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times
[Douglass begins the transition to the present day and the plight of slaves.]
How unlike the politicians of an hour!
My business, if I have any here today, is with the present. The accepted time with God and his cause is the ever-living now.
Closing section of speech:
And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practiced on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape; but I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe.
Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but interpreted, as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? it is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.
Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single proslavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.
Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably, work the downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain.
I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from “the Declaration of Independence,” the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up, from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic, are distinctly heard on the other.
(1) The 1619 Project essentially wrote Douglass out of history and most of the time the only excerpt from his speeches and writings that we hear is the misleading section of his 1852 speech. Martin Luther King also gets downplayed becausehe's too positive about the American Founding in 1776 instead of 1619. In the 1963 March on Washington Speech he echoes Douglass in calling for America to cash the promissory note issued in the Declaration and Constitution.
(2) An example from Nellie Bowles, recounting her time at the New York Times:
(3) The cluelessness of white progressives can be seen in the interview given by Tim Walz's wife to a Minneapolis TV station in the wake of the riots. She is sitting on her back porch proudly telling the interviewer of how her family left their windows open during the rioting so they could smell the burning and the rightousness of it all, oblivious to the fact it was minority owned businesses primarily being burned and innocent people killed and injured.
Excerpts from address by President Calvin Coolidge, Address on the Celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Philadelphia, July 5, 1926.
It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new
theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but
rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles
which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be
sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter
of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation
to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United
States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters
of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear,
whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge
that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an
adequate defense and protection.
But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a
new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and
more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that
which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had
aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A
separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by
the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable
desire to be the master of his own destiny.
But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took
on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held
toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in
no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum
to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no
scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but
they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the
hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that
marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the
informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty
loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the
courage to dare to maintain them.
It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but
because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that
July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in
history.
This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration
of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its
preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government.
These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source
of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the
governed.
A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will
wither if it roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of
Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of
material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular
sovereignty, the rights of man - these are not elements which we can see
and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in
the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the
faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to
endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not
continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful.
It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress
since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have
given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may
therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern.
But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men
are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable
rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be
made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or
their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically
is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no
equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who
wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They
are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than
those of the Revolutionary fathers.
Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its
officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for
criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the
American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from
that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that
cause that we must ascribe all our results.
It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made
their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a
free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the
unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a
mere influential few. They undertook to balance these interests against
each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the
executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the
Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one
might encroach upon the other. These are our guarantees of liberty. As a
result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from
confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever-broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of
Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people.
We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material
things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created
them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all
our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to
a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage
which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers
who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must
cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We
must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We
must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame,
the altar fires before which they worshiped.
On April 15, the Washington Post posed this query:
"Rep. Eric Swalwell’s (D) fall left many asking how someone who was dogged by persistent rumors of inappropriate behavior toward women could have risen so high and so fast in a party that says it supports women’s rights."
Answer: Although many of his fellow Democratic politicians and many in the media knew about his behavior for years, they withheld information because of higher priorities - beating Republicans, especially Donald Trump. It was only when running against fellow Democrats for California's gubernatorial nomination, where the D nominee will win the general election, that Swalwell became expendable.
The Post wasn't actually serious when it posed the question. Reporters and editors already knew the answer. We have reporters from multiple publications acknowledging they knew the stories about Swalwell as long ago as 2013, but, for some reason, never got around to investigating. And obviously, the Democratic politicians knew, because one of his D opponents in the governor's race dropped the dime on him.
Swalwell first came to national prominence in 2017 and 2018 when he served on the House Intelligence Committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Along with Rep. Adam Schiff he was a fixture on cable and network news promoting sensational tales of Russian interference and Trump malevolence, all of which proved false. After wading through more than 5,000 pages of testimony taken by the committee, I made this comment about Swalwell:
The leading Democrat questioners were Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell.
Schiff was a very skillful questioner. In contrast, Swalwell acted like
he was always on the verge of asking the one question that would
unravel the entire conspiracy and evidenced a very high opinion of his
own abilities. I think Schiff realized fairly quickly the Democrats
were drilling a dry hole in the search for a conspiracy but understood
the political advantage of continuing the charade. Swalwell was dumb
enough he may really have been a true believer.
The congressman further elevated himself with fellow Democrats by becoming a prominent critic of Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, promoting the most outlandish (and false) accusations against the nominee.(1)
In the years since, he's continued on a path as a rising star in the Democratic constellation. This despite his dalliance with a Chinese spy while he served on the intelligence committee.
Like many politicians in both parties it is difficult to objectively look at Swalwell and conclude he's the kind of person you would want in high elected office, or any office, for that matter. Nonetheless, he received glowing press coverage. When, in September 2018, Swalwell's GOP opponent was the subject of an attempted stabbing and only saved by a malfunctioning jacknife, to the extent it was covered by the media it was limited to brief one-day stories. The next day, Swalwell was interviewed on CNN to talk about how horrible Trump was and received no questions regarding the incident, not even being asked to comment on it. No national conversation on political violence needed here!
The bottom line is that when the media breaks a story that, on its face, is damaging to Democrats, the question to be asked is not about the substance. Instead, ask why is this story being published now? Because, in almost every case, the substance was known for a long time. It is only the timing of the disclosure that matters.
Let's take two other examples to further illustrate how the system works.
The New York Times recently "broke" a story about Cesar Chavez, alleging a long time pattern of sexual abuse, inappropriate behavior, and general disrespect towards women. Chavez died in 1993, so why now? Much of the story was already known with biographies and other stories floating around for many years and, as with Swalwell, since the story broke many reporters have said they heard the stories years ago but had not reported on them because no one did the investigative work. The allegations of Dolores Huerta, now 96, are new and, indeed, terrible if true but even in her case she stated the 60 year old events had not been made public before because it would "hurt the movement".
Chavez's birthday is an official state holiday in California and celebrated in other states and cities. He had many schools, streets, and other public institutions named after him, and statues erected in many places. His work on behalf of farmworkers in covered in many educational textbooks. So why now?
Cesar Chavez was born in 1927. Next year is his 100th anniversary, a time when one would expect heightened attention and celebration of his life. However, in recent years as illegal immigration has become a fiercely debated subject, Chavez's very public and very vociferous opposition to illegal immigration has become more widely known. The very groups that have promoted his legend for decades are now unequivocally in favor of open borders and it would have been embarrassing and counterproductive to have Chavez remain a celebrated progressive hero next year. That's why he needed to be taken down now, so his legacy could not be used by opponents of today's progressive narrative. It's why the states and cities that celebrated Chavez over the decades have moved so quickly to take down monuments and rename things. It is important to erase as much as possible before the 100th anniversary.
Let's talk about Andrew Cuomo. In August 2021, Cuomo resigned as governor of New York after ten years in office. He'd been under constant political pressure since January of that year from the progressive wing of his party. Looking at his record, the casual observer would consider Cuomo to be a progressive, but because of his acerbic personality and willingness to only go 90% on the full progressive belief system he was anathema to that wing and they sought a way to get him out of office. But why 2021 after ten years in office?
The first effort to attack him was from ultra-progressive State Attorney General Letitia James. By ultra-progressive I mean she is a follower of Stalin's favorite secret policeman Lavrentiy Beria's adage, "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime". The lever was a report released by James on January 28, 2021 alleging that thousands of Covid-19 deaths in nursing homes were undercounted by Governor Cuomo, in an effort to support the effectiveness of the governor's actions to control Covid-19 in New York. Adding to this is Cuomo's decision to send Covid positive nursing home residents back to the nursing homes contributed to the toll in the early part of the pandemic.
But there was a problem for Cuomo's fellow Democrats when it came to timing. Although James and the stenographers at the New York Times pretended her report was a revelation, the undercounting and the deaths due to Cuomo's decision on sending Covid positive patients back into nursing homes was known in May and June of 2020. I was following Covid developments at the time and aware of the discrepancies between the state and CDC death counts and of sending the sick back into the homes. In October 2020 I wrote:
State politicians in some cases downplayed covid early on, in others
sent infected patients back to nursing homes, in others delayed urging
the use of masks, and in others completely overreacted in their dictates
which have been kept in place well beyond reason. And not enough bad
can be said about the ghoulish Governor Andrew Cuomo.
If you followed some knowledgeable conservative public health analysts you knew what was going in, but it was ignored by legacy media and Democrats.
Why? It's because Cuomo was being celebrated by Democrats and the media as the anti-Trump in 2020. The politician who was responsible, sober, intelligent, and, later that year was celebrated, particularly by himself, as the man who defeated covid.
In contrast to Trump's erratic press conferences which gave him ample
opportunity to demonstrate his ignorance, Cuomo was calm, reassuring,
and able to fake empathy, unlike Donald. For his party and the press to
take down Cuomo for the nursing home massacre would have undermined the
narrative they'd established. In fact, they went out of their way to hype Cuomo's "accomplishments".
The Governor received an Emmy Award for his press conferences, to promote his book he did a victory tour of late night talk shows, where he was received with
adoration, and was bestowed the Edward M Kennedy Award for Inspired
Leadership for his covid response.
Now, look at the timing of AG James' report, January 28, 2021, a week after Joe Biden was inaugurated and Trump gone. Once Trump was gone, the governor became expendable. That's why it was not allowed to become a story before then and only permissible to write about once Trump was gone. If Trump had been reelected in 2020, there would have been no AG report. James, the Democrats, and the press didn't give a damn about the thousands of deaths at the time they were occurring. It was, to borrow a phrase, an inconvenient truth at the time. But, rest assured, the Dems and the press were confident those who died and their families felt it was worth it because it allowed the Cuomo v Trump narrative to be sustained when most important politically.
However, the slaughter at the nursing home was not enough to get the job done, so the Dems and press turned to the tried and true tactic of sexual misbehavior, which was rolled out in February.(2) Strangely, if you looked closely at the allegations, many of them went back years. This was nothing new and, as with Swalwell, if you read closely you understood that it was common knowledge among party activists and some of the press, well before 2021.
I have a personal take on Cuomo's troubles with women. In the 1980s and 90s, I spent quite a bit of time in Washington DC on business. The company I worked for had a Washington office to do lobbying and I was often there. In the 90s, the head of the office was a guy who'd been a long time staffer on the Hill for a prominent Democratic congressman, beginning in the 1960s. I learned a lot from him about the transformation of Congress over the prior thirty years, including the increase in partisanship and the collapse of once frequent cross-party personal friendships.(3)
One day our discussion got on the topic of President Clinton's cabinet, and my friend started walking through each of them, giving his evaluation. Everyone was rated from excellent to okay from his perspective. Then he got to Andrew Cuomo, who was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the second Clinton administration, and began a rant about how horrible a guy Cuomo was and his problems with women. So, I wasn't surprised by the allegations more than two decades later.
The "revelation" story is never the story with institutional media. Ask "why am I reading this now?" to get to the real story.
(1) With all these revelations about Democratsand political activists, a frequent press excuse is they weren't able to confirm allegations so withheld reporting. But none of those rules applied when it came to Kavanaugh in 2018. The press reported breathlessly on any rumor and allegation, regardless of the lack of confirmation. None of the allegations reported at the time, including those of participating in gang rape, were ever confirmed in any form. The individuals who Kavanaugh's primary accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, claimed would support her allegations both refused to do so. One of them, a long time friend and self-described political progressive, reported that her refusal to do so led to threats of ruination from other progressives. In fact, there is no evidence, outside Ford's allegation, that she and Kavanaugh ever met on any occasion.
That the press was using the allegations as a political weapon and simply did not care if they were true is shown by the lack of any followup investigation once Kavanaugh was confirmed. The national press didn't even give lip service to the idea the allegations were real. Hey, at least OJ said after he was acquitted he was going to find Nicole's real killer!
The real revelation from the Kavanaugh hearings was for moderate non-MAGA Republicans. Kavanaugh was about as mainstream non-MAGA moderate as you'll find in the GOP, yet the Democrats and press spared nothing in their efforts to not just deny him the confirmation, but to destroy him personally. Trump may be the flagbearer but anyone associated with the GOP today is a public enemy for the press and the institutions.
(2) The first rumblings about sexual allegations began in December 2020, after the election, but it wasn't until February that the story picked up steam, which is consistent with the Covid report not being a knock out punch.
(3) I learned from reading Robert Caro's third volume of his LBJ biography, Master of the Senate, that in the 1950s academic political scientists were very critical of the two parties because both consisted of what seemed to be ideological incompatible coalitions - for instance, the Democrats with conservative Southerners and urban liberals from the North. This was a bad thing in their view and the recommended remedy was a realignment along clear ideological grounds, something we have finally achieved in the 21st century. Do you think it is an improvement?
Legislation involves compromise and compromise requires trust between the parties and institutional parity and safeguards. That is not present at the federal level for most issues.
Take immigration. My compromise is:
1. Deportation for all those who arrived illegally during the Biden Open Borders Party.
2. Deportation for the estimated 1 to 1.5 million illegals with final deportation orders.
3. Deportation for illegals with criminal records (beyond just the initial illegal entry).
- There will be some overlap between these three categories.
4. An end to sanctuary states and cities which privilege criminal illegals over law abiding citizens (including legal immigrants and those residing here legally).(1)
5. Anyone who arrived illegally before January 20, 2021 and (1) does not have a criminal record and (2) is not on public support, should be allowed to stay in the U.S.
However, I would oppose any legislation embodying this compromise because of a structural imbalance within the legislation and between the branches of government. Such legislation if enacted would not operate to effect the compromise. If Republicans agreed to such a compromise, they would look like fools the next time Democrats control the executive branch, because they would have already allowed the presence of millions of illegals, while the Democrats effectively neutered their side of the bargain.
My assessment is based on what has become clear with Democratic opposition to immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Democrats are opposed to removal of any illegals under any conditions and support an open borders policy. When questioned many Democrats mumble about supporting "common sense" immigration reform but when pressed on details fail to provide any evidence of supporting practical steps to control the borders and deal with illegals currently in the country. Their vision is of the U.S. as a bus terminal not a real country.
If legislation is enacted containing the elements I outlined above, this is how it would work in the real world.
The legislation would specifically contain Point 5, allowing millions here illegally to stay in the U.S. If a subsequent administration tried to renege on that deal, their actions would be immediately (and properly) struck down by the courts (regardless of who appointed the judges) because of clear statutory language.
However, implementation of Points 1,2, and 3 reside with the executive branch. If a Democratic administration decided to use its enforcement discretion to "slow walk" deportations, no court is going to order the executive branch to change its process. The executive will be able to effectively undermine the compromise. We have proof on this topic. In 2024, we were told that an immigration reform bill was needed to control the border. That was phony, because the Biden administration decided to ignore most of its statutory authority to control the border, while in 2025 the Trump administration showed it could effectively control the border using the same existing laws. For more on the fake reform bill read No, No, No.
Although the Biden administration killed prospects for immigration reform with its open borders policy, it was President Obama who paved the way in undermining prospects for compromise with his DACA Executive Order. I wrote about it back in 2014 and also noted the Washington Post's editorial opposition to Obama's action. In a 2016 post, More Mush From The NY Times, I explained the damage to prospects for compromise on immigration.
The Times article fails to explore the real problem with the President's
unilateral actions, and the approval it has generated from Progressive,
leading Hillary Clinton to promise she will be even more aggressive in
this respect - the undermining of prospects for compromise on any issue,
which is ironic given President Obama's consistent invoking of the need
for less partisanship. Or perhaps, more accurately, the President's
reference to nonpartisanship is a reflection of Obama's cynicism, as it
has become apparent over time he's our most cynical President since
Richard Nixon.
Here's an example of how President Obama's approach discourages
compromise. I'm in favor of immigration reform that would both provide
some increase in legal immigration and improve border security. But, if
he were in Congress today, I would never vote for such a bill or even
negotiate with Democrats on it. The reason is that the essence of
compromise, is the each side has to give up something to get something.
In a world where President's push executive orders, informal rulemaking
and arbitrary changing of statutory language, there is no assurance
that a legislator would get the value of the deal they thought they
made. If a Progressive President has provisions in a compromise
immigration reform bill they do not like, they can simply order the
agency not to enforce it, or issue an executive order directly
overriding the bill, or arbitrarily have the enforcing agency issue an
informal notice changing deadlines and announcing a regulatory
interpretation that leads to the opposite result intended in the
legislation. When Progressives control the Executive Branch, it means
they can implement the sections they like and ignore or override what
they don't like, leaving the other side feeling like chumpsfrom Palookaville.
Under these conditions, the best course is to not change or reform immigration law.
(1) It is not an exaggeration to state that sanctuary jurisdictions privilege illegals over law abiding citizens. Every such jurisdiction has established at either the state attorney general or local district attorney level guidelines requiring prosecutors to take into account the risks to immigration status (that is, deportation) in charging decisions and plea deals. In other words, to favor decisions declining prosecution or making terms easier on plea deals in order to minimize chances of intervention by federal immigration enforcement. California (no surprise!) has actually enacted a statute requiring prosecutors to consider these factors in making charging and settlement decisions. The result is that an American citizen who has committed a crime will likely be prosecuted more harshly and face more several sentencing than an illegal committing the same crime.
If you want to know how insane sanctuary enforcement is, look no further than the despicable Soros-backed DA of Fairfax County, Virginia - Steven Descano. Descano's campaign pledge:
Wherever possible, Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences. Following such a policy will keep our communities united and strong and demonstrate our Country's commitment to equal justice for all. If two people commit the same crime, but only one's punishment includes deportation, that's a perversion of justice and not a reflection of the values of Fairfax County.
It could not be any clearer. It ignores that the illegal has committed two crimes, one being entry into the U.S., and allows an American citizen to be prosecuted more harshly. This is not justice, it is privilege for criminals here illegally.
This wasn't just a campaign pledge by Descano. He's followed it in practice, releasing several violent illegals, and is now mired in controversy, as those released have committed further violent acts, including murder. Descano gives no indication of caring about the consequences of his actions for law abiding Americans. His sole concern is protecting those who have illegally entered this country.
This also points to another problem in arguments about illegal immigration; discussions about how to measure criminality of illegals and whether it is a problem. After looking at a number of these analyses it is evident there is a major methodological problem. Some studies combine legal and illegal immigrants in the analysis. Most do not distinguish among the origin countries for illegals, despite evidence that crime rates significantly differ depending on country of origin. There is also the data source problem because a careful review reveals that in many instances the data used in the analysis is not uniform, or missing key jurisdictions. Finally, the sanctuary jurisdictions preference for no charging, or reducing charges, and allowing pleas to lesser offenses, brings into question any analysis on this subject. The truth is we simply don't know about comparative crime rates between illegals and citizens and others lawfully residing here.
But that isn't the biggest problem. Looking at comparative rates is the wrong metric in this situation. There certainly are instances where comparative rates are the right metric, but in the case of illegal immigration every crime is one that would not have occurred but for the illegal entry. It is the additive absolute number, not comparative rate, that is relevant. For instance, there are about 20,000 homicides in the U.S. annually. There are a few jurisdictions that report crimes committed by illegals by category. A reasonable extrapolation of that data leads to the conclusion that somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 homicides in the U.S. are committed annually by illegals. The illegal homicide rate is simply irrelevant, if you have any interest at all in preventing homicides by illegals.
"If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change. Do you understand?"
-
The young Tancredi to his uncle and guardian, the Prince of Salina,
explaining why he is joining the rebels seeking to unite Italy in the
1860s. From The Leopard, the masterpiece by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa which I am currently reading for the second time. (1958)
The quote is well-known. What is less known are the passages just before and after Tancredi's remark:
Before:
"You're
mad, my boy, to go with those people! They're all in the maffia, all
troublemakers. A Falconeri should be with us for the King."
"The eyes began smiling again. 'For the King, yes, of course. But which King?'"
After:
"What
a boy! Talking rubbish and contradicting it at the same time. . . .
The Prince jumped up . . . and rummaged in a drawer. 'Tancredi,
Tancredi, wait!'. He ran after his nephew, slipped a roll of gold
pieces into his pocket, and squeezed his shoulders."
"On
his way downstairs, he suddenly understood that remark of Tancredi's,
'If we want things to stay as they are . . .' Tancredi would go a long
way: he had always thought so."
-----------------------------
There's nothing in the streets Looks any different to me And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye And the parting on the left Is now parting on the right And the beards have all grown longer overnight
Meet the new boss Same as the old boss
- Pete Townshend, Won't Get Fooled Again by The Who (1971)
-------------------------------
"Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains"
-
Rookie Ebby Calvin "Nuke" Laloosh in Bull Durham (1988), explaining to a
reporter about what a good friend told him of the common understanding
required of citizens in order to preserve stability in a democracy; the
necessity of accepting occasional defeats along with a
lot of muddling through.
On this date eight years I published Normalizing Mass Murder and Repression, on the New York Times year long, 40 installment series, about the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. I ended with a comment on the final installment by Simon Sebag Montefiore which had a negative take on the Bolsheviks and included a swipe at Donald Trump.
One wonders if he was contractually obligated by the Times to insert the
reference to Trump. However gross Donald Trump may be, the attempted
comparison is so absurd it diminishes the power of Montefiore's
article. It is also another example showing why decent liberals are
proving so ineffective in taking on the growing authoritarian trend on
the Left. They seem to be unable to take the threat seriously, finding
it easier to take potshots at the Right for which they will be applauded
by their constituency. One day we will look back and wonder what was
the flaw in traditional liberalism that allowed it to reject the
illiberalism of the Right, but cede its position in our institutions to
the illiberalism of the Left.
We now can look back and wonder, but sadly the struggle, to the extent it even occurred, is over, and the illiberal factions of the Left have solidified their hold on most of our institutions, including the Democratic Party. At the same time, the traditional elements of the GOP have dissolved in the face of MAGA worship, resulting in incoherence on the right and the unleashing of some dark forces. The 20th century categories of liberal and conservative no longer exist as effective political groupings at the national level. We have entered a New World, one that, as of yet, has no Order.
The consequences of the refusal of the New York Times and the rest of traditional media to normalize Donald Trump and to instead create a continuing narrative designed to impede his administration and drive him from office was a disastrous decisions with reverberations that impact this country today. The then-editor of the Times, Dean Baquet, announced after the 2016 that Trump would not be normalized in the news section (for more on Baquet read Closed Ecosystem 2). The result was the creation of the Russia Collusion Hoax, (for more read Reassessing The Assessment and He's Not Your Bro). There were plenty of legitimate problems with Donald Trump that a "normal" press could have reported upon. Instead, a gullible and conspiracy-obsessed president had a real conspiracy constructed against him. We are seeing the consequences in Trump's second administration.
With the election of Donald Trump, cries abounded on the Left that society and media needed to avoid "normalizing" the new President. In this context "normalizing"
does not mean agreeing with Trump, but rather accepting that his
statements and actions can, and should, be evaluated with some degree of
objectivity.
But while progressives decried any reasoned discussion of Trump as
normalization, one of the left's leading organs, The New York Times
(though even the Times is, based on comments on its articles, apparently
not always as crazy left as its readership demands), devoted all of
2017 to normalizing communism, one of the ideologies that along with
Nazism and fascism, made much of the 20th century a charnel house.
Last year, the Times ran a 40-part series called "Red Century: Exploring the history and legacy of Communism, 100 years after the Russian Revolution".
The series included, as you would expect for a normalization project, a
great deal of civilized discussion about the pros and cons of the
communist experiment.
But it was also carefully curated, finding little or no space in its
forty episodes to discuss communism in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, or the
recent experiment in Venezuela. It was also remarkably unreflective
about what went wrong, with little discussion of dissidents and critics
of the communist system such as Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia. Most
surprisingly there was no assessment of the monumental impact of
Alexander Solzhenitsyn's revelations on the tottering edifice of Soviet
Communism. And there was a complete absence of the big picture questions
- how does human nature fit into the idea of the Soviet New Man? Is it
possible to prevent any communist society from descending into the
darkness that each Red regime has done so far?
What the articles in the series did unintentionally highlight was the
ability of idealists, or ideologues if you prefer (ideologues being
idealists you disagree with), to walk optimistically into the future
with their heads held high as they search the skies for their new world,
enabling them to avoid seeing the sea of blood they wade through.
Let's look at some examples from start to finish, with some THC comments added in brackets:
What's Left of Communism by David Priestland (February 24), an
Oxford historian and man of the Left, in which he espouses communism
with a smiley face, without ever reflecting on its feasibility. Here
are some snippets:
"So did I witness Communism’s last hurrah that day in Moscow, or is a
Communism remodeled for the 21st century struggling to be born?"
"But the flaws of laissez-faire soon came to Communism’s rescue. The Wall
Street crash of 1929 and the Depression that followed made socialist
ideas of equality and state planning a compelling alternative to the
invisible hand of the market. Communist militancy also emerged as one of
the few political forces prepared to resist the threat of fascism."
[THC here: Priestland ignores that in the end game of the Weimar
Republic, Stalin ordered the German Communist Party to focus on
destruction of the centrist parties and not attack the Nazis. And, of
course, we have the communist parties of Western Europe and the U.S.
happily supporting Stalin and Hitler from 1939 to 1941.]
"A new left might then succeed in uniting the losers, both white-collar
and blue-collar, in the new economic order. Already, we’re seeing
demands for a more redistributive state. Ideas like the universal basic
income, which the Netherlands and Finland are experimenting with, are
close in spirit to Marx’s vision of Communism’s ability to supply the
wants of all — “from each according to his ability, to each according to
his need.” [THC: And how exactly is that to occur without the use of government force]
"There will be no return to the Communism of five-year plans and gulags." [THC: Glad he feels so confident about that.]
"Lenin no longer lives, the old Communism may be dead, but the sense of injustice that animated them is very much alive."
This piece was quickly supplemented with a very amusing correction by the Times:
Correction: February 24, 2017
A picture supplied by Getty Images was initially posted with
this essay. Editors later learned that the photograph, of Lenin giving a
speech, had been manipulated by the Soviet authorities to erase several
figures near Lenin, notably Leon Trotsky. The picture has been replaced
because such unacknowledged alterations violate Times standards.
On March 13, we had Angels and Demons in the Cold War and Today,
by Stephen Boykewich, described as a consultant to social justice
organizations. His piece isn't even about the communist revolution or
communism, it's merely an anti-American screed blaming the United States
for everything that's gone wrong with the Soviet Union and Russia.
Only a week later we have Francis Beckett, yet another British Leftist, trotting out the old theme of "Lenin was on the right track, it was that nasty guy Stalin who made it all go wrong";
a theme buried by Solzhenitsyn and the revelations from the Soviet
archives after the Evil Empire's fall. Some sample excerpts:
After the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917, the Soviet
state became a beacon of hope for the left, and Moscow a place for
pilgrimage. It was four decades before the magic faded, and the world is
still waiting for something to replace it. [THC: the kind of people
who are still waiting for something to replace it are precisely the
people you do not want anywhere near the levers of power.]
To be sure, Communist parties around the world kept the allegiance of
many hard-liners and still recruited some young idealists, but 1956 was a
turning point, and the Soviet Union as an idea was irretrievably
tainted. Thereafter, Communists were as likely to define themselves as
against Moscow as for it. [THC: Yet they would always turn to the next
group of Communist heroes who would finally get it right - we had Mao
(40-50 million dead), then Ho Chi Minh killing anyone who opposed him;
next was Cambodia Year Zero (20% of the population dead) and Fidel
(arbitrary executions, imprisonment of homosexuals, destruction of one
of Latin America's most prosperous economies).]
On April 3 it was the turn of Tariq Ali, of the New Left Review, and fanboy of Hugo Chavez, on What Was Lenin Thinking?,
furthering Beckett's theme of the prior week regarding the brilliance
of Lenin and the sadness that under Stalin things went awry.
While its final details were obviously not advertised beforehand, the
takeover was swift and involved minimal violence. [THC: Ali is actually
describing a coup against the real revolutionary government, consisting
of social democrats! There is also no mention in his paean to the great
man that a month later he ordered the forcible dissolution of the only
legislative assembly ever freely elected by the Russian people.]
That
all changed with the ensuing civil war, in which the nascent Soviet
state’s enemies were backed by the czar’s former Western allies. Amid
the resulting chaos and millions of casualties, the Bolsheviks finally
prevailed — but at a terrible political and moral cost, including the
virtual extinction of the working class that had originally made the
revolution. [THC: Tariq Ali is not stupid. Here he is deliberately
misleading readers not familiar with history by blaming what happened
next on Lenin's enemies. Anyone who has read Lenin's own bloodthirsty
words and directives, which do not distinguish between the innocent and
the guilty, and were designed to instill terror in all, knows better.]
Nor should we forget that a few decades
later, it was the Red Army — originally forged in the civil war by
Trotsky, Mikhail Tukhachevsky and Mikhail Frunze (the former two killed
in the 30s by Stalin) — that broke the military might of the Third Reich
in
the epic battles of Kursk and Stalingrad. [THC: No mention of the
Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939. I guess it must have slipped the author's
mind.]"
April 29 brought us a pathetic piece by Vivian Gornick, When Communism Inspired Americans.
The author was raised in an American communist family and was twenty
years old when Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin occurred, revealing
their beliefs were based on a lie. Sadly, she is still trying to give
meaning to that lie so many years later, to salvage something from the
deluded beliefs of her parents and herself. In reality, her family were
members of an organization under the direction of a foreign power
dedicated to the destruction of American democracy. A sampling of her
continuing delusions:
“America was fortunate to have had the Communists here. They,
more than most, prodded the country into becoming the democracy it
always said it was.”
"The effective life of the Communist Party in the United States was
approximately 40 years in length. Hundreds of thousands of Americans
were Communists at one time or another during those 40 years. Many of
these people endured social isolation, financial and professional ruin,
and even imprisonment. They were two generations of Americans whose
lives were formed by political history as were no other American lives
save those of the original Revolutionists. History is in them — and they
are in history."
Sarah Jaffe of The Nation informed us of The Unexpected Afterlife of American Communism
(June 6), in which it turns out commies were just true American
reformers, albeit many a little more intense (and under the direction of
a hostile foreign power).
In short, American Communism was a movement that grew out of what the
historian Robin D. G. Kelley, the author of “Hammer and Hoe: Alabama
Communists During the Great Depression,” calls “the most despised and
dispossessed elements of American society.” It was the black workers
drawn to the party, Professor Kelley argues, who shaped its political
choices as much as the varying dictates that came from the Communist
International, Moscow’s directorate for foreign parties. [THC: This is a
continuation of the carefully cultivated academic myth that Soviet
communism was the only social justice alternative in the America of
those times. Conveniently ignored is that in the 1920s and 1930s the
Socialist Party under Norman Thomas was fiercely anti-communist
precisely because its members understood that the inevitable result of
communism was intolerance, authoritarianism, and dictatorship.]
And we have an unexpected bonus from Ms Jaffe. Turns out
intersectionality, the latest poison introduced into our society, a
poison designed to turn Americans against one another, actually
originated with communists!
These arguments were championed by organizers like Claudia Jones, a
black leader within the Communist Party U.S.A. and a journalist for its
newspaper, The Daily Worker. According to Charlene Carruthers, the
national director of Black Youth Project 100,
Ms. Jones expounded the idea now known as intersectionality decades
before that term became so ubiquitous that Hillary Clinton used it in a tweet
on the campaign trail. For Ms. Jones, understanding the lives of black
women and the economic and social position they occupied would create a
better understanding of the system of capitalism as a whole. It
followed, Ms. Carruthers explains, that black women’s work was central
in the struggle to replace the system.
What American Communists, at their best, pioneered was to show how
effectively grass-roots movements can challenge the racism, state
violence and economic exploitation that people face in their daily
lives, and connect those fights to a broader vision of a just world. [THC: One is sometimes left just speechless.]
On August 7, Fred Strebeigh may have written the most preposterous entry
in a series already chock full of ridiculous attempts to normalize the
abnormal. It's titled Lenin's Eco-Warriors about how, under Lenin, a "longtime enthusiast for hiking and camping",
the Soviet Union became a global pioneer in conservation! For anyone
familiar with the wreckage of the Soviet Union's natural environment (see, for instance, the Aral Sea) and
the incredible levels of pollution caused by its insane push for
centrally planned industralization at the expense of every other
consideration in society this article is an insult.
Strebeigh's article is also a prime example of normalization that in
other circumstances would never see the light of day in the Times. The
Nazi Party in Germany enacted the most far reaching environmental and
worker safety laws of the day, yet I don't think the Times would be
comfortable promoting that as part of a "balanced" assessment of the
legacy of the Third Reich.
Wait a minute! I may have been wrong about the Strebeigh piece being the most preposterous. On August 12, the Times published Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism
by Kristen Ghodsee. It's a cheery, upbeat piece of fluff. Turns out
the sex was great, as long as you otherwise kept your mouth shut, and
did what you were told. Enjoy!
Some might remember that Eastern bloc women enjoyed many rights and
privileges unknown in liberal democracies at the time, including major
state investments in their education and training, their full
incorporation into the labor force, generous maternity leave allowances
and guaranteed free child care. But there’s one advantage that has
received little attention: Women under Communism enjoyed more sexual
pleasure.
Agnieszka Koscianska, an associate professor of anthropology at the
University of Warsaw, told me that pre-1989 Polish sexologists “didn’t
limit sex to bodily experiences and stressed the importance of social
and cultural contexts for sexual pleasure.” It was state socialism’s
answer to work-life balance: “Even the best stimulation, they argued,
will not help to achieve pleasure if a woman is stressed or overworked,
worried about her future and financial stability.”
Enough of this silly stuff! On August 28, Odd Arne Westad, who despite
his weird name is a professor at Harvard's John F Kennedy School of
Government so we know he must be incredibly brilliant, tells the sad
story of The Cold War and America's Delusion of Victory. Turns out the Cold War was a regrettable event that happened despite "people of good will on both sides". It takes a sophisticated Harvard professor to equate freedom with slavery but Odd is up to it.
The next month we learned from Helen Gao about How Did Women Fare in China's Communist Revolution? Turns out they did pretty well, if they lived.
On October 2, the astoundingly shallow Times reporter Alessandra Stanley wrote about The Communist Party's Party People, which starts off "There was no better time or place to be a Communist than in San Francisco in the spring of 1945" [THC: I believe the same holds true today regarding San Francisco].
A week later we heard from another leftist Brit professor, John Sidel, on What Killed The Promise of Muslim Communism?, in which he remembers that "For a brief moment after the Bolshevik uprisings of 1917, it looked like
revolution might be waged across vast swaths of the world under the
joint banner of Communism and Islam", [he thinks this is a good thing!] and laments:
One effect of the failure of revolutionary forces to mobilize under the
joint banner of Communism and Islam was to deeply divide Muslims,
weakening their capacity first to fight colonialism during the first
half of 20th century and then to resist the rise of authoritarianism
across the Muslim world. [THC: Wait, you're saying communism is not authoritarian?]
Later the same month we had yet another lament from a professor; this one an American from Hamilton College, When New York City was the Capital of American Communism by Maurice Isserman. The good professor regrets that:
With the onset of the Cold War, and of a second Red Scare more pervasive
and longer-lasting than the original, Communists found themselves
persecuted and isolated. [THC: I wonder why secret members of a party
who accepted direction from a totalitarian foreign power devoted to the
destruction of American democracy would find themselves persecuted and
isolated?]
On a serious note, the Isserman piece is part of a larger, and largely
successful effort to rewrite the history of American communism.(1) As with
many of the pieces in the Times series it cast American communists as
idealists who were just ahead of their time. A couple of years ago I
watched a panel discussion on C-Span. The panelists were authors and
researchers who, in recent decades, have done remarkable research
exposing the depth of Soviet espionage in the United States and the
complicity of American communists in the spying, as well as the evidence
of direct Soviet control of the American Communist Party (the most
prominent of the researchers being Harvey Klehr, whose work I
recommend). They had their own lament. According to the panelists
there is no new research work in academia looking further into this
aspect of American communism even though the speakers said there is
still much unreviewed documentation out there. Instead, grad students
are discouraged from pursuing such research and the academic journals
devoted to this subject focus on articles stressing the reformist nature
of American communism and the undeserved repression party members
experienced.
The series came to a close on November 6 with Simon Sebag Montefiore's
essay, What If The Russian Revolution Had Never Happened? Thankfully,
Montefiore is no apologist for communism (his book Stalin: The Court Of The Red Tsar is a masterpiece). He writes to remind us of the reality:
The Russian Revolution mobilized a popular passion across the world
based on Marxism-Leninism, fueled by messianic zeal. It was, perhaps,
after the three Abrahamic religions, the greatest millenarian rapture of
human history.
That
virtuous idealism justified any monstrosity. The Bolsheviks admired the
cleansing purges of Robespierre’s Reign of Terror: “A revolution
without firing squads is meaningless,” Lenin said. The Bolsheviks
created the first professional revolutionaries, the first total police
state, the first modern mass-mobilization on behalf of class war against
counterrevolution. Bolshevism was a mind-set, an idiosyncratic culture
with an intolerant paranoid wordview obsessed with abstruse Marxist
ideology. Their zeal justified the mass killings of all enemies, real
and potential, not just by Lenin or Stalin but also Mao, Pol Pot in
Cambodia, Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia. It also gave birth to slave
labor camps, economic catastrophe and untold psychological damage.
(These events are now so long ago that the horrors have been blurred and
history forgotten; a glamorous glow of power and idealism lingers to
intoxicate young voters disenchanted with the bland dithering of liberal
capitalism.)
Of course, Montefiore cannot resist taking a swipe at Donald Trump:
But Lenin’s tactics, too, are resurgent. He was a sophisticated genius
of merciless zero-sum gain, expressed by his phrase "Kto kovo?" —
literally, “Who, whom?” asking the question who controls whom and,
more important, who kills whom. President Trump is some ways the
personification of a new Bolshevism of the right where the ends justify
the means and acceptable tactics include lies and smears, and the
exploitation of what Lenin called useful idiots.
One wonders if he was contractually obligated by the Times to insert the
reference to Trump. However gross Donald Trump may be, the attempted
comparison is so absurd it diminishes the power of Montefiore's
article. It is also another example showing why decent liberals are
proving so ineffective in taking on the growing authoritarian trend on
the Left. They seem to be unable to take the threat seriously, finding
it easier to take potshots at the Right for which they will be applauded
by their constituency. One day we will look back and wonder what was
the flaw in traditional liberalism that allowed it to reject the
illiberalism of the Right, but cede its position in our institutions to
the illiberalism of the Left.
(1)2026 Update In October 2023, Maurice Isserman resigned from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the organization that NYC Mayor Mamdami and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez remain members of. In 1982 Isserman was a founding member of the DSA, the lead founder being the late Michael Harrington. Isserman and Harrington actually were Democratic Socialists. I believe Harrington was mistaken in many of his political ideas but he was a decent and moral person, unlike the current leadership of the DSA. The DSA is another of the many institutions in America that carry the same name from decades ago but have been subverted from within and are now completely different in substance. The current DSA is a authoritarian communist organization heavily seasoned with settler-colonist ideology. It is an enemy of civilization.
Isserman resigned for several reasons, including:
1) The DSA's failure to denounce what he described as the "anti-Jewish pogrom" by Hamas on October 7, which he characterized as "politically and morally bankrupt".
2) The capture of the DSA by groups like Red Star, Marxist Unity Group, and the Communist Caucus—which value ideological purity over democratic socialist values. He described these groups as "entryists", writing, "In left-wing parlance, the term refers to tightly organized groups who,
without sharing the beliefs of larger and more loosely organized
bodies, join and proceed to either wreck or, where possible, capture
them for ends at odds with the spirit and purpose of the original
members".
In preparation for this future, SS (Smarmy Smile) Zohran Mamdani went to Rikers Prison to build some loyalty to him by watching the World Cup semifinals with inmates While enjoying the match Mamdani sat next to an inmate who had strangled his wife to death. I'm pretty confident the mayor didn't waste any time thinking about the woman. 