The last time Ethics Alarms highlighted a provocative post by conservative writer Kurt Schlicter, it was designated here as irresponsible. I’m not as certain that his latest is. I wonder if there are Democrats and progressives who can make a substantive argument that he isn’t expressing a legitimate concern. ( Ad hominem arguments not accepted.)
The post is called Straightforward From Here To The Left’s Fascist, Maybe Violent, Endgame.
Here are some excerpts, with my initial reactions:
The Democrat Party, its Media serfs, and Social Justice Incorporated are all outraged because we uppity normals are again presuming to rule ourselves, and their agony is delightful. Less delightful is how, in the process of trying to claw their way back into power, they are incinerating the norms and rules that preserve our political order. That stuff Hillary babbled about honoring the legitimacy of elections? Yeah, no. There’s an invisible asterisk only liberals can see that explains that the norms and rules are void when liberals lose.
I don’t see how this statement can be rebutted. The tone is hostile, but the analysis is accurate.
Think what they will do if they take power again. They are certainly not going to risk us ever being able to repeat November’s rejection. California’s decline lays out their tyrannical road map. When the Democrats took power here, they “reformed” the election laws to lock-in their party, co-opted the “nonpartisan” redistricting process, and changed the ballot initiative system to make sure we will never see another unapproved proposition. They ensured there is no way to stop illegal aliens from voting because they want illegal aliens voting.
Over the top, but not too far. California no longer has a two party system, and has embraced progressive cant as policy even when there is no evidence that it won’t be disastrous, as with the high-speed rail debacle and the commitment to double the minimum wage. Of course, Democrats will take power again. If too many conservatives feel about them like Schlicter does, the conservative “resistance” may make this “resistance” look like child’s play.
Do you think Hillary Clinton or whatever aspiring Hugo Chavez they offer up next is going to protect us from violent leftist thugs, or encourage them? Remember how Obama weaponized agencies like the IRS against conservatives? Multiply that by a thousand. Think about the “hate speech” rules used to silence conservatives on campus; imagine them as federal law. That’s coming, just like in Europe – it’s now a crime in France to speak out against abortion. Do you imagine leftists don’t dream of doing that? No, once back in power they will ensure we will never be able to challenge their rule. One man (or woman or other), one vote, one more time, then never again.
It is, in fact, now illegal to oppose abortion in France. In the U.S. Robert Kennedy III has advocated imprisoning climate change skeptics. The popular progressive, globalist argument that progressives always use to advocate government health care, gun bans, and elimination of capital punishment are easily adaptable to free speech restrictions, and Democratic members of Congress have endorsed those already. The casual shrug the mainstream news media gave to the IRS scandal while the Holder Justice Department refused to investigate it was just as ominous as Schlicter implies.
This massive resistance campaign against everything Donald Trump has done and a lot he hasn’t done is one way. The media’s liberal advocacy and tsunami of fake news is another; the press is now just one more partisan political player campaigning to restore the establishment to power. These same liars who fantasize about Trump silencing critics will cheer as the next Democrat commandante does it for real. Remember how they said nothing when Democrats voted to repeal the First Amendment so Congress could control speech during elections?
Again, Schlicter uses the language or rants and diatribes, but his facts aren’t off. The U.S. Solicitor General in the Citizens United oral argument insisted that Congress should be able to ban books and movies for content, and yet Bernie and Hillary both expressed horror that such power was rejected. (That Solicitor General, by the way, now sits on the Court.) The press is now just one more partisan political player campaigning to restore the establishment to power.
I recently polled people on Twitter about what they thought of the chances of serious violence in the coming four years, and the results from 6,159 people are alarming. “Stop being a nut” got 10%; I was hoping it would get about 95%. “We’ll wise up” and find a way out of this crisis, got 13%. But “50/50 leftists may try violence” got a stunning 41%, while “It’s coming. Gear up” got a terrifying 36%. So, 77% of the respondents fear serious violence during Trump’s first term.
Let’s stop there. Make no mistake about it, however, if Schlicter’s poll is right, the Angry Left Resistance’s conduct and rhetoric, and the absolute abdication of Democratic leadership in calming the hysteria, are responsible, as well as accountable.
Once again, I wonder if progressives, liberals and Democrats have the integrity to accept that responsibility, be accountable, and make a false prophet out of Kurt Schlicter, who concludes,
This crisis has to culminate somehow. It could end peacefully, with a return to the old norms and reasoned competition between ideas. But it seems no one is interested in that; instead, one side has to win decisively, and one side has to lose decisively. If so, I say we win and they lose, since I’m not ready to submit or to die.
How about you?
35 thoughts on “Integrity Test For The Angry Left “Resisters”: Why, In Light Of Your Conduct And Rhetoric Since November 8, Is This Analysis Unreasonable?”
Read this piece this morning at The Christian Science Monitor.
I know I’m guilty. Anyone else here?
“Apocalyptic” is too strong a word for me. “Civil war” and rhetoric along those lines doesn’t seem too strong right now.
Interesting that this is from the Christian Science Monitor. Many years ago my father (an avowed socialist based on strong Christian beliefs not politics, and no supporter of Christian Science as a religious denomination by any means) subscribed to the CS Monitor along with The Washington Post, because, he said, even then, that the Monitor was less biased than other newspapers. Maybe I should add the Monitor to my NYT subscription.
I don’t belong to any organized religion. Not aware of the origin/history of The Christian Science Monitor but I can tell you I was pleasantly surprised when I first stumbled upon it in the library. That’s why I subscribed. Nowadays I just read it online.
Dare I say that Kurt Schlicter reads EthicsAlarms blogs and the subsequent comments?
There is a new Social Media group on Meetup called #Resist. The blurb about them suggests that you join them if you care about what’s happening to democracy, social justice, sustainability and other important topics. Another fifth column in the making?
I joined Resist, Wayne. So far nothing local (Las Cruces, NM) taking place, just online stuff.
His piece is hyperbolic, but not completely unfounded. There has already been violence, and although I think we can all hope there won’t be more, there may well be.
The question is how long it takes before the “bitter clingers” decide they’ve had enough of being the object of violence, and decide it’s time to perpetrate a little of it on their persecutors?
Ultimately, that’s the real question, and the question I think he intends to ask. It may never happen, but if Antifa and their ilk escalate this too much more, it’s likely to mobilize the other side to action. If that happens, this piece may turn out to be prophetic rather than an appeal to fear.
I do think the “reasoned competition of ideas” is now dead, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The Left has decided to take the position that anything but total acceptance of their world view is immoral heresy, and they are not only willing to enforce their cant by government power, but also use actual force to subvert anyone and anything that threatens their social dominance. There can be no reasoning with that, and normally, parties at such loggerheads eventually resort to violence.
Let’s hope that’s wrong, and that the sides can somehow return to a dialog before they start shooting at each other.
The question is how long it takes before the “bitter clingers” decide they’ve had enough of being the object of violence, and decide it’s time to perpetrate a little of it on their persecutors?
Glenn, it really pisses me off when people act like this hasn’t already happened.
As far as I’m aware, the biggest terror attack to occur on this continent since Trump’s election was the Quebec shooting in Canada, where six Muslims were killed by a white supremacist Trump supporter.
The only politically charged shooting I’m aware of was from a Milo supporter who shot a protester.
But yes, if you limit the term “violence” to include only property destruction and punching, and not shooting and mass murder, only the Left has been violent since Trump’s election.
I’m happy to piss you off, Chris, but I think you’re pissed about the wrong thing.
I’m not talking about answering terror with terror. Domestic terrorism has long been a feature of both the extreme right and left in this country, in somewhat comparable measure. That’s simply a matter for law enforcement, and it’s easy for both sides to reject that kind of violence.
I’m talking about actual conflict in the streets between putative conservatives and putative liberals. Real fighting, where the two sides meet and try to kill and maim each other, not other innocent victims.
As far as violence goes and who shot vs. punched whom, all I can say is that you should never bring a knife to a gunfight, and that if you attack somebody without determining their state of preparedness, you should expect to be shot. This is America, after all, not England, where only the criminals have guns.
Another real problem is that the anxiety and angst and “trauma” of the Left’s “laity” taken to the level they have taken it is comepletely unjustifiable… it is actually a real thing. And it’s being stoked and fueled daily by the irresponsible at best and nefarious at worst Left wing media.
Whether or not such angst is justifiable (it isn’t) it is there and it being made to grow… you can’t pent up all that aggression and anger and hate into a bubble and not expect the bubble to burst.
I predicted this with the race grievance mongers and my prediction came true with countless riots.
It is more than “just base unethical” that the Left wing powers that be are doing this… they *know* what they are doing and it is by design.
A slowly creeping but pervasive trend I’ve noticed is a conflation with words and actions. It’s built over a couple of years,
I think the early stages was the conflation between physical violence and violent words. I can’t remember the first time I heard ‘dangerous rhetoric’, but since then I’ve seen protesters who say that their opponents are actively raping them, and they expect the metaphorical rape to be treated with perhaps not the exact same solemn severity as an actual rape, but something kin to it.
Lately, this has metastasised into “you’ve continued to say things that I’ve identified as being at the same level of harm as physical violence, and so I’m going to commit physical violence towards you”. If you think the “punch a Nazi” trend is a fad, I think that you’re… naive (Will-Power!).
I think that because I see no reason for it to be true. The very label of Nazi is in itself a factually deficient conflation from a long line of factually dubious conflations that have only gotten more serious. You want to know where this ends up? People die.
Milo, before his recent fall from grace, gave a speech… A speech like many others that he’s given, no more or less outrageous. But someone was shot at this speech. That’s as far as much of the left media will tell you, what is rarely mentioned was that the person who was shot thought it would be a jolly good time to punch a Nazi and was shot for his troubles. Of course, if you were to point that out to a progressive (And I have) they’ll tell you (and told me) that “No one should be shot for expressing themselves.” I suppose this is another one of those social contracts that have the asterisk that only progressives can see, saying that only THEY are allowed to defend themselves, and only for the violence they see as violence.
Now this is as good a news story as I think a shooting can be: No one died. But I’d be willing to bet money that 2017 will be the year where a Punch and Judy “Nazi”-Fighting Edition doesn’t stop punching until the “Nazi” stops breathing, or a “Nazi” with better muzzle control kills someone. And what’s fucking sick about this is that the narrative will be fundamentally different depending on who it is that actually dies. We’ve already seen the lack of human empathy the left has for the right. Write your headlines now.
Wait…when was Milo ever in “Grace” by even the most lenient definition of the word?
What’s the word then? Fame? Infamy? The state of being that allows for a million dollar book deal, a CPAC speaking spot, and being the editor of a column on the 3rd largest online news forum?
Novelty? Kardashiism? I dunno, but grace isn’t it.
It is really amazing to me, Humble, that you’re taking a story about a Milo supporter shooting a protester and making it about how liberals are too violent.
Umm… did you see the near-riot at the University of Washington? One that was initially denied before the president of that “educational” institution had to change the story after the videos got out?
Washington state having a “shall issue” concealed carry permit system is probably all that kept that situation from being another Berkeley.
Oh, and Breitbart seems to be reporting the NEWS that the supposed guardians of the First Amendment, like the New York Times, won’t.
It really is amazing to me, Chris, how you can completely gloss over the fact that the shooter was assaulted and battered, then conflate his self-defense with some kind of wanton violence.
It also boggles my mind, Chris, how someone who believes so strongly in ‘social’ justice will place so much importance on the actions of a single person, and ignore the hundreds strong riots going on at the same time.
The shooter was a supporter of Milo and/or Trump. Hence, he was a Nazi, and Nazis deserve to be punched, per the political left of today.
Scott Adams put it very well in his Oct. 25, 2016 post, “The Bully Party”:
“Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?”
Unfortunately I’m one of those who believe that we may be past a peaceful solution. My GGGrandfather, at age 67, marched off to war in 1862 with the 7th Illinois Infantry and, after Shiloh, lost his health and life. I can envision that type of patriotic fervor again, but unfortunately the carnage would be much worse than 1861-65. It’s unfortunate that only 1% of us really understand the type of violence that War brings. We need leaders who will step up and put the US first, over party ideology and personal ambition. The problem is finding them.
The problem is worse than just finding them. The problem is that the system has been so corrupted over the past few decades that such leaders are specifically and intentionally filtered out by the entrenched political interests. You may be able to identify a truly patriotic, nation-before-party candidate, but he or she has virtually no chance of ever attaining high office.
““Stop being a nut” got 10%; I was hoping it would get about 95%. “We’ll wise up” and find a way out of this crisis, got 13%. But “50/50 leftists may try violence” got a stunning 41%, while “It’s coming. Gear up” got a terrifying 36%. So, 77% of the respondents fear serious violence during Trump’s first term.”
Anyone who would take such a childishly-worded poll is a fool and anyone who would believe the results to be scientifically accurate are more so. This does not include you, dear Moderator, as you used the all important word “if.”
Agreed. The poll is meaningless, and likely only taken by people who already hate the Left and see liberals in the worst possible light. Of course Schlicter got these results, of course they’re the results he wanted, and of course they’re meaningless.
Ignore polls like this to your peril. If ten thousand people clicked one of those options, then you’re talking about ten thousand childish people.
This is how Trump won…. Not everyone thinks like you, not everyone thinks like me, and ignoring huge swathes of people because you’re dismissive of the way they think just sets you up for nasty surprises later.
I talked about moral glossing and moral tarring. It looks like we have now reached the point of moral Bolshevism, defined as one side completely unable to see any other view other than its own as legitimate, and seeking not just victory, but complete dominance and what can only be described as a one-party state, whether one where there is truly only one political party or one where there are puppet political parties to give the appearance of pluralism. California’s already there, and I think much of the Northeast is either there or not far behind. Rhode Island is already there and has been since the Great Depression. Vermont gave us Bernie Sanders, ’nuff said. MA, NY, and NJ may all elect Republican governors from time to time, but when did any of them last send a Republican to the Senate for a full term? Heck, I don’t think MA’s congressional delegation includes a single GOPer. Connecticut went all-blue in 2011, and there it is probably going to stay. I wonder if Virginia is also close to shifting into the blue column on a permanent basis, since it didn’t flip back for Trump.
At this point, in some of these places, especially the cities, Joe Average would look at you funny at the mildest, or, more likely, condemn you if you identified as Republican or even that you had conservative leanings. It’s no longer a matter of respectfully saying “I disagree with you, but I am still ok with you” or jokingly “you’re a nice guy, too bad you’re a Republican.” At this point it’s “roommate wanted, Republicans need not apply,” or “if you voted for Trump, you need to find someone else to supply your gas this winter,” completely seriously. At this point it’s also “hater,” “homophobe,” “xenophobe,” “racist” and about a dozen other appellations also meant completely seriously.
I used to enjoy going into the City a lot, but I have scaled it back significantly this winter because I don’t want to run into some stupid protest as I walk or listen to constant anti-Trump grousing if I stop for a cup of coffee. I was this close to checking out of a B&B in Vermont (booked too late to stay in upstate NY instead) this past summer early when I dropped an off-hand remark that I wasn’t liberal and the owners started to cross-examine me about HOW I could even think of voting for Trump when I was such an intelligent guy. To them I was suddenly a curiosity – a northeastern-born, Jesuit-educated, city-based lawyer who appreciates musical theater, Sunday brunch, and going to Europe (though none of these too often – pricy), but who also attends Mass regularly, is as comfortable in a shell jacket as a suit jacket, grills steak regularly, and can’t stand Hillary. This does not compute. Obviously something was wrong here. I was either not as smart as I pretended to be or I was in need of correction, until I came over into the proper world of agnosticism, LGBT celebration, and Hillary, where all the right thinkers reside.
Right now there’s not much these “right-thinking” people can do officially, because their party is back on its heels nationally, but we’ve already seen where things were headed, as Obama increasingly used his pen and phone to go around Congress and his Justice Department to go after those who opposed his policies without a second thought. Unofficially there’s plenty they can do, however, as every public event featuring a prominent conservative becomes a riot-in-the-waiting, every town hall turns into an ugly confrontation, every holiday turns into a mobfest, and every blue city or state into a no-go area for those who think otherwise. They can also make sure every benign mistake looks like a huge gaffe, every setback looks like a serious failure, every project that doesn’t pan out looks like a disaster, and every poll looks negative.
Yet, somehow, when the right-thinking folks get back into power, the riots and rage stop, their big mistakes suddenly become benign, their failures either become minor setbacks or someone else’s fault, their projects that don’t work become no big deal, and even their unsteady polls look good. However, suddenly dissent goes from patriotic to traitorous or racist, opposition becomes obstructionism, and free speech becomes hate.
The problem is that for most principled people the world is a masterwork painted in oils. Though it might look a little different depending on the angle you view it from, it still is what it is. For most ordinary people the world is a more abstract work painted in watercolors, and is somewhat subject to change, depending on certain factors including how you view it. To the moral Bolshevik, the true believer of the left, the world is a drawing in pencil, which can be erased and changed as often as the artist wants, to be whatever he wants, and they are the artist.
The once Golden State has gone down the tubes in the last twenty years with a few Republican legislators grimly hanging on like the last passenger pigeons. Overregulated, overtaxed, and filled with sanctuary cities, no way would I pay for a young adult to become a student at one of the UC campuses where indoctrination and intimidation is the name of the game. The battle is better fought in a fly over state.
Something I think is missing from these conversations about the political extremes and that’s the much higher percentage of the population that is almost completely politically inactive. These people don’t vote, they really don’t give a damn who’s in office because they don’t think it makes any difference at all who is in office, to most of them politics is the problem, they tune out or turn off the news when it talks about politics, they just want to live their life in peace with relatively no interference from others.
Many of these people are looking at the political chaos and don’t think it effects their lives. Their friends, family and the media are “telling” them that they must choose sides but they are thinking all these politically active people have gone completely bonkers. This will eventually directly or indirectly effect their lives too, we must draw them into the conversation to share their opinions on the future of the United States.
Trump inspired a lot of politically inactive people to get active and vote but his persona pushed a lot of politically active people away in one way or another. Clinton’s status quo and questionable trustworthiness really “inspired” no one. Sanders inspired those that want a massive social and political revolution and they got pushed aside. What do you as a politically active person say to politically inactive people when these kinds of politicians are what’s presented to “the people” for public office?
How do you encourage the politically inactive to get involved and speak their minds when speaking their minds draws the ire from the political extremes?
How can you tell them to choose sides when both sides are full of a bunch of unethical political hacks, extremist, and illogical partisan fools as politicians?
It doesn’t matter anymore how we got here, it only matters where we go from here. Is the only path left one that’s full of hate and violence? How do we get non extremists involved? Seriously folks, where do we go from here, what do we chose as our next response to the chaos, do we extend it or do we put out the fire.
Kind of reminds me of the Jews in Germany who didn’t leave the country after the Nazis had passed the Nürnberg Laws expecting the the Nazis would be reasonable and things wouldn’t get much worse. If I stick my head in the sand and not attention to what’s going on I’ll be ok. In our history, only about a third of the colonists supported the American Revolution. I suspect the percentage of the population who aren’t apathetic is much lower today except on the left.
I’ll be honest, I still contend we are looking at a ‘civil war’ and a likely break-up of the Union. If civil war does erupt, it will likely be short-lived, as the armed forces are unlikely to support a liberal/progressive agenda. However, if the Union disintegrates, it’ll be permanent. The divide between liberal/progressive ideals and conservative beliefs has simply gotten too wide. The blue states cannot any longer tolerate the red, and vice-versa. Unfortunately, folks are also starting to think in terms of loyalty to the state, or, perhaps, political party rather than to the country. We are also, both sides, attempting to elect leaders who are more like political hacks than statesmen. Yes, I am referring to Hillary and Donald. Both parties had more reasonable people to pick and both chose not to. I say both, but the stupidity extended to the Libertarians and Greens as well, although I have never expected rationality from the Greens.
Frankly, I am hopeful that this will not happen in my life-time, but realistically, it might. The next few years will, I think, be critical, and we were presented with a choice of four people any one of which could arguably be described as the worst possible helmsman to have the wheel. I keep looking around fro a lifeboat, but so far, I haven’t found one.
I think the divide is more generational that regional, d-d. I just hope as young people grow up and grow families and buy houses and try to make careers, they’ll get a little more conservative. I also hope as Hispanics establish themselves, they’ll vote more conservatively thereby more actually reflecting their basic social and economic values. I just don’t think Bernie Bros will stay Bernie Bros their entire lives. That being said, there are a lot of still whacked out hippies in the demographic where you’d think they’d long ago have become more reasonable.
Is Schlicter hysterical and hyperbolic? Or is he sounding an alarm, much like Ethics Alarms sounds an alarm to unethical conduct? He cites a recent Dennis Prager article/column as authority for his column. Dennis Prager’s recent column is worth reading:
Where are Schlicter and Prager incorrect? For over a year and a half, we heard Bernie Sanders demand that the top 1 percent own 99% of the wealth. We heard Hillary Clinton declare that Trump supporters are a basket full of deplorables. We heard Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings and other state and federal lawmakers openly declare that a Constitutionally elected president is “Not my President”. We heard and saw protesters take over streets and destroy buildings because Trump is “Not their President”. We saw demonstrators protest “Not My President Day”. We saw CNN and MSNBC in election day apoplexia celebri because Trump won. The entire news media has slanted coverage of the immigration executive orders. The Left has destroyed business owners who haven’t embraced their sacred cultural cows. Check out Twitter and Facebook on any given day. Trump sloppily refers to a sloppy news report about Sweden and every last mainstream media outlet parsed every part of what he said to show how idiotic and uninformed he is. Some idiot on an airplane spouts idiocy to what appear to be Muslim travelers and Trump is blamed and the deplorables are once against declared to the deplorables they deplorably are. Refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Smashed. Refuse to make a floral arrangement? Smashed.
The interesting thing is that the Left has hurled Orwell at Trump and his supporters. Apparently, if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth. Also obvious is that Left has redefined “1984”. I wonder if the last sentence should be changed to read, “He hated Donald Trump”.
Quite right, John. If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, it becomes the truth. Goebbels knew this and used the technique himself, as have numerous Kings, Princes and agitators for a long time. I believe its first use was Ramses II, who exaggerated a ‘victory’ over the Hittites.
Because the left lost the election it is consistently and more and more frequently engaged in using the “Big Lie” to undermine the current administration, it boggles my mind. Who’s the Fascist here?
This will not end well. Every day, more of my former conservative comrades decide that using the Left’s tactics, in search of a win, is justified.
Because the more traditional, conservative normal folks have not risen to fight the leftist persecution in the past, believing in the rule of law, fair play, and restraint in the face of provocation, the leftists have assumed they are weak. The leftists are wrong. This is the demographic who rose up after Pearl Harbor, filling the military and factories in the name of freedom. This is the salt of the earth that rose up after 9/11, again swelling the ranks of our armed forces, to fight and defend our homes, when the lefties ran and hid like cowards. This group still believes in Making America Great Again, despite Trump’s immature actions, and does not believe they are evil just for existing. They are the sleeping giant, not the liberals in the cities bitching over bathroom rights.
More and more, these are the new activists, willing to fight (on whatever terms the left chooses) for their homes, their states, and the dream of their country. I feel the shackles of self restraint being loosened, the leashes on the hounds of war being slipped, as this group decides that ethics, principles, and morality do not pay, and that they must destroy what they believe to preserve it.
And I cannot stop them. They are no longer interested in rational discussion, seeing as how that has not availed in the past three decades.The only ones that can stop this slide into ignominy are the leftists themselves, by laying off of the harmful rhetoric and attitudes. Someone rise up on the left and calm these folks down!
Let me know how that little trick works out for you. Me, I am worried.
You should read this.