Conservative journalist David Greenstein made a provocative speech before a Tea Party group in which he posited a “civil war,” defined by him as when a political party rejects a lawful Presidential election and refuses to accept the legitimacy of any government it does not dominate. I admit that offering up such inflammatory analysis for comment is the pedagogical equivalent of tossing a hand grenade in a room, but there is method to my madness, beginning with my conviction, documented here since November 2016, that much of the Democratic Party is denying the legitimacy of the last Presidential election, and is actively working to find a way to remove President Trump without having to defeat him in the next one. I believe that this is among the most damaging and dangerous political developments, and ethics outrages, in U.S. history, and one that has been intentionally covered up by an unethical news media with the same agenda.
Greenstein’s speech placed the matter front and center, and I guessed, correctly, that it would get a lot of attention, though the speech has been largely ignored by progressive commentators, even as numerous Democrats, announced that they would boycott the State of the Union message, a traditional yearly symbol of a unified people. I also assumed that it would pose an interesting challenge for readers here, specifically the challenge of keeping bias out of their analysis, since, as we all know, bias makes you stupid.
Chris Marschner did an especially good job of this, and here is his excellent Comment of the Day on the post, Ethics Quote Of The Month, Terrifying Thoughts Division: Daniel Greenfield:
After listening to his speech I came away with a completely different take on the overall message. To me, he was chastising professional governance. I do not consider it irresponsible demagoguery but an merely the idea that we have gotten away from citizen governance and allowed our governing bodies to be overtaken by a ruling elite that uses its power to obtain more power. In doing so, they have created a civil war that rages within our society which helps them retain power.
Given that the speech was being delivered to a South Carolina Tea Party group his ideas would be readily accepted; and why not? Nationally, Tea Party groups were disparaged by the I.R.S, Anderson Cooper with his vulgar teabagger comments, the Congressional Black Caucus, and left leaning political commentators. Typically, they were characterized as racists, rednecks, rubes, and others that cling to their guns and religion. We know who made the clinger statement. Disparagement and ridicule is the modus operandi of power seekers and those with few abilities or achievements. It works because they know that if someone challenges them the challenger will become the target of ridicule; it becomes psychological extortion.
If asked whether I agree with the statement that the paramount objective of Mueller’s investigation is to remove the President I would have to answer that I don’t know. I do know that current evidence would lead someone to believe that a criminal charge is the objective. I made the point several days ago that seeking an obstruction charge without having the ability to prove an underlying charge of conspiracy is prima facie evidence of not seeking justice but merely to obtain a conviction. This is especially believable given the coordinated efforts to find multiple avenues for removal from office.
But, for others it depends on who you talk to. For some, if not many, on the left and right, the answer is yes. For the hard left, they cannot believe that the uncouth, philandering skunk that they believe Trump is is competent to make good decisions and that he is a man whose personality is a danger to their way of life – some even go so far as saying he will cause a nuclear war and should be removed in favor of some more sane person – preferably a woman. Thus, he must be exposed and charged with any crime for which impeachment can take place. For the those on the right, they would say the Democrats are using the investigation, based on scant evidence, to delegitimize Trump to prevent him from being a successful leader. The latter is plausible to an objective observer. The former, has some merit based on comments but it is a leap too far to believe he would initiate mutually assured destruction.
Greenfield’s theme was that because Trump was an outsider and won that was in itself unacceptable to the rulers who live and work in and around the “Imperial City” Washington DC. His win was a threat to their way of life in the Imperial City so he must be neutered. The civil war he speaks of is that of the rulers favorite tactic of using tribalism to foment outrage against the newcomer. What I find amusing is that in one breath we talk about to value of diversity of people while simultaneously disparaging the newcomer to DC. The thrust of Greenfield’s speech is that the existing power structure wants to maintain a wall around DC to keep out anyone that threatens the existing order. He calls that the means to maintain the dictatorship.
His attack on the Left is based on his belief that they use “Positive Rights” to enamor themselves with the huddled masses. Positive Rights are those they confer upon the people as compared to Negative Rights which are inalienable rights that protect us from governmental intrusion. There is substantial number of Americans that rely heavily on the administrative state to advance their own well-being. This is neither a right nor left characteristic. It is a characteristic of those whose livelihoods rely on the administrative state and those who choose not to avail themselves of opportunities that abound in a free society. To them a truly free society is a significant threat to their way of life.
I do agree that using two elections to cement, as proof positive, there is a conspiracy to undermine all Republican presidents by the left is near impossible for me to accept. However, I do accept the idea that both sides attempt to diminish the person in the Oval Office through innuendo, scandal, investigations and other means to prevent the president from gaining traction that would threaten their chances of winning in upcoming elections.
If for a moment we can be honest with ourselves, we must admit that we usually fail to seek an understanding of a differing point of view; we rely on our default positions no matter how incongruous they may be to common sense. We often blind ourselves with our own self-righteousness so badly that we allow the ruling dictatorship to manipulate us into keeping them in power. Our elected leaders rely on our own intellectual dishonesty and bias to maintain control and power.