“This is the political weaponization of the DOJ. Trump uses his official authority to defend his benefactor Elon Musk. The FBI then creates a task force to use our law enforcement to ‘crack down’ on adversaries of Musk’s. Where are the Republicans so opposed to ‘lawfare’?”
—Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), mounting his challenge to be the most irresponsible and dishonest hack in Congress.
Just when I think I’ve figured out who the most disgracefully unethical member of Congress is after the merciful departures of George Santos, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, another contender says “Hold my beer!”
I thought the current run-away champ was shaping up to be potty-mouthed, jive-talking Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who padded her lead yesterday during the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency hearing titled “Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the heads of NPR and PBS Accountable. ” Demonstrating once again that she either doesn’t understand the Constitution or wants to make sure the public doesn’t understand it, she said in one of her characteristic rants, “To be clear, free speech is not about whatever it is that y’all want somebody to say, and the idea that you want to shut down everybody that is not Fox News is bullshit. We need to stop playing, because that’s what you all are doing here, you don’t want to hear the opinions of anybody else,” Crockett said.
I don’t understand why someone, maybe even a Democrat with some self-respect and integrity, didn’t have the sense or guts to point out to this demagogue that the First Amendment doesn’t require the government to subsidize political speech, only to avoid restricting it. PBS and NPR will be free to be as biased, partisan and dishonest as they please, but someone other than taxpayers should pay for it. Goldman’s idiocy, however, was even more flagrant. Let me turn the metaphorical mic over to Professor Turley, who already has neatly described what Goldman is doing:
Goldman’s latest controversy captures how Democrats have now entirely cut the cords of decency and moderation that once tethered their party to the mainstream of our society. Democratic leaders have been fueling the attacks on Musk and his companies, even putting national security interests aside to seek to punish him…However, Goldman’s criticism of the FBI task force on these widespread attacks is otherworldly.
…There are have widespread attacks on Tesla charging stations, vehicles, and dealerships, including multiple arson attacks. It is clearly political violence orchestrated against an American company and American property owners, including individual citizens, to push consumers away from buying Musk products and associations. That sounds a lot like the definition of terrorism…It is political violence designed to intimidate and harm those with opposing political views…There is a sense of license among some on the left in carrying out attacks on those on the right. This is how rage rhetoric of leaders like Goldman can fuel violent rage in the most unhinged elements of their party…Once released by the rage from the confines of reason and civility, it is easy to dismiss the investigation of political violence as ‘political weaponization.’ In attacking the FBI investigation, Goldman is the very voice of an age of rage.”
Once again, I find myself marveling that Americans who support the party that is increasingly dominated by hypocrites and anti-democratic figures like Goldman can look at themselves in the mirror without gagging.
Ethics Alarms 
Based on the people on the left that I know, this tracks with the way they think. There is an entire generation of young progressives that basically want to dismantle everything and restart based on a more European style society. They see everything as so illegitimate that they are willing to endorse violence.
I really don’t know how to fix the Democratic party right now. A society needs a strong conservative and liberal party, but both parties need to be principled and act with decorum and decency. A large part of the left wants to experiment on children, and they don’t care about women’s rights if a transgender person is involved.
There’s a deep, driving force that I believe is based on overvaluing compassion above all us. If any marginalized group claims that they are suffering (such as even having to hear something you don’t like), then the left tends to pounce. Don’t hurt those who are already down, or something like that. I get the impulse because I was once on the left. I didn’t advocate for violence or speech controls though.
The left tends to have more anxiety disorders, and some anxiety is caused by people trying to control their environment to the point that they can’t accept the reality that we cannot control the inner workings of another person’s mind. Where this comes in with politics (at least based on my conjecture) is that this anxiety is fueling a need to control and thereby reduce the “threats” in the environment that the left feels. These people have not accepted that sometimes you just have to move on and live your life rather than trying to craft everything according to your own emotional preferences.
If these people would accept that trying to control the world isn’t the path to happiness, I think our political disagreements would be more fruitful.
“The left tends to have more anxiety disorders”
Complete non-sequitur, but I’ve always been fascinated by this. It’s true: People who self-identify as being left of center on the political spectrum also tend to disproportionately report all varieties of mental illness. And when I say disproportionately, I mean disproportionately… The numbers change based on the type of mental illness and the methodology, but they all point the same way: The more extreme to the left you are, the worse your mental health is, and the further to the right you go, those issues are less reported. My impression is that mental illness rates of extreme progressives tracks at about 150% of average.
Thing is, everyone seems to have an opinion on why that is.
The low hanging fruit would be if there was a reporting problem; If people right of center were more loathe to report mental illness because of social stigma, that might account for some this. The problem with that argument is that the single largest classification of mental illness is depression, and if you look at happiness studies, they tend to find the same correlations. As an example: Both the mental health disparity and happiness disparity is strongest among young women in low income brackets. All that leads me to believe that while there might be some amount of reporting bias, the reality is probably that conservatives are generally happier people, that probably has positive mental health outcomes, and following that, I think the disparity is real.
Once you arrive there, the question becomes: 1) Does holding progressive values degrade your mental wellness? Or 2) are mentally unwell people more drawn towards progressivism?
I think the answer is probably “both”.
So uh…. Be conservative. It’s good for your health.
Comment of the Day, and very thought provoking. It certainly is in evidence now> I follow the nation’s controversies and leadership cloely; I care about it; I am, I think, a fairly sophisticated observer. But I have never let politics or national developments put me in a state of constant anger and anxiety. Never. That itself is neurotic behavior and right now, with so many people I know obsessing and acting like they are in the midst of “War of the Worlds” or something: that mindset is driving them crazy, or they had to be crazy to start thinking like that. I’ve never seen anything like it…maybe the height of Vietnam war fanaticism in the late Sixties came close.
I think it’s even weirder than you make it out to be, Jack.
It’s not just that they let those things bother them. The stereotypical leftist not only is angered, depressed, etc., over things they have no control over, but they are proud of it. I mean, that’s where the term “woke” arose from. My SILs will one-up each other with how much they are suffering due to how much they care about global warming, the wars in Israel and Ukraine, etc, like it’s a badge of honor that proves they are good people.
For this reason, in the debate about the chicken or the egg (i.e., are they progressive because they have mental illnesses or do they have mental illness because they’re progressive), I would venture to guess they choose progressive ideals because they are ill. If you’re miserable already, at least you can try to cheer yourself up by imagining slacktivism speaks well of your character.
One could argue it is a religious belief. The Left has largely abandoned religious practice, unless they can pander in the name of diversity and inclusion (or attack their opponents as racists, anti-semites or Islamophobes).
They themselves have to fill their lives with meaning somehow. The black and white worldview of progressivism fits right into that God-shaped hole in their psyches that they’ve left abandoned. Their misery is their reason for living.
Maybe we need a “Unified Theory of Leftism”.
Could it truly be a mental issue? Is the root of leftist behavior an abnormal craving for attention? That would mesh with the fact that actors (sorry, Jack), entertainers, (and “journalists”?) etc. are disproportionally in that camp. As you noted, they also seem to lust for victimhood. Perhaps their supposed “care” and sympathy for others is merely victimhood by proxy. If they can’t be the victims, they’ll attach themselves to some and signal their virtue…more attention grabbing.
We know from studies that besides their increased propensity to suffer mental health issues, as you noted, they are more likely than conservatives to “unfriend” acquaintances and cut off family members with whom they disagree. That doesn’t comport with proclaiming that they are caring and sympathetic people, unless you assume the object of their care and sympathy is mainly themselves.
addendum: We often see comments from the left questioning why conservatives seem to sometimes vote against their own self-interests. Does it not occur to them that sometimes people want to do what’s right, not just what most benefits themselves?
And for a people who think that conservatives want to dictate to other people, I find it ironic that progressives think that they themselves know what is in my best interests.
“Maybe we need a Unified Theory of Leftism’.”
Dr. Lyle Rossiter Jr.’s THE LIBERAL MIND: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness appears to hit some of the…um…high points:
“The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda:
*recommends denial of personal responsibility,
*encourages self-pity and other-pity,
*fosters government dependency,
*promotes sexual indulgence,
*rationalizes violence,
*excuses financial obligation,
*justifies theft,
*ignores rudeness,
*prescribes complaining and blaming,
*denigrates marriage and the family,
*legalizes all abortion,
*defies religious and social tradition,
*declares inequality unjust, and
*rebels against the duties of citizenship.
“Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions.
“Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda’s madness.
“Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends.”
PWS
(another non-sequitur)
“A large part of the left wants to experiment on children, and they don’t care about women’s rights if a transgender person is involved.”
I’ve been thinking about this of late; about where and when the left jumped the shark. I do believe it’s when they went after women and children. But not after making sure men were emasculated and delegitimized. Because once men are out of the way, who’s to stop them?
Further, I’ve been thinking about men in women’s spaces. It would be interesting if there were stats on this but I’d be willing to bet that there are far, far more men willing to do, and say, and pretend to be, anything to gain access to women – in confined spaces no less – than there are transgender women. And why is it incumbent upon me to figure out who’s who from my stall in the ladies room lest I hurt the feelings of 0.6% of the population?
“lest I hurt the feelings of 0.6% of the population?”
IMO, that’s a VERY generous estimate.
PWS
Could be. I went with Professor Google.
That entire thread is a post in itself. The EA Commentariat strikes again.
Seems to me the Democrats are trying hard now to out-Trump Trump.
My experience is, this way lies madness. And that’s exactly what I think I am seeing…