Back in the 1970s, our teachers made us memorize the Preamble to the US Constitution in high school: “We the People of the United States, to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Note the bits about “ensuring domestic tranquility” and “providing for the common defense.” The Constitution and numerous federal laws require the federal government to not only defend the country from foreign invasion, which also means protecting the borders, but also to suppress internal disorder, insurrection, and rebellion. (See Quelling the Rebellion; Our Constitution and the Federal Authority to Quash Rebellion; Concerning the Powers of The US Constitution—And Those Defying Them; The New Confederates and the Return of States’ Rights; On the Road to Civil War: The Democratic Party’s Regression into Neoconfederacy; Posse Comitatus and the Ghosts of Redemption.)
When George Washington sent troops to Eastern Pennsylvania to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion, he was called a king and a tyrant. Would progressives (if there were then such a thing) have called him those things? When Abe Lincoln ordered troops to kill Southerners in the Civil War, he was called a king and a tyrant. Would progressives agree? Ulysses Grant sent troops to address racial violence in the South and confront the Ku Klux Klan. Surely progressives wouldn’t oppose that. Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into Little Rock to force racial integration. John Kennedy sent troops to Alabama and Mississippi for the same reason. Were Eisenhower and Kennedy fascists?
Democrats have manufactured a subjectivity, reinforced by progressive hegemony over academia, the culture, industry, and mass media, in which the President is represented as an authoritarian. It’s a ruse: posit the President is a fascist; rebel against civil authority; when he does what past presidents did, claim he proved his fascism; then use the proof to deepen the resistance.
Democrats dwell on January 6, 2021. It was an insurrection, they say—the worst calamity since Pearl Harbor. It wasn’t nearly as bad as the Summer of 2020, truth be known. Untoward things were going on at the Capitol, but some patriots did get caught up in the moment that day. However, the difference between January 6 and the continuous left-wing rebellion is that the January 6 crowd acted to save their beloved country. The left-wing rebels, in contrast, have something more radical in mind: the destruction of a loathsome nation. To be sure, both sides want power. But what do the neoconfederates want power for? The same thing the Confederates did before them. We stopped the Confederates with violence. How, with the fascist trap set, can we stop the neoconfederates?
* * *
When it’s their president, progressives want a decisive and uncompromising leader. They don’t want a president who’s going to cave to the Republicans. They want a bold leader who’s going to pursue their agenda. Republicans will put up opposition, and they may call the other side’s man names, but since the dominant sense-making institutions are all biased towards progressivism, this doesn’t delegitimize a Democrat president. We all know that their man isn’t really Stalin. It would sound silly to call him that. We know that the Democratic Party is not really pushing socialism, even if the Democratic Socialists of America say they are (more on that in a moment).
But when a populist Republican occupies the White House and doesn’t assume the role of controlled opposition, he becomes Hitler. A liberal businessman from Queens (with a gay Treasury secretary), Trump is a stubborn man elected to pursue an agenda on behalf of the American people. He’s the type of president Democrats wish they had. But Trump is from the wrong side of the aisle. So, rather than accept that they lost the election like Republicans do when they lose, Democrats burn down the house.
Americans loved Trump when they watched him on The Apprentice because they saw a decisive leader. He was asked all the time by progressive talking heads, “When are you gonna run for president?” But the second he decided to do that, the progressives lost their composure. When they lost the election, they lost their minds.
Losing elections is normal in a democracy. Indeed, it’s a sign of democracy. The losers go back to their huts and think about how they’re going do a better job of messaging and try to win the next election. But progressives don’t work from the premise of democracy. When they lose, they don’t do what a respectable political party does; instead, they attempt to delegitimize the government and toss its elected leader.
The chaos of the last decade is due not merely to Trump, but to progressive resistance to democracy itself. Trump’s not doing anything out of the ordinary. He’s enforcing the law and representing the will of the people. The voters wanted a president who would reconfigure the world trade system. They wanted him to close the borders and deport illegal aliens. They wanted a man who would protect women’s opportunities and safe spaces.
All these facts point to a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. At least today’s Democrats. Democrats today are remarkably authoritarian. They not only want to win elections by any means necessary; they want to prevent the opposition from having any say about what happens to their democracy. They can’t accept the democratic way because they abhor it. It gets in their way. They have already promised to impeach Trump if they regain the House.
In this sense, the Democrats’ smears of fascism and Hitler represent a projection of their authoritarian tendencies and the desire to have their own charismatic leader, one who will impose his will on the American people. They see in Trump their wish. Only he’s working from the wrong side. This is why Democrats don’t want election integrity. They seek a one-party state.
Ex-Marxist David Horowitz once said that, for the left, the issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution. According to Horowitz, activists on the left don’t care about the specific issue they claim to champion on any given day. The slogans are interchangeable. Anti-ICE resistance is a moment to cause chaos to confirm that a duly-elected president is an authoritarian and expand the struggle. Whatever the issue—Black Lives Matter, No Kings—these are means to an end: the destruction of national sovereignty and the overthrow of the American System.
But it would be a mistake to believe that the communists on the street are really behind this moment. They’re useful idiots for something entirely different. The mob desires revolution, to be sure, but the destination is handed down from on high. The plan is to replace national economies with a transnational corporate state.
It is naïve to believe that the elites organizing the resistance would trust the rabble to run world government. They know, like I know (you know it, too), that the mob is not up to the task of governance. But mobs can do the dirty work, and their task is to destabilize the West to open the way to the New World Order, where useful idiots become the marginal figures they were destined to be.
CNN is reporting new polling that shows that fewer than one in ten Democrats identify themselves as conservative, which, in accurate political science language, means classically liberal. CNN polling from last year shows that one-third of Democrats now identify as socialist. Among those 35 years and younger, four in ten identify as socialist. That number must be enormous now. The CNN polls vastly underestimate the degree to which the Democratic Party has become a socialist party. Richard Baris’ polling finds that nearly two-thirds of Democrats identify as socialist. He finds that the Democratic Party has, over the last several years, been on a glide path to authoritarianism. Socialism is antithetical to the American way.
But what kind of socialism? The “democratic socialist” brand is just that: an Orwellian deception deployed to disguise the actual socialism Democrats advocate. Democrats advocate the French version of socialism first delineated by Henri de Saint-Simon in the eighteenth century. Saint-Simon’s vision of socialism was world technocracy, a system in which administrators, experts, industrialists, and (industry-aligned) scientists run society. There’s another word for that: transnational corporate statism.
Those on the right who are quoting Horowitz today have it only half right. (Steve Bannon, do you have your ears on?) The issue is never the issue—that part is right. But the revolution is not communist in essence. Nor is it in form. It is the very thing progressives project onto Trump: a new and improved fascism.
The expectation is that Democrats will regain the House of Representatives. If that happens, America is in trouble. Those conservative Democrats are in the wrong political party. The Republican Party is the home of classical liberalism. It’s time for that eight percent to come home.
freedom and reason 