Think We’re Sometimes Too Hard on the Left?

Sometimes we get outside confirmation that we’re publishing the right things, and that we’re not being too hard on the scoundrels, idiots, and power-mad corruptocrats of the American Left and the Democrat Party leadership.

First some background…

In this series (here, here and here) we asked, and answered in the affirmative, the question: “Have top Democrats actually gone mad?

In that series of think pieces, we pointed out that political parties and their fundamental beliefs and values are not fixed things. They’re always moving and, more importantly, moving in a direction. If they’re headed in a direction toward an extreme, and if they don’t arrest their trajectory in that direction, then, of course, they end up at the extreme.

None of this should be particularly controversial. But it can be. One of our followers  — a certain Doug — for whom I have a good deal of affection and respect sometimes calls us out for what he views as our excessive vitriol.

However, we’re not the only ones to point these things out. Later in the same day on which we posted out series, the great Kevin D. Williamson of National Review also said pretty much the same thing (here – possible paywall), and he said it in his inimitable, rapier-sharp, Wiliamson style.

Williamson, who is one of the very best at giving credit where credit is due, even to implacable enemies of his point of view, was not in a charitable mood toward prominent leftists, and pulled no punches in his wonderful essay.

He might have been even harsher than we were. He referred us (here) to the time when Walter Duranty, the Moscow Bureau Chief for the New York Times all the way back in the 1930’s, was little more than a Soviet stooge, filling the “newspaper of record” with dispatches from Moscow that were little more than mash notes to Josif Stalin, the most prolific mass murderer (per capita) in human history.

Williamson’s essay reminds us that the American Left, and its political wing the American Democrat Party, have been afflicted with some level of madness for a very long time. However, not all the American Left. There was a time when the labor unions were not entirely dominated by far-left or Marxist wackos.

There was once a solidly anti-communist wing of the Democrat Party. That was the John F. Kennedy/Henry (Scoop) Jackson branch. However, those once pro-American Democrats have long been purged from the party, and they became what we refer to today as Reagan Republicans.

These former Democrats were older, and the new ascendant left wing party leaders recruited young, idealistic, but mostly empty-headed, mostly kids to replace the rapidly disappearing pro-American Dems. These new recruits proved delightfully malleable, and the party leadership indoctrinated them easily, keeping them in line with new fascistic tools like political correctness.

Williamson excoriates today’s Democrats, and in a pithy passage, says this:

But [Bernie] Sanders is not the only useful idiot among contemporary Democrats. There are those who have been remarkably solicitous of every left-wing dictator on the world scene from Fidel Castro to Hugo Chávez (and their legatees), who confess the creed of socialism, who believe that American power is the ailment from which the world suffers: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the dingbat Trotsky of Yorktown Heights; Ilhan Omar, the Jew-hating weirdo from Minneapolis; Rashida Tlaib, the Jew-hating weirdo from Detroit; the Jew-hating weirdo from Brooklyn [Editor’s Note: Bernie Sanders]; the millions of Democrats who support them . . . etc. [Red highlight added]

Well… “useful idiot,” “dingbat Trotsky,” Jew-hating weirdo.

Kevin D. Williamson is one of the most incisive, intelligent, sensible, trenchant… brilliant commentators on the American scene today. He’s also one of the finest pure writers extant. If he wants to rip you a new one, then you will be well and truly aware that a new one has been ripped for you.

I guess we don’t have to worry so much about being a little rough on the Left.

— xPraetorius


2 thoughts on “Think We’re Sometimes Too Hard on the Left?

  1. Some of the replies I make in here apparently don’t get past moderator vetting… given your respect and admiration. But that’s neither here nor there.
    But if you look at your list of posts a large percentage is devoted to name-calling, derogatory diatribes of Dems and Liberals who represent a large percentage of fellow American voters. Now, I am neither affiliation, but seems to me for as artificially sensitive as Conservatives were with Hillary’s “deplorables” remark… Conservatives are no better.

    1. Hi, Doug! I’m not sure what’s happening as it pertains to moderation. I had an occasional commenter who couldn’t control his really unrefined vocabulary. So, all I do is filter certain words, and those words are all completely predictable. If your replies are falling into moderation, and you’re not using any of those words, your posts shouldn’t go into moderation.

      Also, on a more immediate level, our editor informs me that he’s not encountering posts requiring moderation. So, apparently the posts to which you’re referring aren’t even making it to our editor’s desk for him to pass them on through. So, I think something else is going on. Are you sure you’re not missing a step in posting your posts?

      Now, thank you for your thoughtful post and for your two very important points. They express a completely valid concern, but I believe they’re wrong, and here’s why:

      You said:
      But if you look at your list of posts a large percentage is devoted to name-calling, derogatory diatribes of Dems and Liberals who represent a large percentage of fellow American voters.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
      My Reply:
      You are correct in a couple of things here: We do name-calling. And we do essays that contain derogatory diatribes against Democrats and Liberals. You got a very important thing wrong, though, and you missed an important point. What you got wrong was that we make it very clear that we’re referring to the leadership of the American Left and of its political wing, the American Democrat Party. We do not engage in name-calling that targets the larger mass of the millions who vote Democrat.

      We call the leadership of the American Left scoundrels, corrupt, dirtbags, bad, evil, racist, lousy, rotten people because they’re scoundrels, corrupt, dirtbags, bad, evil, racist, lousy, rotten people. It ain’t name-calling if it’s true. If you were to call me tall, it wouldn’t be name-calling, because I’m very tall. If you were to call me a… oh, I don’t know, a rapist, or a mugger, or a murderer, or a child molester, that would be name-calling, because I’ve never raped, mugged, murdered or molested anyone.

      For generations the Left has characterized us as racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and all the rest. They’ve also frequently called us: Nazis, fascists, as well as the entire vocabulary of the international left: imperialists, war mongers, capitalist pigs, greedy pigs, bourgeois pigs, and all the rest. Surely you’re aware of all that. Even if you were the the most moderate, squishy Republican, you heard it directed at you. Personally, I heard it directed at me hundreds of times. We all heard it if we were open about our views, and we never fired back, because we were always careful to be “above it all.” We wanted to “stay out of the gutter”. We wanted to “be better than that.”

      And all that is just fine… if you’re playing baseball or something, where the other person is expected to play by a set of pretty well-known rules. Everyone knows, though, the American Left will not play by any generally accepted rules of decorum in political discourse. Therefore, my conclusion is that there are no rules of decorum in political discourse. And it certainly makes no sense to engage in rules-free political discourse… unarmed.

      The old metaphor was “bringing a knife to a gun fight,” which is how we Conservatives have always seemed to proceed. That is an inaccurate image. We Conservatives always went completely unarmed to the “gunfight,” at which the Left’s principal weapons were insult, invective, derision and character assassination. They never brought, you know, substance, or logic, or reasoning to these gunfights/debates. And when the dust had settled, the narrative that the press reported was about how the lefty side had characterized the unarmed righty side as “racists, sexists,” etc. After generations of this, the narrative had settled into place.

      Now, we’re — finally, at long last — pushing back. This is, in my opinion, a very good thing.

      To repeat what you got wrong: our posts do not target the mass of those American people who vote for and support the Left, mostly because those people are generally ignorant of the history and agenda of the Left. Through no fault of their own. Why? Well: The media — overwhelmingly leftist — do their level best to be sure to swamp the people with leftist and left-leaning messages. That will inevitably result in the indoctrination of a certain percentage of the people. It happened to me, and I can see how it can happen to anyone.

      People make their own trajectory through to the goal of political and civic maturity, and that trajectory often has to pass through some appalling places in which a person has some ideas that turn out later in life to be embarrassingly stupid. As a youth, for example, I think the best description of me would have been: “Christian-Trotskyist.” As you can imagine, I was confused, and it made sense that I would be. I was young, callow, ill-informed, intellectually dynamic, and eager to make an Important Mark on the world. Most importantly, I was an avid consumer of what we call today, the “Mainstream Media.” (Here’s a post of ours that lays this out in greater depth: link.)
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
      You said:
      Now, I am neither affiliation, but seems to me for as artificially sensitive as Conservatives were with Hillary’s “deplorables” remark… Conservatives are no better.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
      My Reply:
      Here’s where you missed the mark: Hillary knew full well that she was lying when she made her slander. She made a calculated effort to slander millions and millions and millions of plain old, ordinary, hard-working — innocent — Americans. So, Hillary made a conscious effort to assassinate the character of tens of millions of people. How is that not offensive? How is that not absolutely outrageous? Answer: it is offensive, and it is absolutely outrageous. And it’s exactly counter to what I said above: it targets the vast masses of the voters, and not the one about whom she really wanted to speak: her political opponent, Donald Trump. There’s no “artificial” about the sensitivity toward what was an absolutely outrageous remark, and thank goodness someone on the Left finally paid a price for doing something dastardly and outrageous! It’s important to note why Hillary did it. One of those reasons was: She had perfect confidence that she’d get away with it. And she almost did. The media certainly provided cover for her… until they couldn’t any longer. However, Hillary thought she could get away with it, because the Left had been getting away with the very same kind of thing, for… generations.

      Don’t get me wrong, the substance of your remark is correct. Probably three of the millions upon millions of people whom Hillary’s remark targeted actually took personally Hillary’s slander. Like calling me a murderer or the like, they all knew they were not racists, sexists, homophobes, islamophobes, xenophobes… They knew that they belonged in no way in any “basket of deplorables.” However, if you realize that someone is actually trying to assassinate your character,and if you’re offended by that, your sensitivity is not at all “artificial.”

      Please keep in mind, that this is the kind of insult and demeaning invective that the Left has aimed at Conservatives for… generations. What absolutely was artificial was the pretense that we thought it was okay to do nothing but take verbal punches for our socio-political views — without responding in some way — for so long. It’s way, way, way past time that we on the Right consigned to the dustbin that milquetoasty role that we’d long played. You should thank your lucky stars (really: thank God) that we are — finally — pushing back. If we’re successful in pushing back on the grotesqueries of the Left, that will mean vastly more opportunities for you, and for people like you, to express yourself.

      One last remark: Were the allies “no better” than the Nazis when they firebombed Dresden? Were Americans “no better” than the Japanese when American bombers dropped the atomic bombs? Are you wrong if someone comes at you with a butter knife, and you shoot him with a gun?

      The answer to those questions is both simple and complex. The simple part: If you’re convinced that in firebombing Dresden or in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that you’re saving more lives than you’re taking, then you can make the case for the bombings. If the guy coming at you with the butter knife is a 7’2″ muscle-bound goon with serious hostility toward you, you can make a persuasive case for shooting him. If, however, the person coming at you with the butter knife is a 2-year old, then of course you can’t shoot him!

      Context does matter. My question can be made with greater abstraction — and complexity: If someone injures you or offends you with something that inflicts a damage level of 2, are you justified in responding with something that inflicts damage of 10 on the person? Again, the context is important. If it’s war, then… likely yes. To lose a war is absolutely devastating for a country. Probably best not to risk it.

      If, however, it’s a one-off argument, then likely it’s not okay to whack the guy with a 10. If, however, people, have been abusing you with 5’s, 6’s, 7’s and 10’s (Ex.: “You’re a Nazi!” — a “10”) — for years — then it’s just fine, in my humble opinion, to start whacking them back with rhetorical 10’s.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s