By David Harsanyi
Tuesday, March 08, 2016
On Sunday, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Bernie Sanders
whether he was intentionally downplaying his Jewish heritage. The socialist
candidate, demonstrating just how much he cherishes faith, immediately
politicized the topic:
Look, my father’s family was wiped
out by Hitler in the Holocaust. I know about what crazy and radical and
extremist politics mean. I learned that lesson as a tiny, tiny child when my
mother would take me shopping, and we would see people working in stores who
had numbers on their arms because they were in Hitler’s concentration camps.
Like Bernie, I grew up in a family with Holocaust
victims. And since we’re on the subject, some of them were also survivors of
oppressive collectivist economies.
Sanders, who honeymooned in the worker’s paradise of Yaroslavl in the
1980s, may have more personal insight into this misery than I. But if we’re going to panic about looming
despotism, it’s only fair to point out that Sanders has much in common with
Stalin as Donald Trump—who is less popular among Republicans than Bernie is
among Democrats—has with Adolph Hitler. His class warfare and anti-capitalist
rhetoric is often indistinguishable from conventional Marxist hokum.
At this point, Hillary “Let’s topple the wealthy”
Clinton’s watery progressivism isn’t far behind.
Does Jewish heritage make a person more cognizant of such
crazy, radical, and extremist politics? Perhaps. Certainly, anti-Semitism—and
Marx was a heavyweight—is often a precursor of authoritarianism. Yet not once
have I heard or read Sanders push back against the rising of anti-Semitism
within the progressive movement—which is flourishing, not on the Twitter
fringe, but in the heart of American college campuses. For that matter, neither
has “progressive” Clinton, who was part
of an administration that coddled the BDS movement and helped create a nuclear
Iran.
Both of these Democrats traveled to Harlem to have a sit
down with anti-Semitic mob-inciter (and Trump pal) Al Sharpton. To me, and I
suspect many others, he’s no better than David Duke.
So Bill Maher, Louis C.K., or “Saturday Night Live” can
all equate today’s political environment to the German 1930s—an ridiculous
overstatement—because they’re comedians using rhetorical excesses. (Oh, how
brave they are, right?) But if Trump’s rise deserves this kind of sort of
ominous warning, others do as well.
At Vox the other day, Amanda Taub took an entire chilling
deep dive into the rise of “authoritarianism” without once mentioning the
socialist Left. Yet, using the benchmarks of authoritarianism—strong
centralized power and limited political freedoms—we can just as easily describe
the modern Democratic Party’s agenda as we can Trumpism. Almost every policy
position of the contemporary Left relies on some form of state coercion, mostly
through Washington. It’s only relativism that blinds people to this fact.
After offering its distorted view of conservatism, for
example, the Vox piece contends: “Democrats, by contrast, have positioned
themselves as the party of civil rights, equality, and social progress …”
Social progress? Guess what? Authoritarians can be
legitimately concerned about the condition of people. They can worry about
income equality and “social progress” (ask Woodrow Wilson or FDR) and they can
be popular with the citizenry (ask Mussolini and Putin.) In the book “Mussolini
and Fascism: The View from America,” for instance, John Patrick Diggins writes
(emphasis mine):
In general, and with some variation
in emphasis, both the Republican and Democratic administrations accepted these
assumptions: that Mussolini was generating economic and social progress; that
although a dictator he enjoyed the overwhelming support of the people.
Democrats refuse to accept that this is not only a debate
about what “progress” looks like (which is often subjective) but whether how
you achieve “progress” matters. This is why progressives aren’t offended when
the state forces the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy birth control or a
virtual mob descends on a pizza shop that fails to adhere to the Left’s moral
directives or a president demands “economic patriotism” from citizens. These
events please liberals in much the same way Trump’s agenda will please others.
We would never have to worry about a fascist presidency
if we hadn’t degraded the process. So,
needless to say, I had to blink heavily when reading a Christopher Hayes tweet
that said:
In all seriousness, functioning
democracies rely more on norms than laws and those norms are being degraded
with terrifying abandon.
Liberals have spent years decimating norms of discourse.
Pushing through a generational reform bill without half the country
participating degrades the norms of democracy. When they lost Congress over
this abuse, not only did they accuse Republicans of standing against the
American people (even though the GOP kept expanding its majority) but said
their position comprised nothing more than racism. Conservatives were no longer
political opposition, they’re people who hate decency, democracy, the poor, the
black, the infirm, America, and the system. As this thinking coagulated on the
mainstream Left, Democrats had the moral justification to do what they liked.
Nearly the entire Obama presidency has been an exercise
in figuring out ways to work around checks and balances. Unilaterally changing
the status of millions of illegal immigrants because you can’t achieve your
political goals may strike you as morally sound, but it oversteps any
conception of executive power found in the Constitution. If you’re a fan of
that executive action, you aren’t nervous about authoritarianism, you’re
worried about how Trump would use it.
If you support a candidate like Hillary, who pushed the
administration to get involved in the Libyan war without congressional
approval, you’ll have little moral standing to be upset when Trump bombs people
to “take their oil.” If you believe Obama has the right to assassinate
suspected terrorists abroad without a trial, you have less authority to be
upset when Trump threatens those associated with terrorists.
If you’re nervous about Trump’s plans to “open up” U.S.
libel laws to punish journalists who unfairly attack him, I definitely join
you. Unlike
some people, I’ve never supported Fairness Doctrines. It’s unlikely this
effort could get past the Supreme Court. Then again, consider how the First
Amendment has being degraded—at every campaign stop and every speech, in
fact—by Democrats who promise to undo a Supreme Court decision that bars
government from dictating what people can hear, see, and read during elections.
Democrats would be a lot more believable on Trump’s rise
if they hadn’t succumbed to the cult of personality in 2008.
Overturning Citizens
United would allow the state in certain instances to control political
books and movies—like the one that was critical of Hillary. Democrats believe Americans can be bought off
with an ad buy and some flyers. The progressive Left, once home of free-speech
absolutism, is now home to safe spaces, microaggressions, IRS oversight of
speech, and Justice Councils ferreting out thought crimes.
Democrats would be a lot more believable on Trump’s rise
if they hadn’t succumbed to the cult of personality in 2008, which was no less
creepy. The attacks on dissent, the chilling of speech (remember the White
House’s efforts to collect “fishy” comments from dissenters; one could easily
imagine Trump setting up the same thing of system), and the accusation of
unpatriotic behavior were all unhealthy for a free society. Yes, Americans are
increasingly willing to accept extraconstitutional government if it
accomplishes the things they desire. That includes Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment