Fury and Hatred Unbound
Have you noticed how angry are many of the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates? Senator Elizabeth Warren often appears to literally quiver with fury as she speaks about the nation’s many evils. Senator Bernie Sanders gesticulates wildly while yelling about the need for Socialist policies. Beto O’Rourke seethes with hatred as he blames President Trump and his supporters for the El Paso mass shooting. And Senator Kamala Harris speaks (and laughs) with cold-blooded viciousness about Constitutional limitations on her power.
There has always been strong emotion associated with political candidates. They want to show that they care, and exaggerated emotional posturing is just par for the course. However, something is troublingly different this time around. In the past, candidates understood that, if they win, their success partially depends on earning consent from those who didn’t vote for them. For these and other Democratic candidates it appears that they consider citizens who don’t support their policies to be enemies. And, as enemies, they should expect to be purposefully, intentionally punished if these politicians obtain sufficient power.
In a past post I’ve commented on the root cause of this change, that being:
The ultimate root cause of this self-righteous madness is the abandonment of the Christian religion (which is based on transcendent revelation) in favor of a secular religion based on Progressive human ideology.
But that phrase, Progressive human ideology, although it’s a start, isn’t sufficient to convey my point. In particular, to just what specific ideology am I referring? After all, Progressivism has been a powerful political force in the United States for more than a century. And, isn’t all ideology human made, regardless of its particular details? Yes.
I am indeed pointing to a specific ideology whose ascendency in Progressive circles has made its adherents and leaders far less tolerant, far more aggressive and hateful and therefore far more dangerous. That ideology is neo-Marxism and is defined in the Urban Dictionary as follows.
Neo-marxism is an offshoot of marxism, in which it is believed that all societal ills come from the divide between the rich (who are claimed to be undeserving of their wealth) and the poor (who are claimed to be oppressed). Marxists believe that all personal failings are of a direct result of someone else oppressing you, and that another person cannot be successful without oppressing another.
Neo-marxism differs from marxism by abandoning the dichotomy of rich vs poor and instead adopt identity politics. Instead of the dichotomy being between wealthy and poor, it is between successful and unsuccessful demographics. Neo-marxists divide all demographics (white, black, asian, male, female, gay, straight, etc) and place them in a hierarchy of oppression as determined by how successful that demographic is. White and Asian men are at the bottom of this hierarchy, whereas blacks and females are near the top (although the exact order is not widely accepted).
If you seek even more specificity, the New York Times’ 1619 Project is a concrete example of neo-Marxism in action. Here’s how Andrew Sullivan explains this issue within context of the 1619 Project (emphasis added).
If you don’t believe in a liberal view of the world, if you hold the doctrines of critical race theory, and believe that “all of the systems in the country” whatever they may be, are defined by a belief in the sub-humanity of black Americans, why isn’t every issue covered that way? Baquet had no answer to this contradiction, except to say that the 1619 Project was a good start: “One reason we all signed off on the 1619 Project and made it so ambitious and expansive was to teach our readers to think a little bit more like that.” In other words, the objective was to get liberal readers to think a little bit more like neo-Marxists.
Don’t get me wrong. I think that view deserves to be heard. The idea that the core truth of human society is that it is composed of invisible systems of oppression based on race (sex, gender, etc.), and that liberal democracy is merely a mask to conceal this core truth, and that a liberal society must therefore be dismantled in order to secure racial/social justice is a legitimate worldview. (That view that “systems” determine human history and that the individual is a mere cog in those systems is what makes it neo-Marxist and anti-liberal.) But I sure don’t think it deserves to be incarnated as the only way to understand our collective history, let alone be presented as the authoritative truth, in a newspaper people rely on for some gesture toward objectivity.
Neo-Marxism is clearly derived from and organically connected to Marxism. And Marxism has been shown by history to be one of the most vicious, intolerant, idiotic and murderous human ideologies of all time. The one word that sums this all up is totalitarian. I’m not saying that these Democratic presidential candidates are Marxist totalitarians. However, if contemporary Progressives can quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (who was likely quoting Theodore Parker) that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” then I will say that “the arc of Marxist morality bends towards totalitarianism.”
I see this “bending” as the Democrats demand fundamental changes to our republic (e.g., removing the Electoral College and the Senate, revoking the First and Second Amendments from the Bill of Rights, etc.) without acknowledging the Constitutional means of so doing. For example:
Kamala Harris thinks the Constitution is a joke.
At least, that’s what you’d think from some of her answers at Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate. At the ABC event in Houston, moderators pressed the California Democrat on her promises to ban assault weapons via executive action, not legislation, and whether that would be really constitutional. Fellow candidate Joe Biden jumped in to challenge Harris on the constitutionality of her plans.
Yes, literally: Harris’s first response was to laugh away the question, and said “Hey Joe, yes we can,” making a joke using a play on words with an old slogan from the Obama campaign.
And it isn’t limited to Kamala Harris.
One of the more shocking aspects of last week’s Democratic debate was the cavalier manner in which the Constitution was treated. Beto O’Rourke said he intends to confiscate guns that were legally purchased by law-abiding Americans, and put out a t-shirt to that effect immediately after the debate. Kamala Harris said the same thing, and when Joe Biden pointed out that the government lacks power to do what she proposed, she laughed at him.
If these Democrats achieve sufficient political power no-one should be surprised if they seek to impose “fundamental change” by extra-Constitutional means. At that point I suspect that many citizens, members of law enforcement or military and elected officials will begin to concretely assess their responsibility (or explicit oath) to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”