I contend that the behavior of the Obama ex-officials and the current Democrat leadership is bloody-minded because they all have shown shameless willingness to tear this nation apart. Their monomaniacal drive to overturn the 2016 Presidential election by extra-Constitutional/democratic means has set into motion a cold civil war with the potential to become hot. Had they rather focused their energies on building support for a winning 2020 Presidential election our nation would not now be in a state of polarized hatred.
There are likely hidden agendas behind this abhorrent behavior that may come to light when the Justice Department Inspector General’s report and results of the Barr/Durham investigation become public.
I refer, of course, to the imminent exposure — at least we hope it is coming — of the predicates of the Russia probe, easily the most despicable and seditious attempt to unseat a president in American history. This attempt to impeach or, at that point, to interdict began on or not long after June 16, 2015, the day Donald Trump announced his candidacy.
What is happening now is merely a continuation of a process that started then.
Until then we are left to speculate on more philosophical aspects of their motivations. In what follows I will discuss two end-points that likely encompass the reality behind this behavior, one being the more benign and the other the more sinister.
A More Benign Explanation
A more benign explanation can be found in the Quillette article titled “From Homophobia to Anti-Bigotry: How Did Christians Become the New Pariahs?” by Douglas Murray. This excerpted passage is generalizable to the issue at hand.
Do you allow arguments that worked for you to work for others? Are reciprocity and tolerance principles or fig-leaves?
And that would be to trample all over one of the bases of political tolerance. It would be to award yourself the right not just to come to your own conclusions about people, but to attribute motives to others that you cannot see but which you suspect. Which leads to a question that everybody in genuinely diverse and pluralistic societies must at some point ask: “Do we take other people at face value, or do we try to read behind their words and actions, claim to see into their hearts and there divine the true motives which their speech and actions have not yet revealed?”
This could be a compelling explanation for the bizarre fantasy-behaviors that have been previously discussed. In particular, it could be that these ex-officials and current politicians actually believe that they can “see” behind events and statements by President Trump, his administration and his supporters to their “real” motives. In this case when they accuse the President of “treason” that can’t be found by the Mueller investigative team or “demands for dirt” that aren’t in the actual transcript, they are saying with Joe Biden that “We choose truth over facts.”
A More Sinister Explanation
A more sinister explanation can be found in The New Criterion article titled “Leninthink” by Gary Saul Morson. In this case these ex-officials and current politicians are acting from within the anti-morality of the (perhaps neo) Marxist ideology, which is directly related to its most influential practitioner, Vladimir Lenin. The following excerpts describe both the Leninist moral framework and the author’s contention that this mindset is at work in contemporary politics.
Lenin regarded all interactions as zero-sum. To use the phrase he made famous, the fundamental question is always “Who Whom?”—who dominates whom, who does what to whom, ultimately who annihilates whom. To the extent that we gain, you lose. …
Basic books on negotiation teach that you can often do better than split the difference, since people have different concerns. Both sides can come out ahead—but not for the Soviets, whose negotiating stance John F. Kennedy once paraphrased as: what’s mine is mine; and what’s yours is negotiable. For us, the word “politics” means a process of give and take, but for Lenin it’s we take, and you give. From this it follows that one must take maximum advantage of one’s position. If the enemy is weak enough to be destroyed, and one stops simply at one’s initial demands, one is objectively helping the enemy, which makes one a traitor.
When I detect Leninist ways of thinking today, people respond: surely you don’t think all those social justice warriors are Leninists! Of course not. The whole point of Leninism is that only a few people must understand what is going on. That was the key insight of his tract What Is to Be Done? When Leninism is significant, there will always be a spectrum going from those who really understand, to those who just practice the appropriate responses, to those who are entirely innocent. The real questions are: Is there such a spectrum now, and how do we locate people on it? And if there is such a spectrum, what do we do about it?
Although all of these bloody-minded players are clearly card-carrying Progressives, the extent (if any) of their adherence to (neo) Marxism can only be speculated upon. Except, that is, for John Brennan, who by his own admission voted for the Communist Presidential candidate in 1976. This was at the height of the Cold War when the Communist U.S.S.R. was credibly threatening to destroy Western Civilization! We also must admit that the Democrat Party is currently dominated by those calling themselves Democratic Socialists, but whose proposals have a familiar totalitarian ring.
To believe that these high ex-Obama Administration officials and current high Democrat politicians are simply insane as described by the more benign explanation is incredible. No, regardless of if they are operating under explicit (neo) Marxism or not, their behavior is clearly within the Leninthink model. That is, they are pursuing raw, unaccountable power without the limitations of moral decency as understood by the history of our Republic. In this they have richly earned the contempt of tens-of-millions of their fellow citizens. The only question remaining is will they succeed or fail at fundamentally transforming our Republic from an experiment in human freedom and dignity into a nation of serfs and masters.