What You Promote Is What You Get

     The many demands – from the Left, of course – that President Trump “tone down his rhetoric” are America’s #1 source of ironic guffaws:

     I am sure it is carefully calculated to not meet the legal standard of incitement, but it is crystal clear that the establishment wants Donald Trump to be the target of yet another assassination attempt.
     I’m not joking or exaggerating. As they keep trying to assert that Trump uses rhetoric outside the bounds of legitimate political discourse (and I do wish he would tone it down a bit) the Democrats have ramped up their hateful rhetoric to an appalling degree.
     MSNBC is the worst, of course, but hardly the only network to platform what can only be described as hateful rhetoric calculated to inspire an unhinged person to take Trump out.

     Refresh my memory, please: How many attempts have there been on the life of Kamala Harris? But I digress.

     It’s become quite clear that the Left regards Trump, and the movement he’s inspired, as the chief dangers to its hegemony. Given the appalling performance of the Republican Party since the Reagan years, I’m inclined to agree. And as the Left has its own lawyers and legal advisors, its mouthpieces know exactly how far toward the line they can edge yet remain within the law as they openly encourage further attempts on Trump’s life.

     Couple that with the repeated demands that prominent voices in the Right be stifled. Most recently we’ve heard demands that Elon Musk surrender control of X / Twitter, or failing that should be deported. I do hope he has good personal security.

     Are we in the Right angry? Of course; relentless maltreatment usually has that effect. But has any right-wing talking head said anything a tenth as inflammatory as what Leftists have said about Trump? If any Gentle Reader has an example, please forward it to me at once.

     The poisonous tree from which these fruits have dropped was planted long ago:

     The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and ‘philosophies’ can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the ‘end of ideology’, the false consciousness has become the general consciousness–from the government down to its last objects.

     Herbert Marcuse, darling of the Frankfort School and guru to the Left, wrote that in 1965, Gentle Reader. Is there any ambiguity about what he was advocating?

     Marcuse has had plenty of philosophical progeny:

     The goal of the right wing is to perpetuate and worsen a system in which a small number of people control obscene quantities of wealth and power at the expense of the vast majority, whereas the goal of the left wing is to distribute wealth and power more broadly. For short, the goal of the right wing is perpetuating and increasing injustice, whereas the goal of the left wing is increasing justice.
     People do not like injustice. The knowledge that injustice is being done to others offends their sense of morality; the knowledge that injustice is being done to them makes them angry and resentful. Both these emotions contribute to a desire to use the political system in order to counter injustice. So it is very helpful for the right wing to achieve its goal if the existence of injustice, and the unjust effects of the policies it endorses, can be concealed.
     Providing this concealment is the role of right-wing political writers. Thus, a priori, given that injustice exists and that right-wing policies are unjust, you might expect the ample use of lies, misdirection, and sophistry from these guys. (In fact, my intimate knowledge with right-wing political writing provides ample evidence that what you might expect is exactly what you get.)
     By contrast, the role of left-wing political writers is to cause people to believe that there is injustice, and that right-wing policies make it worse. Given, once again, that both these points are true, all that left wing political writers need to do is report the truth.

     John Hinderaker draws the inevitable conclusion:

     I think the Democrats are deliberately conveying the message to Americans, most of whom are not interested in dying for their political beliefs, that it is dangerous to be a Republican. It is hazardous to your health to cross the Left.

     I must concur with the intent Hinderaker infers: the Left means to evoke violence against President Trump and any other prominent figure in the Right, and self-censoring fear among us not-so-prominent ones. Once you’ve excoriated your opponent as evil, any and every means to thwart him is legitimized. As we mathematical types like to say, Quod erat demonstrandum.

     Yes, there is “a clear and present danger” – to us. It’s been purposefully encouraged for some time. And that danger will escalate should President Trump be returned to the White House. His won’t be the only face in the crosshairs. The Left knows how much it has to lose.

2 comments

    • Anon on October 9, 2024 at 10:19 AM

    In all fairness Willie Brown did try to choke Kamala on numerous occasions.

    1. Well, yeah, but he was a Democrat. 😉

Comments have been disabled.