by
Gadfly
Announcing her candidacy for President of the United States on
Sunday, United States Senator Kamala Harris (Democrat, California) claimed, "We are here because the American dream
and our American democracy are under attack and on the line like never before.
And we are here at this moment in time because we must answer a fundamental
question: Who are we, who are we as Americans?" she said. "So, let’s
answer that question to the world. To each other. Right here. Right now.
America, we are better than this."
Harris’s
assertions are slogans, reminiscent of the slogans heaped upon a non-discerning
public by communist propagandists in the early part of the 20th century. While these slogans emphasize a political
enemy to justify a class struggle (oppressed identity groups versus a greedy
1%), Harris and her leftist cohort also employ euphemisms to disguise ugliness
(same sex unions instead of mutual sodomy, reproductive rights instead of
genocide of unwanted children).
What
is the American dream? How is the
American dream under attack? What is
American democracy? What is an American
Democrat?
Despite
her sloganeering, Harris is right that we must answer these questions. Unfortunately, the “truth” can be
debatable. After all, when Jesus was
handed over for crucifixion by members of the Sanhedrin, even Pontius Pilate
pondered, “Quid est veritas?” (“What is truth?”; John
18:38). The significance of this
biblical passage is that Jesus was the witness to truth and was rejected. This behavior reflects the current
progressive lens that focuses on the frame (i.e., the narrative) and only
acknowledges facts if they fit the frame.
Modern Pilates still believe the “hands up, don’t shoot” meme from the
Ferguson, Missouri episode; and more recently, that Justice Kavanaugh remains guilty
despite an uncorroborated allegation against actual evidence to the contrary. To progressives, like their Marxist cohort
and Sanhedrin, facts don’t matter when the frame is more important.
Douglas Hyde even admitted
this framing imperative in his autobiography, I Believed: The Autobiography of
a Former British Communist:
But
invariably when I tried to get people actually into the Party I came up against
the deeply-entrenched nonconformity of the North Wales workers. I searched for ways of “breaking through,”
believing that its hold was mainly an emotional one and calculating that if I
could once get recruitment to the Party started it would quickly grow.
Then,
in line with Lenin’s words, “morality is subordinate to the class struggle,” I
thought of a way of getting them on their own ground. I was, in theory at least, still a lay
preacher. I would exercise my right to
preach, so paving the way for Party recruitment and at the same time obtaining
an audience for the message which I burned to get across” (1952, pp. 46-47).
How is Hyde’s experience
similar to Senator Harris’ tactic? Without
defining the American dream and how it is under attack, Senator Harris employed
a “virtue signal” when she said: “America, we are better than this.” Douglas Hyde attempted a “virtue signal” through
his “preaching experience” to convince Brits that they were better than their
capitalist counterparts. Here is another excerpt:
As I
looked down on row upon row of well-fed, smug faces, I felt that the ragged,
desperate men marching on the capital might have belonged to a land a thousand
miles away. I felt angry and
contemptuous, and made no attempt to conceal my feelings. On the spur of the moment I recited to them
some verses of Joe Corry, the rebel poet, which compared the unemployed
agitator with “one named Christ two thousand years ago,” and which had some
harsh things to say about the bankers, parsons and police who were His enemies.
As I
recited the poem the faces before me became less blank. But at its end a number of people got up and
went out. I announced the last
hymn. By the time it was finished the
chapel was almost empty” (p. 47).
Unlike Hyde, Senator Harris
obviously made her presidential announcement to a friendly group: that is, Americans who agree with her that
the American dream is under attack. How
do we know if it is under attack?
What is the American Dream?
The American dream has evolved over time. Some historians might position the first
iteration on November 11, 1620 when the Mayflower Compact was signed aboard the
Mayflower while anchored in Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The intent was very clear:
Having
undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and
the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the
northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and
mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine
ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and
Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact,
constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts,
Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet
and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all
due Submission and Obedience.
In other words, the dream
included advancing the glory of God and the Christian faith for a unified,
civil body politic defined by a system of laws and for the general good of the
colony. Subsequent founding documents
such as the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, and
Constitution reinforce this original intent.
A second iteration of the
American dream had its political philosophy seed planted in 1789. The year 1789 witnessed two major political
philosophies. In America, the Bill of Rights
were ratified, culminating a political philosophy known as classical
liberalism: individual liberty, private
property, limited government, and a free market grounded in the Judeo-Christian
tradition. The Constitution, ratified in
1787, combined with the Bill of Rights ratified in 1789, was designed to
protect the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
endowed by a Creator.
But, one might say equality is
one of those inalienable rights.
Equality is a condition, a given.
Once created, all men (and women) are then endowed by their Creator with
inalienable rights. Conditions of
inequality are then created by humankind, either through personal choice or
through coercion. Justice allows inequality
based on personal choice. Injustice
results from coercion. The left’s weapon
of social justice is a euphemism for coercion.
Unfortunately, even Christian denominations have been coopted into this
practice because they conflate charity with social justice. This discussion in equality and inequality is
an important segue to the other political philosophy spawned in 1789.
The other political
philosophy, socialism, was spawned by the French Revolution. As societies were
evolving from agrarian to industrial economies, concepts such as labor and
property became central to an emerging construct called capitalism. Socialist theories began to suggest that the
proletariat (laborers) were oppressed by the bourgeoisie (capitalists: owners of factories, banks, etc.). They called this a class struggle. It was in 1848 that Marx and Engels published
their Manifesto
of the Communist Party, which
was all about “liberating the oppressed” in a revolution by the proletariat to
transfer ownership of capital (private property, factories, banks, etc.) to
common ownership of the people or to the state (similar to what recently
happened in Venezuela). Marx and Engels preached
socialism was the mere transition from capitalism to communism and religion was
a threat to this development. In the 20th
century, atheistic communism led to brutal regimes in the Soviet Union, China,
Cuba, North Korea, and other countries.
Millions died. Do Americans who
claim to be socialists really understand what socialism is all about?
How did socialism infiltrate
America? One possibility is that it was
advanced by different names: “liberalism” and “progressivism.” Liberalism in this case was a different form
from classical liberalism. Modern
liberalism swung to the left and delved into the social dimension. Conversions to this political ideology can be
seductive. As Bella Dodd (a former
American communist and member of the National Committee) explains in her book, School of Darkness, it emphasized “love
of humanity, a vision of a better society, and wider social justice” (a quote
from the back cover of School of Darkness). When Dodd discovered how vacuous its promises
were and how brutal and immoral its tactics, she tried to leave the Party but
was refused. On June 17, 1949, the
Associated Press called her, saying “We have received a statement from the
Communist Party announcing your expulsion from membership. It says here that you are anti-Negro,
anti-Puerto Rican, anti-Semitic, anti-labor, and defender of a landlord. Have you any statement to make?” (p. 220). Stunned,
she had no comment. The next day the
story was printed in all the New York papers. The recent New
York Times article
“outing” Representative Steve King (he should have known he was walking into an ambush) had a similar fragrance and has apparently
gotten away with it. While Democrats
were totally silent on the blatant propaganda about the Covington High School
episode, Republicans were quick to throw King under the bus and in the process
further embolden the left’s future propaganda.
Progressivism has been more
seductive and insidious. The father of
American progressivism is Herbert
Croly, whose book The Promise of
American Life, even impressed Theodore Roosevelt as evidenced by his
“Square Deal” legislative program.
Most “progressives” I know
claim they are for progress. What they
will not admit, possibly because they ignore or are oblivious to this notion,
is that the progressive movement is coercive in advancing values toward a
future undefined utopia: hope and change
is an example. Progressive elites tell a
sovereign American people that life can and must be better, even though they
live in the most prosperous nation in the history of humankind. And
change? From what to what? Answers here are irrelevant. What matters is that the non-discerning take
their word for it. So, for progressives,
such as Kamala Harris, their idea of the America dream is some future utopian state
that they, the political elite, guide us toward. In their mind, the effort to get us there is
being blocked, or in their mind, attacked by conservatives or Republicans. In their mind, Republicans are “unAmerican” and
“unpatriotic” because they still respect the thinking and foundational
documents that created America’s Constitutional Republic.
Interestingly, Douglas Hyde
explained how he indoctrinated Brits to become members of the Communist Party.
Here is an excerpt:
The third lesson was entitled:
“England, whose England?”
The aim of the lesson was to
show that although men, women and children were being called on at the moment
to die for Britain, it was not their Britain in any case. I examined the distribution of wealth and
gave a long explanation of the Marxist definition of the State as an instrument
of coercion on behalf of the ruling class.
From this the lesson was drawn that the first thing a revolutionary
working-class must do is to seize that instrument and use it for the coercion
of the erstwhile rulers” (I Believed;
pp. 76-77).
Unless the left-wing
socialists (progressives, modern liberals) are successful in imposing their
version of the American dream, in today’s America the rulers are the citizens,
as in the first three words to the Preamble to our Constitution: “We the
People.” Today’s American dream still
believes in the rule of law, not the rule of men.
How Is the American Dream under Attack?
To
the left, their progressive vision of the American dream is under
attack. Consistent with Marxism, it is
important to convince people that they are involved in a “class struggle.” Who are the classes? Blacks, women, the LGBTQ alphabet, illegal
aliens, and so forth, against the greedy top 1%. The left’s political elite promise to
liberate the oppressed through redistribution of wealth as a form of social justice. This was Marx and Engel’s promise in
achieving communism. This is the left’s
vision of the American dream. When an
individual argues for legal immigration, he is accused of being
anti-immigration or a xenophobe and thus an attacker of the American dream. When an individual argues for the sacredness
of life in a mother’s womb, he is a misogynist an oppressor of a woman’s
reproductive rights, and thus an attacker of the American dream. When one believes marriage is between a man
and a woman, he’s a homophobe, and thus an attacker of the American dream. When one expresses respect for the nation’s
Founders and Framers, he’s a racist because they were white men, and thus an
attacker of the American dream.
Today’s
Democrat would consider President Kennedy’s aphorism (October 3, 1963), “a
rising tide raises all boats,” as anathema to advancing the class struggle
narrative. If the old American dream was
so ugly, then why is America the most peaceful and prosperous nation in the
history of human kind? Why do so many storm
our borders to come to America?
A
blatant example of the left’s obedience to Lenin’s maxim, “morality is
subordinate to the class struggle,” is their passion for sanctuary cities (and
now the sanctuary state of California) while also promoting “reproductive
rights.” The irony here is that people
who chose to break the law are protected by the same individuals who support
the murder of children who made no choice.
Talk about slogans. Reproductive
rights? You mean the right to
reproduce? How does abortion fit into
this notion? And of all the sanctuaries
that protect the human being, is not a mother’s womb the most sacred?
So,
what is the left’s strategy to achieve their version of the American
dream? By updating Lenin’s maxim to “the
class struggle is morality,” they are pushing for a popular democracy, where
majority rule (shaped and guided by political elite) dictates the values
for America. This also explains how
Speaker of the House Pelosi seems to get away with calling President Trump’s
border wall immoral because it feeds into the left’s mantle of leadership in liberating
the oppressed (except for the unborn).
Our
old white male Framers wrote about the dangers of popular democracy (and its
inevitable factions as currently manifested in the various identity groups
celebrated by the left) in the Federalist
Papers. Tocqueville even wrote about
the inevitable despotism and tyranny of democracy in his book Democracy in America. Since the old white males were privileged,
the left demands that the ideas and institutions they bequeathed upon us must
be destroyed.
What is American Democracy?
Till
around the 1960s, America was a classical
liberal democracy, protected by a viable Constitutional Republic. As noted political scientist Francis Fukuyama
wrote in The End of History and the Last
Man, it was liberal democracy that
defeated the threat of communism and fascism, two siblings of tyranny born of
the same mother: socialism. His thesis was that the contest between
competing political philosophies was over:
liberal democracy was a superior political philosophy in advancing peace
and prosperity. Of course, the critics
of his thesis were predominantly Marxists.
Before Fukuyama, Nikita Khrushchev predicted Americans would become
socialists because they did not understand how progressive socialism is. This may explain the left’s preference now to
be called “progressive” as opposed to “liberal.”
Ignoring
for a moment that George Friedman is a white male, the reasoning in his article,
“Nationalism and Liberal Democracy,” provides important clarity regarding the
role of nationalism, classical liberal principles, and a constitution as the
moderating instrument between the tensions of classical liberal principles and
the human passions of a democracy.
Nationalism simply represents values held in common within a nation and
thus the means for achieving the common good (as in the Mayflower Compact; and
in the Constitution’s Preamble “to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity”).
Competing
with Friedman’s explanation is clear obfuscation by people, such as British
historian and Marxist E. J. Hobsbawn. In
his book, Nations and Nationalism since
1780: Programme, Myth, Reality,
Hobsbawn claims the concepts of nation and nationalism are modern concepts,
even though a casual reading of the Bible reveals a common understanding of
these concepts centuries before Christ.
As an apologist for Soviet communism, Hobsbawn essentially argued
against the threat of German nationalism, manifested as National Socialists, or
Nazism, or fascism. As in typical family
love-hate situations as far back as Cain and Able, the two siblings of
socialism hated (and still do) each other.
Does this help to explain why American leftists are so inclined to call
Trump a fascist, or to label Republicans in general with spin off slurs of fascism
such as racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and so forth? Leftists claim President Trump “manufactured”
the southern border crisis; yet, they have no problem manufacturing America’s
class struggle crisis.
We
are now in a contest for a liberal democracy versus a popular democracy. Popular democracy is the type of “new
democracy” Tito boasted of when he said they, the political elite, “were
imposing what amounted to the classical dictatorship of the proletariat on
their peoples as a necessary precondition of communism . . . that under the
peculiar conditions obtaining there it would be possible to go forward to
communism by using the democratic forms of organization (sic)” (as reported by
Douglas Hyde in his book, I Believed,
p. 221).
While
somewhat feckless in their convictions and courage to protect a liberal
democracy, Republicans are clearly on the defensive against those
who fight for popular democracy. The
2018 midterm election results in the House of Representatives are
evidence. Of all those who might claim
credit for the outcome, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA; www.cpusa.org) is one of them as in an article,
“Lesson from Midterms: A United People
Can Win,” by John Bachtell (current Chairman of CPUSA) published on November
26, 2018. Hiding in the open, the CPUSA
even published a guide
for its 50/3000 (50 states/3,000 counties) grassroots model in advance of the
2018 elections.
It
is ironic that months before “anti-communist” President John F. Kennedy’s
assassination (November 22, 1963), another Democrat, Congressman A.S. Herlong,
Jr. read into the Congressional
Record, on January 10, 1963, the goals of communism in America. Goal number 15 of 45 reads: “Capture one or
both political parties in the United States.”
What Is America’s Democrat?
At a
recent social gathering, I was approached by a younger gentleman, a successful
businessman, who began the conversation with “I understand you are a staunch
Republican.” I responded that while I generally
lean toward Republican candidates, I would not say that I was a “staunch”
Republican. Avoiding the temptation to
be “defined” by a complete stranger, I offered to explain how I would
politically define myself. I explained
that I was in fact a “liberal,” but a “classical liberal” in its original
meaning—a proponent for individual liberty, private property, limited
government, a free market, and undeniably grounded in our Judeo-Christian
tradition. I vote for political
candidates that more closely align with these principles, and they generally
turn out to be Republican. He patiently
and politely listened to my explanation.
Then, I asked, inferring from the nature of his questioning, “are you a
Democrat? Not that being one is good or bad; just asking.” He was silent. “What is it about the Democrat Party that
attracts you?” Again, silence.
This
encounter, I want to believe, represents the vast majority of those who claim
to be a Democrat. Many of my very well-educated friends are Democrat. Do they really know what today’s American
Democrat is? Do they understand what
Democrat political elite are advancing in the name of the Democrat Party?
Let
us begin with the Democrat Party political platform: it
emphasizes people and the environment while demeaning wealth creators. The tagline at CPUSA’s website is “People and
Planet before Profits.” While I recall
reading but cannot now locate a source, CPUSA claimed in 1984 (ironic since a
book has the title Nineteen Eighty-Four)
that they no longer needed to support their own presidential and
vice-presidential candidates because the Democrat Party had completely
integrated their own political platform.
Gus
Hall and Angela
Davis were their last official candidates in 1984. Given Davis’ background, is it any surprise
that she found a sanctuary in the American university system, an environment
now producing an “educated new American” that significantly leans
left and is more atheistic?
The Party for the People? Let’s look at data
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as depicted in the Figure below. In 2006, Democrats, known to be very
anti-business, took control of both Houses of Congress, and the labor participation
rate began its descent. Then, President
Obama was elected bringing with him his signature campaign promise for
healthcare for all, thanks to the pit bull tactics of Speaker of the House
Pelosi (and not a single vote from Republicans; passed by simple majority vote
unlike the super majority needed for Trump’s wall). While reported unemployment rates have
significantly improved under the Trump regime, mostly for minorities, the real economic
impact is realized in the stagnant labor participation rate because this is made
relatively stable by government subsidies that politically favor Democrats. Is this not a form of slavery?
The Party for the Environment? Presidential candidate
Harris (and other political socialists) is now emphasizing “green new deals.” So is CPUSA Chairman John Bachtell. See his article,
“Demand for Green New Deal Rocking the Nation.”
There are staunch political activists who push man-made causes for
climate change, even though they do not understand the science behind it, let
alone able to explain it. Despite the ideal notion
that reasonable people can disagree, those on the left consider skeptics to be
climate change deniers and thus not as educated and immoral. Yet, what is
certain is that there is a clear political agenda that fuels the left’s climate
change position. Money is the
driver. For a well-investigated report
on this dynamic, see Paul Driessen’s December 29, 2018 article,
“Let’s Do Follow the Climate Change Money!”
Destroying institutions—the Electoral
College. Democrat-controlled states are now actively pursuing
state legislation to eliminate the Electoral College. Abraham Lincoln would not have been elected
without the Electoral College. Advocates
(dare I say, Democrats) for the institution of slavery enjoyed the popular
vote. The Electoral College, as a
critical institution of our Constitutional Republic, allowed the necessary
reconciling, at the incredible cost of over 600,000 casualties, for the sin of
slavery.
Destroying institutions—the Judeo-Christian
tradition. Beginning in 1948, the Gallup Poll has annually
surveyed the American population on its religious affiliations. In 1956, 99% of
those surveyed affiliated with the Judeo-Christian tradition (96% Christian; 3%
Jewish). Today, that number is at 69%
and appears to be on a downward trend. Atheism
is a necessary element of socialism (and communism or fascism). The left even now experiments with a secular
inquisition in their attack of religion and religious institutions. The left now makes it a “hate crime” to even
disagree with behaviors that are contrary to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
In
Jonathan Cahn’s The Harbinger: The Ancient Mystery that Holds the Secret of
America’s Future, protagonist journalist Nouriel Kaplan had this exchange
with a prophet:
“On 9/11 people were asking, ‘Where was God?’”
“Where was God?” he said, as if surprised by the question.” We drove Him out of our schools, out of our
government, out of our media, out of our culture, out of our public
square. We drove Him out of our national
life, and then we ask, ‘Where is God?’”
“Then He wasn’t there?”
“Still, He was there.
He was there with those who lost their loved ones and is still there to
heal the broken and comfort those who mourn.
He was there with those who gave their lives so others could live,
shadows of Him. And He was there, as
well, with all the countless others who would have perished that day if not for
the countless turns of the details and events that saved them. And for those who perished . . . those who
were with God in life are now with Him in eternity. For these, it was not a day of national
calamity but of release. He was with
them and is with them.”
The
lesson being taught by the prophet is that America’s 9/11 was similar to the
attack of Israel in 732 B.C. The
Israelites had drifted away from their Covenant with God that involved, among
other acts, the sacrifice of children to pagan gods. In America millions have been sacrificed to
the pagan god of “reproductive rights.”
Who defines today’s American Democrat? In the public
narrative, the left has defined Republicans and
Democrats. The left defines Republicans
as bigots, labels them with the whole set of related slurs; and thus are to be
hated and held in high contempt. Republicans
are the enemy: not for their conservative (classical liberal) political philosophy
but because they are in the way of the left imposing its political philosophy of
socialism. This is how the left turned
Colorado into a blue state. The left’s
mission and strategy
are now in the public domain. They openly
recruit through their website. Just yesterday I saw an elderly white woman
get into a car with bumper stickers: “resist,” “Green New Deal,” “Corporations
are evil.”
America’s
Democrat has only been defined by the
radical left. The non-radical left has
been intimidated into silence. Moderate
Democrats have been taken hostage and there can be no compromise with the
Republican Party, as we saw with the recent government shutdown. To the radical left, negotiation can have
only two outcomes: win-lose, or
lose-lose. They are patient. This is why they can accept a lose-lose outcome
until they recruit (agitate) more people that subscribe to their slogans and
euphemisms. The radical left’s secular
humanist prophet, Professor George Lakoff, is proud of his success. His prolific writing has served as the left’s
bible for advancing their vision of the American dream. His book, Moral
Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives
Think, pretty much sums up how the left thinks: the left’s position on political issues is
based on truth (even though it has been created
in most cases); therefore, conservative views are not only wrong, they are
immoral. Like the border wall.
Lakoff
takes personal credit for influencing the political shift going into the 2006
elections. In his introduction to
Jeffrey Feldman’s book, Framing the Debate, Lakoff wrote:
For
most of the past 40 years, conservatives have had a clear field, as progressives
did little or nothing to counter the ongoing conservative framing of
issues. That began to turn around in
2004, with the work of the Rockridge Institute and the publication of Don’t
Think of an Elephant! and has continued with the publication of Thinking
Points, Rockridge’s handbook for progressives.
Progressives throughout America have begun the reframing process and it
showed in the 2006 election” (p. xii).
Lakoff founded the Rockridge
Institute and authored both books mentioned above. The 2006 election brought Speaker of the
House, and master framer, Nancy Pelosi to power. She brought America Obamacare with all of its
coercive mandates and a stimulus bill that was nearly a trillion dollars—an amount
exponentially greater than a $5.7 billion request for border security. Both legislative actions became essentially
permanent, adding nearly a trillion dollars, a 25% increase from 2008 funding
levels, to subsequent annual government spending bills. The vast majority of this additional spending
went (and still goes) to programs that provide government subsidies to
Americans (many who are not here legally).
What Next?
We
have just answered questions about the American dream, how it is under attack, the
nature of America’s democracy, and what today’s leftist Democrat promises. Americans are faced with a choice: two different American dreams. One led to the greatest peace and prosperity of
any nation in the history of humankind.
The other is an imagined utopia. If
today’s leftist Democrats are successful in advancing their utopian dream, many
will win, but many will lose. In the
end, as other socialist experiments have proven, all would lose. Ask your Venezuelan neighbors.
I
look forward to many more conversations with “Democrats.” Perhaps some or many
will take steps to purify their political party and apologize to those who
have been slandered and maligned by its malevolent ideology.
