In a post of mine a few weeks back, when Captain Psycho P.h.d Orange Hair shot up a movie theater and ABC News then reflexively exhorted, “Tea Party! Tea Party! Tea Party!” with Tourette-like self control, I touched on something that I’ve been observing most of my life and only realized what it was and have been able to recognize it these past few years. It is that the core of leftist, or liberal, ideology consists of the belief that everything is open to and subject to politics. Everything can, should, and, eventually, must be politicized. Once something becomes political, it’s open to debate and thus can be modified. This is what drives them “Forward,” as Lenin and Obama would say.
You can see the ideological manifestations of this mindset in the obvious politically correct ways, like when one of their mayors bans the selling of large sodas because he knows best. Or in more serious ways, like when the president decides to bail out an auto company with someone else’s money, screw its shareholders, but then ensure the proper kickbacks reach his union cronies. Somehow, they see the beverage consumption of their constituents and a flailing auto industry as subject to their authority and their sense of righteousness. These things are not out of bounds.
This ideology also explains their adherence to the “living” Constitution, because it frees them from the confines of the mores, morals, precepts, and traditions of the Founders, who drafted and, more importantly, adopted our country’s founding documents. Nothing prevents the capricious wants of politicians from generation to generation with a malleable, pliable Constitution in place that contains words that mean whatever a temporarily-stationed Justice says they mean. Populism can flourish, and the majority can run roughshod over the minority like Vice President Biden over decorum, propriety, and decency. (Better hope you’re always in the majority, eh?).
Manifestations can occur in really active expressions or actions, and also in passives ways, as it worms into their minds and distorts the reality of its disciples, which brings us to the events of a few days ago, as both of these types were on display.
The explicit, active example was a shooting that took place. A lunatic, hellbent on the Chick- fil-A issue, went into the headquarters of an institution that holds a different view from his own, pulled a gun, and, when confronted by a security guard, shot the guard. Who knows what other damage, injuries, or casualties may have occurred absent the security guard’s intervention, so thank God for him. I hope he’s OK. I cite this not to say that lunatics exist only on the left, nor am I saying that murderers exist only there, either. My point is that it’s not the shooting itself that’s the exemplar of leftist ideology unhinged, but the reason for the shooting in this case is the exemplar.
Think about how this escalated. The entire Chick- fil-A issue came about because an executive of a fast food restaurant expressed a personal opinion with which the left disagreed. When the left heard of it, it got their undies in a bunch, and they went apoplectic. Restaurants were vandalized and its employees berated. So, naturally, when someone comes out on the same side as Chick- fil-A, retribution must once again occur, and in this instance, a corpulent, bald lefty decided to shoot up the joint instead of expressing displeasure with spray paint and Sharpies.
Once everything becomes political, everything is up for scrutiny, even your innermost thoughts and opinions. The private sphere of the individual is no longer a sanctuary of freedom. It is subject to the whims, not of the majority, but of the most vocal and violent. If you don’t conform, you’ll be pilloried until you submit, or you must go.
The authoritarian left has been cultivating this type of thinking for generations (e.g, “by any means necessary”), which brings us to the passive manifestation example of the ideology. It appeared among the nearly silent news coverage of the shooting and sits in the following introductory paragraph of Washington Post’s report of the incident:
“A security guard at the Family Research Council was shot and wounded Wednesday morning after a scuffle with a man who expressed disagreement with the group’s conservative views.”
Shot by a “…man who expressed disagreement…”? That’s tacit understanding borderlining on flagrant empathy. The reason why those words are there is precisely because the journalists do empathize. They understand that the reason for the shooting was political, as the shooter himself admitted by stating to a guard, “I don’t like your politics.” Being shot is the consequence of being on the wrong side of their politics. The left understands that, and I daresay some see nothing wrong with that.
“Evolve” with them or be removed. Talk about your Social Darwinists.
