In the interest of toning down the rhetoric, presumably with an eye toward peaceful coexistence or unity, California Congressional Democrat Jackie Speier has a helpful question. Is it “Time to call Republicans the terrorist right?”
The Republicans have been calling Democrats the radical left. Time to call Republicans the terrorist right?
— Jackie Speier (@RepSpeier) February 1, 2021
The terms are not antipodean, but Rep. Speier either does not know or does not care. Her goal is to ensure a government that espouses and forces her values upon you regardless of whether they differ from yours. If this helps, she’s there.
Does it help?
We need more information.
First, Speier wants a government that defers (confiscates is a better word) resources, including rights to the State, who then directs as much as possible from the Nations Capitol. If you resist, the government may use force to separate you from income, occupation, property, family, faith, etc. It could also incarcerate you for daring to object regardless of the grievance or desired redress.
Is opposition to that – regardless of its form – terrorism?
For someone like Rep. Speier, the answer is yes. But not becasue someone called her the radical left. She is acting the fascist in the original sense (not the cartoonish ‘fash’ fomented by the Marxist Antifa or others).
If you ignore the rhetorical right and left and limit yourself to actions and results, the picture is a whole lot clearer.
Actions that advance a state of servitude to a central power are monarchical, fascist, and Marxist (socialist/communist). The product or outcome is the same. A nation where the government has majority interest or control of production, the market, speech, association, assembly, and people’s free movement.
It controls who has access to rights and resources and who does not. Who can speak, where and when, and with or without what consequence.
The rule of law does not exist in the traditional sense. The ruling class has exceptions, exemptions, and privileges not afforded the rest of the population.
This almost exactly describes today’s Democrat Party in America and the America they want to rule.
But there are Democrats, Independents, unaffiliated, and yes, Republican voters who oppose this to varying degrees. They are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian, male, female, old, young, and in-between.
There is also very little evidence that Republicans in the ruling class object to Ms. Speier’s goals for the nation or that they are of the right or think of their Democrat peers as radical.
So how do we answer the question?
If they were fighting for what Ms. Speier wants, they would be freedom fighters, even though the result is no freedom. If they oppose what she wants, they are insurgents, insurrectionists, but terrorists?
Terrorism uses violence and intimidation against a few to get the many to fall in line. I am not aware of any such acts meant to advance or defend natural rights, or increase liberty so would it be terrorism to intimidate a few to let many more people experience greater freedom?
As we can see the words get in the way.
We’re looking at a political war between more freedom and less. The Constitution’s authority to limit political power versus the unlimited power of politicians to pursue whatever course or program they desire.
The former made America the single greatest tool for unleashing human potential and lifting people out of poverty in human history. If Ms. Speier wants to call the will to protect that terrorism, she is welcome to her labels.
But the latter, her priority for the United States, is tyranny, despotism, fascist, and Marxist no matter what you call it.
So who do you think is the terrorist in this scenario?