A CLASSIC WITH CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE
Back in 2010, just over six years ago, I wrote this post about the frightening turn I was seeing among conservatives as they approached the midterm elections with bloodied claws. I was appalled by the level of visceral animus articulated by the newly risen Tea Party conservatives. There was something ominous about the scapegoating, closed mindedness and abdication of reason exhibited by this reactionary movement.
At the time, the leaders of this new generation of conservatives were Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. They have since fallen by the wayside. The movement they represented, however, lives on and is becoming even more extreme and hateful.
After watching the latest clash between the Republican front-runners I remember thinking, ‘there’s a bad moon rising.’ This inspired me to revisit this old post. Below I offer A Bad Moon Rising: The Direction or Misdirection of Conservative Thought. Read it in light of what we see happening today.
There’s a bad moon lurking over the horizon! I can see its bloody rays casting a sanguine pall over the future of our country. I can see its ill-boding omens in increasingly irrational speeches, websites and protest marches of a new movement. It’s reactionary, militant, institutionalized and armed; all of the qualities of a coming historical era we will warn our grandchildren against repeating in the future. I fear that if we do not get a grip on this, through reason and awareness, then we will experience a period of shame, and perhaps even violence, from which our nation will reel for a generation or more.
The movement of concern is the modern conservative movement. For over thirty years conservatism has reigned supreme in the United States, contributing to our cultural derailment, financial decrepitude and corporate co-dependency. As a practical political philosophy American conservatism has been thoroughly discredited culminating in the economic collapse of 2008. From the top of the rubble heap that used to be America we can see what conservatism has wrought. A two tiered economy in which wealth is distributed upward and the middle class hangs above the precipice of poverty by a frayed tether of personal debt. Our infrastructure, health care and education systems are the laughing-stock of the industrialized world. Our once vaunted manufacturing sector, an institution that won two world wars and stoked the world’s economy, has now been parsed to underage women and children in third world countries. Meanwhile, Americans are locked in perpetual competition over a shrinking sector of lucrative jobs, often leveraging more debt to gain critical credentials from an increasingly expensive higher education system.
Really, there’s nothing more we can expect from conservatives except an apology.
Instead, what we are getting is a conservative reformation, funded by such corporate entities as News Corp and Koch Industries, skillfully manipulating the façade of a grassroots movement. The voices of this movement are a raving paranoid, Glenn Beck, and a witless prima donna, Sarah Palin, both unhampered by the constraints of reason, yet buoyed by cultish charisma. They motivate the most extreme wing of the Republican Party, free market conservatism at its very worst, determined to stamp out any moderating voice in the name of purity.
As a sociologist and a social activist I am an advocate for social movements, even those movements contrary to my goals. Such is the defining characteristic of democracy. Social movements, however, can be caught in a dangerous cycle leading ultimately to cultural nihilism. Social movements should be inclusive, driven by a broad and tolerant ideology that can incorporate many and varied voices. They should be based on sound reason, theory, history and research. The discourse should include democratic paradigms of freedom, equality, peace and justice. When I see these elements institutionalized into a movement, even a movement at odds with my own beliefs, I know that the elements of a free society are healthy.
These are not the elements I’m witnessing with the new conservatives and the Tea Partiers. Indeed, I’m seeing just the opposite. Conservatism today is mired by closure and in-group/out-group tactics. These tactics often lead to scapegoating and advocacy, either rhetorical or real, of violence. It is a movement driven by tactics of obstruction and self empowerment rather than justice and freedom. To justify such methods neo-conservatism has abandoned history and research for revisionist conspiracy theory and paranoia. Neo-conservatism is a mockery of enlightened politics and a danger to democracy as well as to American society itself.
Neo-conservatism is an ideologically closed movement. To be a member one must adhere strictly to the tenets put forth by the demigods of conservative thought. The two foundational tenets of neo-conservatism are caricatured in the persons of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan. Thou shalt pay homage to the Great Milton Friedman for there is no solution but a free market solution. Thou shalt pay homage to the Great Ronald Reagan, for government is always “the” problem. Shrink government, deregulate the market, and all will be well with the world. True, these interpretations of Friedman and Reagan may not match the historical reality of these figures, for contemporary conservatives, facts are what they make them.
We can elevate Dick Cheney to archangel, if not minor deity. Thou shalt revere Dick Cheney, for everything America does, no matter how heinous, is righteous and justifiable. Then there are the prophets Beck and Palin. Hold the Beck and the Palin holy as everything they say, no matter how ridiculous, is true and right .
Any deviation from the weird themes of the far right are met with scorn. There is no alternative reality. There is no compromise. Those who think that maybe, just maybe, the government should have some small role in…
…governing are derided as socialists or progressive sympathizers. Even John McCain is not immune to this strict, right wing-nut discipline. McCain faces a primary challenge from the Tea Party as a response to the absurd claims that he is a progressive. Right wingers derailed the Republican candidate for the 23rd congressional district in New York, a Republican safe seat since the Civil War, on grounds of closet progressivism. Some months ago conservatives even advocated instituting a so-called purity test. Republican support would be determined by the satisfaction of the bullet point doctrines of the Tea Party agenda. This idea was scratched after being revealed to an appalled public.
As for interacting with other groups the rule is simple. There is no compromise. There is no policy other than neo-con policy. It’s us against them. All those who are not neo-cons are liberal dupes of the communist agenda, plain and simple. There is no in between, no shade of gray. Bipartisanship is weakness. Oh, we’ll talk bi-partisan, but when it comes to actual interaction with the pariah left, no plan supported by those defined as liberals is worth being tainted by affiliation. Even when the left adopts policies of the right it is incumbent upon true conservatives to vote against their own policies in pursuit of ideological purity.
During the health care debate liberal activists watched helplessly as progressive ideas were purged from the Senate legislation one after the other while conservative principles were adopted, all in the hopes of creating some mythical bi-partisan consensus, a creature no more real than a unicorn. Congressman Boehner outlined four elements conservatives wanted to see in the legislation before a single Republican would vote in favor of the bill. All four elements were incorporated into the final legislation in exchange for exactly zero votes.
This in-group/out-group dynamic is called closure. When a group is insulated from the influence of other groups, unwilling to tolerate the other or to admit the possibility of mutual interests, that group is closed. It carefully regulates who is allowed membership within the group and excludes all who may be affiliated with the out-group, in this case the liberal/progressive scum who would lead our country to ruin. Those who might serve as a bridge between the two groups, focal points for negotiation and compromise, are excluded as lacking the purity of a true member. Such groups whether a family, a gang or a political party, are prone to authoritarianism and deviance. Closed and intolerant groups are not healthy and are ultimately destructive to the society around them.
However, when you have the vast resources of one of the nation’s leading political voices, the Republican Party, with its great treasuries and seats in congress, closure is even more dangerous. Governing in the United States has always required bridging the differences between groups with disparate values. The Constitution itself, the professed sacred canon of the far right, was a work of compromise. Yet no such negotiation is possible among an ideologically closed group.
Closure, to be truly effective, must devalue the members of the out-group. It’s not enough for neo-conservatives to define their ideology, then present and defend their claims in the marketplace of ideas. No. The oppositionand all those who disagree are the oppositionmust be diminished by the very fact of their opposition. They must be defined as pathological or threatening. One can always identify the extremist groups. They are the ones accusing their competitors of extremism. So the election of a left leaning centrist president is, to the neo-con, a usurpation of the office by Marxist extremists. Health care reform becomes a government take-over of health care. A back to school address by the president becomes a socialist plot to indoctrinate our children. There is no reasonable explanation. Only the extremist core is presented as reality, and reality defined by the conservative in-group is not to be questioned.
Progressives and liberals, as far as conservative paradigms are concerned, are not competing ideologies with claims of varying degrees of legitimacy. They are certainly not people with whom we should negotiate. They are, in fact, a threat to our way of life. Progressivism is not a movement interested in social justice. Rather it’s a plot to take over the nation, if not the entire world, and make it submit to its sinister plans. And certainly one does not negotiate, nor debate, with a sinister and threatening enemy. One fights.
To the far right progressivism is a disease that, according to the Prophet Beck, must be eradicated. After all, progressivism, liberalism, socialism, communism are all, in reality, just a ruse of fascism and we all know what fascists do. Do we want that to happen to our fine country? Our problems today are not the result of failed conservatism, deregulation and corporate greed. No. The real problem is progressive-fascism undermining the American character, making our nation weaker. It’s this progressive “disease” that must be scourged, must be censored before it infects our children, turning them away from God, country, family and all that we hold dear.
The great political debates of modern times, debates argued so brilliantly and eloquently between such luminaries as Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun, have been reduced to an apocalyptic fantasy between “real” America and the East Coast Liberal Elites. Conservatives present themselves as the saviors (Messiahs?) of Real America who will rise up and smite the progressive beast.
Revising History…Repeating History
Exactly what are they fighting against?
After all, the history of progressivism is not one to hide. From the advent of public schools and libraries to child labor laws, from women’s suffrage to civil rights, progressives have been on the right side of history. Where were conservatives? Oh, yes. They were the ones arguing that ending slavery would not only be a violation of state’s rights, but ultimately harmful to the poor, stupid blacks who could only be civilized in chains. They were the ones arguing that denying children the opportunity to work in the factories would hurt poor families, after all, it’s a waste to send poor ignorant children to school.
This defense of progressivism does not belie the fact that there have been some philosophical wrong turns. Yes, some progressives have backed failed and short-sighted, even inhumane, ideas. There was a time when progressives stood for temperance, believing that making alcohol illegal would get men and their money out of the bars and into their homes with their families. It was well-meaning, but wrong. There were some progressives who supported forced sterilization, believing this to be a humane way to deal with poverty and mental illness. This idea was horrendous in its consequences.
But Glenn Beck is right about one thing. Progressivism is about evolution. As progressive strategies failed, liberals abandoned them. The original liberals were free market radicals advocating taking the power of the economy from the hands of kings and parliaments and putting it in the hands of individuals. When it became obvious, however, that market institutions could be just as oppressive as the most autocratic kings and politicians liberals abandoned this idea and advocated for working men and women held under the industrial lash. Temperance didn’t work. Now progressives are at the forefront of ending the ludicrous War on Drugs. Forced sterilization was a horror show, but now progressives are the primary advocates for the rights of women all over the world to make their own decisions about their bodies and reproduction.
Progressivism may be flawed, but it isn’t the “disease” claimed by Beck. To justify such allegations, however, the Prophets of conservatism must re-write history in such a way that they are the heroes and liberals are the villains. And they are literally doing just that as such “histories” as Liberal Fascism can attest. Right wingers must also dispel our understanding of the last hundred years of history by describing a vast conspiracy of progressives to mislead the electorate and indoctrinate the children in our vile public schools. Conspiracies abound, from Cloward/Piven to Saul Alinsky, from the claim of fake birth certificates to the absurdity of government-run death panels. None of these conspiracies are true, of course, but they are the mainstay of neo-conservative ideology.
This combination of factors is nothing new to history. Despite Glenn Beck’s claim that liberalism is nothing more than fascism in disguise, it is the neo-conservative combination of closure, scapegoating and revisionism that most closely approximates Nazi Germany.
Don’t believe me? Compare Glenn Beck:
“Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution…It must be cut out of the system because they cannot co-exist. And you don’t cure cancer by – well, I’m just going to give you a little bit of cancer. You must eradicate it...“
To this by Hitler:
“How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus? We will regain our health only by eliminating the Jew.”
Or this by Goebbels:
no humanitarian task, but a task of the surgeon. One has got to cut here and that most radically or Europe will vanish one day due to the Jewish disease.”
Now I’m not going to reduce my essay to Beckish nonsense by claiming that because neo-conservative statements are very much like Nazi statements that contemporary conservatism is nothing more than fascism in disguise. It is not. I will claim, however, that similar tactics can very easily lead to similar results. Just exactly how does Glenn Beck suggest that progressivism be “eradicated?” Historically there has only been one method to eradicate any belief system. Is this not cause for concern?
Indeed, America is not immune to the paranoid contagion of conservative extremism. World War I effectively shut down the advance of the Progressive Age of the early 20th century, leading to the Sedition Act of 1918, the Palmer Raids and the Red Scare of the early 20’s. Charles Schenck was imprisoned for exercising his constitutional right to speak out against war, as was Eugene Debs, a three-time presidential candidate. Shortly thereafter the House of Representatives established the House Un-American Activities Committee, famous for blacklisting some of America’s greatest artistic and literary talents. Senator Joseph McCarthy catalyzed one of the greatest liberal witch hunts in American history with a conspiracy theory about communist infiltration at the highest levels of government. These episodes have long been a national embarrassment, examples of the destructive influence of fanaticism on democratic society.
Will this be the ultimate extension of neo-conservatism? Will we have to explain to our children and our grandchildren just what life was like during the progressive witch-hunts of the early 21st century? And if we do, what side of history do you want your grandchildren to learn you were on?
How did we get here? Where are we going?
What happened to conservative discourse? There was a time when conservatives presented rational arguments for their positions. Men like William F. Buckley lent an air of authority and legitimacy to the movement. Even Ronald Reagan, despite his pandering to rhetorical, often racist, archetypes such as the “welfare queen,” and the “tax and spend liberal,” at least presented a positive vision for America. His brand of conservatism was one of pride and hope for a nation reeling from political upheaval. Reagan’s conservative revolution was not one of reactionary paranoia. Reagan was trying to restore the pride of a nation. Though I believe his politics was wrong, I’ll concede that his mission may have been noble.
But there is nothing noble about the current crop of conservative reactionaries. They are an institution motivated by fear and dogma. The foundation of everything that they hold dear has collapsed, revealing the rot lying beneath. Everywhere free market dogma and conservative policy has been put into effect, from Chile to Russia to South Africa, has suffered political and economic disparity, disillusionment and collapse. It’s no wonder that they want to re-write history. It’s no wonder they want to place the blame on others.
But that does not mean we have to let them. Neo-conservatives and Tea Partiers need to be called to task for their irresponsible rhetoric. No, we do not need to “eradicate” neo-conservatism. We need to marginalize it as the reactionary balderdash that it is.
1. The Progressives of the early 20th Century were major racists and into eugenics: see Woodrow Wilson , Margaret Sanger, and George Bernard Shaw, for example.
2. The people who supported slavery and segregation were in the Democrat party, not Republicans or Conservatives. The Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s would not have passed without Republican support in Congress.
3. The present-day people who are into violence and property crime are Leftist radicals who would rather stop the free speech of a Conservative speaker, claim that THEY are exercising free speech by shutting down and threatening others, and then smash windows in the stores and Starbucks they themselves patronize. All this while simultaneously decrying capitalism (which provides their iPhones , trendy , overpriced glasses and clothes, piercings , tattoos, video games, and provides the tax base for the infrastructure of the nation. )
4. I could go on, but chances are you have stopped reading by now, as my comments represent a threat to your world-view. It is a difficult mission, on your end, to attempt to argue against the facts of history by using emotionality and fake race-baiting accusations.
I do not claim to be any genius, but I do hold a degree in History from a major University. It is quite possible that I know what I am talking about.
J.L: Thank you for your reply. Let me address some of the issues that you bring up in turn.
1. Progressivism in the early 20th century was a pretty big tent. There was no singular progressive movement. Instead, what we had were multiple movements that had common themes, namely an interest in government activism toward creating a more just society, emphasis on social science, a focus in inequality that favored common people over the elite. Therefor, it is questionable to impute any one motive such as “racism” to all progressives. Yes, there were racist undercurrents to many progressives. Wilson, for instance, was very racist (he was also a pretty reluctant progressive, embracing the movement more out of political necessity than conviction). Sanger? Not so much, though she did embrace eugenics–as did W.E.B. Dubois for a while. Fact is that racism was almost universal in the United States. Your first assertion really isn’t particularly meaningful considering the historical context.
2. Conservatism and liberalism did not, until recently, align with party politics. In the 19th and first half of the twentieth century most of the conservative movement in the United States was in the Democratic Party. Indeed, the Republican Party was a major locus of progressive politics in the early 20th century, such as Theodore Roosevelt, Robert LaFollette. Northern urban Democrats tended to be more liberal. Midwestern Democrats were often social conservative and economically liberal. It was complicated and hectic. The shift began with the New Deal when African Americans started to abandon the Republican Party and moved into the New Deal coalition. In 1948 the Democratic Party, for the first time, included a civil rights platform in the election (embraced by Harry Truman despite the fact that he was deeply racist. Again, these issues are complicated. There is no simple history). When that happened, Southern conservative Democrats “seceded” from the party, forming the Dixie Democrats under Strom Thurmond. In 1968, the Nixon campaign used what they called The Southern Strategy to attract southern conservatives who were disaffected by the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act (pushed by a non-racist Southern Democrat Lyndon Johnson and supported by liberal Republicans). The strategy worked. For example, racist Strom Thurmond changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. By 1980, the conservative movement was largely concentrated in the Republican Party under Reagan. Moderate conservatism under the Clinton led DLC took over the Democratic Party, stifling the progressive movement there. By 2004, the Republican Party had largely purged its moderate members. What was once the solid south became a Republican firewall. This was driven by racism. Your assertion #2 is too simplistic to be useful.
3. Yes, some few people at left wing protests have damaged property, though we can debate the freedom of speech claim you make, this assertion is mostly a right-wing talking point almost verbatim. Truth is that right wing extremism is the most violent according to multiple sources.
4. Clearly, I have read your entire comment and, no, it in no way offered a threat to my worldview. Arguing the facts really isn’t a problem for me as my response offers quite a few facts as opposed to the speculative nature of your comment. As I stated in this very post, the Progressive Movement had its issues, its bad moves and flawed policy proposals. One of the things I like about the movement, however, is that they tend to learn from their mistakes. The progressive movement as it exists today is not the same as it was in the early 20th century. That’s true for liberalism overall. These concepts change and evolve, complicating historical analysis, as you know as someone who has a degree in history. Certainly you’ve studied how ideological patterns change over time.
Thank you for reading my comments, and giving a thoughtful, but sadly inaccurate, assessment.
The Antifa Left in the U.S. , the crazed shooter who wanted to kill Republican Congressmen, the Black Lives Matter rhetoric of killing cops and promoting a perpetual victim mentality, the Bernie Sanders fantasy of stealing from the upper classes (which really means taxing the daylights out of anyone above poverty level, since the middle class is the where the money really is) in the name of a Socialist give-away utopia; all of these things are cumulative in their damage to our nation. The reason that is a true statement is based upon the lessons of history. Why were there so many more jobs in the 1920s,1960s, 1980s and 1990s? Because Presidents Coolidge , Kennedy , and Reagan realized that across the board tax cuts were the way to stimulate growth, investment, and prosperity. Even Bill Clinton, personally reprehensible as he is, had the sense not to disrupt the basics of the economy inherited from the Reagan era. Why? Because they work every single time they are applied. Why is this important? Because the fantasy land of the current Progressives lauds an economic concept antithetical to prosperity, freedom, and respect for the rights of the individual. The more prosperous the country, the more people have real opportunities to apply themselves, the better off everyone is. While ideological patterns may mutate over time, the basics of our Constitution, an historically free market (with appropriate penalties for those who are truly abusive of business law), and the rejection of a condescending elitist class are the hallmarks of a republic. This is why Donald Trump was elected President: the regular people of the country, the vast majority of whom are not racists or bigots, and who want there to be a safety net for the truly needy, (not those who abuse the system), and who want to be respected for their religious beliefs, not ostracized by a left-wing media cluster, are fed up. As a life-long (up to now, Republican) I am grossly disappointed in the majority of Establishment Republicans who can’t seem to implement the most basic of legislation to return us toward normality, as well as Democrats who are so obsessed with hoaxes about Russian collusion, and false charges of racism towards decent people who disagree with them politically . I see extremely little, if any, evidence of violence from people on the Right . I do see mountains of violence from the anarchist “protesters” in Hamburg – 100 plus police injured by anti-capitalist leftists. I see murders of police officers, none of which, to my knowledge, have been committed by anyone on the Right.
Conservative protesters don’t destroy property, and they are not the ones starting physical aggression in public settings. Please do not take my word for it; see for yourself in all the widely disseminated videos out there. Who has their Make America Great Again hats ripped off their heads, followed by blow to the head?
My elderly parents are huge liberals. I took a different path as I observed how the world actually works.
We have had heated discussion over the years, and it is my opinion that basically, the Left is obsessed with emotions, perceived victim status, redistributing other’s earnings, and an enveloping
husk of Political Correctness which acts as if every twitch of an eyelid is a “micro-aggression.”
In my first Presidential election, I voted for Ronald Reagan. I support his concepts, and I supported Goldwater as my Senator into the 1980s. I rejected the well-intentioned but tragically mistaken tenets of my parents and some of my family members.
I suggest you take a look at some of the writings and commentary of Mark Steyn. He could tell you a thing or two about the failures of socialized medicine, political correctness run amok, etc.
Thank you for your time, and I do appreciate your sincerity.
You stated the following:
Truth is that right wing extremism is the most violent according to multiple sources.
Prove it. Give me examples. If this is happening, I condemn it.
Good luck with that- you’re going to need it.
Good luck- you’re going to need it.
Alright. One last note here. Your comments pretty much confirm the thesis of the original post. You claim that my reply was “sadly inaccurate” yet did not address any of the inaccuracies. You gave an example of a presumably left wing shooter, but neglect talking about right wing shooters. That’s rhetorical, not analytical. You mention Black Lives Matter advocacy of violence against police. No examples. You claim Bernie Sanders taxing the daylights out of everyone over the poverty line by suggesting that most of the wealth is in the middle class. Not true and easily disproved https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/. You offer some simplistic insinuations about Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan tax policies when the truth is more complex (eg. Reagan ultimately raised taxes eleven time, including one of the largest corporate tax increases in history). I’m afraid I don’t have the time to give all of these assertions the time they deserve. Fortunately, in the nine years that I’ve been doing this blog I’ve addressed most of them, so if you are so inclined, do some searches. You ask for proof about my claim that right wing extremism is the most violent. It didn’t take long to find the proof, but my experience–and recent psychological research–suggests that this was in vain. I’m hoping that you are sincere in your desire for proof, but in the past, folks of your political bent, when confronted with proof, dismissed it as liberal bias, government cover-up, etc, etc. But here’s the results from a relatively quick search. I looked mostly for primary sources of data.
Click to access MurderAndExtremismInUS2016.pdf
Click to access 683984.pdf
Click to access CTC-ViolentFarRight.pdf
You’ll find, if you do an honest analysis, that the Orlando shooting skews the data in 2016. It’s attributed to Islamic extremism, though many analysts disagree with that assessment. Regardless. The data is clear. Right wing extremism is, at best, comparable to Islamic extremism. Leftists may break some windows and torch some cars (an issue I addressed here at this blog https://madsociologistblog.com/2017/02/05/free-speech-fires-and-broken-glass/ ), but the leftists are hardly register on the scale any more.
Oh give it up – your side has lost- it just doesn’t know it yet.
Comparing right wing people to Radical Muslim terrorists? Really? That is pathetic.
Keep drinking the Kool aid – fantasies die hard on your side.
The Orlando shooter ranted about Allah. Duh!
I rest my case.
So, let’s see…
Kathy Griffin waves a severed head (in effigy) of the President. If some celebrity did that with President Obama, they would be accused of racism and hate speech.
Trump is portrayed as the assassination target in the NYC Julius Caesar production . Try that with Obama, either of the Clintons, etc.
Johnny Depp goes on foreign soil and not-so-subtly condones the idea of a modern day John Wilkes Booth murdering our President.
The Black Lives Matter “protesters” chant : “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want ’em? Now!” Look at the videos.
Conservative speakers are prevented from peaceably stating their views in liberal enclaves like Berkeley. The Antifa types, wearing masks to hide their identity, bust up their own town. The local PC police are ordered to stand down rather than restore order, despite burning cars, smashing windows, etc.
As mentioned, the Hamburg agitators injure dozens of police officers during the G-20 meetings.
Leftist “protesters” attack and threaten Trump supporters, before and after the election. Have you seen the video of the woman in San Jose who was taunted and spat at because she wore a Trump t-shirt? Look it up. Other people being assaulted by the “tolerant” left-wingers by being punched in the face and having their MAGA hats ripped off their heads? Look up the video for that, too.
How many rapes were committed in the “Occupy Wall Street” encampment a few years back?
Why were the New Black Panther members standing on the steps of a polling place in Philly a few years ago, brandishing billy clubs, not prosecuted for voter intimidation?
These actions , whether physical or symbolic, are NOT being perpetrated by the Right, no matter how much dubious information you may claim from exceptionally biased sources.
Why are PC cities obsessed with providing sanctuary for illegal aliens, some of whom are repeat , violent offenders? Are they afraid the mean old Conservatives will actually enforce the laws, and possibly prevent incidents , such as the murder of Kate Steinle in SF?
You will probably weakly retort that these are “simplistic talking points.” However, that does not invalidate factual information drawn from merely observing the news over the past few years.
By the way, how is your Socialist Utopia in Venezuela doing? The average Venezuelan has lost over 30 pounds in the last year due to starvation under the brilliant command economy there. Look it up.