From The Divine Right of the Democratic Party:
Some progressives do not think we have two legitimate competing political camps. They think the U.S. is suffering from an infection: the Republican party.
It is not only the Republican party as a political grouping they dream of eliminating: It is Republicans as such and those who hold roughly Republican ideas about everything from climate change to gun rights, groups that Democrats in agencies ranging from state prosecutors’ offices to the IRS already — right now, not at some point in some imaginary dystopian future — are targeting through both legal and extralegal means.
The Democrats who are doing this believe themselves to be acting morally, even patriotically, and sometimes heroically. Why? Because they believe that opposition is fundamentally illegitimate.
Eliminating the ability of those who currently align with the Republican party to meaningfully participate in national politics is not only wishful thinking in the pages of the New York Times. It is the progressive program, from Washington to Palo Alto and beyond.
From the description on Amazon about the book RIP GOP: How the New America Is Dooming the Republicans:
In RIP GOP, Stanley Greenberg argues that the 2016 election hurried the party’s imminent demise. Using amazing insights from his focus groups with real people and surprising revelations from his own polls, Greenberg shows why the GOP is losing its defining battle. He explores why the 2018 election, when the New America fought back, was no fluke. And he predicts that in 2020 the party of Lincoln will be left to the survivors, opening America up to a new era of renewal and progress.
Another viewpoint is that the political left has gone completely unhinged and the U.S. population is increasing aware of this. Examples include;
- They are banning plastic straws, yet give out free plastic syringes.
- They fine you if your dog poops on the street, yet humans dropping their pants and turds on the streets go unpunished.
- Wearing a red hat imprinted with “MAGA” will cost you your job, yet they look the other way from a street beatings of a reporter.
- They declare the nation’s oldest civil rights group a “domestic terrorist organization”, yet rioters in masks damaging property and beating innocent people in the streets is considered legitimate “fighting fascism”.
I’ve talked to people who believe the 2020 election will be a rout for the Republicans. There is evidence to support the hypothesis that Democrat leaders believe this too. I’m not convinced the democrats will be routed but I’m certain the political left is suffering from incredibly severe delusions.
Some states, dominated by democrats, changed their electoral college votes to go to the winner of the nationwide popular vote in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the last presidential outcome. In a non adaptive environment this might help their cause. U.S. voters are adaptive. For years millions of people in heavily populated democratic states have not voted because it was pointless. A 55-45 vote in the state for the democrat candidate is no better than a 70-30 vote…until the election in 2020. Those millions of people who thought their vote was irrelevant now have a reason to vote.
What if, because of the adaptive behavior of both the politicians and the voters, the new rules result in a popular vote giving California’s votes to the republican candidate? What if, without that change, the republican candidate would have lost? And what if the extra republican voters result in more U.S. congressional and as well as state seats going to republicans?
Democrats expect political extermination of the Republican party next November. They expect unobstructed one party rule in 2021. Nearly three years after the merely unexpectedly loss of the election for U.S. president we still see them spiral ever deeper into a psychoses.
What’s going to be the response if there is anything less than a clear win for democrats? And what if it’s a nearly unobstructed one party rule for republicans?
We live in interesting times.
You could swap the words “republican” and “democrat” in the above quote and it would still be accurate. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen liberalism referred to as a “disease” by folks on the right.
Seems that both sides have decided they hold the truth full stop.
Are republicans engaging in extra-legal activities (remember the IRS scandal) against people who advocate for democrats? Have republicans advocated anyone who supports a democrat politician or policy be fired? Have republicans legally declared a predominantly democrat civil rights group a “domestic terrorist organization”? Have republicans looked the other way as rioters beat up people who were not supporters of democrat issues?
So are you asserting that republicans *don’t* refer to liberalism as a disease? I think you yourself may have done that in the past. A disease is by definition pathological and something to be eliminated.
No. I did not assert that.
You covered the nature of John’s response a short time ago, didn’t you, Joe? You said X, John responded to Z. I have to laugh so I don’t cry.
The initial quote claims that democrats are trying to eliminate the republican party. In what way is my response, that republicans are equally interested in eliminating democrats (the “liberal disease” that Joe acknowledges has been asserted), not directly germane to that point?
My point is that the means by which they intend to accomplish the task is completely different. And those differences make it abundantly clear which is the more deserving of “elimination”.
So it’s ok to work towards the elimination of your political rivals as long as you do it the right way?
Of course! Voting them out of office and or prosecuting them using the truth and within the constraints of the law is perfectly acceptable.
If you think the means do not matter then that tells us a great deal about your character.
>>Of course! Voting them out of office and or prosecuting them using the truth and within the constraints of the law is perfectly acceptable.
>>If you think the means do not matter then that tells us a great deal about your character.
I didn’t say “the means don’t matter” because that’s beside the point. My argument is that there have always been and always will be large groups of people with contrary political ideas, and that a civilized society acknowledges and accounts for this in its structure and methods.
Thus any assertion about “elimination” of your political enemies is by definition uncivilized and ultimately unrealistic in anything other than a totalitarian society.
If you believe in real freedom, it includes the freedom of your enemies to try and enact their ideas. You’re justified in trying to prevent them from being successful, but to say you want to eliminate *them,* the actual people (vs. their ideas), is not freedom.
So when you talk about voting or prosecuting, I’m fine with that. It’s when you use the word “elimination” in the context above that I take issue, as that indicates a willingness to kill people and not just their ideas.
There is only one use of the word “extermination” in the post and that is used in the context of “political extermination” which clearly is not the elimination of the people.
My use of the word “elimination” in the comment above was in quotes. In the given context and with the addition of the quotes that clearly, to most anyway, indicated it was not intended to mean the literal elimination of people on a broad scale. That doesn’t mean their might not be some democrats who end up on death row because of capital offenses such as engaging in mass shootings to further their evil agendas. Sorry if that was not clear to you.
Oh! BTW. Congratulations on leaving the 60,000th comment on this blog!
>>Oh! BTW. Congratulations on leaving the 60,000th comment on this blog!
SIX-TY! SIX-TY! SIX-TY!
Ignoring the difference in behavior of the two parties and focusing on the word “eliminate” despite the two completely different ultimate results is like observing that it is bad to stick knives in people, and then going to a hospital to demonstrate against surgeons.
Come to think of it, that’s an excellent metaphor for the mindset of the rank and file gunbanners.
This is pretty hilarious. The assertion that claiming to hold the truth is the same as working to suppress the other side is just utterly bizarre. Even John usually comes up with more coherent stuff than that.
>>The assertion that claiming to hold the truth is the same as working to suppress the other side is just utterly bizarre.
That’s not my assertion. My assertion is that republicans are equally interested in suppressing the other side, as evidenced by (among other things) their reference to liberalism as a “disease,” and by extension of that metaphor the desirability of eliminating them from “the body politic.”
My only assertion re: truth is that both sides claim to have it.
But that completely ignores the crucial difference between words and actions.
Words saying the other side is bad may be impolite or even divisive. But actions to suppress the other side are illegal and an affront to democracy.
The Republicans are not proposing to suppress Democratic viewpoints by using the power of the IRS or the courts; only Democrats propose to do such things.
You don’t see 30% of Republicans suggesting that membership in NOW or the ACLU should be made illegal, but you do see such a percentage of Democrats saying that membership in the NRA should be illegal.
Equivalent? The facts say otherwise.
>> But actions to suppress the other side are illegal and an affront to democracy.
The Republicans are not proposing to suppress Democratic viewpoints by using the power of the IRS or the courts
On the contrary, Republicans have not only gone out of their way to suppress democratic *viewpoints*, they’ve actively engaged in *voter suppression*. There are multiple court cases now about the various attempts (the most prominent in North Carolina at the moment), and the extent to which Republicans have made it clear they want to prevent Democrats from voting entirely.
For example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/
The means matter. The Democrats should go to jail for using illegitimate means. The Republicans should not go to jail for using legitimate means, but they probably will.
Sooo…just so I’m clear: You’re fine with voter suppression and/or gerrymandering as long as it’s done within the laws currently on the books?
If you’re not, I don’t understand your point about the means.
The means determine options for a remedy. Illegitimate means demand prosecution. Legitimate means indicate a public debate and possible change in the law through the legislative process.
To get a feel for Democratic party one-party rule, one may look at California, or NYC. It’s no wonder that taking guns away from good people is a key plank in their platform.
“Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anyone has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” — Alexander Hope, in the novel “Hope” by Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman.
When I see articles like this I just think how upset they will be when they lose again.
And should they try to overthrow our elected President again I would expect they will get another surprise when federal troops show up.
The Democrats are becoming the very thing that they think that they oppose. They are becoming a party of intolerance and hate.
Until a few years ago I thought that our society was becoming a live and let live one. It is now clear that is no longer the case – you’re either with them or you’re an enemy. Just look at many eerie similarities that match the early years of historical leftist movements.
We’re in for rough times ahead, but we have one advantage that historical populations did not – we know what happened.
Which states switched their electoral college votes to national popular winner?
I know there is a compact among a bunch of states to switch to that when their combined electoral college total is 50%+1, but i wasn’t aware that any have jumped the gun in a legally binding way.
If the oppressed non-progressive of California get motivated to throw 6 million votes towards the national totals, even if they lose that state, what’s keeping the popular vote states from going “whoops, never mind, those Founding Fathers were smart guys, right?!?”
I didn’t realize the change was conditional upon getting greater than 50% of the electoral votes to be based on the popular vote.
I think I’d be hospitalized with a hernia from laughing.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Alexander Hope | The View From North Central Idaho