Below is my column in USA Today on adoption of some Democrats of arguments and rationales once used against the left to silence or jail them. Pundits and politicians are becoming the very thing that they have long condemned in this age of rage. It is realization of Nietzsche’s monster theory.
Here is the column:
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” Those words from philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche capture the fear that the struggle against the ideas and people we oppose will twist us into the very thing we hate.
For Democrats, that moment has come in an age of rage against former President Donald Trump in particular and conservatives in general. It’s an age when reason and restraint are strangers.
In various areas, Democrats have embraced repellent concepts in the effort to silence or even jail their opponents. What is most striking is that legal arguments now used by the left were once used against the left.
Power of the state used to suppress information
As someone who was raised in a liberal, politically active Democratic family in Chicago, one of the greatest disappointments of my lifetime has been to watch the Democratic Party fight against free speech, pushing both censorship and blacklisting.
Here are a few examples:
∎ Democratic leaders for years called on social media companies to ban or suppress those with opposing views. As shown in the Twitter Files, there was a secret effort by the FBI and other agencies to engage in what I called “censorship by surrogate.”
∎ President Joe Biden declared that social media companies were “killing people” by refusing to censor more citizens. Biden administration officials followed suit. Robert Califf, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, even declared that “misinformation” was a medical risk.
∎ Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
∎ New York Democrats proposed limiting speech as a way of protecting democracy, and former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich suggested free speech could be a form of “tyranny.”
∎ A federal judge recently found that the Biden administration had orchestrated “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” Yet, 70% of Democrats still support speech limits.
Why ‘fire in crowded theater’ quote is misguided
One of the most telling moments came in a congressional hearing in February when I warned of the dangers of repeating the abuses of prior periods like the Red Scare, when censorship and blacklisting were the norm. In response, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-New York, invoked Oliver Wendell Holmes’ view that free speech does not give a person the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. In other words, citizens had to be silenced because their views are dangerous to others.
When I attempted to point out that the line came from a case justifying the imprisonment of socialists for their political viewpoints, Goldman cut me off and “reclaimed his time.”
Other Democrats have used the line as a mantra, despite its origins in one of our most abusive anti-free speech periods during which the government targeted political dissidents on the left.
Many today dismiss free speech concerns over the prosecution of Trump and his aides for their actions in challenging the 2020 election.
Like others, I opposed those actions and rejected Trump’s claims of systemic voting fraud. However, some of us have great reservations about the criminalization of such challenges, particularly under the type of sweeping conspiracy theory put forward by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
While the Georgia indictment contains serious charges related to some individuals, the effort to bag Trump through a sweeping racketeering claim could lead in the future to the criminalization of election challenges by both parties. At one time, such a prosecution would have raised a modicum of concern on the left.
Democrats previously opposed certification of Republican victories without supporting evidence and Democratic lawyers even challenged Republican victories on the basis of voting machines flipping the election outcome. Yet, Democrats are blind to the implications of such prosecutions for our democratic system.
Democrats’ dangerous effort to bar Trump from ballot with 14th Amendment
Perhaps the most dangerous movement is an effort to extend the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from the 2024 ballot. Democrats, and some Republicans, have insisted that the 14th Amendment prevents Trump from running, given his support for “insurrection or rebellion.” Yet, Trump has not been charged with incitement, let alone insurrection or rebellion.
In support of barring Trump from the ballot, it’s been falsely claimed that the New Mexico Supreme Court relied on the 14th Amendment as the basis for upholding the removal of a local official from office for participation in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
It is telling that New Mexico District Judge Francis Mathew began his decision in the case with a long quotation from Judge Peter Stenger Grosscup, who in 1894 cracked down on union organizers as rebels and insurrectionists.
Grosscup not only declared union organizers to be insurgents but also added (as Mathew approvingly quoted) that “every person who knowingly incites, aids, or abets them, no matter what his motives may be, is likewise an insurgent.” Grosscup called for federal troops to put down union organizers and later resigned under allegations of improper conduct.
None of this seems to penetrate Democrats’ rage. In pursuing Trump, progressives are citing the same legal authority once used to justify imprisoning socialists and union organizers. And like their anti-free speech predecessors, they’re blind to the implications of these arguments.
They are transfixed on the enemy at hand rather than what they risk becoming themselves.
In warning about the danger of fighting monsters, Nietzsche added that, “If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley
Why are rugged individualists so concerned that government money is not being spent on themselves?
As a rugged individualist that is FORCED to pay for things like social security, I fully intend to collect what I have paid for. If you do not want me to collect what I have paid for, do not force me to pay.
This is really the least intelligent progressive argument. That is an accomplishment of note.
They are taxing me, taking that money and rather than spend it on American’s they spend the money on illegal aliens or really dumb things like trying to promote DEI in other countries.
Or how about a few billions dollars to fight a proxy war, getting thousands killed or wounded while ignoring American’s like in East Palestine OH, or Maui HI? Whom would I rather see the money going towards?
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announcing over $1 billion in new US aid.
Money well spent, right?
I read recently one of the many reasons why the Ukraine counter-offensive is not going well is the foreign mercenaries with combat training were not allowed to lead and getting fired upon by the regular Ukraine army. So, some 20,000 of them with real combat training and experience said, “No!” and left.
In light of that, shouldnt you be getting yourself or your kids over there? Get some training and paid big bucks to fight?
Despite Professor Turley’s grandiose protestations, I’m presently aware of only ONE website that doesn’t abuse is censorship powers in its own comment section, and this website is definitely NOT it. Beyond that observation, I won’t bother to dignify the existence of Turley’s attack dogs by mentioning their scrreen names or arguing about their function related to quelling dissent here in Turleyville.
Censorship takes several forms, and they are ALL practiced at THIS website.
Is this site run by the govt?
LOL LOL LOL — I sincerely hope that you’re not suggesting that only governments can engage in censorship. Speaking for myself, I’m aware of NO definition of censorship which restricts it to being an activity solely engaged in by governments. Actually the worst forms of censorship are engaged in and promoted by private organizations or individuals.
Perhaps you’re mixing up illegal censorship with legal censorship. I note that Professor Turley makes no such distinction but instead often refers to himself as a “free speech advocate.” God help us all if Turley is what actually passes for a “free speech advocate” these days, because that would mean that we’ve passed through the looking glass into an Orwellian Wunderland where up is down, love is hate, and free speech is what some person or Politburo allows you to say.
Note that Turley states, “… one of the greatest disappointments of my lifetime has been to watch the Democratic Party fight against free speech, pushing both censorship and blacklisting.” Much like this website, the “Democratic” Party is a private organization fighting AGAINST “free speech,” NOT a government entity. To claim that there’s a functional difference is creative Haarspalterei.
And yet you are on this site saying your piece. Seems to me you are practicing free speech right now….
You mean in this one comment that hasn’t been censored? LOL LOL LOL — That’s like arguing that Charles Manson wasn’t a mass murdereer because you could name some people that he didn’t kill. Try harder.
Again you are practicing free speech and I see no censors removing you. You certainly are critical of the Professor and yet, there you are posted.
LOL — You don’t see the censorship when it happens. Maybe you need to ask for a dictionary for your 12th birthday.
Ralph, stop complaining. There are 3 types of “censorship”
1)Errors by WP or language found unacceptable by WP. Those responses never reach anyone’s mailbox.
2)Those who are permanently banned. Those emails reach everyone’s mailbox but most of the time disappear from the net,
3)Censored speech, political
#3 does not occur. You are not permanently banned so we see your emails and no matter how nasty they are to the moderator or Turley, they make it on the blog. You have some good things to say spoiled by the other rhetoric.
We all have had our posts deleted because of #1. My last one was due to a word that is the name of an animal and appears in books and standard dictionaries. Instead of complaining, I recognize the limits of technology and try to avoid the glitches.
Keep posting the good stuff.
This website will NEVER be legitimate until Turley identifies which posters are his employees. That’s just the first step in a multi-step process. Meantime, I’m not really interested in anyone’s defense of this website, and especially not a defense presented by someone EMPLOYED by Turley or the website. It’s a concept often referred to as “full disclosure.” That’s a basic rule of legitimate society and legitimate discouse that’s frequently violated by political parties and various garbage sites on the web.
Having read this blog for many years, and commented here for as many (though not always under this screen name), I recognize a number of commenters — you being one of them — and have a pretty clear idea of who’s being honest and who’s trying to conceal their function here — and I’m not amused.
“This website will NEVER be legitimate until Turley identifies which posters are his employees. “
Do you actually think Turley spends his time worrying about you or anyone else? That is the crazy side of the leftists. You are better than that.
“I recognize a number of commenters — you being one of them “
Yes, I have been here for awhile under the name of allan before my email account and computer went whacko. That was the first name I used which was followed by S. Meyer.. Do you think I work for Turley? Why?
I didn’t say that you work for Turley. I know that SOME do, because it was admitted to me here at this site long ago. And there’s a pattern to the fraud — and it IS a type of fraud, same as happens at the Fox and NY Post websites as well as probably many other websites. One doesn’t need to possess a particularly high IQ to experience a little, basic pattern recognition, although that IS a aptitude category in which some people excel more than others.
The fairy tale notion that these online discussions are merely a facilitation of altruistic free speech is as quaint as it is insulting to one’s intelligence.
Ralph, other than Darren, who do you think works for Turley? I wanted to see what your complaints were all about, so when I saw a post (no politics, no opinion) that I think you would agree did not belong on the blog, I couldn’t link to it, so I assumed they censored it.
I could see from the e-mail it violated a decency standard (no curse words). I wouldn’t call that censorship of political comment or facts. I hope you do better. I’d like to hear a substantive discussion.
Ralph, another basic rule of legitimate society and legitimate discourse is to direct your complaint or concern to the individual you have an issue with. In this case that would be the host of the blog, Jonathan Turley. I’ve emailed him numerous times and he actually responds. He even asks for that type of communication in his Civility Rules. Here is his email address: jturley@law.gwu.edu
LOL — I’ve also emailed Turley in the past — YEARS AGO — and never once received a reply. Maybe he only replies to his employees?
Yeah, that’s the only reasonable explanation. 🤣
I’m presently aware of only ONE website that doesn’t abuse is censorship powers in its own comment section…
So Ralph, you admit that JT does have the “power” to censor (moderate) contributions to his blog’s comment section. The fact is he has unlimited power over his blog’s comment section. Exercising that power is only considered abusive by the legion of Leftists that routinely test the acceptable limits. If anything, JT is far too accommodating to commenters from across the political spectrum that engage in the endless tit-for-tat nonsense that is degrading the quality of legal debate. This is JT’s house that we’ve been invited to visit and engage with others for free. Whining about how he moderates conversations in his house ignores the obvious fact that you’re a guest and free to leave.
LOL LOL LOL — typical Turleyville troll. You’re correct — he can do whatever he wants, same as the democrat party can do whatever it wants, and same as the Lincoln Project “republican” scum can do whatever they want.
And I’m free to think that it’s beyond galling that Turley promotes himself as a “free speech advocate” when he’s the exact OPPOSITE, which is essentially what you’re testifying to, Turleyville troll, same as his webmaster tesitified to yesterday while claiming that one of my comments was blocked by the web-hosting service, not Turley, and that he COULD restore my comment but decided not to — WHY? — because he didn’t like it.
You people defending this nonsense are mindless children.
🤣 just tell Darren you want your oompa loompa now!
OR I could just tell you to shove your childish nonsense, such as THIS:
“The fact is he has unlimited power over his blog’s comment section. Exercising that power is only considered abusive by the legion of Leftists …”
One of several problems with that rank idiocy is that I’m a Trump supporter, and I’ve been a Trump supporter dating back to well before Turley was using this site to attack Trump and promote then-future convicted multiple felon Michael Avenatti.
So I guess you’re a little confused about who’s a “Leftist” and who considers Turley’s self-proclaimed status as a “free speech advocate” to be a sick joke and not just another fraudulent abuse of the English language.
Not confused Ralph, I was just incorrect in stating it was “only” Leftists.
There is probably no stronger advocate for free speech than Jonathan Turley. He is also a strong advocate for civility. His blog’s Civility Rule describes how he attempts to enforce the latter with a consideration for the former. Then we also have WordPress and it’s own set of rules. Write a great civil response to what JT describes as a troll and the comment will be removed when the troll’s comment is removed.
I also voted for Trump, twice. And I will do so again if he is the nominee. What is the ONE website that doesn’t abuse is censorship powers in its own comment section?
“What is the ONE website that doesn’t abuse is censorship powers in its own comment section?”
Funny you should ask, because I actually identified it once in a comment that this disreputable website failed to post. So since the website decided to keep it a secret, I’ll not go against the decision of those that view me as an annoying guest.
That means Ralph has no website in mind.
All of this free speech and still not removed? Keep speaking and keep proving my point for me.
So have you finally switched sides or has your web site been hacked? (could be a label Duck Duck Go has applied to search results)
https://jonathanturley.org/
Jon Turley is a conservative commentator who writes about the current and past issues of the U.S. government, such as the Biden scandal, the Supreme Court, and the FISA report. He also shares his views on the U.S. Constitution, Free Speech, and the future of the country.
There are many more examples, like Russian Bounties, Lab leak, Masks, Vaccines,…
The neurotic progressives are scared and they want (even need) to believe anything an authority figure says. Skepticism is not tolerated – you have to have blind faith in authority or you are a threat to democracy/humanity/civilization.
Election audits would be a great way to restore trust in elections. Would there be trust in company financial statements without audits? Accounting is trustworthy, why is an audit needed? The answer is obvious to anyone that thinks. Elections, whether or not you agree, have a trust issue . Audits would be a way to restore trust. Progressives fight audits and declare anyone that does not blindly follow the authorities is a threat to democracy. Solve the problem, name calling is for idiots.
Servility to authority is not in my nature, I tire of the mentally ill, I tire of the stupidity.
MB,
I don’t understand why I can’t have a receipt after I vote that I can look up on line and see where my ballot resides and how I voted. I can watch a purchase go across the country telling me where it is every step of the way as it gets to my door.
Jim22: because such an online site could be hacked and the information used against you. How someone votes is secret–for good reasons. You can probably confirm with your local election officials that their records show you DID vote. My state provides this service.
Yea, it’s secret unless its a traunch of votes gathered by a mule at a nursing home.
Gigi,
So no govt. sites are secure? I guess it’s good they don’t have one for social security or taxes. Oh, wait….
To my knowledge, states are not allowed keep a database showing HOW someone voted. They DO track WHETHER you voted, and at what precinct, if in person, or whether you used an absentee ballot. This does not apply to a primary election, of course, in which you have to declare a party affiliation.
Turley is a classical liberal who leans left. The Democrats have permitted the anti-liberal radical leftists to take over the party, so Turley is standing up to what the Democrat party might have been earlier.
S. Meyer,
Quite right.
The good professor is a classic liberal. A JFK Democrat. Other long time liberals, traditional Democrats like the good professor, Bill Maher, Elon Musk they did not leave the party. The party left them.
I would argue traditional Democrats did not permit the anti-liberal leftists take over they party. The radical leftists flat out highjacked it.
The good professor is just pointing out what has happened to the party.
I know of a few Democrat’s who are also saying, “WTF!?”
Upstate, I am thinking about where the classical liberals of the Democrat Party went. Well-known Democrats won’t speak to Alan Dershowitz, who remains on the left. Maybe an unnoticeable shift occurred during the Reagan years. But we must remember that former so-called classical liberals were actually radical leftists intent on destroying this nation.
S. Meyer,
I have read about long time Democrats to include union members, who looked at what has become of the party and said they would never vote Democrat again. Most have move to Independent.
Well, most of the classical liberals who saw themselves as radicals (pales in comparison to today’s leftists with a few exceptions like those who committed bombings) in the 60s and 70s went on to become the yuppies of the 80s. I did not see them as having intent to destroy the nation as they were too busy making money and snorting coke.
Based off what I have seen it is their children who are trying to destroy the nation and their children.
https://www.facebook.com/stephen.m.stirling/posts/pfbid0gnPVybo262MfEL9JZrtZDoivkXVmg6WTZwqtEiU239PZCtfHifHgZZaDN9oD5tztl?__cft__%5B0%5D=AZXSEtuo_sGjRK3_ebbm129oxhCdeMCDWYGtslzz9_nvrf1oi1b5bfPA-_8kV-3v8_MBTLTgOo2FbXXxM8NfMCm_vkn_fr7N4zMbGJB57v4LL7ezSbKKTpCLENE7shBzkgi7gzdhM9HtU2Xw2dfJ62kp&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
This is interersting. How is Brandon losing ground on a key Democratic constituency?
This is what bug has to say: “^^ This is what delusion looks like ^^”
You respond based on ignorance and stupidity. If you trace Turley’s ideological history, you can easily find out how he tilts ideologically. He and I differ politically but agree where our freedoms are concerned.
You have nothing nice to say about Turley and constantly barrage the blog with your stupidity and contradictions. You are an eyesore, and when you speak we sometimes have to remove 12 year-old’s from the blog because of your language.
You may post, but in the long run you have proven yourself stupid enough that my responses will remain while yours disappear.
Looking back one century ago, we have an icon of the Democrat Party who started the assault on the First Amendment, Woodrow Wilson. So when the Professor says, ” Pundits and politicians are becoming the very thing that they have long condemned in this age of rage ” we should recognize we were in the same place 100 years ago, and it wasn’t the Republicans. It was a Democrat President, something we tend to forget.
The stated reason for that attack on the First Amendment had a reason behind it (though I tend to disagree in part) because we were at war, and the intent was to “make the world safe for democracy” and protect our nation.
Today 100 years later, Democrats are no longer looking for a safe nation but power and the destruction of a democratically functioning Constitutional Republic.
At that time, massive fines and 20-year prison sentences were part of the law. This punishment was the penalty for writing anti-war, anti-draft publications. This anti-First Amendment attitude was inspired by Democrats and led by the Democrat President of the United States.
S. Meyer,
All one has to do is look at what leftist Democrats have done in Democrat ran cities as to what they want for the rest of America.
Just read a study showing only 5% of major crimes in Chicago in 2022 resulted in an arrest.
GTA, 3%.
Sexual assault, also 3%.
Burglaries, 4%.
Robberies, 5%.
An un-secure Southern border.
Open air drug markets.
Bidenomics.
Pornography in elementary schools.
Looking at today show that Democrats fail as leaders and is scary, but America is not one party or one ideology. America has a culture of its own.
S. Meyer,
I agree.
But until woke leftists showed up on school boards, teachers in public schools trying to indoctrinate children with everything from racism, to sexuality at inappropriate ages we did not realize how insidious their reach was.
Very much so we need to fight to preserve a moral and decent culture.
The country song, “Try that in a small town,” comes to mind.
Good comment SM.
I was thinking of the 1980s arcade game “Whack a Mole.”
The similarities of the activists who have hijacked and weaponized the American legal system are noteworthy. They are heretofore unsuccessful getting their primary target and growing impatient.
Using yet another analogy all fair minded Americans could all join in unison and yell at the top of our lungs, “Run Forrest! Run!!”
When haven’t democrats demonized their chosen enemies?
The left has never owned the lucid argument.
The difference being they have a far outsized level of influence in the current era.
Because those who quest for power believe the ends justify the means.
“…the effort to bag Trump through a sweeping racketeering claim could lead in the future to the criminalization of election challenges by both parties…”
Democrats have no fears of ever being treated similarly by Republicans because they envision a future of no Republicans at all. Political utopia. What they should fear is Democrats versus rival Democrats; A nationalization of what used to go on in Youngstown. Recall the “Youngstown tune-up.”
Kevin T Kilty,
At this point, with the leftists accusation that anything and everything not leftists is racism to feed their rage, I would not put it past them for a one-party rule America.
How un-American.
One-party rule has always been their goal. My question is whether Nancy and Chucky are complicit in this or just ignorant dupes.
The Democrats did not cede power to the radical left until this century, so I doubt one-party rule was their goal.
During the 60s, many radical leftists associated with free-speech issues so they could burn the flag and destroy the fabric of our nation, making the Democrat Party appear more protective of liberal ideas than they were. I don’t think Professor Turley accounts for that radical left effect on the Democrat Party and subsequently fails to moderate some of his rhetoric criticizing the right and praising the left.
And yet is the Republicans who are the ones passing and enforcing censorship laws. There was a post about that just the other day. It is odd how Turley gets all worked up about things some Ds propose, but not worried about the same things that Rs actually do.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/02/federal-court-strikes-down-social-media-age-verification-law-on-first-amendment-grounds/
And right on cue, along comes a Dem bot to repeat the canard that trying to protect little kids from hard-core porn constitutes a “censorship law” – as if it’s “censorship” for a convenience store clerk to require age verification to buy a Hustler magazine.
With advances in AI one would think these bots would become more clever, but apparently not.
“. . . trying to protect little kids from hard-core porn constitutes a ‘censorship law’ . . .”
You’re misrepresenting those state laws. And there are already federal laws against allowing children to view pornography.
I’ve already noted both of those points. But some choose to see only what they wish to see.
Curious. What censorship laws?
Another case of demented whatabouism. You miss the point completely, but nothing new about Dem trolls.
Sammy thinks not letting your 12 year old go see Debby does Dallas is censorship. Meanwhile the left bans To Kill. Mockingbird and Dr Seuss. The right removes books on how to perform oral sex on 12 year old boys and Sammy says it’s censorship, but he’s fine with banning the Cat in the Hat!?!?
Yes, Republicans sometimes also go too far. Republicans sometimes take millimeters, while Democrats are continuously taking meters.
Why Sammy is so blind to the difference is something that sets him apart from rational people.
“We know the 2024 election is going to be interfered with in 2024, because it is being interfered with now.”
Some good analysis by Doug Wilson. It can be read or watched.
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/whatchagonnadoo.html
Until the cog of socialism in this country is destroyed, we will slip further and further away from our bill of rights. The long term problem with true freedom is that within it, it contains the seed of socialism and so a new cog will grow in the fertile soil of this freedom.
I believe we have passed the point of no return and it is not hyperbole to say so.
It would seem that we either become the boiled frog and float dead at the top of the rolling water, or we jump out a slit the throats of the ones who turned on the stove.
Jim22,
I fear that day is coming soon.
The problem is what is the determining criteria for who’s throats are slit?
The swamp creatures in DC?
The lobbyists on K street?
Those elite billionaire donors and their dark money, super PACs?
Or what political sign someone had in their front yard in 2020?
That is where things can get real ugly.
Our only hope, Mary, is that enough of our fellow black Americans see what’s happening and vote with us.
On top of this totalitarian censorship regime, now the biggest item in the federal budget is paying interest on the national debt. The deficit last year was $1T, and this year it will double to $2T – that’s $2,000,000,000,000. In a single year. And that’s not the budget, but only the deficit. As liberals like to say, this is “unsustainable.” This means higher interest rates, higher inflation, and a death spiral. Sad to say.
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/04/federal-deficit-double-despite-economic-growth
“Saudi man sentenced to death for tweets in harshest verdict yet for online critics” https://www.npr.org/2023/08/31/1196776390/saudi-arabia-man-death-sentence-tweets#:~:text=Hourly%20News-,Saudi%20man%20sentenced%20to%20death%20for%20tweets%20in%20harshest%20verdict,rights%20advocates%20and%20his%20family.
The Democrats are deeply envious. But they are getting closer and closer to this dream scenario, thanks to our sacred Banana Republic.
Nice work Jonathan.
Your missive captured the 180° epistemological change perfectly.
Well Done
“The Age of Rage.” That phrase is apt, but not quite sufficient. Something else more malevolent, if not demonic, is going on: the mass media, allied with the Democratic Party, have created a hate figure (Donald Trump) on which all of our fears (both the normal and political varieties) can be focused. This figure is blamed for all ills of the time. People who defend or support him are part of the general conspiracy against good people. Attacks on his supporters, by denunciation or violence, after they have been “outed” by authoritative anti-hate groups, is permitted as a way of assuaging the public’s fears.
The Trump-as-Monster device is similar to the treatment of Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984:
“In the course of daily life in Oceania, Goldstein is always the subject of the Two Minutes Hate, a daily programme of propaganda that begins at 11:00 hours; the telescreen shows an over-sized image of Emmanuel Goldstein for the assembled citizens of Oceania to subject to loud insults and contempt. To prolong and deepen the anger of the spectators, the telescreen then shows images of Goldstein walking among the parading soldiers of the current enemy of Oceania — either Eurasia or Eastasia. The Two Minutes Hate programme shows Goldstein as both an ideological enemy of the Ingsoc régime of The Party and a traitor aiding the national enemy of Oceania.
The Party’s scapegoating of Goldstein justified the voiding of civil rights, the implementation of universal surveillance, and poverty. Save for The Party’s cultivation of a vague, but fervent, patriotism for Oceania, the Proles were excluded from the politics of Oceania, and only members of the Inner Party concerned themselves with the existence or the non-existence of Emmanuel Goldstein and The Brotherhood[.]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Goldstein
The difference between Trump and Goldstein is that Trump gets far more than just 2 minutes of hate.
Well done Ed, too bad most of our youth haven’t read 1984. They will not see the likeness of today.
This is true. Nor have they seen movies or read books like “Fahrenheit 451” or “Animal Farm.” Needless to say, I doubt Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” is still taught in junior English in high school–or at any point in education.
Ed,
Well said and spot on.
I am old enough to remember the 1990s Democratic leadership.
They would have subtly goaded Trump to pick fights with the Republican congressional leadership.
What changed about the Democratic leadership since then?
One of my Facebook friends answered that question.
https://www.facebook.com/stephen.m.stirling/posts/pfbid02DzDdpDG92VU1wBd1EPM8AoKx237SBCr7vNZzQfEarschd3BHbHPTsrmFraSo46QXl?comment_id=309311174968743&reply_comment_id=259769166958631&__cft__%5B0%5D=AZX5L8ukii2cly7xhW2sEjWEHVxKwzS2JyQenif4g7_qLN9SbKj0aD1IphU3MrqTuA9KfvfAeHiGyXuoaWxHYEPbQoYBoxwIrEVE1drJ_5-aWE043PBHnnjTsei0FepbI_ZfzdTJTU6TL1u27jx3LmJ_&__tn__=R%5D-R
“Fighting Monsters”
That is a great column. Terrific use of the Nietzsche quote to weave together a range of horrifying examples.
One quibble: “. . . what they risk becoming themselves.”
Leftists do not “risk becoming” that monster. They *are* that monster. And they have fallen into that “abyss” — a bottomless pit of darkness, where there are no values, no ideas, no arguments, no joy. There is only pain, deprivation, suffering.
Pundits and politicians are becoming the very thing that they have long condemned in this age of rage.
Long condemned? Maybe. But allow me to demystify the situation for you. Even when doing so their condemnation was not sincere to the extent it was portrayed as standing on principle. What they didn’t like was that they weren’t in charge.
The Left in this country has never really objected in principle to the use of authoritarian tactics to silence dissent, as long as they’re in charge. The Left’s instincts are always totalitarian, and their former appeal to tolerance and the veneration of dissent was always in service of gaining power for themselves.
Excellent summary of what is going on and the danger the Democrats put the country in. If successful, this is not going to end well as tyranny looms around the corner and will evoke resistance. The 2024 elections are the last chance to put the ghost back into the bottle. The Dems know this too and that explains their efforts to preempt any chance of Republican success: systemic censorship, absurd jail time for J6 convicts as a means of intimidation, prosecution of Mr. Trump, the use of the 14th Amendment, efforts to make DC a state to secure a permanent Dems. Senate majority, etc. I don’t scare easily, but I am worried for what 2025 may bring.
DD,
Well, some believe that we are in the advanced stages of a “fourth Turning” time period and it it’s about to get ugly. History shows this to be the case unfortunately.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/08/jim-quinn/end-game-for-the-american-empire/
Jim – let’s assume the four-turnings theory is correct. On top of what you said, there is no guarantee that the next “high” will have the U.S. in any position of power in the world, or even a good standard of living. The previous crisis period (1929-1945) turned out well for us, but not so well for a number of other nations. Given our trajectory, it does not seem likely that the end of the current crisis period will usher in another optimistic “high” period like 1945-1963.
Oldman,
I fear that you are correct. It’s hard to feel that we compare at all today with how we were in the last period. We have a severe deficit in education, society, masculinity, and patriotism. It seems near impossible for us to turn this ship around in a few years to face the oncoming storm.
1945-1963 was a very different situation that cannot be replicated. Europe was destroyed by war, and we were rebuilding Europe. Our outlook was different and the wealth gap existing today was not as noticeable and our living habits were contained.
OldManFromKS, Jim22, S. Meyer,
I think we are looking at a decade, perhaps longer of real economic down turn, reduced quality of life, real possible social and civil strife.
While many of our young leftists friends complain about how bad they have it, living at home on mom and dad’s dime, these just might be remembered as the good times before the bad times.
Well said Double Dutch. Well said. You are saying what many of us are worried about in the upcoming 2024 election and for our country going forward. Democrats are laser focused on all things Donald Trump and are making him out to be the cause of all things bad, much like Hitler’s laser focus on the Jews. It certainly worked in the 1930’s. Democrats are frantically trying to ramp up their censorship efforts through a massive social media blitz and criminalize any actions taken by those who disagree. Santa Fe New Mexico District Judge Mathew’s decision that draws the legal comparison of union organizers to insurrectionists is telling, although in fairness to Judge Mathew he practices law in the land of Cafe Communists so I can’t fault him too much. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
I’ve been saying it for years, we’re living in 1930s Germany and Italy, complete with denunciations, with a lot of the Cultural Revolution thrown in. This not going to end well for anyone.
“socialists” through most of history become fascist/communists! They want Centralized power…which is then usurped by Machiavellians. America was mostly a de-centralized country. That is Over…DC is lost and the Machiavellians are in control…and they HATE YOU! Cut 50% of spending move 75% of DC to the heartland. Just look at Democrat run cities for the last 60 years…a place like Newark, where democrats steal every well meaning dollar for cronies and public unions. Same Failed Newark.
End all federal aid to cities, colleges and states….STARVE the Beast!
There is only one solution for this type of tyranny in a republic: The Democrats must be swept from office.
how are they going to be “swept” when they can fill in ballots….a place like Philly…where 20% use to vote…now vote 100% Democrat.
Virtually NO country allows unrestricted ballots where there is NO CHAIN of custody. Voting is 1 day, in person, with ID…I don’t care if you vote, I care if you cheat!
@guyventner
“a place like Philly”? The ENTIRE state of PA had a constitution that was disregarded in the 2020 electoral process.
Therefore, not only does the term “republic” does not apply to PA, the terms “NO CHAIN of custody. Voting is 1 day, in person, with ID” become irrelevant.
After the 2020 ‘election’ I sent a photo to my brother who lives in Europe of the people counting the votes in Philly – all were wearing a Biden/Harris teeshirt.
Ex Dem, its impossible to vote them out, with mail in voting and ballot drop boxes.
@iowan2
No. In a republic, it is not impossible. You get your reps to change the laws regarding voting parameters just like you get them to change any other circumstance.
Just because it is not easy does no mean it is impossible.
Disagree.
States are just like the US. Democrats concentrated in population centers. Populated by people on govt assistance. They vote for more of others people moneies. And Democrats love to tax and give away money. A good share of that money is now granted to private organizations, run by the families of Democrat politicians. That is infrastructure to distribute the grift. (and yes GOPe are included in the grift, so it is hard to pass legislation, even with “Republican” majorities)
Iowan2,
For a good 90% of the country, when it comes down to it, on election day they vote with their wallet in mind.
The upside for 2024, is a lot of poor people, middle class are feeling the effects of Bidenomics on their wallets.