Although academia has been seeding American Leftism for 70 years, Trump, despite his many foibles, is the weapon that will destroy that system.
This is going to be a slightly more discursive post than usual, simply because I’m trying to tie together three disparate thoughts. Thought One is how we got here, by which I really mean how the Left got where it is and managed to completely cow conservatives, especially those ostensible conservatives elected to Congress. Thought Two is to remind you to read a stellar post telling Trump how to handle Mueller. And Thought Three is another stellar post explaining precisely why Trump’s support is unwavering, no matter the hue and cry from the Left.
How we got here
We got here because of academia. When Marxism first hit America, it hit at the worker and union level. In America, at least, the workers of the world really were trying to unite. Unfortunately for their initial success, their unity took forms that were antithetical to most Americans.
To begin with, many of the workers were foreign, highlighting the fact that Marxism too was foreign. To Americans who still read the Constitution, Marxism was scarily alien. It’s values were too unlike ours and they resisted it strenuously.
Another problem with early Marxism in America was that many of its early supporters openly espoused violence, which most Americans found frightening. Back in pre-WWII America, nobody on the Marxist side of the equation had the wits to come up with something called Marxophobia and then to try to make Americans feel guilty about it. Americans felt no guilt when they feared the violence and totalitarianism that Marxism promised.
Lastly, Marxists back in the day insisted on talking like Marxists, with all sorts of ridiculous words and phrases such as “dialectic” and “come the Revolution,” and an insistence on talking about the “proletariat” and the “bourgeoisie.” It was, quite simply, off-putting.
What the Marxists figured out during WWII, thanks in no small part to the Left’s huge push to bring America to the aid of the Soviet Union once Hitler invaded Russia, was that, while Americans were not amenable to hard Marxism, they could be totally swayed by soft Marxism. This idea landed hardest and best in America’s colleges and universities. There, mild-mannered professors in rumpled, tweedy suits carefully indoctrinated their students in a whole new way of thinking about America’s liberties.
Mostly, these academics inculcated in their middle-class students a sense of guilt about America’s bounty — never mind that the bounty resulted from hard work and innovation. To the Leftists, America’s wealth, no matter that it was earned, not inherited, was evil, and young people had to pay for their countries’ sins. Moreover, when students protested against this indoctrination (and yes, back in the day, some did), the same Marxists hid behind the Constitution’s protections.
This was a brilliant strategy. If you’ve got the college students, you’ve got the next generation of elementary and high school teachers, and the next generation of news people, and the next generation of screenwriters, and the next generation of women’s magazine writers, and the next generation of college professors. And with each iteration, with each generation that passes through, you can dig in the message harder and deeper, until you end up with the insanity of intersectionality, cultural appropriation, safe spaces, triggers, political correctness, and all the other tropes that work as vehicles for intellectual tyranny.
If you read Helen MacInnes, who wrote during the height of the Cold War, you see everything already spelled out in her books. She had the number of that first generation of indoctrinators. This is most apparent in one of her lesser known books, Neither Five Nor Three, which she published in 1951.
Paul, the hero, returns to America in the late 1940s, having stayed in the American zone in Germany after the war to continue as part of Army Intelligence in the hottest zone of the Cold War. When he finally returns home, he finds things have changed a great deal. He still has a job as a writer at his old magazine, an up-scale lifestyle magazine, but the tone of the articles has changed, becoming darker and uglier about America and Americans. His good friend, a young college professor, is struggling against a subtle Leftist tide at his school. And his one-time love, Rona, is engaged to a young man who denies assidously that he is a communist, yet he constantly undermines America and pals around with Leftist academics — all of whom also deny that they’re communists.
From the beginning, MacInnes establishes that she is attuned to one of the baseline Leftist tactics, one still rife on college campuses, which is name-calling in lieu of debate. For example, when Paul realizes that the Leftists who have been submitting articles have included significant misstatements of facts in an effort to shift political sentiment, he takes the subject up with Bill, the magazine’s editor:
“But – Bill, why don’t you publish the story you told me? Just as you’ve told it to me? Let your readers know. Let the public see what is happening.”
Weidler’s frown came back. “You know what will happen? There will be a campaign against us. We’ll be called fascists, war-mongers, American imperialists, witch-hunters.”
“You’ve forgotten to add ‘hysteria-inciters,’” Paul said, smiling. “Strange how often they’ve been using hysteria recently – almost hysterically, in fact.”
MacInnes also takes a delicate poke at the root cause excuse, one that allows Leftists to blame everything on America (and the Jews, of course). When the book’s heroine, Rona, and her sister, Peggy, talk about an unpleasant acquaintance, they have this to say:
“She isn’t a friend of yours, is she?” Peggy was now very much the elder sister.
“Not particularly,” Rona said, which was a miracle of understatement. “Scott says she’s a product of her environment,” she added.
“Strange how we never use that phrase when we are describing pleasant people,” Peggy said….
Using a conversation between Paul and his friend, Jon, the professor, MacInnes has a long riff on the way in which the Left deliberately targets universities and newspapers – indeed, all media of mass communication — in order to manipulate the public. It’s worth reading what she has to say more than once, because she describes precisely the tactic that Left us a world in which it’s considered unseemly to exclude mentally ill people from the military — provided, of course, that they have a politically correct mental illness:
“You’re in education, Jon. Do you think propaganda is a powerful force? Could it be dangerous? Supposing an enemy of this country had its sympathizers carefully planted here? Supposing these propagandists were trying to infiltrate such businesses and professions as radio, the press, films, schools and colleges, the theater, publishing?”
“That’s a damned silly question,” Jon said almost angrily. “You ask how dangerous it might be?” He looked at Paul, unbelievingly, but Paul kept silent. “This is the twentieth century, with communication easier and more powerful than it’s ever been. The trouble with those who see no danger, who think we are perfectly safe if only we invent more hideous bombs is that they are still living with a nineteenth century idea of peace. Wars haven’t changed much except in bigger and better holocausts. But peace, as we are going to see it in this century, is something quite altered. A lot of new dangers are going to stay with us permanently just because we’ve invented a lot of peacetime conveniences that make life so interesting. It isn’t only armies we have to fear today: it’s words, words abused and corrupted and twisted.”
Still Paul said nothing.
“You see,” Jon went on patiently, “a hundred years ago, fewer people could read, fewer people were educated, and fewer people thought they could argue about international conditions. Also, in those days, propaganda spread more slowly and less widely. But now we’ve got a vast public who read their papers, discuss books and articles, go to the movies and the theater, listen to their radio, watch television, and send their children to schools and colleges.”
“And a public,” Paul interposed, “who have enough to do with arranging their own lives without analyzing all the things they read or hear. They’ve got to trust the honesty of those men who deal with the written or spoken word. Just as the journalist, or the movie director, or the teacher, has got to trust the honesty of the businessmen and workers whenever he buys a refrigerator or a car or a shirt. Isn’t that right?”
Another aspect of modern Leftism is its hostility to any wars that might conceivably advance American interests. MacInnes describes that trait in its nascent form when she writes about a college campus:
“The colleges and universities were full of pickets with placards saying it was all an imperialist war. The students and faculties were deluged with leaflets denouncing war-mongers and reactionaries. Speakers were appearing on the campus, haranguing us all not to fight.”
Speaking of fighting for something worth defending, MacInnes gives us a front row seat to the moral relativism that was appearing in the late 1940s and that’s become the default approach in all American education today — and, by extension, in any field that overwhelmingly employs college graduates. Here are Rona and her boyfriend, the Leftist Scott (the one who denies being a communist), debating a Leftist party guest:
“His line is so old! Two years ago, or three, he could manage to get away with it. But not now.”
“What do you mean?” Scott looked across the room.
“Just that he wasn’t the least little bit the original talker he likes to imagine he is. He only succeeded in annoying most of our guests.”
“Because he thinks differently from them? So we must all talk the same way, think the same things?”
“No, darling!” She rose and came over to him. “I don’t believe two of us in the room echoed any point of view, except in a general way – well, of believing that right is right and wrong is wrong.”
“That’s all relative,” Scott said. “Depends on each man’s frame of reference.”
“I don’t believe that,” she said, “except for the small things in life. You can find them as relative as you like. But in the big things, you’ve got to decide what is right, what is wrong. Or else you’ve no moral judgment, at all. Like Murray. He’s just a parrot, that’s all he is.”
Lastly, MacInnes tackles the Left’s habit of targeting individuals by appealing to their sense of victim hood. She saw then that multiculturalism isn’t a means of preserving what’s special about a group’s ethnicity. Instead, it’s a political tool aimed at dividing Americans from each other, and making them dependent on the Left as their only savior. While today’s victims are mostly blacks, Hispanics, gays, lesbians, women (when it’s still useful), Muslims, etc., in the book, the man targeted to be a victim who can be saved only by the Left is a Jew. For MacInnes, though, the smart Jew is the one who refuses to take the victimhood bait:
“I’ve a battle on my hands right now. They want us to keep different, and I’m telling them the hell with that, we’re Americans. That’s what we are. Stop building a wall around us, stop emphasizing differences, that’s what I keep trying to tell them. And they look at me as if I were some kind of traitor.” He looked at Jon Tyson. “But I’m building no wall, and no one is going to persuade me to do it.”
All of the nascent tactics MacInnes described then – the moral relativism, the victim-based multiculturalism, the name-calling, the anti-Americanism – have become permanently entrenched in America’s education culture and, from their, trickle relentlessly into politics, media, and entertainment. In those days, people saw these things and remarked upon them. In these days, people believe in the message and approve of the messengers.
So to answer the question about how we got here, as far as I’m concerned, we got from here to there happened on American college campuses in the 1930s, accelerated after WWII, and reached what we hope is its apex now. (I say that because it’s painful to imagine American colleges getting even crazier than they are today.
Where Does Trump Fit In?
He’s the last gasp of the non-indoctrinated, so he needs to fight intelligently or we lose everything
Politically, Barack Obama was the high water mark of academic Leftism in America. Multiple generations of people indoctrinated in American colleges — people still in academia, in the media, in the entertainment world, etc. — got the American people to elect a covert socialist who worked hard to remake America in his image. They fully expected Hillary to seal the deal.
Hillary’s failure caused an emotional tsunami to sweep across Progressive America. I don’t need to remind you about the lunatic marches, the hysteria, the viciousness, the hatred, the assassination fantasies, that play out every single day. That’s the visible stuff.
The less visible stuff is what’s going on in Washington, D.C., as both Progressives and college-educated conservatives (i.e., they’re sort of conservative, but they are still the fruit of the poisonous Leftist academic tree) work hard to take Trump down. Their current weapon is Robert Mueller, who has gone on an unlimited hunt to bring some crime — any crime — home to Donald Trump. Trump seems to be flailing about here, attacking Sessions (whose stupid rectitude set Trump up for this), when he should be going after Mueller directly.
But going after Mueller directly does not mean going after Mueller stupidly. Kurt Schlichter has mapped out an exemplary strategy that Trump can use to force Mueller out into the open. Once he’s out there, Mueller might have the decency to quit, although I doubt it. However, Trump will finally have blatantly sufficient grounds to fire him:
Mueller seems unwilling or unable to exercise any kind of leadership over his team of Hillary donors, or to instill a culture of seriousness and impartiality. The continuing misconduct of his out-of-control, ever-expanding fiefdom demonstrates that he must be relieved of command. And here’s the letter the president should send to him to set the stage to do it.
United States Department of Justice
Dear Mr. Mueller:
I write in my capacity as the President, and to you in your capacity as a subordinate executive branch officer.
[This is where the president clarifies who works for whom – and whom the American people elected. Hint: It wasn’t the Menschian Suddenly-Aware-That-Russia-Is-Bad Gang.]
You were appointed to investigate the baseless and politically motivated claims of collusion with Russia. While I am frustrated at the partisan innuendo and improper leaks, I respect this process. Yet these false claims have interfered with my administration’s ability to deliver on the promises I made to the tens of millions of Americans who voted for me last November.
[This is where the President makes clear that he will not let these bogus charges derail the policies the American people voted for. You establishment creeps want to go back to business as usual? Win an election. Your coup fantasies? Not happening.]
It is important for me to tell you and the American people, who will read this letter since I intend to make it public, that nothing here seeks to impugn your integrity. You served your country honorably as a Marine overseas and in various roles at home.
[Of course, Trump must tweet out this letter, and it must be distributed far and wide by the skillful and smooth Anthony Scaramucci so that voters can read it themselves and not have to rely on the CNN/NYT/MSNBC/WaPo Lie Machine’s spin.]
But several troubling matters related to your investigation have arisen, so I am directing you to provide me a written explanation regarding the following matters no later than noon three days hence. I intend to release your response to the public, which must have full confidence in your investigation if it is to put to rest these baseless allegations.
[Shift the paradigm! Mr. President, this guy works for you. He owes you – and the American people – an explanation!]
1. 28 CFR 45.2 (”Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship”) bars participation in any investigation involving a personal friend. You are a long-time, close personal friend and mentor of James Comey. He is the source of allegations against me that leaks from your team that indicate that you are investigating. Please explain why you contend that 28 C.F.R. 45.2 does not apply to you based upon your close personal friendship with Mr. Comey. Please explain how your close friendship with this accuser will not undermine the American people’s confidence in the impartiality and fairness of your investigation.
[I was just discussing with one of my very, very prominent lawyer buddies how this whole thing stinks and would never be tolerated in the normal legal world. Any American is going to understand that you don’t appoint the pal of the “victim” to investigate the “crime.”]
2. Federal Election Commission filings show the political donations made by your staff, including donations of the maximum amount allowed by law, are overwhelmingly directed toward the Democratic Party. [Insert here a list of them and their Hillary payoffs so the people can see just how outrageous this really is.] Please explain why 28 C.F.R. 45.2 does not apply to your staff based on their demonstrated partisan preference for liberal Democrats who oppose my administration. Please explain how it happens that none of your staff appears to have primarily donated to Republicans – nor any of them to my candidacy despite the fact about 45% of American voters voted for me.
[Seriously. What the hell? The American people need to hear loudly and clearly that Mueller is picking members of the Felonia von Pantsuit fraternity for his metastasizing mob – and they’ll ask “Why?” Mueller cannot give a good explanation because there isn’t one.]
It only gets better, so you have to read the whole thing here.
Fortunately for Trump, his supporters back him to the hilt
The ace in Trump’s hole is that his supporters have become so disaffected from both the dominant Leftist culture and the college-educated RINO, NeverTrump culture that nothing those cultures do or say can affect them. As long as Trump keeps up the mostly good work, as one formerly reluctant Trump voter explains, they’ll stick with him:
That was then. Now, six months into Trump’s first term, I could not be more pleased with the president we elected. He is better than I ever imagined, and he is the real thing. That is the reason that voter surveys continue to show that President Trump has not lost any support among the base who elected him, and that he does as well now as before in the counties throughout the country that he carried as his base.
I do not care a whit about the “Russia stuff.” That is what I call it: the “Russia stuff.” Whether it is about Russian “collusion” or deals that Jared Kushner did or did not negotiate, or whom Attorney General Jeff Sessions met when he was a U.S. senator, or where former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort did business, or the telephone contacts of Michael Flynn—the moment that I see the word “Russia” in a headline about the White House, I skip the story. Although I am a “news junkie,” I simply do not care. For me, the subject has as much relevance as a soccer game: Yawn.
I even have stopped watching almost all of Fox News, even though Tucker Carlson’s solid conservatism is an improvement over Bill O’Reilly’s softer version, and the network is so much stronger without Megyn Kelly and Greta Van Susteren. I simply have no more interest in wasting my time with “fair and balanced debate,” to sit and listen to some liberal hack named Tarlov or Roginsky recite memorized talking points, or a fool named Marie Harf who used her State Department platform to explain that ISIS beheadings stemmed from a lack of job opportunities.
For my news I have moved to the Fox Business channel, and I treat myself to Stuart Varney, Melissa Francis, Lou Dobbs and insightful conservative guests who do not waste my time. And, although I once was a Johnny Carson and Jay Leno regular, I no longer watch those late night talk shows. Instead, I choose between Ken Burns documentaries, MLB.TV’s “Quick Pitch,” and studying the Talmud. Same for “Saturday Night Live.” The moment the Washington Post began reporting every Monday on that show’s latest political slams against the Trump White House, I decided to turn elsewhere for my Saturday night entertainment. Besides, that show stopped being funny decades ago.
We conservatives do not care about these side stories and Democrat smokescreens that aim to divert this president and us from the agenda to make America great again. Rather, here is what we have come to know these six months since Trump took office:
Republicans have won every seriously contested Congressional election since President Trump was elected. It is absurd to think that, when push comes to shove, Republican voters in 2018 would allow Red State Democrats to sweep the U.S. Senate merely because Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren engage in screeds, while in the House, Maxine Waters calls for the president to be impeached or exiled, or both.
We do not mind that the president fired FBI Director James Comey. This is a man who we now know leaked secret internal information to the New York Times. Notwithstanding that Comey did not trust the president, it was just as reasonable for the president to determine that he could not trust Comey—just as the Democrats long before could not trust Comey and also wanted him fired. Comey interfered with the election process more than Vladimir Putin ever did, arrogated to himself the authority to absolve Hillary Clinton despite his own recognition that she had committed serious federal crimes, and never dealt with the Deep State within his department.
President Trump somehow has managed to lead for six months, despite the most hostile media gangland in a century and more, and he has gained important governing experience along the way, just as the neophyte Obama learned his way around after arriving at the White House with little more than a background in community organizing, a pair of Greek or Roman columns, and a paperback copy of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
Do read the whole thing. It will cheer you up.
Trump’s presidency has issues, God knows. The State Department is continuing along its formerly disreputable, anti-Semitic, UN-loving, inept path, and it’s unclear if this is because Tillerson hasn’t gained control over the swamp creatures there or because those are the same values Tillerson espouses. Sessions may be cracking down on illegal immigration, but his team is still trying to force nuns to buy birth control and he’s throwing his weight behind property seizures that are terribly abused and almost certain violate the Constitution. And Betsy De Vos has not yet shown strong leadership, so the Left is still running riot in American primary education.
Still, Rome wasn’t built in a day, and Trump is doing more and better than I ever imagined possible when he took the White House. I’ll happily take his foibles, just as Lincoln took Grant’s and the British accepted Churchill’s. Trump’s my guy and I hope he wins his political battles.