Here’s the common thread connecting today’s posts from me: the biggest problem the right has to overcome in order to salvage the republic is, in fact, the right itself — from those in the ruling class who actively conspire with the Democrats in deconstructing the country’s founding ideals to those who act as kneejerk defenders of the party under the guise of “realism” or “pragmatism,” guaranteeing themselves a shot at future employment within the establishment structure (with its attendant media mouthpieces) while guaranteeing that the rest of us will continue right on being forced to lose more slowly.
It is what it is what it is.
Thus endeth the sermon.
Charlotte Allen, TWS, as quoted by Ernst in the comments to one of my posts yesterday:
The main premise of “The Color of Empire” seemed to be that white people had created the idea of race, “the sole purpose of which is to rationalize the white race[.]” [W]hites some 400 years ago had created a skin-color-based category called “red” even though there are “500 different Native American nations, bands, and tribes.” They had also devised a category called “brown” for “Latinos,” “even though there’s no ‘Latino’ food and no ‘Latino’ language[.]”
This actually made some sense: If racial classifications are artificial (“socially constructed” was the way Hackman put it), lumping people together under a skin-color label who may have nothing linguistically or culturally in common, why not just get rid of the classifications altogether? Isn’t that exactly why conservatives like me oppose racial preferences and set-asides? But Hackman in fact focused obsessively on race, race, race, and color, color, color. [....] When I asked Hackman about why race seemed to be the prime focus of her workshop even though it supposedly didn’t exist, she told me that I needed to read up on “critical race theory.” She added: “We’re talking about a reclamation of racial categories.” In other words, racial categories are an oppressive white fantasy —until they prove to be useful for promoting race-based identity politics.
– and this piece, which I’ve reposted here several times, originally written in 1996 and published in the U of Denver student newspaper, and first published here at protein wisdom in early 2002, an excerpt from the conclusion I’ll offer here:
The point of all this being that to think of race as somehow socially constructed is to think of race, ultimately, as something essentially essential. Because what makes your memories yours, what makes your heritage yours, and what makes your culture yours is your insistence, ultimately, that it is yours by right, yours by birth, yours by essence. And so race, as it turns out, is either an essence or an illusion. Those who believe race to be an essence (say, the KKK, who base their ideas on bad science) have no need for a project of qualifying race as a social construct; and those who believe race to be non-essential have no grounds, theoretically, for promoting racial identity other than that same bad science (which, it turns out, underlies the constructivist argument), or else their social concern that we somehow need to continue the project of racial identity, for whatever the political reasons. [emphasis added]
And perhaps they are right. But maybe it’s time to seize on the lessons learned in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks; that is, maybe it’s time we put aside our differences in order to construct a singular American identity. After all, we are each individuals, which is what makes us, ultimately, a nation.
Look: if we as classical liberals / legal conservatives are ever going to effectively combat the underlying ideological propositions that drive progressivism — and that we have been conditioned (by bullying, shame, and the sophistry of the academy and the emotional blackmail of identity groups) to accept or at least allow some degree of legitimacy — we will always be in the process of losing, of transformation away from individual autonomy and toward collectivism marked at particular points by the influence of favored identity blocs.
I point this out today because I have been trying to drive the very same arguments Ms Allen is now making since the very onset of this site — and well before that, even.
This isn’t complicated once you can be made to see it: the way the left manipulates language allows them to manipulate categories; it also allows them to manipulate thought by way of institutionalizing certain epistemological ideas as not only legitimate but “settled” as such (textualism being one important example that continues to hamstring many on the right who abide it and rely upon it for their own personal uses).
Here, the logic of their position is laid bare in a step by step analysis of how “social constructionism” of race works: and the irrefutable conclusion is that their position cannot withstand logical pressure, as Hackman admits.
Consequently, the leftist’s next move is to tell tell us — to demand, in fact — that logic isn’t a legitimate factor in determining the usefulness of what is logically incoherent. Instead, the usefulness itself is the thing — and it is one’s ability to wield the logically incoherent effectively, to in effect assert their epistemological will, that comes to count as what matters rather than any linguistic coherence, which is dismissed as inconsequential, the tyranny of the Enlightenment, the tyranny of the foundational.
I guess our best hope going forward is that conservative opinion leaders who haven’t been marginalized by the textualists and pragmatists begin picking up on such arguments and putting together the pieces to the point where they can make coherent arguments that reach the broad audience they’ve denied me.
And who knows? Maybe in another 11 years or so they’ll be ready to recognize the role of language in all of this, and begin putting together arguments that will help us overcome our blindspots, caught as we are inside the left’s game and operating under the left’s rules.
I am writing to alert you of several facts that to date seem repeatedly somehow to elude your sensibilities. Chief among them is this observation: You are a dinosaur, not a dignitary. You are a rubbery, liver-spotted fuck toy for the Democrats and the media, not a distinguished member of an august body whose honor you promote and protect. And your daughter, insofar as she pretends to conservatism of any sort, is even dumber than you are; which, looking at the glass as half full, means that thankfully we may not have to wait many generations for your family's political flame to finally, happily, die out.
-- Instead, that will likely happen on its own when your progeny and their progeny encounter great intellectual difficulty trying to figure out fire.
Your time is up, Senator. Your moment on the historical stage has passed, and you are left with a legacy of failure after failure that in DC somehow translates into stature. To borrow from Bill Ayers's (yes, Senator, I went there!) borrowing of Bob Dylan, you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.
Bow gracefully from the stage or be forced off it in ignominy. Time to take stock, Senator. Real stock -- not the bullshit that's fed you by your enablers and by the liberal backslapers who use you like a political dildo whenever they're feeling a little randy, then laugh behind your back when you volunteer to lube up yet again.
I offer these words with all due respect. Please consider them in the spirit with which they were offered.
cc: Sarah Palin.
If any of the online GOP mouthpieces noticed me anymore, what I’m about to write might be controversial
But since it’s just us here on the lunatic fringe, it likely won’t be very controversial at all. Or even unhelpful. Or True Believerish.
Though definitely still Visigothy.
Advanced: the GOP establishment knew prior to the 2012 election season that TEA Party groups were in fact being harassed, deterred, and molested by the IRS, effectively hamstringing the efforts of those groups to form and organize and educate and influence. They determined to keep their investigations into the matter cursory and didn’t press the matter. This we know to be fact.
Advanced: high-ranking Obama political appointees within the Treasury Department, along with the IG in charge of tax matters inside Treasury, knew prior to the 2012 election season that TEA Party groups were in fact being harassed, deterred, and molested by the IRS, effectively hamstringing the efforts of those groups to form and organize and educate and influence. They determined to keep this information from the public. This we know to be fact.
Advanced: Democrats in Congress and the Senate knew prior to the 2012 election season that TEA Party groups were in fact being harassed, deterred, and molested by the IRS, effectively hamstringing the efforts of those groups to form and organize and educate and influence. Several Senators, among them Manchin, Levin, and Franken, contacted the IRS and asked that the agency look into and audit these TEA Party groups — even though there existed no evidence against them of any wrongdoing and no proximate cause for the harassment that followed save these Senators’ dislike of their political challengers, particularly challengers that opposed the status quo in DC. This we know to be fact — just as we know to be fact that Levin chairs the committee that in the course of any real investigation into the IRS’s practices will investigate, presumably, the Congress that is responsible for them. That is, Levin, Franken, Manchin, and others not yet flushed out.
Advanced: GOP establishment groups largely were spared the treatment given to TEA Party groups, who we now knew were in fact being harassed, deterred, and molested by the IRS, effectively hamstringing the efforts of those groups to form and organize and educate and influence. Craig Shirley offers some detail here.
Advanced: the House is to this point resisting the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to look into what is a systemic problem within the IRS, as evidenced by prior scandals of just this sort under different Administrations.
Advanced: it is reasonable to conclude that, in the absence of appointing a Special Prosecutor, the establishment GOP leadership in the House, like the Democrats in the House and Senate, are reluctant to do any real digging into the systemic problems within the IRS that point to a history of politicians from both parties using the agency to molest their personal and political opponents. Instead, they will be content to jail a few functionaries and force others of higher internal stature to resign. These will be the scapegoats — and we will be told that the GOP House, with largely bi-partisan support, has excised the cancer from within the IRS, though they will concede that new safeguards need to put into effect to prevent future abuses.
THEREFORE: I propose that the GOP establishment, the Democrat establishment, and at least two higher ranking political officials in Treasury and one official from the IG’s office (and I suspect well beyond those so far identified, to include Obama’s advisors and campaign managers and the President himself) had no real desire, prior to the elections in 2012, to correct the systemic treatment by the IRS of TEA Party groups, who were in fact being harassed, deterred, and molested by the IRS, effectively hamstringing the efforts of those groups to form and organize and educate and influence.
THEREFORE: I conclude, not without reason, that the GOP establishment, by omission (if not commission — I suspected early on, and noted in passing, that we shouldn’t be too quick to pin the organized effort to curtail the effectiveness of the TEA Party on Democrats alone; the GOP establishment has evinced a clear disdain for TEA Party groups, and on many public occasions have sought to marginalize them, undermine them, and delegitimate them) — knowing before the election that TEA Party groups who were in fact being harassed, deterred, and molested by the IRS, effectively hamstringing the efforts of those groups to form and organize and educate and influence — affirmatively aided in the attacks on the TEA Party and conservatives.
The ruling class knew. And they circled the wagons with winks and nods and the occasion bit of theater. The establishment Republicans, the majority of whom are either overt statists or latent ones, have far more in common with the Democrat DC establishment than they do with the Hobbits who have tormented them by insisting that they represent their constituencies in ways those constituencies desire. They are co-conspirators in an attempt to turn us from a representative, constitutional republic, into a ruling class-led despotism, a soft tyranny, a class system based on rulers, cronies, subjects, and clients. Liberal fascism.
This is a rigged game. And these investigations are being orchestrated in such a way that they will produce fall guys and gals, create some political capital for the Republicans in their friendly game of political musical chairs, the winner enjoying temporary titular control over government and the ability to proffer largess to its favored constituencies (oftentimes, of course, they compromise, as we’re seeing with Comprehensive Immigration Reform, where we’re told the labor unions and the Chamber of Commerce have come to terms — that is, the cronies of each party have compromised in order to get something done), with the will of the people marginalized or ignored, dismissed as racist or xenophobic or some other such nonsense.
Our government is at war with us. All of our government at the national level, save for the few upstarts — TEA Partiers, ironically! — who are attacked consistently from both the left and by ruling class Republicans, many of whom have been entrenched in DC for years.
CONCLUSION: It’s time for radical reform to the government and an insistence by the people that the media be cleaned out of ideologues (or else compelled to present their biases forthrightly), that Congress begin dismantling the regulatory branch of government, and that we return to our Constitution as the basis for legitimate governance — with all that entails: a fundamental reassertion of the Declaration and the Bill of Rights and the plenary powers the states reserved for themselves as a condition of creating a United States; and a reduction to the size and scope of the federal government in keeping with the 9th and 10th Amendments and the enumerated powers described in the Constitution.
To secure this, we must reform the court system and provide foundational, coherent linguistic safeguards on how laws are legitimately interpreted and applied.
This is to be a government by, of, and for the people. Today it is the opposite: it exists to further entrench a ruling class at the expense of the will of the people, many of whom are reduced to voting for pre-selected candidates who don’t represent their interests — the pitch being that these pre-selected candidates are the lesser of two evils. And what this scandal should be telling us is that the ruling class sees in the TEA Party a real existential threat to their attempts to establish and institutionalize the liberal fascist paradigm that by its very nature rewards those inside the government, inside the bureaucratic state, and those in the private sector with the capital to sell themselves as clients to the state in exchange for protections from competition.
We live in soft tyranny. And every day that we refuse to acknowledge this is one more day for the roots of despotism and cronyism to grow deeper, until they eventually strangle the lifeblood from the American Experiment.
As serr8d reminded me today on Twitter, I’ve written of this before — and laid out just who and what it is the ruling class is working together, with no concern for party, to destroy: it is the foundational idea of America itself, and in specific, those who have rediscovered that idea and have bravely used it to confront the usurpers who now run our government.
The time for asserting the people’s will is now. The time for insisting that the people’s will be obliged is drawing nearer.
In the continuing “faux scandal” of IRS targeting TEA Party, 9/12, Pro-Life and Pro-Israel groups in order to seal Obama’s 2012 re-election, let’s remember that Obama’s tactic of harassing opponents and their supporters has a long history.
Let’s take a romp down memory lane and review the typical Obama campaign strategy. Obama became a U.S. senator only by virtue of David Axelrod’s former employer, the Chicago Tribune, ripping open the sealed divorce records of Obama’s two principal opponents.
The press was a willing accomplice in Obama’s unclean road to the Senate. Also, little examined, was the scorched earth, mod-inspired Chicago tactics used by the Obama campaign in 2008.
On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.
What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, “its officers and directors,” and its “anonymous donors.” Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a “knowing and willful violation” of election law, and wanted “action to enforce against criminal violations.”
AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer’s response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the “sham” AIP’s “illegal electoral purpose.” [...]
The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending “warning” letters to 10,000 GOP donors, “hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” The letters would alert “right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.” As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: “We’re going to put them at risk.”
The Bauer letters were the Obama campaign’s high-profile contribution to this effort—though earlier, in the spring of 2008, Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC against the American Leadership Project, a group backing Hillary Clinton in the primary. “There’s going to be a reckoning here,” he had warned publicly. “It’s going to be rough—it’s going to be rough on the officers, it’s going to be rough on the employees, it’s going to be rough on the donors. . . Whether it’s at the FEC or in a broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions.” The campaign similarly attacked a group supporting John Edwards.
American Leadership head (and Democrat) Jason Kinney would rail that Mr. Bauer had gone from “credible legal authority” to “political hatchet man”—but the damage was done. As Politico reported in August 2008, Mr. Bauer’s words had “the effect of scaring [Clinton and Edwards] donors and consultants,” even if they hadn’t yet “result[ed] in any prosecution.”
The same tactics were used against any and all supporters of Romney in 2012. Never before has a President called private citizens to slander them as “less-than-reputable” and “betting against America” for the crime of exercising their First Amendment rights.
There might not be any bright-line evidence that King Barry give any direct order for the IRS to strangle grass-roots opposition in the crib. But like Henry II, he really didn’t have to …
“Will no one rid me of
this turbulent priest these troublesome groups?”
This sounds… familiar somehow…
(thanks to Tom W)
And the scandals just keep mounting for the Most Transparent Administration Ever. “Stratfor Email: Brennan Behind ‘Witch Hunt’ of Journalists Reporting Leaks,” Breitbart:
An obscure November 2012 Wikileaks email dump points to former White House counterterrorism adviser and now-CIA chief John Brennan as the person behind the “witch hunt” of journalists who reported unflattering Obama administration leaks.
A little over a week after President Barack Obama’s reelection, Wikileaks released an email dump of global intelligence files from the private intelligence company Stratfor. One particular email, dated September 21, 2010 discussed President Obama’s “Leak Investigations.”
The Massachusetts ACLU tweeted out a link that referenced the email and the president’s “war on whistleblowers” on November 15, 2012. The tweet only received two re-tweets after sitting online for seven months. Stratfor’s VP for Intelligence, Fred Burton, declined to comment for this story.
The Obama administration has faced criticism not only for seizing phone records of 20 Associated Press reporters but also monitoring private emails and phone calls of Fox News Reporter James Rosen.
According to a legal filing, the Washington Post reported the Obama Justice Department described the Fox News reporter as a an “aider, and abettor, and/or co-conspirator” in the case.
The public filing shows the first defense letter was filed in the case seven days before the September 21 Stratfor email regarding Brennan’s “witch hunt” on investigative journalists was sent.
Hey, let’s not act so surprised when would-be tyrants working on behest of a totalitarian ideology act the part. Just because Obama hasn’t grown a thick mustache and taken to wearing fatigues and speaking from balconies doesn’t mean he isn’t who he’s always been.
The postmodernist faculty lounge theorists have always been at war with the notion that the masses should ever be trusted with ownership over government. They just jam their tyrannical impulses into fancy suits with nice leg creases. And we timidly oblige the lie by granting them the benefit of the doubt when their entire histories have shown that doing so is hubris and sanctimony disguised as “open mindedness” and “civility.”
I wouldn’t be civil to a man trying to rape my wife or enslave my children. So why on earth am I supposed to pretend to give deference to a Marxist usurper and his hive of vicious political operatives — and try as they might, they couldn’t hide his history and his intellectual and political background and influences — just because an “historic” figure managed to dupe a majority of the electorate and beat a pair of timid centrists? — in large part because we were told we needed to show deference?
All of this was completely foreseeable. What wasn’t foreseeable was that those of us who foresaw it would be drummed out of polite society, then later find ourselves watching with amusement and sadness while those who drummed us out begin sounding alarms that we ourselves were sounding 5 years ago.
But I guess that’s what passes for leadership in an intellectually bankrupt era.
(h/t geoff B)
I know. Shocking, right? — particularly coming from a non-political, dedicated civil servant who insists she’s done nothing wrong while heading the Exempt Division at the IRS?
Meet your new Obama fall gal. Because this one they’ll throw to the GOP wolves, then lament the misogynistic Republican war on women that led to her professional demise.
That’s how these shitbags operate. And useful idiots like Lerner who exist to protect the king and his court will always one day find that they were all along considered disposable.
Perhaps no other IRS official is more intimately associated with the tax agency’s growing scandal than Lois Lerner, director of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Division. Since admitting the IRS harassed hundreds of conservative and Tea Party groups for over two years, Lerner has been criticized for a number of untruths—including the revelation that she apparently lied about planting a question at an American Bar Association conference where she first publicly acknowledged IRS misconduct.
Still, Lerner has her defenders in the government and the media. Shortly after the scandal broke, The Daily Beast published an article headlined “IRS Scandal’s Central Figure, Lois Lerner, Described as ‘Apolitical.’” Insisting Lerner, and the IRS more broadly, were not not politically motivated has been a central contention of those trying to minimize the impact of the scandal.
The trouble with this defense is that, prior to joining the IRS, Lerner’s tenure as head of the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was marked by what appears to be politically motivated harassment of conservative groups.
– and here’s where it gets interesting. The left always attempts to circle the wagons around one of their own right up until they feel the floodgates can no longer hold, at which point they’ll be forced to sacrifice this one for the Greater Good they are after. Each operative swears fidelity to the Cause — and each one believes, truly, that it will never be s/he who will have to make a personal sacrifice to it. Which fits in perfectly to the mindset of those who believe passing laws to steal other people’s money and re-distribute it makes them charitable and compassionate: it’s a form of delusion, and one that is useful to those who work them. Hence, useful idiots. Each too arrogant and too much of a special snowflake to believe it will ever be he or she who is offered up at the altar of future progressive Utopianism.
Lerner was appointed head of the FEC’s enforcement division in 1986 and stayed in that position until 2001. In the late 1990s, the FEC launched an onerous investigation of the Christian Coalition, ultimately costing the organization hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours in lost work. The investigation was notable because the FEC alleged that the Christian Coalition was coordinating issue advocacy expenditures with a number of candidates for office. Aside from lacking proof this was happening, it was an open question whether the FEC had the authority to bring these charges.
James Bopp Jr., who was lead counsel for the Christian Coalition at the time, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD the Christian Coalition investigation was egregious and uncalled for. “We felt we were being singled out, because when you handle a case with 81 depositions you have a pretty good argument you’re getting special treatment. Eighty-one depositions! Eighty-one! From Ralph Reed’s former part-time secretary to George H.W. Bush. It was mind blowing,” he said.
All told the FEC deposed 48 different people—and that doesn’t begin to account for all the FEC’s requests for information. Bopp further detailed the extent of the inquiry in testimony delivered before the congressional Committee on House Administration in 2003:
The FEC conducted a large amount of paper discovery during the administrative investigation and then served four massive discovery requests during the litigation stage that included 127 document requests, 32 interrogatories, and 1,813 requests for admission. Three of the interrogatories required the Coalition to explain each request for admission that it did not admit in full, for a total of 481 additional written answers that had to be provided. The Coalition was required to produce tens of thousands of pages of documents, many of them containing sensitive and proprietary information about ?nances and donor information. Each of the 49 state af?liates were asked to provide documents and many states were individually subpoenaed. In all, the Coalition searched both its offices and warehouse, where millions of pages of documents are stored, in order to produce over 100,000 pages of documents.
Furthermore, nearly every aspect of the Coalition’s activities has been examined by FEC attorneys from seeking information regarding its donors to information about its legislative lobbying. The Commission, in its never-ending quest to find the non-existent “smoking gun,” even served subpoenas upon the Coalition’s accountants, its fundraising and direct mail vendors, and The Christian Broadcasting Network.
One of the most shocking things about the current IRS scandal is the revelation that the agency asked one religious pro-life group to detail the content of their prayers and asked clearly inappropriate questions about private religious activity. But under Lerner’s watch, inappropriate religious inquiries were a hallmark of the FEC’s interrogation of the Christian Coalition. According to Bopp’s testimony:
FEC attorneys continued their intrusion into religious activities by prying into what occurs at Coalition staff prayer meetings, and even who attends the prayer meetings held at the Coalition. This line of questioning was pursued several times. Deponents were also asked to explain what the positions of “intercessory prayer” and “prayer warrior” entailed, what churches speci?c people belonged, and the church and its location at which a deponent met Dr. Reed.
One of the most shocking and startling examples of this irrelevant and intrusive questioning by F EC attorneys into private political associations of citizens occurred during the administrative depositions of three pastors from South Carolina. Each pastor, only one of whom had only the slightest connection with the Coalition, was asked not only about their federal, state and local political activities, including party af?liations, but about political activities that, as one FEC attorney described as “personal,” and outside of the jurisdiction of the FECA [Federal Election Campaign Act]. They were also continually asked about the associations and activities of the members of their congregations, and even other pastors.
The Christian Coalition was ultimately absolved of any FEC wrongdoing in 1999, and Lerner was promoted to acting General Counsel at the FEC in 2001 before eventually moving on to the IRS. Bopp, who’s all too familiar with the aggressive and inappropriate tenor she set leading the FEC’s Enforcement Division, says he became concerned about what would happen as soon as Lerner joined the IRS. “When she left the FEC, I thought, ‘Wow, this means the not for profit division is gearing up politically,’” he said. “It didn’t bode well, because of the way [the FEC] approached cases.”
I tire of repeating this, but here it goes: it’s the political left. This is who they are. It’s what they do. They despise any real intellectual independence and religious liberty, which is why they write up and support egregious speech codes and use identity politics and its political correctness enforcement arm to “nudge” speech and thought into something that must first, in practice if not in law (yet), pass government sanction. It is why they seek tirelessly to re-imagine traditional American tropes and imbue them with new meanings, essentially preserving the labels while deconstructing and then resignifying them until they come to mean their opposites: “fairness” becomes about redistribution and equality of outcome; “tolerance” becomes about not giving offense and the “right” not to perceive any offense even where none was intended (I like to call this the READER POLL school of post-textual textualism, essentially, a motivated heckler’s veto suffused into law and culture); “liberty” becomes a product of government largess and help (“you didn’t build that!”), a product of collectivism and not of individual autonomy.
They will, as statist ideologues, always and forever pressure the Constitution, because they cannot as a political movement officially act within its constraints and remain committed to their collectivist cause. This is why they pretend to revere the Constitution when it favors them (usually through some wholly unjustifiable judicial interpretation) and in other instances insist we abandon it as old and the product of racism and antiquated notions of individual liberty and self-reliance.
Anti-foundationalism absolves them of the need for consistency. It instead promotes the idea of a will to power, where the ends justify the means, always. And it is why they’ve worked so hard to take meaning away from the individual and grant it to politicized consensus groups, who can be bought, corralled, controlled, and motivated to create and then assert a manufactured consent that stands in for “truth.”
eg., READER POLL!
People like Lerner are the mid-level officers in such a war against the Enlightenment and its flowering political achievement: a Constitution that takes the ultimate authority for granting certain rights away from men entirely, one that grants ownership of the government to a free people and one that is suspicious and hostile to entrenched ruling class ideas and attitudes, and about the centralization of governmental authority.
To achieve statist Utopia, the left must defeat our Constitution. And that’s what they have worked tirelessly to do — through a hostile takeover of the language and the kernel assumptions that undergird its use and function; through control over message dissemination; through the popular culture and the academies; and through the courts and bureaucratic agencies whom they lard with political activists and operatives, the overarching narrative of the righteousness of their causes seeming so overwhelming at times that it will nudge conservative justices and Republican politicians to the left, where they find a sense of belonging and raw personal power.
Lerner is like many other statist leftists in positions of power: directing her particular hive of drones to do their part to molest the free and disrupt liberty, to create pain for those who don’t hew to leftist orthodoxy while rewarding those who do.
This happens everywhere in “our” government, form the EPA to the FCC to the FEC to Interior to the IRS and on and on and on.
Which is why we must of necessity begin to dismantle the bureaucratic state, dismantle the activist press, and return to our Constitutional moorings. One way to do that is by reclaiming he language.
But history has taught me, personally, that there are those on our side who are content to operate within the left’s framework and in fact embrace it. This gives them the best of both worlds: they can use the methodologies of the left to their own personal advantages, and they can remain “warriors” for a conservative cause they help guarantee will always be under siege and can never win the long term battle.
I suppose it’s no secret to say that in many ways, I despise those types most of all.