Demonic (43 page)

Finley Peter Dunne described a fanatic as “a man that does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.” Inasmuch as liberals don’t believe in God, it’s a one-step process: “What would I do?” What they would do is use the power of the state to revoke nature, tradition, the market, the existence of two sexes, and popular opinion—all of which liberals disdain. They can’t leave anything alone, except sodomy. It’s just a good thing we have no idea what they were doing in Gomorrah or liberals would be pushing that on us too.

SIXTEEN
THE TOTALITARIAN
INSTINCT AND
SEXUAL PERVERSITY
OF LIBERALS

I
n Hillary Clinton’s famed “politics of meaning” speech during her husband’s first year as president, she said we must “remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the twentieth century.”
¹
A decade later, at a campaign event in California, Hillary vowed to raise taxes, saying, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
²

More disturbing—if that is possible—Obama has repeatedly appealed for votes by saying that the difference between the parties is that Democrats “believe that I am my brother’s keeper.”
³
If he were our brother, that would be a lovely sentiment. But he’s our president, the commander in chief, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer—which makes the statement terrifying.

Unlike the leaders of the French Revolution, America’s founding fathers did not presume that elected officials would embody the “general will.” Indeed, the framers did not imagine there was such a thing as the “general will.” Having some grasp of human nature, they knew there would always be many competing factions. Interestingly, Alexander Hamilton chided Lafayette at the outset of the French Revolution for
“the reveries of your Philosophic politicians,” saying they were aiming “at more refinement than suits either with human nature or the composition of your nation.”
⁴

Instead of expecting government officials to express the “general will,” our Constitution spreads opposing interests across separate governing bodies in a sort of organizational jujitsu, and provides explicit protections for individual rights. “Even the bill of rights,” as Professor Jeremy Rabkin says, “sticks for the most part to affirming the continued force of traditional legal safeguards of individual rights, saying nothing about citizenship, sovereignty, or the general will.”
⁵

Liberals are constantly pushing for the Rousseauian approach to governance in defiance of our nation’s history and Constitution. They not only believe there is a “general will,” they are sure their policies express it. Instead of allowing ordinary people to have more control over their lives, Democrats produce inflexible, universal plans, sublimely confident of their ability to build a perfect system. They get angry when people say, “I don’t think your plan will work in this part of the country.” All plans, all rules, all regulations must be universal.

It’s an obsession with the Democrats to nationalize everything: health care, welfare, the speed limit, abortion, the drinking age—so there’s no escape. Like all totalitarians, the Democrats’ position is:
We thought up something that we know will work better than anything anyone else has done for the last 30,000 years. We don’t know why no one else has thought of it. We must be smarter
.

This is why the history of liberalism consists of replacing things that work with things that sounded good on paper.

When the Democrats were pushing national health care, Americans kept saying, “Do we really have to junk our entire health care system?” But Democrats explained they had figured everything out and would prefer if there wasn’t a lot of “discussion” to keep interrupting their thought process.

Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
⁶
(And now the Republicans are going to have to repeal it, so we can find out what’s not in it.)

Following the mob-rule playbook, Democrats spent decades creating
a synthetic crisis in health care by issuing both federal and state government mandates dictating what insurance companies were required to cover. Politicians forced insurance companies to pay for everyone’s Viagra, prenatal counseling, shrinks, marital counseling, and drug rehab—all of which made health insurance ridiculously expensive (especially for those of you who aren’t likely to need treatment for a gambling addiction or self-esteem issues).

The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes, such as fires, diseases, accidents, or sudden marriages to a Kardashian daughter. But because of government intervention, the American consumer had no choice about whether to pay for everyone else’s shrinks and Viagra. In its infinite wisdom, the government also made it illegal to buy health insurance across state lines to prevent competition. They can’t keep Mexicans out of Laredo, but they can sure keep an Indiana State Farm agent out of Ohio.

Having wrecked the market for health insurance, liberals demanded a national health care system to “fix” the very problems their meddling had created in the first place. As usual, the Democrats’ solution to problems created by government intervention was more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink—except at least trying to sober up by drinking more is fun.

And Democrats promised utopia: ObamaCare would provide health care for 30 million uninsured Americans, everyone else’s health care would improve—and their plan would save money! It was a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that actually burned calories!

Only the mob could believe it. When most Americans objected, liberals explained,
We know you don’t want it, but my roommate and I are both Rhodes scholars and we worked it all out on paper. This will turn out fantastically well!
As was said of Pol Pot, “It seemed that the only thing needed was sufficient willpower, and heaven would be found on Earth.”
⁷

Frustrated that, in a democracy, they can’t implement their grand plans to save humanity with the ease of a dictator, liberals demonize those who stand in their way. That’s why Americans who objected to ObamaCare had to be anathematized for “obstructing” the plan for health care utopia.

The mob can make a person a pariah in an instant with rumors,
outright lies, and the crowd’s trademark smirking. They did it to Marie Antoinette. They did it to Joe McCarthy. They did it to Richard Nixon, the shah of Iran, Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Halliburton, Margaret Thatcher, Dan Quayle, Bush I, Bush II, “neoconservatives,” Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Allen West—the list is endless. It’s important to liberals to express contempt for an adversary. Belittling people is pleasurable for them as well as tactically useful.

Instead of “counterrevolutionaries,” liberals’ opponents are called “haters,” “those who seek to divide us,” “tea baggers,” and “right-wing hate groups.” Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals “liberals”—and that makes them testy.

They make wild, lying accusations against conservatives, especially the Tea Partiers—to the point of accusing conservatives of complicity in a liberal lunatic’s shooting spree at a Tucson Safeway that left six dead and a dozen wounded.

They terrorize their political opponents by ginning up psychopaths to physically attack conservatives at the Republican National Convention, conservative rallies, Republican luncheons, book signings, speeches—even at the political opponent’s home. Then they turn around and claim to be afraid of Tea Partiers.

Violence from the Left is never criticized by allegedly respectable Democrats. Generally, it’s not even reported, allowing liberals to go on physically intimidating conservatives without everyone noticing their mob behavior. Just as they forget to mention the entire history of the French Revolution, they forget to report the constant mayhem and tumult being created by liberals.

When liberal activists used fake press credentials to sneak into the 2008 Republican National Convention and disrupt Sarah Palin’s speech, only two newspapers in the country bothered to mention it in their pages—the
Idaho Falls Post Register
and
St. Paul Pioneer Press
. The protesters were major Obama fundraisers, Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin of CodePink—a group whose raison d’être is to assault conservatives.

After illegally sneaking into the convention hall, the protesters waited for Palin—a major party’s vice presidential candidate—to begin speaking and then stripped to reveal their costumes, pink dresses with
anti-Palin slogans. They unfurled banners denouncing Palin, and began screeching. Although not as scary as a Tea Partier peacefully protesting ObamaCare in a public place, isn’t that newsworthy?

When CodePink activists returned to the Convention Hall the next night to heckle John McCain’s speech, again, only a handful of newspapers reported this shocking assault on a party’s political convention. Earlier in the day, CodePink loons had violently disrupted a pro-life luncheon, storming the stage and ripping the microphone from Phyllis Schlafly’s hand.

If a couple of John Birchers had stood up and started shouting during Barack Obama’s convention speech, would that have been considered newsworthy?

One of the rabble-rousers, Jodie Evans, not only was a bundler for Obama but also had served in the cabinet of California governor Jerry Brown during his first administration. She ran Brown’s 1992 presidential campaign and held fundraisers for him during his 2010 gubernatorial run.

She’s also led protests in Santa Monica against the Israeli skin care company Ahava
⁸
and tried to stage a citizen’s arrest of Karl Rove. And yet Evans is as welcome in the Democratic Party as the Koch brothers are in the Republican Party.

Part of what gives mob movements their fury is that they’re always claiming to be righting the wrongs of the past—the corrupt royalty and clergy in France, the oppressive tsars in Russia, the hyperinflationary Weimar Republic in Germany, the inept Kuomintang in China. You will find that the most bloodthirsty regimes in history are those claiming to be redressing the wrongs of previous regimes.

In America, it’s “discrimination” and “white male patriarchy” that’s always being redressed, naturally with even more discrimination. We’ve gone from Democrats imposing discriminatory laws on blacks in the South to national Democrats imposing federally sanctioned, government-supported race, gender, and disability quotas on the entire country.

Following their totalitarian forebears, liberals went from punishing acts to punishing thoughts and motives in the blink of an eye. In lieu of class crimes and counterrevolutionaries, American liberals have given us
“hate crimes,” “disparate impact” rules, “sexists,” and “bigots.” Acts are irrelevant; your motives are on trial. You are presumed guilty and acquittals are rare.

The American Left also shares the French revolutionaries’ blind hatred of tradition when it comes to morals and culture. Ironically, liberals are hidebound reactionaries when it comes to recent innovations such as government pensions: It’s the thousand-years-old building blocks of civilization they want to shatter. The definition of “family” and “human life” are up for grabs, but the retirement age for Social Security is written in stone tablets.

Liberals never bother to ask whether there might have been a reason for a thousand-years-old convention such as marriage. They don’t care. Their approach is to rip out society’s foundations without considering whether they serve any purpose.
Why do we need immigration laws? What’s with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Why do children have to have a mother and father? Hey, I like Keith Richards—why not make heroin legal? Let’s take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!

Liberals even manipulate children to falsely accuse their elders, a specialty of all totalitarians. There is something so vile about turning a child against his parents as to be bone-chilling. But for liberals, it’s just one more weapon in their quest for power.

Just as Marie Antoinette’s son was brainwashed into accusing his mother of incest, a slew of American children in the eighties were manipulated by liberals into accusing completely innocent adults of child molestation. The psychologist Le Bon says the appeal of children’s testimony to a mob is that children are easy to manipulate. “It would be better to decide the fate of an accused person by the toss of a coin,” he says, “than, as has been so often done, by the evidence of a child.”
⁹

Dade County, Florida, state attorney Janet Reno made a name for herself as one of the leading witch-hunters in the child-abuse hysteria era. In the similarly ludicrous Fells Acres case, brought by then–district attorney Scott Harshbarger in Middlesex, Massachusetts, Gerald Amirault served eighteen years in prison, and his mother and sister served eight years, for imaginary crimes. Without a shred of physical evidence
to support the allegations, children coached by liberal therapists with naked dolls and “let’s pretend” games made preposterous claims of rape with butcher knives, naked children tied to trees, and animal sacrifices.

Not one child ever spontaneously claimed to have been abused. Indeed, no allegations of abuse arose until the child therapists showed up. More than a decade after their convictions, when defense lawyers played the tapes showing how child therapists had coaxed accusations from the children, reporters from Miami to Boston gasped, “Oh my God!”
¹⁰