While desperately portrayed as trendy or “cool” by the media, the reality is that the central message of the radicals, who have stepped up their level of violence since losing the latest round of elections in 2016, is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of American voters. The idea that a self-anointed group of “experts” who have decided that the United States is an evil entity and that dramatic changes that undermine Constitutional procedures and guarantees of individual rights should be adopted is, despite strenuous efforts by the press, academia, and Hollywood producers, simply not gaining traction.
The implementation of progressive policies following the election of Barack Obama in 2008, accompanied by Democrat control of the House and Senate, led to fairly rapid voter remorse. In rapid succession, the electorate replaced leftists in the House of Representatives, the Senate, most governorships and state legislatures, and finally the presidency.
Having been decimated at the ballot box, progressives have returned to a tactic that is central to their quest for power: violence.
The acceptance of violence as a left-wing political strategy is as old as Lenin (the founder of the Soviet state) himself. Shortly after returning to Russia, Lenin sought to overthrow the people who had replaced the autocratic regime of the Czars. Communists frequently take credit for the revolution, but in fact, they violently stole the revolution from freedom-loving forces.The Reds simply replaced the old, Czarist authoritarian regime with one that was even more tyrannical. Lenin was quite blunt in his advocacy of the use of violence to achieve his goals and his contempt for fair elections. In 1917, he bluntly declared:
The uprising’s object is to seize power. Its political task will be clarified after the seizure … the people have the right and duty to solve such questions not by voting but by force.
Lenin’s leftist and progressive ideological heirs have taken that message to heart. The Daily Wire notes that:
… destructive riots seem to have become the status quo for the left’s “demonstrations.”
The concept is widespread. Judicial Watch describes how :“A club at a taxpayer-funded university in Florida advocates violence against political conservatives and trains members in a ‘leftist fight … The group is called Knights for Socialism and … there are hundreds like it in college campuses across the country … The club’s mission is to ‘establish a new society based on socialism in which democracy is extended from politics to the economy and where production of goods and services is based on human need instead of private profit,’ in records obtained by Judicial Watch … The group describes itself as a ‘coalition of Marxist-Leninists, Anarchists, and Democratic Socialists … ’
Daniel Payne, writing for The Federalist, states:
… there is reason to be genuinely, authentically concerned with the direction in which the Left is headed. To cope with the political defeats they suffered in 2016, liberals appear to be embracing and championing political violence … That’s not even the worst of it. At this year’s Screen Actors Guild awards, Stranger Thing actor David Harbour openly advocated committing criminal violence against political opponents … for his explicit call to political violence at the SAG awards, Harbour received a standing ovation from the crowd. You’re not reading that wrong: a famous actor called for violence against his fellow Americans, and a bunch of other famous actors were totally for it. So were much of the media: … MTV called it ‘inspiring,’ Metro called it a ‘rousing call to arms,’ People magazine called it ‘passionate,’ Rolling Stone called it ‘fiery.’
Payne worries that:
… we see liberals accepting, embracing, rationalizing, and celebrating violence against their opponents. Even famous television stars are taking part in this alarming trend, and instead of being rebuked and shunned, they are cheered and praised by their fellow elites. This bears repeating: liberals appear to be embracing violence as a political tool.
There is one problem with Daniel Payne’s analysis: his use of the word “liberal.” The leftists and progressives of 2017 have nothing in common with either the liberals of the latter half of the 20th century, who favored big government spending, nor the original liberals, who were staunch advocates of individual rights and would today be called conservatives.