Liberal Fascism: A Closer Look

Ask the average, reasonably educated person what comes to mind when he or she hears the word “fascism” and the immediate responses are “dictatorship,” “genocide,” “anti-Semitism,” “racism,” and “right-wing,” Delve a bit deeper—and move a bit further to the left—and you’ll hear a lot about “eugenics”, “social Darwinism,” “militarism,” and “nationalism.”

WHAT IS FASCISM?

The term fascism typically causes a knee-jerk reaction as something evil and “less than desirable.” We almost immediately think of Nazism; our minds go to Hitler and Mussolini. We consider totalitarianism a synonym of fascism. Totalitarianism relates to a government where the ruler or ruling group has complete control or authority over everyone; completely autocratic, authoritarian, or dictatorial. A totalitarian government gives no room for political parties. Totalitarianism has become a catchall for brutal, soul-killing, Orwellian regimes. But that’s not how the word was originally used or intended. Interestingly, Mussolini himself coined the term to describe a society where everybody belonged; where everyone was taken care of; where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside; where truly no child was left behind.

It has been suggested that true American liberalism is a totalitarian religion, though not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutish. It is nannying, not bullying. But it is definitely totalitarian—”holistic” if you prefer. In other words, today’s liberal politics sees no realm of human life that is beyond political significance, from what we eat and drink (consider New York City’s attempt to outlaw so-called “big gulp” sugary drinks in 2013), to what we smoke, what we say, how we have sex, who we have sex with, how we dress, whether we can say “Merry Christmas,” toys offered to children in fast food meals (used to enhance kids to eat unhealthy food), all-male sports, guns, religion, and gender-based pronouns. Liberals prefer to place their faith in “priestly” experts who “know better,” and who tend to badger and scold. They use science to discredit traditional notions of religion and faith, but speak the language of pluralism and spirituality to defend “nontraditional” beliefs.

WHAT IS LIBERAL FASCISM?

First, let me say there is no definition of “liberal fascism” that is agreed upon between the parties in America today. Jon Bergeron (2015) says, “Far too often socialism and communism are compared to what is currently the political embodiment of the modern leftist ideology in the U.S. These leftist and communist ideas include anti-capitalism, total destruction of the individual in favor of the state, and big government takeover.  We have all heard this stereotype. However, I think there is a far more accurate political ideology floating in the minds of modern leftists, thirsty for revolution to take down ‘the man’ and change the ‘bourgeois system.’ I am speaking of fascism.” Bergeron says typically the masses believe Fascism is reserved only for evil white conservative men who spout evil fascist rhetoric like small government, individualism, self-reliance, capitalism, less dependency on government, traditionalism, and self-responsibility with strong ties to self-sustaining autonomous Christian family units.

That’s because America has bought into the Orwellian leftist language and indoctrination that fascism is of the evil American Right; however, closer examination reveals startling comparisons to the modern American left. Fascism could not be any further from the American conservative! Very few realize that fascism by its very nature was an extremely leftist populist movement taking root in Mussolini’s Italy and spreading like wild fire throughout Europe. Fascism was born out of socialism (the prized ideology among the left) and was an evolved state-centric version of socialism which became popular around the early to mid 1900s. It was “new” and full of revolutionary change.

With fascism, as with all large bloated governments that leftists think can cure all our qualms, the utopian lie is propagated by the state which supposedly aims to build a communal National Socialism state-sponsored family. Fascism was to transcend class differences exactly like socialism preached. Mussolini’s Fascist Party advocated the abolition of the senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce and culture; the creation of various government bodies run by worker’s representatives; and the obligation of the state to build rigidly secular schools for the raising of the proletariat’s moral and cultural condition. This all seems hauntingly similar to the modern American leftist’s ideal America. Their rhetoric is far closer to Fascism than the Republican Party’s strong stress on individualism, capitalism, individual responsibility, and reduced government intervention. Remarkably, it also flies in the face of John F. Kennedy’s stanch command, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

Liberal fascism is fond of preaching about the need for an all-powerful state to coordinate society at the national or, worse yet, global level. Most of all, they share the belief that with the “right amount of adjustment” we can finally realize the utopian dream of creating a better world here on earth. In other words, why wait for the Christian promise of heaven on earth when the Messiah returns? Let’s make our heaven here and now with just a little tweaking and a little legislating. In America, where hostility to big government still remains central to the national character, the case for statism must be made by the liberals against a backdrop of “pragmatism,” fairness, and decency. In other words, liberal fascism must be nice; it must be for our own good.

“I call my philosophy and approach ‘compassionate conservatism.’ It is compassionate to actively help our fellow citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on responsibility and results. And with this hopeful approach, we will make a real difference in people’s lives.” —George W. Bush

How do today’s liberals respond to the compassionate conservatism of the likes of George W. Bush? They use a secularized vocabulary of “hope,” constructing quasi-spiritual philosophies like Hillary Clinton’s “politics of meaning.” Hillary’s new spirituality comes complete with persuasive albeit false teachers. She felt no constraints as she sought out religious components to mesh with or compliment her socialist one-world globalist worldview; something she’d begun quietly embracing several decades earlier.

Does being obsessed on a community or national level about health, nutrition, and the environment make you a fascist? It’s a funny and strange question, I know. Thankfully, the answer is Of course not! The notion seems to be that fascism stems from holding in high regard the interest of the public good—illnesses, cost of health care, availability and affordability of health insurance—but it does so at the cost of the individual. Fascism says the individual has no right not to be healthy. Accordingly, the state has the right and the obligation to force us to be healthy, whatever it takes. To the extent that modern health movements seek to harness the power of the state in order to promote their agenda, they unfortunately flirt with classical fascism. Environmentalism is another area where the state is willing to bully us into complying in the interest of “making the planet a better place to live.” What makes this bullying palatable is the extent to which the state will go to apply shame, guilt and logic to force our hand.

For example, legislators have been hard at work making it illegal to smoke in your own car, or even outdoors, if other people could conceivable be near you and exposed to second-hand smoke. Free speech, too, is under relentless attack where it matters most—relative to elections. Alexis de Tocqueville (1994) wrote in Democracy in America, “It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life… I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones” (p. 320).

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes  responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy. Contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism.

Why are today’s liberals unwilling to acknowledge the intellectual history of their political philosophy? Liberalism stands on the shoulders of giants from the initial Progressive Era. This is made obvious by their tendency  to use the word “progressive” whenever talking about their liberal core convictions. They consistently claim it is conservatives who have their roots in fascism. Of course, you won’t see liberals today running around shouting from the rooftops that they intend to conquer the world by force of arms. They show no signs of being part of a nationalist or eugenics movement. Instead, they speak of having the best of intentions when it comes to society. Whether this is true or not is not necessarily clear.

THE ORIGINAL PROGRESSIVE ERA (1890-1920)

Progressivism is the term applied to a variety of responses to the economic and social problems seemingly caused by rapid industrialization introduced to America. Those who agreed with this concept wanted to stop child labor and put major regulations on big business.The major goals of the Progressives were to promote the ides of morality, economic reform, efficiency and social welfare. Progressivism began as a social movement and grew into a political movement. The early Progressives rejected Social Darwinism. Rather, they believed that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing a good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated, and believed that government could be a tool for change. Progressives concentrated on exposing the evils of corporate greed, combating the fear of immigrants, and urging Americans to think hard about what democracy really means.

Progressivism was the reform movement that ran from the late 19th century through the first decades of the 20th century, during which leading intellectuals and social reformers in the United States sought to address the economic, political, and cultural questions that had arisen in the context of the rapid changes brought with the Industrial Revolution and the growth of modern capitalism in America.

On a national level, Progressivism gained a strong voice in the White House when Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901. Roosevelt believed that strong corporations were good for America, but he also believed that corporate behavior must be watched to ensure that corporate greed did not get out of hand. He felt this must be accomplished through government regulations for trust-busting and other activities of corporate greed. Progressivism ended with World War I when the horrors of war exposed people’s cruelty.

Upton Sinclair’s book The Jungle (1906) caused Roosevelt to push Congress to pass numerous reforms like the Meat Inspection Act , the Pure Food Act, and the Drug Act. He also helped invest the Interstate Commerce Act with new powers, and created the new Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. This new agency was empowered with the ability to investigate corporations. Roosevelt also set aside over 50 wildlife sanctuaries and parks that are still in use today. Roosevelt built the Panama Canal, which made trade with other countries much easier. 

Many Americans bought into President Woodrow Wilson’s progressive claims that the war would make the world safe for democracy.

DOES PROGRESSIVISM HAVE A PLACE IN AMERICA TODAY?

The push for a progressive takeover of Congress began long before Trump won office. One audacious plan began to take hold in early 2016, as a crew of organizers for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign traveled the country, staging revival-style rallies. In fact, when watching video of Sanders’ rallies, I had the sense I was watching the sermons of a hybrid preacher/politician/prophet. Members of Congress and the Justice Department are just two elements in a movement where different groups with different agendas jostle for donations and influence in the 2020 presidential election.

Some, like Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, were in place years before the Sanders campaign. California billionaire Tom Steyer, the Democrats’ largest donor, has spent millions of his own money on NextGen America, a group that aims to mobilize young voters. He is pulling out all stops to register first-time teenage voters as liberals. This hedge-fund-manager-turned-activist vows to build the largest progressive operation in America. And he has the money to at least try to pull it off.

History has shown that in virtually all extreme leftist movements, be it communism, Nazism, socialism, or Fascism, murder, violence, and censorship are often used to push the party agenda. Does this sound absurd? The Southern Democrats, avid supporters of slavery, stopped at nothing to frighten Blacks into servitude, pushing those who transgressed (or tried to leave the plantation) into compliance, take Black women for themselves, keep Blacks beholden to their “masters” for their very sustenance, and to discourage and punish Republicans and freethinking Democrats who dared vote to grant freedom or, indeed, any rights, to Blacks. The intimidation was horrendous, evil, violent, constant, inhumane, unthinkable, and absolutely unbelievable.

This historic pattern is cyclical. To the extent that outright public lynching, stonings, murder, and violence are unlikely today, nevertheless, extreme leftists are quite adept at countless other discriminatory, persecutory, New Jim Crow methods of keeping minorities down. And that’s just their behavior toward those they deem less-than-human or not their equal. Beyond that, many recent events (Charlottesville, VA) show us that anyone who rises up in support of conservative values can fall victim—directly or indirectly—to the violence of the Progressive Movement. I can think of two brilliant mantras that warn us relative to history. First, we are told that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Second, George Orwell expressed in 1984, “He who controls the past controls the future.” In other words, if the government is capable of editing, rewriting or erasing history in order to present a sanitized picture of what occurred, then the future is whatever the government creates it to be.

Toward what do the Progressives of today believe they are progressing? The chances are more than good that they have no idea. Somehow “progress” means greater equality, greater understanding, greater tolerance, greater peace, and greater evolution. Somehow. But it’s never entirely clear how. In almost every sense, modern Progressives mean that anything they deem good is progressive while all else is not just wrong but evil. Is there an actual end to the progress of Progressives? Is there a threshold of equality that must be crossed, one that would at least allow us to claim victory? Is there some utopia just around the corner, achievable in some viable way?

Just as the Progressives of today have no real sense of where their progress might or should lead, they have even less sense of their origins. And to the extent that any of them do know, they don’t want us to know. But is everything the Progressive Movement stands for bad for America. Likely, no. Perhaps it is the manner in which they want to cram these many changes down our throats that’s wrong. What is the endgame, anyway? Do the leftists want to help you and I achieve our every want and desire (something that is no doubt seated deep in our will, mind and emotion) at the expense of our mind and our spirit? Do they want us to want our desires (which they have now determined for us to be additional unalienable rights) to the extent that we’ll become beholden to the state in order to have these desires met? And do they now want to tell us want we want and what we should want? Does big government want to become our sugar daddy?

Nothing has been more devastating and dangerous politically in the 20th and 21st  century than leftist thought. If we look at 20th century communism alone we see that an alarming 85 to 100 million worldwide have perished under leftist regimes. These governments have also been guilty of censorship, labor and internment camps, blanket violation of civil liberties, mass incarceration of so-called “undesirables,” blockade of international humanitarian aid, refusal of scrutiny of their human rights violations, suppression of free expression of religion (especially Christianity), and many other forms of oppression. We’ve already seen a systematic attack of Christianity in America. Progressives do not want alternatives to the Big Bang, Darwinism, humanism, big government as our “father,” and other questions about the origin and meaning of life being preached or taught. Militant atheists are fond of explaining that Christian parents cramming their “religion” down the throats of their children is nothing less than indoctrination and a form of child abuse.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The atmosphere of intolerance, censorship, and incipient violence created by both the thuggish hard left and the ideologically preening elite left will have dire results for everyone. It’s inevitable. It undermines support on the left and right alike for free expression and a minimum of interference—by coercive government or coercive mobs—in assembly, organizing, and expression. If serious Progressives, including opponents of Trump, want to stop this cycle of illiberalism, they have to stop demonizing the right and start training their rhetorical fire on the vandals in the street and the ideologues in the newsroom. Doing so will not only safeguard Americans’ liberties—which are critical to a free and “progressive” America as our Founding Fathers intended— it might well save lives. In the meantime, the Trump administration and the Justice Department need not only to think about how to stop the current spate of violence, but move to stop it before it gets even worse. Appeasement is not an option. I cannot imagine how to even begin a dialog with these so-called Progressives. They don’t want to talk. They think there’s nothing to talk about. I suggest we on the other side of the aisle keep our rhetoric to a minimum and show love and respect. 

God bless the United States of America.

References

Bergeron, J. (March 27, 2015). “Why Modern Leftists are Fascists.” Return of Kings. Retrieved from: http://www.returnofkings.com/58601/why-modern-leftists-are-fascists

de Tocqueville, A. (1994). Democracy in America. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Orwell, G. (1948). 1984. Paris: Hatier.

 

 

Liberal Fascism

Dinesh D’Souza, in his seminal book Death of  a Nation, wrote, “Progressive Democrats are in fact the inventors of racism and white supremacy, and the Republican Party fought them all the way. Progressives and Democrats were also the groups that were in bed with fascism and Nazism in the 1920s and 1930s, while Republicans opposed this cozy alliance.” D’Souza notes that all the villains of the civil rights movement—Birmingham sheriff Bull Connor, Selma (AL) sheriff Jim Clark, Arkansas governor Orval Faubus, Georgia governor Lester Maddox, Mississippi governor Ross Barnett, Alabama governor and presidential candidate George Wallace—were Democrats. Every one of them.

D’Souza adds, “So we have the remarkable spectacle today of the party of racism, fascism and white supremacy blaming the party of anti-racism and resistance to fascism and white supremacy for being racist, fascist and white supremacist.” It is quite sad to me that middle class Americans, people of color, and those of alternative lifestyle, are buying into the fiction of GOP racism and white supremacy; additionally, they are convinced the Democrats have their best interests at heart; that a “blue wave” in America means a kinder, loving, supportive, understanding, equal-rights, open-minded government.

I must admit that President Trump’s claim “I’m a nationalist” has done more to poison America’s opinion of him than is warranted. I’m convinced that Trump means exactly what nationalism is: “…a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty over the homeland.” Trump proposes true, effective border security and enforcement of immigration laws for the sole purpose of maintaining the sovereignty and security of America.

WHAT IS LIBERAL FASCISM?

Ask the average, reasonably-educated person what comes to mind when he or she hears the word “fascism” and the immediate responses are “dictatorship,” “genocide,” “anti-Semitism,” “racism,” and (unfortunately) “right-wing.” The Urban Dictionary—at urbandictionary.comdefines liberal fascism as …a term to describe the alt-Left political movement… a group of liberals who believe that any free speech that opposes their views should not be allowed… who oppose and try to quiet any person or group who does not follow or believe their set of values and beliefs. Liberal fascists also believe that every American should follow and adhere to the liberal Democratic views and policies regardless of their political background or system.

There is no word in the English language that gets thrown around more freely by people who don’t know what it means than “fascism.” Roger Griffin, in his book The Nature of Fascism, defines fascism as “a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.” Roger Eatwell, author of Fascism: A History, says that fascism’s essence is “a form of thought that preaches the need for social rebirth in order to forge a holistic-national radical Third Way.” It is a mass movement that combines different classes but is prevalently of the middle class, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration. Interestingly, fascism is both “anti-liberalism” and “anti-conservatism.”

Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, believes that fascism is primarily a secular religion. Goldberg writes, “…many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is. What’s more, they see it everywhere—except when they look in the mirror.” George Orwell, in his infamous 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” said the word fascism has no meaning except insofar as it signifies something not desirable. The New York Times is noted for promoting modern intellectuals who  raise the possibility that the GOP is a fascist party, and that Christian conservatives are the new Nazis.

Goldberg asks, “…why aren’t we hearing similar denunciations of groups ranging from the National Council of La Raza—that is, ‘The Race’—to the radical Hispanic group MEchA, whose motto—‘Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada’—means ‘Everything for the race, nothing outside the race?’ Why is it that when a white man spouts such sentiments it’s ‘objectively’ fascist, but when a person of color says the same thing it’s merely an expression of fashionable multiculturalism?” Progressives and liberals today offer no answer at all to such questions. They would much rather maintain George Orwell’s  definition of fascism as anything not desirable, thus excluding their own fascist hate mongering.

I believe the major pitfall in all this is that fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, as Goldberg states, it is and always has been a phenomenon of the left. Let’s remember that fascism and communism are not polar opposites—schools of thought from across the gulf between left and right—but are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to dominate and control the same sociopolitical space. Goldberg writes, “American Progressivism—the moralistic social crusade from which modern liberals proudly claim descent—is in some respects the major source of the fascist ideas applied in Europe by Mussolini and Hitler. Unfortunately, even those well-read Americans who understand this comparison simply smile and say, “Yeah, but it can’t happen here. Not in America. Not in the 21st century.”

Angry left-wingers shout that all those to their right, particularly corporate fat cats and the politicians who love them, are fascists. America is experiencing “nice fascism.” In many respects, fascism not only is here in America, but has been here for nearly a century. What we call liberalism—the refurbished edifice of American Progressivism—is in fact a descendant and manifestation of fascism. The main objectives of the Progressive Era—widespread social activism and political reform that swept across America from the 1890s to the 1920s—were eliminating problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and corruption in government.

A NEW PROGRESSIVE ERA

Today there is a growing constellation of voices and organizations trying to build a new progressive reform movement. It’s no accident that liberals now call themselves progressives and that the main Democratic Party-oriented think tank in Washington is named the Center for American Progress. Obviously there are differences between the Progressive Era of the early nineteenth century and today’s progressive movement. But take a look at the following list of factors:

  • a conservative president who is deeply unpopular
  • a country facing profound economic and security challenges
  • new technologies upending traditional media
  • a cohort of new immigrants
  • a bulging generation of young people ready to transform the political landscape

Is this a description of 2018 America? Surprisingly, no. This is a list of factors present in America in 1932 at the tail-end of the Hoover administration. We know how that turned out for our beloved country. FDR and his fellow progressives built social programs and international institutions that ushered in an era of unrivaled dependency on the “nanny state” for prosperity and stability. They used a fresh, new medium—commercial broadcast radio—to reach citizens, and built a new “majority coalition” from the emerging demographics of that time period. As in FDR’s day, the new medium of the Internet has all but replaced commercial broadcast radio. In 2017 alone, smartphone shipments in North America amounted to more than 200 million units. Sales of these devices exceeded $50 billion. Imagine the opportunity this presents for progressives to saturate the marketplace with propaganda touting the supposed benefits of a social rebirth in America.

IS PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP A FASCIST?

The United States’ supposed lurch toward authoritarianism—or maybe full-on fascism—has become an obsession among progressives and even a few centrists and conservatives. The word fascism has recently reemerged as a key piece of political terminology in our country. The headlines immediately after Donald Trump’s election as president in November 2017 read like a disturbing question and answer session. I remember the textbook definition from my Political Science class at Penn State, and it does not ring true with what progressives want us to believe about America today: 

Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to organize the government and economy under one centralized authority, with strict social controls and suppression of all opposition. It advocates a single-party rule, and rejects the autonomy of any ethnic group that it does not consider to be part of the nation. Typically, this ideology supports policies of nationalism and racism and solidifies power through terror and censorship. 

Frankly, I don’t see any indication that Donald Trump seeks to create a centralized “big government” in America; that is the design of liberals. Nor do I see any tendency for him to push for a single-party system, or the rejection of individual rights based on race or socioeconomic class. Trump is not a racist, and has no designs to solidify power through terror; nor does he want to repeal the First Amendment. Whenever President Trump has to address issues relative to illegals pouring into America unfettered, he looks at the safety and security, indeed, the economy, of the United States. There is no “smoking gun” of Trump claiming (publicly or privately) that Hispanics are sub-human; that legal immigration to our great country (especially from war-torn, despotic, dehumanizing, poverty-stricken nations) is evil and must be stopped at all costs, in any form (legal or undocumented), with no exceptions. I just don’t see it.

I am grateful, however, that he insists on immigrants coming into our country through established, legal channels, and that he stands firm against undocumented aliens entering America. How many of us truly understand the tremendous threat of allowing anyone to simply walk across the border without knowing who they are, where they’re coming from, why they’re emigrating, and where  they go once they’re here. Recently, intelligence sources have determined that Islamic extremists bent on attacking America from within have allied with Mexican drug cartels. They’re being aided and abetted by drug lords (indeed, narco terrorists). Allowing illegal aliens into this country unconstrained represents a clear and present danger to the sovereignty and security of the United States.

President Trump’s concern over massive illegal immigration is at the root of his claim to be a nationalist. He intends to put America first.

Bizarre claims that President Barack Obama was a Kenyan Muslim spy weren’t meant to be taken at face value; rather, they were designed to undermine trust in anything Obama said. “Donald Trump is a fascist” sounds more like a campaign slogan spouted by the opposition than a statement of fact. Bill Maher recently stated on his show, “If liberals believe President Trump is a fascist or an authoritarian leader capable of using force to suppress the opposition they should rethink their beliefs about guns.” This is a solid example of rhetoric spouted by pundits that tends to incite concern and panic. What evidence does anyone have that President Trump has designs on elevating his presidency to a dictatorship?

Key Trump administration officials have been confronted at restaurants. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) urged protestors to hound Trump officials at restaurants, gas stations or department stores. Progressive pundits and the liberal media almost daily think up new ways of characterizing President Trump as a Nazi, fascist, tyrant or buffoon. Celebrities openly fantasize about doing harm to Trump. Just as Barack Obama was not a centrist, neither is Trump. Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States. Trump pledged to do the same and more—but in the exact opposite direction. Democratic Party leaders are obviously not in agreement with the direction—right of center—Trump’s policies are taking. I believe the current Progressive meltdown is about more than just political differences; it is mostly about power—or rather, the utter and unexpected loss of it.

Donald Trump is not a fascist. Fascism has been an all-purpose insult for many years, but it has a real definition, and according to scholars of historical fascism, Trump doesn’t qualify. Rather, he’s a right-wing populist. He doesn’t want to overthrow the existing democratic system; nor does he want to scrap the Constitution. He doesn’t romanticize violence itself as a vital cleansing agent of society. But if this populist upheaval isn’t fascism or anything close to it, what is it?

The Trump phenomenon is a distinctly American upheaval: admittedly ugly in its overtones at times (which tends to rub people the wrong way), and occasionally disruptive of valuable traditions and institutions, but basically a necessary remedy to the centralizing dynamic of consensus liberalism. “It is certainly true,” said neoconservative intellectual Irving Kristol, “that any kind of populism can be a danger to our democratic orders. But it is also true that populism can be a corrective to the defects of democratic orders—defects often arising from the intellectual influence, and the skillful entrepreneurial politics, of our democratic elites.”

Today’s Democrat elites—the liberals and progressives who run our institutions—have become too complacent in their dominance and too conformist in their opinions. The populist movement that’s turning our politics upside down won’t win them over, but it will weaken their influence and rattle their piety. When the dust settles and the United States is still the free and vibrant place it was before—when the nation hasn’t metamorphosed into some fascist dystopia—they just might engage in a little honest, candid, self-criticism. In the meantime, I suggest taking any accusation that Trump is a fascist with caution.

Expanding the Culture of Dependency

Nowhere in the ancient or modern world… is there the idea that people will become self-sufficient if they are given a lifetime income that is slightly better than subsistence with no requirement either to work or educate themselves. —Shelby Steele

The multicultural plantation was made possible by the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened America’s door to more than twenty-five million non-white immigrants mostly from Asia and Latin and South America. Democrats have seized on this demographic change, the third great wave of immigration in America’s history, to create an expanded plantation system that incorporates blacks, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanics. This plantation—fortified by an accompanying ideology of multiculturalism and identity politics—is the new venue for the most crippling racism that exists today.

Man Waiting to Appy for Welfare

What is Identity Politics?

The textbook definition of identity politics is “a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, or social background to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.” Identity politics includes the ways in which people’s politics are shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social politics. Mark Lilla of The New York Times believes liberals have overly focused on racial, social and sexual identity, thus reducing a more universal appeal. There is an admirable aspect of identity politics: opposing discrimination like racism, sexism, and homophobia. I support that commitment.  Frankly, fighting against dishonesty and violence is equally important as standing up against racism and discrimination.

Identity-Politics

Identity politics say you and your experience matter. Your identity gives you authority. Your beliefs can’t be invalidated because your identity can’t be invalidated. In the case of race, non-white people decided that their non-whiteness enabled them to speak with authority on topics of race. White people could only participate when they admitted that they were less worthy of speaking. Of course, this makes honest and productive dialog between non-whites and whites quite difficult. It’s as though we can only understand the black experience if we’ve been enslaved, beaten for our whiteness, persecuted, lynched, and so on. Identity politics has been utilized relative to the Muslim-American and Mexican immigrant experience of the twenty-first century.

What I cannot support is hijacking the American political process to fight discrimination. Further, liberal politics takes the same stance against capitalism—to include stripping education, health care and housing of their status as a commodity (in other words, they should be entitlements rather than something to be purchased). Here’s their argument: If everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, there’s no injustice when some of us fail. They want to create a more economically-equal society. Identity politics allows a race to focus not on how they should act in society; instead, it argues that external forces—in this case, discrimination—obligates them to act a certain way. It’s not their fault. They were victimized into protesting the system. Bucking it in any way possible.

Black Lives Matter Protest Banner

It’s tragic that, though the statement “black lives matter” is so obviously valid, after several years, most Americans still don’t support the movement. I think that’s because its most vocal members have made everything about race—citing their race as the reason why everyone must listen to them, instead of trying to convince people why they must be listened to as individuals. They make as many sweeping generalizations about race—who can speak, who can ask questions, who can understand, who must try to understand but will never understand anyway—as they accuse others of making. So, they shouldn’t be surprised when, instead of effecting change, they are now mired in cultural wars—the product of dissenters turning identity politics against them.

A Second Look at Racism

It is important to examine the exploitation schemes put into place by racism and white supremacy. I am certainly not one to deny the existence of white supremacy in America. It’s worth noting that humans tend to be prejudiced in nearly any setting at nearly any time in history in nearly any society. The slave plantation from the 1820s through 1860 generated its own type of racism to justify the ownership of human beings by other human beings. Doesn’t that statement sound absurd and evil on its merits? Interestingly, in a country built on the proposition that “all men are created equal,” it was difficult to have slavery without introducing the rationalization that the slaves were an inferior type of human or perhaps even subhuman, so that it would be acceptable to treat them like brutes or “merchandise.” Perhaps the more applicable term for how slaves were treated on the plantation was “chattel.”

The slave plantation was also a self-contained ecosystem, transmitted through generations, with its own rules and codes of conduct. Work was mandatory—it was the point of the system—but masters knew slaves had no incentive to work, because they did not receive the fruits of their labor. Even masters who were ordinarily kind people knew they needed the whip to make the slaves work against their will. Stealing in general was regarded indulgently by slave-owners because they recognized they owned not just the stolen property but also the thief who stole it. In no slave state were slave marriages legal, and there were special laws governing mulatto children who turned up. If a plantation owner impregnated a female slave, the law held that the offspring of that union remained a slave. Slave status, in other words, was transmitted through the mother. This was the way of the old slave plantation.

The Second Phase of Racism in America

The rule was quite different from the one that operated under the second phase of racism and white supremacy, which was the progressive plantation phase, from the post-Reconstruction 1880s through the 1950s and 1960s. Here black identity was established by the one-drop rule, in which any discernible black heritage—theoretically a single drop of black blood—consigned one to inferior legal and social status. This phase was typically defined by racial segregation and racial terrorism. It was often defined by such features as separate schools and separate water fountains, the exclusion of blacks from public life with the possible exception of sports and entertainment, and the use of various and often horrendous forms of intimidation—lynching being only the most gruesome—to punish suspected black criminals and to suppress the black vote. This was the way of the progressive plantation.

Institutional Racism

But where are racism and white supremacy today? Since those earlier schemes of racist exploitation have ostensibly ended—we don’t have slavery of the antebellum type anymore, legal segregation has been abolished and no longer do roving hordes of Klansmen ride rough-shod over black communities—some might hold that racism and white supremacy have largely disappeared. Some outspoken black leaders claim that racism has not diminished; rather, it has gone underground and now operates covertly rather than overtly to thwart the aspirations of blacks and other minorities. The less we actually observe public displays of this racism, the more insidious and powerful it is. Yet how do we address a charge of “invisible” racism?

Progressives and Racism Today

Progressive pundits insist that racism doesn’t have to manifest itself through individual or overt acts of racial discrimination; rather, there is “symbolic racism,” involving the use of coded symbols like the American flag or the Union Jack to provoke racial animosity, and “institutional racism,” operating through seemingly race-neutral practices such as university admissions policies, corporate hiring, bank lending and government contracts. Since those selection processes—merit-based though they may appear—disproportionately benefit whites over blacks, they are manifestations, we hear, of “white privilege” and “white supremacy.” 

Some may ask, “Why pursue hidden racism when there is obvious racism staring us in the face?” We can clarify this idea by asking a different question: “Is there a system of subjugation today that reveals the most blatant manifestation of racism and white supremacy and also represents the third phase of the plantation?” This question generates a series of others. If so, how does it operate? Why don’t the people who run the system want to fix it? Why don’t the inhabitants get up and leave? Is such a system limited to blacks or does it also involve other minorities such as Native-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Muslim-Americans?

Learned Helplessness

Perhaps we’re now able to understand why inhabitants of the urban plantation don’t get up and leave. The answer is that the culture of the plantation breeds a kind of “learned helplessness.” The term was coined by psychologist Martin Sleigman, who accidentally discovered the phenomenon while doing research on dogs. Seligman and a colleague saw that dogs subjected to electric shock turned passive and made no effort to escape even though they could easily avoid subsequent shocks by jumping over a small barrier. He ultimately applied the concept of learned helplessness to individuals. Children who do poorly on math tests (this includes me!) begin to feel helpless about their chances for learning math. Women who are habitually shy never want to venture out into social situations because they are resigned to perpetual shyness. Torture victims develop a passivity that makes them inured to being tortured.

Learned-Helplessness

Learned helplessness refers to the way that once the mind is conditioned in a certain way, it can become immobilized in that state. In this sense, learned helplessness is an enslavement of the mind. Today it has become a basic principle of behavior analysis and behavior therapy. Remarkably, this concept can apply to groups as well as individuals. Learned helplessness seems to be the reason why people who live miserable lives on the urban plantation nevertheless don’t get up and leave. Please understand I am sensitive to the plight of people (whites and non-whites) who simply cannot afford to move. This occurred in large numbers during Hurricane Katrina. When Katrina hit, more than a quarter of the people in New Orleans were living below the poverty line. Twenty-seven percent of its citizens did not own a car, making evacuation even more difficult and expensive than it would otherwise be.

Who’s Running the Urban Plantation?

What about the people who run the urban plantation? This includes the whole class of overseers: the politicians, the intellectuals, the public defenders and class-action lawyers, the social workers and administrators who together operate and uphold the plantation. Why don’t they fix, improve and rehabilitate it to make it more livable? Why can’t our congressmen and senators find a way to bring about the type of country intended by our Founding Fathers? The short answer is that they have no reason to do this. The urban plantation is run entirely by Democrats. Most of these inner cities are one-party states. There is not a Republican in sight. Every position from the mayor on down is held by Democrats. So these are Democratic plantations in the same way that the old rural plantations were Democratic plantations.

The urban plantation as currently constructed by the Democrats works just fine for the Democratic Party. It creates a dependent class that the Democrats can service, maintaining inhabitants in a position of meager provision so that they are content enough to vote to keep the subsidies coming, but not so well provided for that they might entertain the thought of leaving or making it on their own, in which case they would cease to be a reliable political constituency for progressive Democrats. Additionally, the meager circumstances and cultural pathologies of the urban plantation create a resentment among inhabitants. The Democrats steer this resentment toward the Republicans, and the white man and the larger society, always forgetting to mention that it is they—the Democrats—who actually run these places. Instead, Democrats use the racial resentment generated by the way they run the urban plantation to bludgeon society and condemn America for failing its most vulnerable citizens. The idea is to extract an increasing fund of capital for the urban plantation that, however, never actually fixes anything but keeps the inhabitants in a state of lasting intergenerational dependency.

We see how the  plantation, which does not create employment for its inhabitants, nevertheless does provide stable employment to a whole class of academics, social workers and bureaucrats. The employment is stable because the plantation is permanent; there are no plans for it to ever be dismantled. The “war against poverty” is a perpetual fight in which poverty always wins because the game is rigged and the combatants are not fighting to win, only to “hold the line.” These bureaucrats don’t want to end social policies that subsidize illegitimacy; yet they have no plans of their own to restore and stabilize the black family in America.

The Multicultural Plantation

The Democrats’ new plantation, just like the old Democratic slave plantation, must expand in order to survive. Let us see why this is so. Blacks are 12 percent of the population, so with 90 percent of blacks voting Democratic, the Democrats have locked in 10 percent of the vote. American Indians are less than 1 percent of the population, and the Democrats get most of them. Asian-Americans are just under 5 percent and the Democrats get around 60 percent of them. Still, this is less than 15 percent of the total population.

Multicultural Hands

Hispanics are even more numerous than blacks, 13 percent of the population. Hispanic is essentially a linguistic term, referring to people from the Spanish-speaking countries south of the border. Hispanics are by far America’s largest minority and, being a young population, also the fastest-growing. Some demographers believe they will make up 25 percent of the population of the United States by 2040. If the Democrats could garner 90 percent of Hispanics, this would add at least 10 percent to their current vote, raising them to having a guaranteed base of 25 percent of the national total with the promise of an even greater harvest in the future.

Concluding Remarks

So finally we are in a position to answer the question of why the progressive Democrats focus so much on illegals. Essentially, they want to blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, so that when Republicans speak out against illegal (uncontrolled) immigration, Democrats can portray them as being “against immigrants.” This way Hispanics—not just illegals but also legal Hispanics whose families have been in America since the mid-nineteenth century—will learn to fear and despise Republicans in the belief that they are racist bigots who are opposed to all Hispanics. It’s another of those big lies of course, but a toxic one.

The reason Democrats need the lie is that they have no other way to win over hardworking, self-supporting people. Instead, they need dependent people who don’t believe they can survive without the Democratic Party to take care of them. Democrats are hoping that Hispanics who are angry over President Trump’s intention to stop the constant influx of illegal, undocumented immigrants pouring into our country will simply barge across our borders and vote Democrat. The Los Angeles Times reported on October 21, 2018 that a miles-long 7,000-person strong caravan of illegals are marching on our southern border intent on walking right in. It’s as though foreign nationals are marching on our borders in protest of Donald Trump. For me, this is a clear and present danger to the national security of our nation. We simply must know who is entering our country. To allow illegals to waltz in en masse is to allow virtually anyone to emigrate no matter their intention.

It’s time we confront the progressive agenda in America. Before it’s too late. Before our core values disappear with the dinosaurs.

 

Rebuilding the Plantation

Devil's Tower.JPG

Abraham Lincoln expressed a concern (what some call his “nightmare”) that all of America would become a plantation. Let’s take a few minutes to discuss the concept of plantation politics. Use of the word plantation to describe the relationship between black Americans and their political patrons is an unfortunate staple of contemporary rhetoric. An article in The Nation dated July 24, 2013 states

The conservative plantation theory holds that African Americans support the Democratic party in exchange for welfare benefits and other handouts, that the Democratic party cultivates black welfare dependency in order to keep black voters firmly in their camp, and that the liberal establishment through either incompetence or cynical calculation frustrates the aspirations of black Americans in critical areas such as education, family life, crime, and economic mobility.

THE ORIGIN OF PLANTATION POLITICS

Black professionals in Chicago and Detroit have much to say about the liberal practice of plantation politics, which they claim led to many blacks in our inner cities being very poor and under-educated. Educated, upper-middle-class black professionals use the term plantation politics to describe ways in which they feel some black people hold themselves back socially and economically—as though they feel they are still living and working “down on the plantation.” For example, there is prevailing anti-intellectualism among poor black men, who view higher education and “white-collar” black professionals as being too white. Many black men have a tendency of confining themselves to being uneducated and holding down blue-collar jobs. Granted, the plantation system of the South was involuntary—it was based on forcibly confining slaves. Today, Democrats don’t have anyone penned up, and they aren’t forcing anyone to work. That’s not what this problem is about in the twenty-first century.

Housing Project in Baltimore

Not all inner city blacks purposely decide to remain poor. For many others, their fate is decided in a rigged game—a system of institutionalized racism promoted by the liberal policies of the federal government, who has adopted the role of caretaker or “plantation owner.” This socioeconomic ploy fosters low expectations for personal achievement and locks blacks out of good education, high-paying careers, and so on. Progressives use smoke-and-mirrors to conceal the truth of their agenda. The “party line” body of facts and evidence sets fixed parameters for debate and narrows the scope for big lies. While progressives are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

The antebellum Democrats regarded the old plantation as a “good thing.” Democratic senator James Chestnut believed his slaves had it so good on his South Carolina plantation that they cost more than the work they produced. Asked if he ever had runaways, he replied, “Never! It’s pretty hard work to keep me from running away from them!” Chestnut’s wife, Mary, was convinced that the plantation had become not merely a prison of the body but also a prison of the mind. It held its slave population in debased psychological confinement even when there was the opportunity to get up and leave. I believe this insight into the mind of a slave helps drive the modern Democratic Party. It’s their “secret weapon.” Democrats realized that long after slavery ended they could create a new type of plantation—one that would degrade and imprison the minds of their inhabitants so that very few would want to leave.

tweed-tmagArticle

The old plantation was rural; today’s Democrats are largely urban. Slavery was not entirely a Southern institution. Today’s Democrats have their base in the North and on the coasts. The plantation was initially sustained through an ideology of states’ rights. Today’s Democrats are the Party of centralized government that opposes states’ rights. The urban machines were themselves based on the slave plantation. Historians correctly credit Martin Van Buren as the man who invented the Northern Democratic machine. Van Buren literally adopted the Democrats’ plantation model to urban conditions. It was easy to adopt this posture with black Americans. Their collective spirit was first crushed (during slavery), then elevated (at the announcement of their emancipation), and now disillusioned (under today’s New Jim Crow). Thankfully, more black Democrats are seeing the Party and its progressive agenda for what it is and they’re jumping ship.

The old plantation was destroyed by the Civil War. Prior to that, the plantation was the model of Democratic governance and Democratic political domination. Democrats had concocted a whole ideology to uphold and defend the plantation. This Democratic apologia for slavery as being a beneficial institution worthy of praise and expansion was radically different from the founders’ shared understanding of slavery as a necessary evil that should be curbed until it could be abolished. The founders hoped that slavery would disappear and they expected it to.  As early as 1782, Thomas Jefferson saw “…a change already perceptible… for a total emancipation.” Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party, which formally became simply the Republican Party.

REBUILDING THE PLANTATION

Progressive Democrats, led by Woodrow Wilson, sought to rebuild a new type of plantation for the twentieth century. They were quite familiar with the old plantation, being just one generation removed from it. Contrary to the history books, which assiduously camouflage this fact, progressives are the ones who invented white nationalism and white supremacy in their modern and most virulent forms for the purpose of keeping poor whites in the grips of the Democratic Party. Progressives, in other words, were America’s original hate group, and their opponents, the conservative Republicans, were the original champions of the notion that “black lives matter.”

Big Government Strong Government

The progressives strongly support a centralized government (the “Big House”), and they rely on racial terrorism and eugenics for controlling the population of their new plantation and maintaining adequate quality control. Through progressivism, Wilson inaugurated the “birth of a nation” that departed significantly from that which was intended by the Founding Fathers—a new birth represented by the ominous symbol of the night-riding Ku Klux Klan, which served as the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. How much of this were you taught in high school history and government classes?

It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who institutionalized progressivism in the operations of government and thus created the foundation for the modern Democratic Party. FDR began by replacing the Democratic urban machines with the labor union movement and local Democratic Party bosses with a national boss—namely himself. FDR also instituted the 100 percent marginal tax rate. Tax and spend? Hmmm. Even his Democratic Congress balked and lowered the top rate to 90 percent, though it crept up to a high of 94 percent during World War II. FDR insisted that Americans who earned enough to live comfortably should not be allowed to keep any more income beyond that point. FDR was the first to seek to implement the Democratic vision of a national plantation.

By the 1930s, we can see in FDR’s version of the plantation the familiar outlines that define the Democratic Party today. Today’s Democrats have the same attachment to the centralized state (the new Big House) and they display a discernible fascist streak when, for example, they use the instruments of the state against their political opponents. But we cannot stop with FDR; the picture is incomplete without showing how Lyndon Johnson again modified the plantation in the 1960s, and how Bill Clinton and Barack Obama further expanded it in recent decades.

OBAMA AND PLANTATION POLITICS

Obama 01

According to Black Republican Blog, in order to acquire and maintain power, President Barack Obama adopted the Democratic Party’s strategy of keeping blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Using the politics of poverty and race-baiting, Obama garnered nearly 96 percent of the black vote that helped propel him to the pinnacle of power. Obama then used that power to accomplish his liberal agenda, which included wrecking our economy and weakening our national defense, leaving us vulnerable to additional terrorist attacks. Prominent blacks have publicly stated that Obama tried to destroy the free enterprise system in America and change America into a socialist nation with growth-killing taxes, the take-over of private businesses through government bailouts, and trillions of dollars in irresponsible deficit spending on wasteful social programs.

While professing to care about the plight of the poor, Obama took numerous actions during his presidency that actually kept blacks impoverished, so he could use black grievances for partisan political gain. Take a look at an excerpt from “Grim Proving Ground for Obama’s Housing Policy” published June 27, 2008 on Boston.com:

The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can’t afford to live anywhere else. But it’s not safe to live here. About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex at 11 out of 100. A score so bad the buildings had to be demolished… a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state and federal subsidies—including several hundred in Obama’s former district—deteriorated so completely that no one could live in them.

In a video posted to YouTube in 2012 titled “Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Black Christians,” Jackson said

It is time to end the slavish devotion to the Democratic Party. They have insulted us, used us and manipulated us. They have saturated the black community with ridiculous lies: “Unless we support the Democratic Party, we will be returned to slavery. We will be robbed of voting rights. The Martin Luther King holiday will be repealed.” They think we’re stupid and these lies will hold us captive while they violate everything we believe as Christians… shame on us for allowing ourselves to be sold to the highest bidder. We belong to God. Our ancestors were sold against their will centuries ago, but we’re going to be the slave market voluntarily today.

New York Times 01

In an online New York Times article published May 22, 2013, written by Charles M. Blow, the Democratic Plantation Nation theory goes something like this: Democrats use the government to addict and incapacitate blacks by giving them free things—welfare, food stamps, cell phones, and the like. This serves to render black families dependent on and beholden to said government programs and the Democratic Party. Here’s an aside: beholden to means “owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help.” Synonyms include indebted, in someone’s debt, or under obligation. In the instant example, indebtedness calls for blacks voting for the Party that keeps giving them free stuff. Hopefully, it is painfully obvious to at least some of you that the Democrats do not have the best interests of blacks in mind—nor Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Muslim-Americans. Rather, it’s about fueling the machine.

According to an online article at motherjones.com, dated September 19, 2010, Mitt Romney made the following comment during a fundraising speech in Florida:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for [Obama] no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what… These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

When you think of the black community in America, what initial images come to mind? Do you think problems, poverty and pain? Do you see its people as inferior, uneducated, incapable, dependent? Do you envision its future as hopeless, helpless, and habitual? Progress for the black community as a whole is actually impeded by “it has always been this way” attitudes. Such a mindset creates a condition primed for plantation politics. It seems to me—and I admit I’m speaking as a white male who cannot begin to understand what blacks have been put through in this country—that black consciousness has always been defined by a sense of vulnerability. And so common political appeals to blacks have played on fears that the country is incorrigibly racist and that their only hope is to take their piece of the pie by any means necessary. Can’t say I blame them.

What I will say, however, is that we can best serve the black community by exposing the Democratic Party (the liberals and the progressives) as the plantation owners they’ve set themselves up to be. The ideology of the Republican Party is essentially the same as it was during the time of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln defined slavery as “you work, I eat,” and that is the core philosophy of today’s Democratic Party, no less than the Democratic Party of Lincoln’s day. By contrast, the core philosophy of today’s GOP is identical with that of Lincoln: “I always thought the man who made the corn should eat the corn.”

In his seminal book The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South, Kenneth M. Stamp (1956) wrote, “Prior to the civil war southern slavery was America’s most profound and vexatious social problem. More than any other problem, slavery nagged at the public conscience; offering no easy solution, it demanded statesmanship of uncommon vision, wisdom and boldness. This institution deserves close study if only because its impact upon the whole country was disastrous.” Stamp also notes that slavery cannot be attributed to some irresistible force in the economics of the South. The use of slaves in southern agriculture was a deliberate choice—one among many available to plantation owners—made by men who sought greater profits than what they could attain through their own blood, sweat and tears, and who found domestic labor prices to be too high to sustain maximum profitability. Slavery was, of course, a commercial success, and it was still flourishing as late as 1860. In its broad sense, however, slavery must be considered a complete failure.

When white liberals or progressives imply that any politically-aware black American who is not left-Democrat is either suicidal or insane, they are essentially “keeping the Blacks on the liberal plantation.” Blacks who are not left-Democrat are spoken of as having “bolted off the liberal plantation.” A not-so-endearing term for this type of black man is Uncle Tom. An important facet of this paradigm is that the “liberal plantation” is figuratively a “plantation” because it uses Black voters to serve mostly the interests of a white liberal establishment, not the interests of the Black American voters themselves. What this indicates to me is that Democrats care about maintaining the political machine they’ve created, which must include “enslaving” citizens to the Party as a sort-of quid pro quo. They’ve become so desperate that they’re willing to underwrite any policy that ensures dependency of blacks, immigrants, and other minority groups on the federal government. In essence, Washington has become the new Big House of the plantation.