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.

 

 

Who is Killing America?

Flag Upside Down Tread Marks

Who is responsible for the slow death of America? Is it Donald J. Trump and the Republican party? Are they the Party of powerful, white, racist politicians determined to kill this country? First, I take issue with the claim that Republicans are a party of “white supremacists.” Looking back on the antebellum era of America, southern Democrats (led by Andrew Jackson) forged an alliance with northern Democrats for the protection of slavery. Following abolition, it was southern Democrats, not Republicans, who introduced the concept of white supremacy while terrorizing blacks with lynchings and burnings carried out by domestic terrorist groups. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally established as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization responsible for thousands of deaths and weakening of political power of the Southern blacks and Republicans.

At the time of Ulysses S. Grant’s election to the White House, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. They had the full support of northern Democrats, who turned a blind eye to countless atrocities from Wilson to FDR. Today, progressive pundits attempt to conceal Democratic complicity in slavery by blaming slavery solely on the “South.” These people have spun an entire history portraying the battle as one between the anti-slavery North and the pro-slavery South. This benefits modern-day Democrats, because today their main strength is in the north and the Republicans’ main strength is in the South.

Turning Point USA Logo

In an interview with MSNBC’s Craig Melvin, conservative activist and TV host Candace Owens predicted a “major shift” of black voters away from the Democratic Party ahead of the 2020 elections. Owens—communications director of Turning Point USA—predicted that black men and women (not white middle-class women) will become the most relevant vote in the United States by 2020. “There is going to be a major black exit from the Democratic Party…” Owens said.

Melvin asked Owens, “Are you asserting that all of a sudden there are millions of new black Donald Trump supporters that we didn’t know anything about before?” Owens replied, “They weren’t Trump supporters to begin with, but we’re seeing a major shift happen… black supporters are leaving the left and going over to the right. You need to pay attention to the underground movement. And look, you’re correct to say that just because a poll says something, it isn’t right. The polls told us that Hillary Clinton was going to win and she didn’t. I wasn’t fooled by the polls. I thought that Hillary Clinton was going to lose, in the same way that I am also saying that I believe black voters are going to exit the left completely by 2020.”

No Ban No Wall

It is likely the Democratic Party will fracture into multiple parties over the next 20 to 25 years, and the Republican Party will continue to solidify. Recently, the Democrats have redoubled their efforts regarding “identity” politics. Whether it be Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Chinese-Americans, or any of the two-dozen hyphenated American groups out there, these ethno-religious-cultural groups have used the Democratic Party to further their group interests. What most people fail to notice is Democrats have abandoned their traditional base of working-class white voters and are instead embracing immigrant groups. The Democratic Party went from a platform of being slightly center-of-left socioeconomically and culturally (closer to conservatism) to a platform that is far left. Today, the Democratic Party supports open borders, multiculturalism, secularism, and environmentalism. Their political philosophy and social programs are rooted in pluralism. Everything is true, everyone is right, and morality is based on relativism.

ARE PROGRESSIVES THE ANSWER?

American history is a story about malefactors from the Democratic Party versus heroes from the Republican Party. Of course, progressives work hard at hiding this truth, especially in history and social studies classes in our public schools and liberal universities. Today’s progressives are well-positioned to take full advantage of the socioeconomic and moral crises in America. Ideological warfare and political paralysis can be seen running up and down the isles of Congress. Liberals typically complain about declining economic well-being among the masses, adding that too much wealth has been accumulating at the top for far too long.

Liberalism is not as deeply connected to the black experience today. Still, progressives—using the Democratic Party as their apparatus for social change—have portrayed themselves as allies of African-Americans in the midst of alleged rejection by the Republican Party. This leaves African-Americans with the unfortunate choice of voting for the left despite liberal values being disparate from their own. Black Americans have not benefited from their loyalty to the Democratic Party. In fact, the recent impact has been negative. When in power, liberals are in the position to put any number of issues first, yet the interests of the black community are currently being put last (over the interest of immigrants). Yet African-Americans continue to pledge support to Democrats.

Elephant versus Donkey

Perhaps the problem lies with definition. A conservative is “a person who is adverse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, usually in relation to politics,” and a progressive is “a person advocating or implementing social reform, or new, liberal ideas.” If we rely exclusively on the above textbook definitions, we’re left with the impression that Republicans are stuck in the past, whereas Democrats have fresh, new ideas for the betterment of America. President Obama delivered a speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2012, following the just-concluded Republican National Convention, wherein he essentially bashed the Republicans. Obama said Mitt Romney and his Party offered a platform that was “better suited to the last century… it was a rerun [and] it could have been on Nick At Night.”

Better World Globe in Hand

I am among the first to admit that progressives truly believe in the possibility of a “better world,” and they feel a moral responsibility to work toward achieving it. To them, it means looking at situations as neither black nor white, but to instead determine what can be changed and ought to be changed. They see the mechanisms for this change to include advocacy, social reform, and the political process. I’m being kind here. I’ve left out the progressives’ favorite tool for promoting social change—revisionist history. Progressives certainly believe we’d be a better nation if we “accept” everyone for who they are. I concur. I don’t necessarily agree with much of what has transpired in America over the past decade relative to morals and lifestyle choices—but I do believe everyone, straight or gay, male or female, Christian or non-Christian, natural-born citizen or naturalized citizen, deserve respect and unconditional love. It is important to note, however, that respecting someone does not mean agreeing with their lifestyle.

WHAT ABOUT THE BLACK COMMUNITY?

Blacks shifted en masse to the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 despite the Democrats’ heavy support of segregation and Jim Crow. It is worth mentioning that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were achievements of the Republican Party; not a single Democrat voted for these critical amendments. When Democrats champion the “rights” of illegal aliens, and encourage the importation of cheap labor through massive immigration, who suffers most? “Free” labor led to creating such immense wealth, expansion, and material gain that it was rather easy to “disregard” the humanity of slaves. Frankly, no one should be reduced to the status of being “just a tool for making money.” Despite the total annihilation of their peace, freedom, security, families, and prospects for the future, slaves gave in to their owners in the hopes of maintaining their families and culture.

It is undeniable that the desire to garner more Democratic votes through mass immigration and free healthcare for foreign nationals has made the black constituency (12.7 percent of the nation’s population) less significant to the Democrats. Has this been noticed by the black community? You bet! A Harvard-Harris poll earlier this year found 85 percent of black Americans wanted a reduction in immigration levels to 1 million or fewer. Sooner or later blacks will leave the Democrats. Whether they join with the GOP or form a party based on racial identity is an open question.

HOW NATIONS DIE

We’ve seen countless nations come and go over the last millennium. Accordingly, it is worth discussing how nations die. Nations are sometimes wiped out through foreign conquest, as the Carthaginians were in the Punic Wars. The Roman Empire decimated one nation after another during its attempt to dominate the known world. Genghis Kahn and his merry band of Mongols stormed across the plains of Central Asia, reducing kingdoms and communities to rubble. Hitler and Stalin conspired together to obliterate Poland and share the spoils. This is a depressingly familiar pattern in history.

imperio-romano

Sometimes nations are obliterated by domestic implosion. The Romans were not destroyed merely by barbarian invasions from the North; what made Rome vulnerable was its internal rot, caused by despotism, decadence, and debauchery. The Ottomans too became the “sick man of Europe,” weakened by internal economic collapse and a decayed ruling class, long before the Empire itself was decapitated during World War I. In Europe, the fascists and the communists sought to forcibly uproot their ancestral cultures in order to create new societies and, in their view, new types of human beings.

Lincoln-portrait

Abraham Lincoln predicted in his Lyceum Address that if America ever perished it would be through internal ruin. “Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” So who in America could possibly want to kill America? Why would a country that has drawn immigrants for most of its history, and that continues to be a magnet for the world, want to take itself off the map? And what would the death of America look like? Exactly what would replace her? Frankly, it would involve the destruction and dissolution of all the things that make America distinctive. The death of America is essentially the death of American exceptionalism.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Is America dying? Can we learn from the decline of the Roman Empire? Are there any credible comparisons? Yes, there are. The Romans were often needlessly at war with neighboring countries. Their political system became a vast money pit. Foreign investors began to take root in the Empire, ostensibly in the interest of protecting their investments. Wealthy citizens began to send their money to banks outside of the Empire. There was a great polarization between the classes, and annihilation of the middle class. In addition, Roman entertainment was chock full of violence. This led to decline in spiritual values and a breakdown of the family unit. Pleasure-seeking began to take priority over nation-building. Disputes were increasingly settled by lawsuits or revenge. Rome was a place of inflated self-importance. Additionally, religion was predominantly polytheistic and often involved outrageous ritual practices.

A nation is so much more that its laws, its political system, even its founding documents. It is first about its citizens. A nation is an “imagined community” of people who have never met each other but are linked through their common mores and mutual acceptance of each other as fellow citizens. This loyalty can run very deep in that nations, like religions, are one of the very few things that people are willing to die for. People will die for America, but they will not lay down their lives for the Philadelphia Eagles, or the United Way, or the Democratic Party.

What makes this crisis especially acute is who is perpetrating the killing of America. Unfortunately, the crime is being committed by some our fellow citizens. We could say there is a faction within our “family” of citizens that seeks to destroy the family and replace it with something else entirely different—a new family in which many of its members will feel like strangers. Some of them may have to be driven out or locked up because they no longer fit in and are perceived as a threat to the new ideology. Thomas Jefferson said, “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”