Sometimes politicians and—by extension—their supporters are referred to as left- or right-leaning ideologues. They might further be described as far left- or right-wing, even earning the adjective “extremist,” to remove all doubt concerning their ideological bent.
When I was a legislator, some in the press would refer to me as a “staunch Republican.” Being a “committed” conservative or Republican wasn’t a suitable characterization. They never use “staunch,” a harsh-sounding term, to describe their liberal pals on the left. Using “avowed liberal” was about as risqué as they would be.
The press generally referred to Democrats as “progressives,” eschewing the term “liberal.” That comported nicely with the description Democrat consultants preferred since “liberal” carried too many negative connotations. Besides, how could anyone oppose being “progressive?” It was a subtle attempt to classify raising taxes, denying constitutional rights, expanding government, supporting illegal immigration with open borders, spending profligately, and attacking traditional values as somehow representing progress. Yet Democrats successfully found a term that softened their image. The press dutifully adhered.
The use of terms to describe political persuasions, however, has taken a sharp turn for the worse. That’s particularly the case with the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a (pardon the term) very far-left wing of a Democratic Party whose establishment leaders would prefer “progressive” instead of “socialist” to describe their core beliefs. It’s a problem mainstream Democrat leaders can blame themselves for, having mollycoddled the most radical elements of their following who are quite comfortable with being referred to as socialist, indeed, sometimes communist.
The DSA is about as strident a group as any we have seen in recent years. Even the TEA Party—whose use of that term stood for “Taxed Enough Already”—resisted calling the Democrats “communists,” preferring to label them what they were: the party of “Tax and Spend.” Not so the DSA, who today refer to Republicans as “fascists,” or worse, “Nazis.” That has, in fact, given rise to Republicans referring to the DSA as socialists and communists. Is it any wonder? It leaves one wishing for the less offensive use of left “this” or right “that.”
Yet even the left- and right-wing dichotomy does not accurately account for where communists and fascists reside on the political spectrum. In fact, the terms left and right are themselves irrelevant in understanding the nature of communists and fascists compared to other government forms. Some consider communists on the left and fascists on the right. But in fact, both are found on the end of the spectrum that tends toward tyranny and dictatorships.
Indeed, arrayed correctly—and for the sake of simplicity—on the far left you would find the most dictatorial forms of government, communism and fascism being equally tyrannical. Moving toward the center, a monarchy appears, a more legitimate form of concentrated power. In the center, one would find a republic, a representative form of constitutional government based on democratic principles. Next to that, a pure democracy appears, which would be strict adherence to majority rule not subject to the safeguards found in a republic. Populating the opposite end of this spectrum is anarchy, a disorderly form of stateless society without rulers. In other words, the governance dichotomy runs from tyranny on one end to anarchy on the other, with varying forms of state control in between. So, when one party declares the other as either communist or fascist, they’re using the same tyrannical insult. Who is correct?
Let us take the DSA at their word. Their platform calls for some rather extreme major structural changes to our republic:
- Rewriting the Constitution to establish a single federal legislature,
- Abolishing the Senate,
- Limiting Supreme Court power, and
- Establishing a democratic socialist republic with social ownership and worker control over the economy.
The DSA would reject the long-standing structure of our constitutional republic, impose a Russian-like State Duma, jettison the Senate, limit the Supreme Court in its vital judicial role to sustain law and order, and seize ownership of private property while upending the free-market principles that have made us the wealthiest nation in history.
Of course, all of this would require a constitutional convention to rewrite and amend the US Constitution. Unfortunately, that would be done by heavy-handed and uneducated DSA members who would quickly reject constitutional procedure to rule by fiat when freedom-minded people oppose them.
Simply put, who are inclined to tyranny in this picture? Who would be more receptive to the actual definition of fascism, which prefers “centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of the opposition?”
Is it those seeking to sustain the republic, or those inclined to dictator top-down radicalism that would destroy our constitutional republic? The DSA has removed all doubt.
0 Comments