Different Agendas

These are photos of two very different sets of protestors confronting police.  The first is from a 1967 anti-war demonstration at the Pentagon, the second is from a BLM demonstration in NY in the past month.

Someone asked me why today’s protestors seem so “mean and angry.”

The woman in the lower photo certainly looks angrier than the young man in the top photo placing flowers in the guns of the police.  But is she?  Or is it a different kind of anger stemming from very different underlying motivations?

I am a “veteran” of anti-war protests of the 60s.  While my experience was mostly one of loud, rowdy, but mostly peaceful protests, that does not mean that there was not also some violence at some protests.   There were organizations that sometimes seemed more interested in creating violent situations than in having their voices heard in protest.  I can recall attending a couple meetings of the radical SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and learning “guerrilla warfare” tactics that could be used for violence within a crowd.  (I did not participate in those protests). 

SDS was a Leftist or perhaps Socialist organization; its militant faction the Weathermen were inspired by other revolutionaries and believed that by creating or inflaming violent confrontations they could “bring the war home” meaning force the U.S. out of Vietnam in order to deal with a violent domestic revolution.  Whether their hopes for their revolution went beyond that or not, I don’t know.

Protesters of the 60s talked about peace and love, but they were also angry.  The anti-war protests channeled the anger that many had toward what they saw as a conflict that the U.S. should never have become involved in and should get out of as soon as possible.  The anger was at what the protesters saw as a misguided policy giving way to incorrect if not immoral actions of our government.  The hope was that the government would change course.  The protesters were passionate about their cause. 

Today’s protesters are also passionate.  Many of the protesters are peaceful and, not unlike SDS of the 60s, there are also more militant and violent groups.   But their focus is broader than one defined misstep and mistaken policy of their government.  The protests look, feel, and indeed are very different.

I suggest that the difference is the underlying agendas.  The vast majority of the anti-war protesters of the 60s wanted to end the war.  They may have had different reasons (pacifist; saw this war as unjust; didn’t think US role included this war; didn’t want to be drafted; pro-communist; just want to be with the cool kids; and many more) but the underlying agenda was to stop the war.  Not the government, but the government’s participation in this unjust war.  That was the underlying clear focus and the belief was that if that participation ended the country and the government would be better.

I would note that there were other protests during the 60s – civil rights, women’s rights are two that I was also acquainted with.  Like the anti-war protests of the time, these protests also had a very focused target with the underlying agenda of causing the government to correct that targeted wrong and hence move forward to be better for its correction.

At times the 60s protests might very well have sounded like and looked like an expression of hatred for the government generally, but in reality it was for most of the protestors a hatred for a particular policy or action of the government.  Stopping that action, not the entire government, was the agenda.  The anger was a constructive and positive movement forward. 

Not so the current protests.  Today’s protests, whether peaceful, or attempts to incite violence, or actually violent are not directed at one act of our government but at the entire government (the “system”).  While today’s protesters may speak of justice and a better America, their agenda in achieving that is not to correct misguided actions but to actually dismantle the entire structure of America and rebuild it as something else. 

This is classic Marxism. Any good Marxist or Socialist understands that a revolution which seeks to restructure a governmental system must involve violence.  And, like any good Marxist leader, the leaders of this revolution have created a coalition of victim groups and pitted them against the “system.”    Lenin, in engineering the Russian revolution, used the workers as the ones to press that revolution and destroy the existing system.  (Once it was destroyed, however, power was once again taken from the workers and returned to a new power group to build a new system from the top down.)

Today we do not have a worker class revolting against czars, but we do have identity groups fomented to “hate the system” and hence to tear it down.  While the protestors of the 60s still, for the most part, respected the “system,” today's protestors do not.  They don’t want to fix it, they want to destroy it.  Why?

When they were children, the 60s protestors were taught that America is a great country.  They were told of America’s strengths and weaknesses, of her achievements and her sins.  But, most importantly, they were taught that the American “system” provided a voice and a means of making corrections and improvements that would move America forward and to even more positive achievements.  They learned that this voice (and its accompanying responsibilities) belongs to them and that while our government through our Constitution protects and preserves that right, it does not own it.

Today’s protestors have not been taught how the “system” works for our and the country’s good.  Rather, they have been told that America is generally bad and its “system” is not good.  Rather than being taught that the Constitution protects rights that belong to each individual, they are taught that rights are something the government creates and then gives these rights to (or takes them away from) the individual.  The government, not the individual, owns the rights.   From there it is an easy step to convince those who do not have all that they want or that others have acquired or achieved that they are victims of the “system.”

So, while the 60s protestors respected the system because it protected their individual rights (including their right to protest), today’s protestors rebel against a system that they see as not providing what it should.  This is a big difference.  And the anger that is generated is also very different. 

If the perceived or desired “system” is one of large government that, rather than protecting individual rights, doles them out as it sees fit and thus, takes from the people their right to guide themselves, then it makes sense that one who feels that he or others are unfairly dealt with might want to overturn that “system.”  And, so, today’s protestors work not to correct a misstep of our current system, but to overturn it entirely.

The 60s protestors, and many similar protests from our history (women’s vote, civil rights, union and labor laws, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, etc. ) have all had an agenda directed at correcting what was viewed by the protestors as a wrong action of government.  Working with the system and the right it gives people to conduct such protests, these groups worked and channeled their anger to better the existing system.

Today’s protestors do not have a similar narrowly focused agenda.  Theirs is not to correct a specific wrong, but to dismantle an entire system.  This is a revolution going on.  The anger it generates is destructive. 

The language and demands and future visions of the movement sound a lot like the pretty promises of Socialism.  The tactics are the same – create a victim group or groups and pit them against other groups that are labeled to signify the victimizers and the current system.  Step one – destroy the system.  Step 2- rebuild to the design of a new ruling class.  That is the agenda and it is very different from simply wanting to fix something within an otherwise functioning and good system.

So, the soldiers in the protests may have the same passion, but the anger is very different and is the product of a very different sort of war.  While the 60s protestors for the most part had a general respect for and wanted to correct and improve the “system”, today’s protestors have little respect for the “system” or any of its institutions.  Their anger is different, and their agenda is destructive. 

Today’s protestors are not interested in improvement of what exists.  They want to tear down America.   Their anger is that of a manipulated socialist revolutionary.  It is not directed at anything other than destruction.  And that is why today’s protests look and feel very different.

Anger and Hate are NOT the Voice of America

The Democrats are consumed by anger and hate.  Anger seems to be all they know; hate is all they can do. 

This became fully apparent following the 2016 election when they did not get the prize to which they thought they were entitled, but their hatred was there before.  Hillary was not the first to disparage those who she and other Democrats felt were somehow beneath them. Beyond her basket of deplorables we can remember Obama and his supporters dismissing middle American values as if they were something left over from the dark ages.

But, once Donald Trump was elected President, the Democrats’ anger and hatred have become overwhelming.  The Democrats are unable to understand even the possibility that the people could elect someone other than them when they are so confident that they are smarter and better than the rest of us and therefore should be given power over us.  So, since that is an impossibility, since the end result – their lack of power – is in their minds clearly incorrect, then they will use any means to correct that end while at the same time feeding their insatiable anger.

So, we had (still have) Russia-gate, proven to be a witch hunt; we have had (still have) attempts to find one or another scandal, still unsuccessful; we continually have name calling (racist, white supremacist, Nazi, etc.) without evidence of the epithet; we have daily spin on everything the President does to make it seem somehow negative or, if impossible to create a negative spin then credit is given to any and everyone other than the President. 

The anger and hatred are not directed exclusively at the President.  Any and all of his supporters are fair game.  Not just those who work within his administration, but the common person on the street who seems to be a supporter of the President or his policies is a possible target for the Democrats’ hate.  Those who are still brave enough to exercise their free speech rights and do such things as wear a MAGA hat do so with the knowledge that they may be the target of both verbal and physical abuse.  This, of course, is a certain way to chill if not completely silence such speech which the Democrats do not want to hear.  (The fact that this so clearly reveals their lack of respect for the founding principles of this country along with our Constitution is a topic for another post).

The anger and hatred consume the Democrats in Congress as they demand hearing after hearing on lost causes in their attempt to remove the President from office.  It consumes all the 2020 Democrat candidates as the focus of debates and stump speeches is to verbally condemn Trump – that is, Trump the man, because it is hard to condemn his policies which are all benefiting this country and its citizens.  But it is, indeed, the man that they hate because, though not one of them, he was able to fairly and honestly beat them in an election that they still believe they were entitled to win.

The press, of course, is a part of this parade of hate.  Indeed, the Democrat politicians, not to mention their supporters, often seem to be nothing more than the lap dogs of the press.  Thus, when the NYT prints a bogus story intended to dredge up again the bogus allegations against Justice Kavanaugh, even without a thought the Democrats jump and begin a new campaign of hate against the Justice.  (And, this is no less horrific than the first campaign which was intended to ruin a man’s life along with that of his family simply because he was not one of them.  For detailed thoughts on this disgusting attack on the man and our country’s values the first time, see my earlier posts from September and October 2018, most of which address aspects of the Kavanaugh hearings. Here are a few links: LINK 1, LINK2, LINK3, LINK4,  LINK5, LINK6, LINK7, LINK8,  LINK9,  LINK10.)

This is all terribly pathetic, and one wants to dismiss this behavior as simply that of spoiled children who did not get their way, for that is all that it really is.  But one cannot do that, because in this instance the children throwing the temper fit have enough power in their hands that they can truly use that fit to destroy our country and our way of life.

That destruction has already begun.  As noted above, the strength of our First Amendment rights is being diminished.  People are berated into keeping silent if they do not spout the words and beliefs that the Democrats demand.  The Second Amendment is not even acknowledged as a right when Democrats believe they can simply create an absolute ban on all arms.  Our whole electoral process is not respected by the Democrats when every time they do not win they believe they can simply attack the result along with the winner in any and every way possible hoping to get somehow the result that they want.

When the strategy is silence the opposition, take away their rights, remove those with whom you disagree by political force rather than political process, ignore facts that are inconvenient or restructure them to support your narrative and your claim to power, then we are moving away from our Democratic Republic and toward some sort of Totalitarian system in which the people have little say in their own lives.

It is sad that the spoiled Democrats are willing to give up what makes this country great in return for holding and expanding their own power.  It is sad that the Democrats believe that they have a right to do this, based on their seeming belief that they are somehow superior to the rest of us.  The Democrats did not get the prize they wanted in 2016, but their behavior since then is proof positive that they do not deserve it.

While the Democrats seem to have chosen to be fully consumed by their anger and hate, we as a country do not need to let it consume us as well.  We do not need to accept their ugly allegations about the President, his policies, his supporters; instead we can understand that these are nothing more than their temper weapons designed to gratify their anger and give them the power they crave. 

The elected Democrats are not doing the peoples work but their own work – the sole goal being to eliminate all opposition to their power.  The media is their partner in this means justify the ends campaign.  We do not have to join in.  Their rhetoric may be persuasive, but that does not make it right or true.  We can believe it and go like sheep to the slaughter of all that our country stands for, or we can refuse to be a part.  We can continue to stand for the principles of this country that are not those of anger and hate but of fairness and justice and rule of law, of freedom and liberty, and of a voice for all the people.

Anger

Anger is defined as “a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.”  But it also seems to make people a little crazy.  For example, today, still, the media is discussing Melania’s stiletto heels, though, to be fair, they have also moved to the hat she wore in Texas.  Today, even an opinion in the Washington Post notes that  despite no evidence of collusion, the Russia story survives (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/30/the-trump-russia-story-survives-even-as-evidence-of-collusion-fades/?utm_term=.38036f4a5075).   More examples abound, both of the findings of fault for any and everything regarding Trump, as well as the lack of ability to acknowledge anything at all positive coming from the President or his administration.  It also seems to allow people to be blind to any possible bad acts that do not involve Trump (DNC server and DNC/Wasserman-Schultz’s now indicted IT crowd; emails showing Comey prejudging Hillary before seeing evidence; violence of the Antifa group; to name just a few). 

I want to say, “give it up”; for isn’t it about time to do so?   But it seems there is a large group, including a large portion of the media, who simply cannot do so.  I am thus inclined to think (to fear) that perhaps this is the new normal.  Clearly, there is still a large group of people feeling annoyed, displeased, and even hostile that Donald Trump is their legitimately elected president.  The problem is that they do not know how to deal with that anger and so they continue to behave in immature and unhealthy ways. 

Psychologists tell us that anger is a normal emotion, and, dealt with properly it can be a healthy emotion.  Anger becomes a problem when it is out of control or aggressive and when it is acted on in ways that are not healthy for the actor or those with whom the angry person interacts.  Parents try to teach children how to properly address their angry emotions and avoid “acting out” their anger.  From the looks of the anti-Trump (& anti-Trump supporter) hatred, it would appear that many parents failed in teaching this skill.  For really, isn’t today’s political name calling and behavior not unlike what one hears and sees from young children when they are angry?

Those angry children are unable to have a dialog; instead, they throw their tantrum and call their names.  They don’t want to hear a rational explanation of why they aren’t getting what they want; they don’t want to have reality encroach on their own angry caricatures of the world and the people in it.  And, sadly, the one whom the child attacks, then often responds in equally irrational ways.

One must ask:  is this really that different from what we see and hear daily in the news?  There is a narrative, filled with caricatures, that sustains the anger and its subsequent behavior.  The narrative includes first that Trump is an illegitimate president - this then justifies all the “annoyance, displeasure, and hostility” at his presidency and subsequently at those who support it.   This narrative supports the tantrum and, in the way of those unable to face and deal with their emotion of anger, rational evidence to the contrary is ignored.  Because this anger is so all-consuming, it leaves no room for rational thought or dialog.  It requires caricatures.  Thus, any attempt to explain a contrary position is simply met with name calling:  one who disagrees is labeled with an appropriate caricature (racist, bigot, Nazi, deplorable, ignorant, hateful, etc.)  and thus everything that person or evidence might put forth can be ignored.   This precludes the possibility of any actual dialog beyond name calling.

Anger is the emotional response that accompanies aggression, though a well-balanced adult is able to deal with his or her anger without aggression.  But, when anger is the primary if not over-whelming emotion, there certainly exists a danger of aggressive action.  Is this not what we see at many of the recent demonstrations?

Think again of the child throwing a temper tantrum.  It is often because the child is frustrated at not getting what he wants and hence feels somehow deprived.  He is not willing to understand that too much candy might make him sick or that a toy is too expensive or that he must first do his homework.  Think of the angry teen, frustrated and furious because he can’t use the car or because his parents have imposed a curfew that the teen sees as unfair and as some sort of deprivation.  In the heat of anger, the teen is not going to listen to reason and dialog is impossible. 

But, in most cases, the anger will pass, either because the individual himself will gain control or because the parent will skillfully defuse the anger.  Then there is an opportunity for dialog.  This is how we learn to step back when we feel anger and then address it and its frustration rationally and constructively.

Sadly, in the political arena there seems no interest in diffusing the anger, in facing reality, and in constructively addressing frustration.  Rather, those people who feel in some way deprived because they did not get the president they wanted, are content to let their anger fester and grow.  They seem to be content to live in a narrative that their anger constructs, regardless of its rationality.  And, until that changes, I fear that this “annoyance, fear, and hostility” will continue to pervade every aspect of our lives.  I fear that anger is indeed the new normal.