“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.” – Hillary Clinton in a recent CNN Interview
Within any political system, you historically find two ends of a spectrum. At the one end you have those considered “ultra-conservative” and at the other, those who are deemed “radicals”. Conservatives generally hearken to traditional and entrenched values, radicals usually deem themselves agents of change at any cost within a given system. This dichotomy is at the forefront of American politics as a new breed of radicalism has infected our national discourse. But who are these radicals and where does their philosophy and inspiration originate?
Radicals see a system in need of reform or extreme change, even overthrow, by ideology and force. Inevitably, the annals of history are strewn with radical systemic change as one form of government succumbs to a new paradigm. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia displaced Czars with Communism. The Weimar Republic was conquered to National Socialists. The Monarchy in Cambodia was overthrown by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.
In every instance, these historically violent scenes were preceded by the language and tactics of increasingly radical protest. The game has not changed over the years. Unfortunately, the ways of the radical are being increasingly embraced by the next wave of Democrats. And as we saw with the Kavanaugh confirmation, these campaigns are now openly paraded into the mainstream public. While cronyism is prevalent in both parties, radicalism seems to be primarily a tool of the left.
The typical American is a moderate who leans a bit left or right. So how is it, that modern radical behavior is becoming more frequent and is infringing on our national dialog? Joe and Jane Smith next door certainly are not pleased to see such actions glorified on the evening news. The answer is, unfortunately, a well-funded and well-coordinated effort by Elite Democrat leadership and unsavory interests such as George Soros.
Soros is an international financier, described as a “philanthropist”, whose central interests are far from philanthropic. Soros has poured untold millions into such organizations as ANTIFA, Black Lives Matters, Southern Poverty Law Center, Organizing for America, Center for American Progress and over two hundred other institutions. Some of these donations are benign, such as the American Library Association, but many are far left causes that are working for change, even radical change.
And the fruits of this change are concerning. No conservative is calling for their constituents to “get in the face” of Trump cabinet members or champion unfounded impeachment as Maxine Waters does. No Republican wrote their college thesis on Saul Alinsky (meeting with him personally) as Hillary Clinton did. No conservative’s political career was launched with campaign fundraisers hosted in Chicago by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn like Barack Obama’s career was. No conservative calls for a government takeover of American businesses or abolishing ICE such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Conservatives are not confronting Democrat representatives in restaurants and screaming them out like Ted Cruz and Sarah Huckabee have been. Conservatives do not form mobs on college campuses and incite violence as Ben Shapiro experienced at Berkley or the University of Utah. Conservatives are not blocking streets and accosting pedestrians as ANTIFA is in Portland. Conservatives never sought to suspend due process for political expediency as Cory Booker, Maize Hirono and others did at the Kavanaugh hearing. No conservatives shot at Democrat Senators as James Hodgkinson did at Republicans, badly wounding Steve Scalise.
The point here is that radicals will go to almost any length, including deception and violence, to institute systemic change, collateral damage be darned. In this context, Hillary Clinton’s quote is most disturbing, as it subtly issues tacit approval of radical tactics and openly approves a removal of civility, once a hallmark of bipartisan politics. In the false narrative of a true radical, she is saying “anyone against us is not credible and only our agenda makes things right”. The radical sees only the revolutionary path and any mutual discussion is off the table.
As we see paid protestors in black masks taking to the streets in numerous cities, as we see foaming partisans clawing at the doors of the Supreme Court and interrupting congressional hearings, we must awaken to the agenda of the radical. America does not need radical change, it needs lawful and orderly reform, something the Trump administration seeks to implement. But if radicalism multiplies, the administration will be forced into more heavy-handed responses, a situation nobody wants. As the rhetoric ramps up, actions will speak louder than words in the months to come and the real radicals will become obvious to most observers.