Don’t blame the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for what liberalism is doing to America. At best they are has-beens and puppets for the real agitators, the ones with the power to persuade, to divide, and to force the country to follow their dictates. These troublemakers are in the nation’s face every day. Think Obama. Think Holder. Think Lynch, if her approval ever gets past the Senate.
Liberalism as we know it is finished
Liberalism doesn’t work. It can’t because it costs too much. The stakes for liberalism’s survival are impossible to justify without a helping hand. That helping hand is hate.
The future of liberalism is not the progressive change left-wing politicians sell. Liberalism’s future depends on placing agitators in high places who don’t have a problem inspiring hate while trying to put the country into a financial tailspin it can’t get out of without raising taxes. What better way to do that than using divisiveness to accumulate debt and masking the package as paying for American values?
The money to purchase liberal values simply isn’t there, so the real question has become how can liberal agitators coerce the country into buying more debt? Hate has become liberalism’s secret weapon. Partisan government agencies like the Department of Justice and groups like the Congressional Black Caucus can sow the seeds now and wait for opportunity to knock later.
Race hate and the politics of Lynch
There was nothing accidental or surprising about two policemen being shot in Ferguson. Agitators from Eric Holder down to street-level organizers worked overtime to stir up race hate in the people, then stepped back and halfheartedly shook their heads when their efforts succeeded (see: Civil Rights Violations are Hard Work for DOJ).
When the Ferguson grand jury didn’t play along with the politics of hate the Congressional Black Caucus decried the “unwritten rule that Black lives hold no value.”1 Members characterized Michael Brown’s shooting as a “tragic killing,”2 but when police officers were shot by a suspect who is also African American the CBC claimed it “understands the frustrations in Ferguson,”3 and portrayed the shootings differently:
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are saddened to hear about the shootings of two police officers in Ferguson earlier today and offer our deepest sympathies to them and their families.4
In the absence of a denunciation in the CBC’s statement we have to wonder how far liberalism can go to justify itself. Is violence acceptable? How about manipulating racial tensions? Today Dick Durbin threw the race card over the Lynch nomination with his “back of the bus” comment, an ironic remark from a senator with an office in a violent, near-bankrupt city where African Americans are held down by Democratic liberalism (see: Minority Oppressor for 2015: You Guessed Wrong).
There is more to politics in America than race, though the feverish efforts to keep race in the headlines was mirrored by the CBC’s masked insistence that we get another African American attorney general in office immediately:
Given the many racial justice issues facing our nation, the country desperately needs a seamless transition and a continued steady hand at the Justice Department.5
It probably never occurred to Democrats to acknowledge that part of the reason Lynch didn’t go over with conservatives was the very good chance that she would help enslave taxpayers to another liberal spending vehicle, illegals, or that denying what the president wants is a lot more important to the GOP than the color of her skin.
The goal of liberalism’s race card is not ending racism. Race politics is far too valuable. The end game is forcing taxpayers to pay for alleged unfairness, a strategy that can be enjoyed by people of all colors. At issue is the root of all liberal evil: money.
Liberalism loves debt, hates the Republican budget
Liberalism’s politics of inequality are a perfect partner to race politics because the solution both offer is the same: more spending. Slamming the Republican budget as a failure of top-down economics, the president ignored the fact that the wealthiest Americans pay the most in taxes. Instead, he insinuated that the rich pay nothing:
Because House Republicans refuse to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share or to raise a single dollar of revenue, their budget relies on the same, failed top-down economics as in previous years.6
How much social spending do we need to make up for liberalism’s failings? Obama’s budget doesn’t place a limit anyone can put their finger on. We were reminded from Cleveland yesterday:
The budget is not just numbers on a page. It reflects our values and our priorities.7
If the federal budget reflects our priorities and values, it’s hard to guess where the liberal priorities Democrats are pushing are supposed to take us. Is there a goal to liberalism? Can it ever achieve success? The president doesn’t sound hopeful:
We’ve got a long way to go. I am not satisfied; I know you aren’t either. We’ve got a lot more work to do. Any American will tell you that.8
We’ve heard the diatribes against wealth. We’ve listened to America criticized as a selfish place where economic inequality flourishes. The fix is supposed to be money, but for all the spending during the first two years of the Obama administration it didn’t keep people off food stamp rolls that rose from 28,223 million recipients in 2008 to 46,536 in 2014.9 It won’t keep them off the Medicaid rolls, either. One thing is for certain. It is politically dangerous to take something away that people are convinced they deserve. As we are seeing with the pension crisis in Illinois, the fact that leftist spending leads to ruin doesn’t matter. Taxpayers still have to pony up, so the important thing is getting the spending on the books. After all, spending money we don’t have is not the problem. It is liberalism’s final solution.