#nevertrump kampagnen, som især det konservative National Review støttede, var baseret på en frygt for at Trump ikke blot ikke var konservativ, men ville være en så dårlig kandidat for republikanerne at det ville skade partiet i årtier fremover og muligvis betyde enden på den konservative tankes tradition i USA. Det sidste var en besynderlig frygt, men det første var ganske reelt og vi får snart syn for sagn.
Hvad man især frygtede var, hvad venstrefløjen, det demokratiske parti og Hillary Clinton, sammen med medier og eksperter tog for givet; at USA qua indvandring af stadigt flere ikke-hvide ikke-protestanter og det moderne opgør med kristendom og vestlige værdier ville være det naturlige flertal. Fremtiden var multikulturel og progressiv. Den tanke har vundet indpas i det Demokratiske parti, der er blevet overtaget af den yderste venstrefløj, mens moderate demokrater forlader partiet.
Demokraterne står med nederlaget til Trump og de mange mistede sæder i begge kamre i en krise. Hillary blev valgt frem for Socialisten Bernie Sanders, fordi partiets ledelse foretrak de store donationer, Hillary kunne samle. Men valget af Hillary var svindel, et sår som partiet kommer til at forholde sig til. Og de progressive, der blev snydt for at deres kandidat kunne få en fair chance, er de samme, der under Obama har kørt partiets troværdighed ned, i endeløs identitetspolitik og gadeterror. Barbera Kay anmelder David Horowitzs ‘The Left In Power: Clinton to Obama’, der absolut er værd at læse i sin helhed på Frontpage Magazine
In a word, the party shifted from classic liberalism to progressivism, a benign locution to deodorize the uncomfortably redolent Marxism that greases the wheels of the party’s mission. Under the aegis of Bill and Hillary Clinton (it was never less than a presidential partnership) and Barack Obama, the administration became stacked with far leftists.
Outgoing President Obama (“outgoing”: it dances trippingly off the tongue) marinated his entire pre-presidential life in Islam apologism and the politics of progressivism. Mentored by communists, he came to power with a negative view of America’s history and distrust of the nation-state as a vehicle for human progress. Conversely he held an exaggerated and largely uncritical respect for America’s enemies, like Cuba and Hamas, but Iran especially.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton took lifelong inspiration from the writings of political guru Saul Alinksy (1909-72), whom students of left-wing radicalism in the U.S. will remember as the American version of Machiavelli. Horowitz devotes a long essay, “Rules for Revolution” in Part III of this book (the original pamphlet form of this essay has been distributed and sold to more than three million people).
Alinsky wrote the book Rules for Radicals, a how-to manual for revolutionaries, which emphasized strategies of deception rather than open confrontation as the best way to advance a Marxist revolution in the U.S. Don’t sell your agenda as socialism, he urged, sell it as “progressivism” and “social justice.”
Alinsky’s strategy was to work within the system while accruing the power to destroy it. Many of the student radicals who went on to influential political careers were well-versed Alinsky acolytes. In fact, in 1969, a certain Wellesley College student named Hillary Rodham wrote an admiring 92-page senior thesis on Alinsky, likening him in cultural stature to Walt Whitman and Martin Luther King Jr. Barack Obama followed Alinsky’s rules with assiduous attention when he worked for ACORN as a community organizer.
In his column, “Candidate of the Left,” Horowitz reminds us of Obama’s lies that were swallowed uncritically by his starry-eyed followers. Who were they? “[E]very anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-Iranian communist in America is supporting Barack Obama; every pro-Palestinian leftist, every Weatherman terrorist…all Sexties leftists and their disciples…every black racist follower of Louis Farrakhan…every ‘antiwar’ activist who wanted us to leave Saddam in power and then lose the war in Iraq; everyone who believes that America is the bad guy and that our enemies are justly aggrieved; every member of ACORN, the most potent survivor of the Sixties left…along with al-Jazeera and Vladimir Putin and the religious fanatics of Hamas and the PLO.”
Examples of Obama’s lies? One was that he really had no idea who Jeremiah Wright, his pastor of 20 years, was, because the optics of friendship with “a racist, Jew-hating, terrorist-loving acolyte of Minister Farrakhan” didn’t look so good. Another was that unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers was not just “a guy in the neighborhood” as Obama claimed. Obama launched his campaign for a senate seat in Ayers’s living room, it was Ayers’s father who was responsible for Obama’s job at the Sidley Austin law firm, and it was Ayers who “hired Obama to spend the $50 million Ayers had raised to finance an army of anti-American radicals drawn from ACORN and other nihilistic groups to recruit Chicago school children to their political causes.”
But the lie that will never lose traction as the others did, because it affected so many Americans, was “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Obama lied about his healthcare plan, because, as Horowitz has often stated, “[t]he first truth about progressive missionaries is that the issues they fight for are not the issues. What drives all their agendas is the fantasy of a social transformation that will lead to a paradise of social justice.”
Venstrefløjen har intet samlende projekt og kan ikke tilbyde lighed for Loke som for Thor, da dette er hvidt, postkolonialistisk tankegods, der udøver sin supremascisme gennem udefinerbare mikroaggressioner. Istedet står den på et evigt intellektuelt vræng af alt bestående og kamp mod fjender defineret af gamle vaner
Den hårde identitetspolitik, der lovede at samle minoriteter og progressive til en samlet majoritet, har vist sig fremmedgørende på et stort flertal af vælgerne. Langt fra alle kvinder, negre og indvandre vil være ofre og identificeret som andet end deres person. Og ironisk nok, har den hysteriske optagethed af appropriation - at majoritetskulturen, den hvide heteronormative hegemoni, ikke måtte overtage minoriteters kulturelle udtryk, thi dette ville udslette eller forfladige deres særegenhed - vist sig netop at konsolidere majoritetskulturen, som det eneste fælles udtryk, hvor man kan mødes på tværs af identiteter.