What is the “Alt” Left?

By | 2017-04-11T18:45:49+00:00 April 2nd, 2017|
Print Friendly

Much has been written about the “Alt[alternative]-Right” It is attacked as a sort of updated paleo-conservatism—or anti-orthodox conservatism that promotes white identity, often dressed up with hip culture to appeal to younger right-wingers.

Yet no one seriously believes that a supposed Alt-Right is a widespread phenomenon, much less that it drives the Republican Party or the Trump administration. The latter, for example, is the most pro-Israel American government in recent memory.

During the primaries, Trump was often accused by the conservative pundits of being moderate and nationalist in conservative clothing. The Trump message is often under attack from traditional conservatives as too centrist, aimed at the lower middle classes, not serious about cutting back entitlements, and too soft on Obamacare reform.

But on the other side, an “Alternative Left” is no longer an “alternate” wing of the Democratic Party or traditional liberalism. It now drives the Democratic Party trajectory.

What are its tenets other than the obvious of addressing man-caused climate change by radically restructuring the American economy, favoring a lead-from-behind stature abroad, and seeing “you didn’t build that” capitalism as parasitic rather than nourishing of American democracy?

Its overarching ideology seems to be a filtered version of campus postmodernism. Therefore the “truth” is simply a pastiche of “stories” or “narratives.” They can gain credence if those with power and influence “privilege” them, in efforts to enhance their own status and clout. “My story” is just as viable as “the truth,” a construct that does not exist in the abstract.

For the Alt-Left, there are not really inanimate laws of human nature or language. Instead political mobilization can construct powerful narratives of change: Opposition to gay marriage can be endorsed by both Obama and Clinton in 2008 and then be reconstructed as proof of right wing bigotry by 2012.

Zones of neo-Confederate federal nullification to stop the deportation of illegal alien criminals can be rebranded as “sanctuary cities” to protect the innocent “migrants” from arbitrary and racist immigration laws. “La Raza” does not really mean “The Race.” Instead Raza simply denotes the “people” in reference to oppressed communities.

The Obama victory of 2008 had a profound effect on the Democratic Party, suggesting that the “power” of getting elected twice gave “truth” to Obama’s polarizing brand of organizing groups based on ethnic and racially based grievances, in concert against a supposedly fading and bigoted establishment. (This axiom is in need of some postmodern revisionism after the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the loss of most governorships, state legislatures, the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court.)

The Alt-Left largely dismisses the old liberal idea of 1960s Civil Rights. Liberals once promoted integration and the goal of an American melting pot empowered by the time-honored traditions of racially blind integration, assimilation, and intermarriage. The liberal goal once was a common American culture and experience where race became subsidiary. Yet we hear little from liberals any more about non-discrimination and integration. Instead, preference, diversity, and segregated safe spaces become the new discriminatory and reparatory agendas.

The Alt-Left also believes that racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious identity is essential not incidental to character—as evidenced from the profound by the recent racialist statements of would-be candidates to head the DNC, to the ridiculous, as the careerist-driven and invented identities of a Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Ward Churchill or former white/black activists such as Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King attest.

Blatant appeals to racial chauvinism such as those of La Raza (“The Race,” a phraseology popularized in Franco’s Spain in imitation of Hitler’s Volk) or “Black Lives Matter” (that went to great lengths to reject counter ecumenical arguments that “All Lives Matter”) are not just tolerated as useful political props, but institutionalized by the Alt Left to the degree that the Obama Justice Department used fines collected from financial institutions to redistribute to such Alt-Left radical identity political groups.

Another tenet is the age-old left wing idea that the noble ends of “fairness”—equality of result, and government mandated redistribution—justify almost any means in obtaining them. At Obama rallies in 2008 and 2016, no conservative goons stormed the assemblies and sprayed mace at the audience; at current Trump gatherings protesters in masks try to incite violence, in order to suggest that mayhem is innate to Trump’s appeal. There were no Inauguration Day obscenity-ridden protests on January 20, 2009. To have adopted such tactics to disrupt an Obama rally would have been “racist.”

On campus, sexual assault has vastly expanded from traditional definitions of rape to now include one party’s post-coital unhappiness over initially consensual sexual congress, while justifying denial of due process to the accused in such cases as is supposed to be accorded to all defendants under the Constitution. Indeed, the Alt-Left’s fear is that accusations of sexual assault on campus would be customarily turned over to the local District Attorney, who would work within the Bill of Rights and not be free to prejudge defendants in the manner of campus ideological Star Chamber courts or administrative edicts.

The Alt-Left also does not really believe in free speech, at least as it was calibrated by the New Left of the 1960s that mandated “free speech” zones on campus, wrote academic handbooks outlining the need for protected expression, such as the Yale University’s highly regarded Woodward Report, or, in hippie fashion, equated free speech with advocacy for obscenity and pornography. Reading Mark Twain is hurtful and should be banned, screaming “F—k you to a Yale professor’s face is free speech and to be encouraged.

The purpose of safe spaces and trigger warnings is to deny free association and expression on grounds that purported victims deserve extra-constitutional protections. In French Revolution or Maoist style, speakers deemed antithetical to campus majority views or liable to influence students in the wrong directions are often barred from giving speeches, or have their lectures shouted down, violently so if need be.

When student protesters and outside activists disrupted Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley and Charles Murray at Middlebury, their activism was predicated on the assumption that they would never be subject to criminal charges leveled by those local district attorneys. Presumably, the influence of new Alt Left ideology had at least won some sympathy from campus officials or so instilled a fear of career imperilment that administrators had green-lighted exemption from criminal prosecutions.

The Alt-Left’s idea of the nullification of law is not limited to campuses. Over 300 sanctuary cities and jurisdictions have now adopted states’ rights arguments from the 1850s (which resurfaced under the Dixiecrat movements of the 1940s and 1950s, before ending with George Wallace defying federal law enforcement’s desegregation orders at the doorway to the University of Alabama). Local laws trump federal legislation, and thus entitle sanctuary cities to shield illegal aliens wanted on federal criminal warrants.

In California, a third of the population polls that it would like to secede from the Union and is encouraged to do so occasionally by state officials and legislators. And like kindred Confederates of old, the Alt-Left does not envision federal nullification as an abstract concept adoptable in theory by any local and state jurisdiction.

Certainly, San Franciscans would go to court to sue a Utah city or the state of Wyoming if either declared EPA endangered species legislation null and void within their jurisdictions or suspended or superseded federal gun registration statutes. A chief tenet of Alt-Left nullification is that the innate moral superiority of the Left allows it to render inert any law it finds reactionary or unhelpful to its agenda (immigration law, the ACA employer mandate, the Defense of Marriage Act, the contractual order of Chrysler’s creditors, or NSA surveillance laws)—on the premise that such principles are not transferable to other groups who do not share its supposedly unique ethical agendas.

Postmodern relativism reinvents standards of probity to fit changing perceptions of morality: the filibuster was bad under Obama but good under Trump. The “Biden Rule” opposed lame duck presidents from nominating Supreme Court justices—except when they were declared morally superior nominees. The nuclear option was a necessity corrective to mindless rejectionism unless the rejectionism became rebranded as moral and principled. Pen and phone executive orders were constitutional remedies for gridlock—until they became unconstitutional overreaches to stop gridlock. Powerful minorities and women were role models—but if conservative deserved smears as traitors to their race and sex.

A final tenet of the Alt-Left is its ease with Big Money—in rejection of the 1960s leftist notion that small is beautiful, simplicity is revolutionary, and lucre is proof of exploitation and criminality. Today, an inverted orthodoxy is that billionaire grandees from Wall Street to Silicon Valley to Hollywood have been flipped from robber barons to social justice mavens (read they are so wealthy that they are personally exempt from the deleterious ramifications of their own ideology that falls on the poorer and less influential). There is nothing odd about an Alt Left activist consulting his ample stock portfolio, insisting on granite and marble in his kitchen, or preferring Mercedes to Lexus; the old left wing idea that life emulates ideology is passé.

Anything once deemed exploitative and autocratic—the military, hugely endowed private foundations, an imperial presidency—for the Alt-Left is welcomed as expedient, on the premise it can bypass legislative logjams and fast track or fund moral agendas such as transgendered restrooms, women in frontline combat units, gay marriage, or climate change.

For now, the Alt Left has crushed its Democratic opposition. Bill and Hillary Clinton have mostly renounced their political positions of the 1990s—from opposition to gay marriage, work requirements for welfare, closed borders and enforcement of existing immigration law to support for more police, tough sentencing, and drug enforcement.

So is there an Alt-Left?

Not exactly.

The real Alternative Left is what is left of the Blue Dog Congressional delegation or the remnants that occasionally pop up around an enfeebled James Webb or Joe Manchin.

The old Alt-Left in contrast is the Democratic Party—not an alternative to it. In its present manifestation, not just a Harry Truman and JFK or even Bill Clinton would be seen as noxious, but the earlier incarnations of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 as well.

About the Author:

Victor Davis Hanson
Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism.
  • lintondf

    Ctrl-left is much more on point than Alt-left

    • Charlie P

      And both parties need a CTRL-ALT-Delete.

      • rpmii

        Agree. Good description of Trump.

  • Good analysis of how radical Left-wing meta-political thinking has changed in recent decades, and has exerted visible effect by wagging the dog of the Democratic Party. However, strategically, “Alt Left” is not a good term for this argument; it suggests an equivalence to the “Alt Right”, but the latter is something new and deserves its own analysis, not dismissal by equating it to an extreme Left that is arguably far worse. For example, set aside the element of white ethnic-nationalists, and you will find that the Alt Right more broadly is defined by a new synthesis of civic nationalism; reassertion of masculine virtues as resistance to the Left-wing driven feminization of culture, ideology, and institutions; reassertion of hard-headed empiricism, realism, and free speech against Leftist ideological indoctrination programs run under the guise of pseudo-scientific sociology; and skepticism toward the neoliberal agenda of global-scale capitalism, as uncaring and even psychopathological toward our own nation and people. As such, the Alt Right does in fact represent the spirit and the logic behind the shocking rise of Trump against a Republican Party which had failed on precisely these fronts.

    • Lesly Jean-Paul

      LOL @ “…set aside the element of white ethnic nationalists…” hilarious

      • HughdePayens

        Interesting perspective on the Alt-Right. http://hotepnation.com/hotep-altright/

        Over the past few months on Twitter people have noticed that a few Hoteps and I have become quite friendly with white nationalists / Alt-Right. People don’t understand it so allow me to take this time to explain.

        Firstly, both sides represent the alpha traits of their respective races. Hoteps represent that for blacks and Alt-Right for whites. The Left is quite feminine in their approach whereas they like to cry, complain, and protest but never actually want to do anything for themselves. Hotep and Alt-right want to do for self. They want independence.

        Foreign Interest
        Hotep/Alt-Right are sick and tired of American people being pushed to the back in favor of foreign interests.

        The Left is a hypocritical bunch. On one hand, they want to complain about Trump’s so-called “Muslim-ban” but on the other hand, they were quiet as a mouse when America was bombing and killing innocent people in these same Muslim countries.

        The Left is complaining about a wall and not wanting to use taxpayer dollars to build it but where was the left when America was using taxpayer dollars for our exuberant defense budget? Nowhere! That’s where.

        In a nutshell, the Left wants more government involvement and the Right wants less. See the book “Animal Farm & 1984” or “Brave New World” to discover the many reasons why we should NOT be looking for more government involvement. More government means more restrictions and less rights. Why don’t people understand this? It’s common sense.

        Why is Hotep and Alt-Right championing Trump’s PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES and his build the wall campaign? Because it puts Americans first.

        The job market and healthcare system is stressed past its limit so why would we want to stress it even more? Black unemployment is double the nation average but blacks are fighting for these Mexican and Muslim foreigners, who will come to America and compete with them for jobs. Foreigners will put blacks on soup kitchen lines if they don’t wake up soon.

        In Muslim countries, blacks are forced into slavery, especially the women. There is even proof of ethnic cleansing performed by Arabs to remove the African from the territories they hold. How come we never hear/see the far left blacks protest this? Because the media didn’t tell them to.

        The Hispanics don’t like blacks but that’s one of those untold truths people don’t like to discuss. But of course, blacks have to play world hero and defend Mexicans against this wall. George Lopez just told us that Hispanics do not like blacks. I’ve seen it first hand. Just ask your Dominican friends – if they’ll tell the truth.

        Hoteps want blacks to put blacks FIRST. How can you help others when you cannot even help yourself?

        Alt-right sees this threat of borders being erased and American deterioration and they are sick of it too. This is also where they align with Hotep.

        Nationalism
        Hoteps want blacks to work towards having their own independent system where blacks do for blacks and don’t ask for handouts. The white nationalists and Alt-right want pretty much the same.

        In this aspect, both sides see eye-to-eye.

        The far-left blacks want to cry for white acceptance from so-called white supremacy. They want white awards at white award shows and white pity. Hotep wants nothing to do with these moral victories as you cannot build a nation upon a foundation of emotions. [tweet this quote]

        Hoteps are sick of blacks complaining about white supremacy. Blacks talk about how their melanin is so magical but if this is true, then surely no melanin-recessive person should be able to stop you, right? Do you see how contradicting blacks are now?

        Alt-Right is tired of hearing blacks cry about racial oppression, so naturally, they will support the Hoteps that push back on this type of behavior.

        Hoteps believe that because of the internet, the many resources available to blacks, and the privilege of being an American, we no longer need to look to the so-called white man for help. We can do for our own. Is that so bad?

        Besides, if America is so bad, why is everyone fighting to come here?

        “I believe that racism only exists in the media and the minds of the foolish.” [tweet this quote]

        The media is controlled by “them” and “their” strategy is divide and conquer. As long as “they” can keep us fighting “they” can always present themselves as the solution and PROFIT. Hotep and Alt-Right are NOT fighting. Guess who’s hip to the game?

        A great man builds wealth by making decisions based upon potential gains – NOT race. A poor businessman makes decisions based upon race. So the system, which is FOR PROFIT, cannot be inherently racist. It will only mask itself in it, for the sake of PROFIT.

        The blacks love to spend on movies? Fine! They’ll make them some black movies to be proud of while they take the lion’s share. All blacks want are the emotions anyway. It’s a fair deal. Blacks get the emotions and “they” get the profit.

        The blacks want awards? Fine! But “they” get the profit. Blacks are the enablers of white supremacy. Power is the child of strong economics. White power is sustained by black economics. Until blacks reverse the economics back in their favor, they will be oblivious to their enslavement.

  • inyouri

    JFK and the Kennedy’s were always noxious, the media’s Camelot fantasy portrayal was betrayal and still is decades later.

    • jjeffs63

      Yes they were. The press that allowed Teddy Kennedy to live his political life relatively unmolested by the stench of Chappaquiddick presaged today’s openly biased media.

      • Its_All_Baloney

        I persist in thinking that JFK proved his leadership chops. No other president in modern times has mobilized the country behind his agenda like JFK did (although Reagan certainly came close and still stands head and shoulders above any other contender). He was a visionary. Had he been able to serve 8 years, we might have cities on Mars by now. Instead we’re mired in “War on Poverty” programs that are bankrupting the country, and after honoring JFK’s memory by — literally — flying to the moon, we turned around, sat down in the corner, stuck our collective thumb up our collective posterior, and started crying about social justice.
        Kennedy had a few American advisors in Vietnam. Johnson turned that into a full blown war, the first we ever lost, and divided the country so profoundly that we’re still riding out the shock waves. Kennedy cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Johnson created the “Great Society” that added trillions to our national debt and destroyed the family structure that underpinned American society.
        Yes, Camelot was a media construct, but then so was the entire Arthurian cycle. The point isn’t what the media did or didn’t, it’s what the Once and Future King was able to accomplish by using that narrative.

  • Joe Palyka

    AWEsome article. Really puts it in perspective!

  • CrazyHungarian

    If you want to be really surprised at where the Democrat Party has traveled in it’s leftism, search for and read “45 goals of the Communist Party of the US” and just see how many of these goals have already been attained. The present platform of the Democrat Party largely overlaps these decades old CPUSA goals.

    • JustMom

      That’s why the Dems are losing their marbles over Hillary’s loss. Just imagine you’ve managed to capture the biggest, best toy in the claw game and you’re millimeters away from the chute when it drops from your grasp. They were that close to tipping the political scales for good in the US.

      Their goals have been clear for…ever really. Depending on how well Trump does we may have 8-12 years left of some semblance of liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we recognize it.

      We are unique in this world. It can’t last forever.

  • Dominic

    The Dem Party of the past ended during the period 2001-2005.

    It has been overrun by radical leftist Socialist/Marxists educated in the 60’s, and who will need to die off or retire, then be replaced hopefully by a more sober lot.

    Dems of just 20-30 years ago would not recognize this party.

    Bernie Sanders used to be an asterisk, openly mocked as a socialist and the rarest of exceptions. Kind of a curious anomaly off alone at the farthest fringes of the party, but elected nonetheless so everyone was polite and smiled and tolerated him.

    Had the DNC and Hillary Campaign not colluded and cheated outright, Bernie Sanders would have been the Presidential Nominee of the Dem Party last year!

    THAT is some profound change and in a very short period of time historically.

    • Its_All_Baloney

      Take a look at where the next generation wants to take the country. They, not the aging survivors of the hippie revolution, are the driving force behind grandpa Bern and his strutting socialism. They were educated/indoctrinated by those old school ’60s Marxists, and they bought it all … then paid extra for the extended warranty.

      • Dominic

        I get your point but believe those you refer to are merely useful idiots creating a lot of sound and fury.

        I don’t see any principled leaders in these punk street protesters, just adult brats who’s mommas told them they were special instead of disciplining them.

        We’ll see what comes out of that group.

        I am more hopeful that Adam Ryan (D-Ohio) represents the next generation of Dems.

        He ran against Pelosi for house minority leader and got 33% of the vote. He seemed far more reasonable than any mainstream Dem I have heard over the last 10 years. Probably since Zell Miller, Joe Liberman or Evan Bayh.

  • redmanrt

    “But on the other side, an “Alternative Left” is no longer an “alternate”
    wing of the Democratic Party or traditional liberalism”

    Communists have been driving the dim party since 1914.

    • Hominid

      More marxists than communists.

      • redmanrt

        More stalinists than marxists.

  • Patriot

    The problem with the right in America is that we win election after election but the left always wins the battle of ideas. Every decade or so, the far-left becomes the center-left and the new far-left is even crazier than the old.

    We can talk all we want about how crazy today’s left is but they will seem moderate compared to what comes next if we don’t become reactionaries and restore America, as it was before the left destroyed it. The alt right’s critique of conservatism is spot on but their obsession with race and indifference to shrinking government are dead ends, just as the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP’s obsession with just tweaking leftism slightly to ensure ever higher profits for its members, without introducing the uncertainty that comes with real change, is a dead end.

    If President Trump wishes to work with the Democrats and attack those members of Congress that actually want to fix the mistakes of the past, then he needs to be primaried in 2020 should he not come to his senses by then. The stakes are too high to permit moderates and compromisers to hijack what might be our last chance to reverse the loony left’s agenda.

    • Hominid

      Bingo!! That’s more or less what The Hominid says, but you say it better.

    • Browns Fan42

      Trump’s “threat” to work with Democrats was just a shot across the bow to Republicans, I think. Why? Because everyone knows that the Democrats can offer nothing of substance on health care, much less anything else.

      • Hominid

        You’re a Trumpsucker who claims every Donald turd is ice cream.

      • Rational_Db8

        I sure wouldn’t count on that if I were you – Trump has always been all over the map. He holds some very leftist positions and always has. Some conservative positions, some that just make no sense, and some that are centrist. He’s FAR from a fiscal or Constitutional conservative. So who knows what the heck he’s going to actually wind up doing on any number of different issues.

  • ata777

    Hanson couldn’t have made a better argument for why the GOP needs to grow a spine and start passing legislation and appointing judges without giving a damn what the Democrat Party thinks. Why? It’s real simple: what’s the split-the-difference compromise position with a party that wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into a borderless, Third World socialist hellhole run by social justice warriors who are neither social nor just?

    Roll over them while there’s still time.

    • Hominid

      That’s NOT the “argument” he makes – he just wants to philosophize about “nuanced” sociopolitical definitions of undefinable, incoherent, pop-culture group-thinkers.

    • Browns Fan42

      Exactly. That’s why it’s so infuriating to hear GOP “leaders” like McCain and Kasich wanting to “work across the aisle” to get things done. In years gone by, with Democrats like JFK, Manchin or Webb, that mindset would be at least plausible. But working across the aisle today? With who…Maxine Waters? Nancy Pelosi? Durbin? Schumer?

      No, today’s Democrats need to be defeated. The voters seem to “get it” in that since 2010, we’ve been expelling them from elected office. It’s high time Congress gets that message too, and ignore congressional Democrats.

      • OK_Sam

        Let’s please not ever forget Harry Reid in those lists of liberal idiots/monsters.

        • Hominid

          He’s gone — good riddance.

        • Rob

          or charlie rangel

      • Buddylats

        With all due respect, defeated? Heck no. Crushed and demolished into the muck of their destructive ideology.

        • Mungo Park

          Until…Nothing-Left.

      • Its_All_Baloney

        Until such time as Republicans hold unassailable majorities in both legislative branches and SCOTUS, along with the presidency, and have mucked out the Aegean stables of the federal bureaucracy, we have no choice but to work with Democrats. It’s baked into the constitution. Compromising with Democrats isn’t about ideology at this point, it’s a practical necessity. If we can peel off a third of the more moderate, rational, adult Dems who are disgusted by the juvenile antics of their party since election night, we’ll have an unstoppable political force that will be capable of saving the country. But we’re not going to win their hearts and minds by marching in with machine guns and lining them up against the wall.

        • Bruce C Snow

          Agree. Some people want to “split the baby it two” over an ideological goal that will never be accomplished. We got this way via incrementalism (Obamacare was implemented over years) and we will have make incremental progress on a lot of fronts.

        • Tripper

          You can’t work with people who despise you and want to destroy your livelihoods and culture. That is what we are dealing with in regards to the left.

          • Democraticvoter16

            The same can be said in regards to the right!

        • RPVG

          Compromise with progressives? No. No law is preferable to a bad law.

          • Its_All_Baloney

            I refer you again to the principle on which this country was founded: we are a republic. Everybody gets a voice. We are where we are now largely because when King Barry the Magnificent took office, Dems decided anybody who disagreed with them didn’t deserve a voice in his own government. They broke the republic. They were quite happy to do so.
            Well, now we have Big Don Trump in the White House. Less than half the people voted, and more than half of those who voted, didn’t vote for Trump. To turn around now and make the same mistake all over again, to govern as if the tens of millions who didn’t vote for Trump deserve no voice in their own government, only breaks things down even more.
            A republic functions when opposing parties agree on the things they can agree on, and let the rest go. Democrats broke that, badly. And yes, they are faithless and without honor, never to be trusted with any sort of real power. They’ve proven that repeatedly, both in how they governed under Obama and in how they reacted when the voters removed them from power. But we can’t restore the republic by repeating their mistakes. That’s not going to work. In the long run, it will only make things worse.

          • Rational_Db8

            “Less than half the people voted”

            I’m sorry, but that’s simply not even close to correct. Nearly 60 percent of the voting ELIGIBLE population did in fact vote in this last presidential election. Or are you forgetting that our population includes a huge percentage of people who are too young to vote yet, plus a significant percentage who aren’t citizens at all and therefore also aren’t eligible to vote? Then far smaller numbers ineligible because they’re in prison or are felons etc.

            You cannot take the current total population and determine the percentage that turned out from that – you have to do it from the percentage that’s actually eligible to vote. That gives you nearly 60 percent who did in fact turn out and vote.

            http://www.electproject.org/2016g

          • Its_All_Baloney

            You’re not responding to what I said. In terms of percentage of eligible voters, you are correct: roughly 58% voted last November, and that turnout was in line with recent election trends despite cries and foot stomping to the contrary. However, I was not discussing voter turnout, I was discussing the principle that everyone gets a voice. The government must be responsive to those who are not eligible to vote as well as those who are. Everyone within the borders of the USA is entitled to basic constitutional rights. That is an established principle of American law. Further, use the numbers you wish: 58% voted. 43% of those voted for Trump. So while he won the election fair and square, it is still a simple fact that Trump voters make up only 25% of the total population. That’s just arithmetic. And governing to please 25% of the people while ignoring the other 75% is a good way to foster a revolution.

          • Rational_Db8

            I was very clearly taking issue with an incorrect claim that you made – that I didn’t address the rest of your post has nothing to do with it.

            “Everyone within the borders of the USA is entitled to basic constitutional rights.”

            Sorry, but that’s only partially correct. They are entitled to various DEGREES of Constitutional protection. They do not get all of the Constitutional rights that citizens do. That’s plainly obvious – they don’t have the Constitutional right to vote, for example. Which clearly means that they do NOT have the right to a “voice” in all things, nor to equal representation. They aren’t citizens. They do have some constitutional rights, that’s true – but nowhere near all.

            The percentage of the total population that voted for Trump is utterly moot – it’s simply your way of trying to mislead people. There is no “ignoring” of children who are too young to legally vote, nor does the wishes of illegal aliens or even resident non-citizens matter. They don’t have the right to vote – nor do foreigners have the right to dictate or have a say in how our nation is run.

            Trump ran on a platform – he won quite easily. He owes it to his constituents to honor that platform. What children too young to vote, illegal aliens, non-citizen residents etc. want is moot. What’s more, sitting there proclaiming over and over that Trump is “ignoring” 75% of the population is not only misleading, it’s a lie. In fact there are already Dems saying that they’ve met with Trump MORE in the few WEEKS that he’s been in office than they were ever able to with the offstandish lazy Obama.

            You are simply unhappy with the election results and whining about it with misleading information.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5785fed992f050e40452c8ef7b17535337a1b84882bd188f9051402fcb332235.jpg

          • david russell

            I think it’s much worse. It’s the primaries/caucuses that decide who RUNS and as we really only have 2 parties, it’s those few that voted for the primary winner for the party which wins who determine the outcome of elections.. I’ve read that only about 10% of registered voters vote in primaries and that’s in primary states. A few thousand party regulars decide in caucus states. It’s probably a higher percentage in presidential elections, less in off-year elections In any event the magic trick is over by the time the election happens.

            Then you’ve got those who do vote, but are only voting for the President and MAYBE a federal Congressman or federal Senator. My guess is only a couple % of voters even know most of the candidates on the ballot and only slightly more know what jobs are involved (yeah, sure most people know what a judge is, but what about an alderman, or county clerk?). Finally, let’s say you get voters who are voting for anything less that President: How many have actually studied the platform or the voting record for those? Ans: not very many. So what happens (my guess) is that you vote the party of the person running for the top job, which is often enough quite a meaningless gesture. The honest among us don’t cast ballot for unknown persons or unknown jobs.

            Afterthought: How many who voted for either Trump or Hillary could actually articulate either candidate’s say economic policy (much less their say agricultural policy)?

          • Rob

            i strongly disagree with your premise that those who refused to participate by deserve to be heard.

            this system is predicated on us, the people, participating.

            it doesn’t matter if you hated both candidates, there were 2 others, and if either of those 2 had received 5% of the vote, their respective party would receive federal funding towards the 2020 election. the views of those people deserve consideration.

            but no, if you will not vote, then you are conceding your political wants and needs to someone else, and you cannot reasonably expect to ever have your political needs met. or did i completely misunderstand the womens suffrage movement?

        • I agree on principle. But I think labeling a full third of Democrats as “moderate,” or “rational” is pie in the sky nonsense.

          Any ‘rational’ Democrat is silenced, or purged by the mainstream left… An army of wild-eyed, spittle-spewing traitors.

          It’s time to fight fire with fire. Give them no quarter. Crush them.

      • Rational_Db8

        I very much agree. This is an absolutely excellent article by Hanson – one that I admit, based on the title, I skipped over for some time after I first saw it. Only read it after it appeared in multiple news aggregator sites that I often check – and was awfully glad I did.

        Hanson sums up the situation extremely well. Modern “liberals” aren’t liberal at all – they are holier-than-thou authoritarian fascists or socialist/communists.

        History has shown us very very clearly exactly what massive destruction, deprivation and horrors such types inevitably rain down on virtually their entire populace (if not the world) – with only a few elites living the high life while everyone else suffers horrible (or is outright slaughtered and/or starved to death). People supporting such regimes and ideologies are either naive “useful idiots” (as per Stalin & Hitler) duped into utopian thinking and clueless about history – or they are ones who think that they’ll be the elite in power while all else suffer (and they don’t CARE about anyone else’s suffering).

        Just look at all the examples throughout history – Venezuela today is in the process of going down in flames with much of it’s population going hungry, Argentina not all that many years ago, the U.S.S.R., Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Literally hundreds of MILLIONS of these nations own citizens starved to death and even outright slaughtered by their own governments. Not one single example of a successful socialist nation.

        Yet that’s exactly what today’s “liberals” are doing their darnedest to force our nation into. They’re divorced from reality – and the old adage of “If it weren’t for double standards, “liberals” wouldn’t have standards at all” is oh-so-true, unfortunately. You can even point out the blatant double standards to many of them, and they will tell you they don’t care – what they say is obviously correct NOW, today, as of this moment and they are always right period (in their own minds). Until of course they change tomorrow and then what they say at THAT moment is, of course, right and never mind, what they said yesterday is no longer applicable… because, well, “liberal.” After all, they’re happy to tell you so, so it must be, right? Sheesh.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/814efadba965ae666a37a77677fe0296d7757228081ba10639c5892c7a3c4a53.jpg

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/df83c202bdfc62ac32eea50a7199aebb5b877d9c1b3d534678371346e0df3940.jpg

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/83016036fbda4e9aaf19eafe56cb5cdf9fef7f928e69a598d9930350f2a84314.jpg

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/56275329e136f76d0dcc7cb8f0cc894c21f3a3e006d228719fce0536fe441699.jpg

        • Starboard

          A recent article in The Atlantic presumed to show the various ways that conservatives now differ with each other, an updating of the old fiscally conservative-socially liberal divide.

          But the author, McKay Coppins,missed the most crucial contemporary schism – conservatives who want to attack the Left opposed to conservatives who want to defend against the Left.

          The distinction became crystal clear in 2015 over one existential issue: immigration. The GOP and all of the consensus candidates and chattering classes were for Comprehensive Immigration Reform of some kind. All said we were a “nation of immigrants,” a term unknown in America during our first 150 years. Only one man said immigration needed to be curbed for the good of America.

          He was also an unapologetic fighter who did not back down, let alone concede.

          Trump’s aggressive stance continues be his strongest cord of affection with Republican and conservative voters, tired as they have long been of Gangs of 14 or 8 or of well-crafted election night concession speeches.

          • Rational_Db8

            “Only one man said immigration needed to be curbed for the good of America.”

            Sorry, but that’s simply not the case. Trump supported increasing H-1b visas and supported, strongly, continuing legal immigration. Nor was he the only one pushing for border control and stopping illegal immigration – in that area, Cruz was both stronger AND started fighting it years before Trump was even a candidate. In fact Cruz was consistently rated higher overall on dealing with immigration by NumbersUSA (organization that pushes strongly for reducing immigration, stopping illegal immigration, etc.). Not only Cruz, but also Santorum was rated as better than Trump on controlling immigration. http://wayback.archive.org/web/20160202194557/https://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections/races/presidential/2016-presidential-hopefuls.html

          • Starboard

            It’s nice to know that Numbers USA rated Cruz highly.

            Who did the voters believe on immigration, Cruz or Trump?

          • Rational_Db8

            Oh please. If the election had been over nothing other than immigration, you MIGHT have a point. Obviously it’s about a massive number of other issues, making your question both unanswerable and utterly absurd – misleading to the point of being dishonest. Or are you going to try to proclaim that your question wasn’t basically you saying that the only reason Trump got elected was people didn’t believe Cruz on immigration and they did Trump? So stop with the idiocy – your claims about Trump being the “only one” and so on were factually dead wrong. Be a mature adult and simply admit it rather than prevaricating.

          • Starboard

            Unanswerable? That the voters preferred Trump over Cruz on immigration? That’s your position when your not bandying around words like “idiocy” “”prevaricating” and asking this 67-year-old to be “a mature adult”?

            You know, there are these things called polls:

            Business Insider August 18, 2015 Citing a CNN/ORC poll

            “The core of Trump’s campaign platform is based off of his opposition to illegal immigration and his heated — and sometimes controversial — rhetoric describing it. And Republican voters seem to be responding: 44% of them told CNN that Trump was the best candidate to handle the issue.

            None of Trump’s primary rivals came close. Twelve percent of GOP voters said Bush would be the best to handle illegal immigration, followed by three candidates who lagged on the economy question: former Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida at 7%, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at 6%, and former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas at 5%.”

            Trump Dominates GOP Field Heading Into 2016 CNN Politics December 24, 2015

            ” Trump’s standing in the race for the nomination is bolstered by widely held trust that he can best handle the top issues facing the nation. Trump holds massive advantages over the rest of the field as the candidate best able to handle the economy (57% Trump, his next closest competitors are Cruz at 8%, Rubio at 7%, Carson at 6% and Bush at 5%), illegal immigration (55% trust Trump, followed by Cruz at 15%, Rubio at 10%), and ISIS (47% prefer Trump, 21% Cruz, 7% Bush and 6% Christie).

            CBS News Poll Shows Change in Trump Cruz Gap April 14, 2016

            “Republican primary voters trust Trump the most to handle each of the five issues tested in the poll. He receives the strongest support on handling the economy and illegal immigration, both issues he has emphasized in his campaign.”

            I don’t mean to be insulting, but you argue like a Democrat.

          • Rational_Db8

            Oh please! First, your actual physiological age is moot – anyone your age OUGHT to be well aware that some people never manage to mature mentally. Perhaps you’re one of them and that’s why you’re unaware of it.

            Next, Aug. 2015 for crying out loud? Hardly anyone even knew who Cruz was at that point. How about you try actual exit polls, where only 13% of voters said that immigration was the most important thing to them. The most important thing to them by far was the economy. Or how about you try the fact that majority of Trump voters didn’t want to deport all illegals aliens – 53% of Trump voters wanted to give the majority of illegal aliens a path to legalization – which is dead opposite what Trump ran on.

            Regardless, this is all a “look SQUIRREL!” issue from you. YOU claimed Trump was the ONLY one strong on immigration, period. NOT that voters trusted him more or what have you. You were dead wrong. So stop trying to move the goal posts. And you claim I’m the one arguing like a Democrat? ROFL – you’re the one making claims you can’t even remotely support, refusing to admit your obvious errors, talking like your candidate is some savior, then trying to obfuscate and move the goal posts when you’re called on your errors rather than simply admitting you were wrong.

            Grow up already.

          • Starboard

            I supported my claim that Trump was favored right from the start on immigration against all the contenders in the first(August) poll I cited; that he continued to have a commanding lead on that issue in the second December) poll I cited and that he was way out in front of Cruz on immigration in the third (April 2016) poll I cited.

            He was the only one strong on immigration. He was acknowledged to have brought the issue to the forefront by observers and the other candidates. And he soared to the top of the polls – an untested, “joke” candidate running against “the strongest Republican field in decades” – immediately after his “Mexico is not sending us their best people” speech.

            Why do you deny the obvious? Immigration was Trump’s core issue. Anyone who went to his rallies like I did knew that

          • Rational_Db8

            So you were able to support your moved goal post after the fact. So what. Your initial claim had NOTHING to do with who voters preferred. So stop trying to divert from your false claims that you clearly cannot even remotely support. Changing the subject because you were wrong is juvenile – and it’s not going to work.

            Worse, you just repeated it. Trump was very clearly NOT the “only one strong on immigration.” Cruz and Santorum were in fact STRONGER. I already gave you the Numbers USA rating on them, and that includes their positions. Nor is Trump “strongly anti-immigrant” as you claim. Have you totally forgotten his “big beautiful door” in the wall?

            You just keep making false claims, then trying to pretend you said something you never said, or you outright change the subject. And no, I most certainly do NOT “know” that Trump won because of immigration. In fact the exit polls prove that is NOT the case as I’ve already said. Only 13% said that was the most important issue to them. FAR more said the economy and several other issues were MORE important. A huge number voted for Trump just because they thought he might be able to blow the entire system up. That’s not immigration first – sure, immigration is a part – it clearly wasn’t the main factor in the actual election.

            Clearly you’re a Trump fanatic – one who is too immature to simply admit your errors.

          • Starboard

            Why do you throw around names and insults so freely? I’m curious: is that one of the principles of rational debate, Rational DB8?.

            To recap my original comment – conservatives can be divided into 2 types not mentioned by Coppins: those who attack and those who defend. Republicans were looking for a fighter in 2016. Trump’s aggressive championing of the immigration issue against the field and donor interests proved he was not going to back down and allowed him to surge to the top of the polls (and to stay there).

            While others spoke of “border enforcement” but still talked highly of “a nation of immigrants” he was the only one who said immigration should be curbed for the good of America. The proof was in his incredible rise to front-runner status after just one speech.

            People believed him. I did. Millions more. And as long as he stays strong on the existential issue of immigration he’ll have our support, because we’ll know he supports us.

          • Rational_Db8

            So you’re one of those – you insult people, when they respond in kind, you illogically ask them why they’re supposedly so “free” with insults. Psychological projection at it’s finest.

            Cruz never proposed amnesty, nor did he ever talk about a “nation of immigrants.” I don’t believe Santorum did either. Nor was Trump EVER the “only one who said immigration should be curbed for the good of America.” Why do you insist on spreading falsehoods (or blatantly lying, as the case may be?)?

            You have a decent point – why do you ruin it by throwing in exaggeration and falsehoods?

    • HughdePayens

      hahah…Stop it you are killing me. Seriously you don’t actually think the clowns in DC actually want to do something to help the fly over parts of the country? The GOPe is actively trying to thwart the only President in recent history that shows any sort of seriousness towards correcting the evil of the last 50 years.

      We are at war with the DC Elite. It doesn’t matter whether they have an R or D after their name. If they have been there for more than 4 years they are suspect.

      • rpmii

        Red Team, Blue Team. Same league.

        • Gallifet

          Our political system became a two headed Leviathan. One head was blue, one was red. They circled the water hole and drank. The red one pretended to be red, white and blue to it’s constituency…but accepted water from the more powerful blue head. Eventually, the citizens began to wake up and realize there was limited water for them…the water was being taken by Leviathan. The citizens need to realize that Leviathan will not just walk away from that water hole. He must be pushed. He will say anything, maintain any lie, deny any challenge, to drink just one more day. The quicker the citizens give themselves the steel to push Leviathan away from that water hole, the quicker the crisis will pass.

    • Its_All_Baloney

      I share your frustration with Democrats. Personally, I’m convinced that liberalism in its current Demoprog manifestation really is a social psychosis. These people are certifiably mentally ill.
      BUT: think about how a republic works. We elect representatives. Those representatives get together and hammer out legislation that the majority can agree on. That means that, necessarily, the fringe interests get dropped along the way. It’s part of the process. It’s how a republic ensures that the laws and regulations that govern us have the support of the majority of the people.
      So trying now to govern without the Democrats is just doing exactly what the Democrats did under King Barry: they pretended the GOP didn’t exist, or what remnants did cling to faded glory were all ignorant racists clinging to their muskets and King James bibles. THAT APPROACH DESTROYED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
      Is that really where you want to take the GOP?

      • ata777

        I understand your concerns. But how do you negotiate with, as you put it, “social psychosis?” It would seem to me the best thing to do is get rid of as much of it as you can, while you can. If that saves the country, I’m not really concerned about what it does to the GOP. Party over country on both sides is why we’re in the mess we’re in, IMHO.

        • Its_All_Baloney

          I’m not talking about saving the GOP; I’m talking about saving the Republic of the United States of America.

          • CommonSenseIsNotPC

            At this point, what is salvageable? I increasingly despair that there is not much that can/should be saved.

            Perhaps if we adopted a parliamentary system of governance where the executive was selected from the party with the most support in the legislative body and smaller parties were forming and dissolving alliances on issues rather than our two-party (us agin’ them) system, we might have better long-term prospects.

          • Its_All_Baloney

            The system we have has provided the most stable, long lived democracy currently extant on the planet. That’s a tough record to beat. The problem isn’t the system, the problem is that no system can be better than the people who run it. And Democrats have decided that power at any price is a virtue. They will lie, cheat, steal, riot, rob and murder to get and keep political power. Therein lies the destruction of the Republic, no matter what system of government is used. We cannot fix that by stooping to their level. We have a good system. It works, but no system can work unless there are good people working it. The biggest problem we face, IMHO, is finding candidates who can be trusted with the enormous amount of power that political office provides. And to that point, I voted for Donald Trump with grave reservations but have been pleasantly surprised by how he has governed so far. I still think he’s a jackass in a clown suit, but perhaps that won’t stop him from being a competent executive. And hey, if it works for him, who am I to criticize?

          • Lunagirl

            The problem is that the system we are operating under is not the separation of powers system as created by the founders. When the survival of the republic seems to turn on the election of one President or the death of one Supreme Court justice the problem, ironically, is with Congress. They have obliterated the separation of powers by delegating the drafting of law to lobbyists and the “rule making” to the executive branch “implementing agencies.” That’s what Nancy Pelosi was talking about when she said “we have to pass the legislation to see what’s in it.” Congress passes a “law” and then the President’s bureaucrats write the “rules.” Which are really the laws. Unconstitutional per Article II.

            Nearly all “executive overreach” is exercised through unelected executive branch bureaucrats – but the executive branch isn’t overreaching so much as Congress is punting. And SCOTUS’s deference to the executive branch’s “interpretation” of the 2000 page laws purportedly written by Congress, articulated as recognition of or adherence to the separation of powers doctrine, completely ignores the separation of powers elephant in the room. It’s all about Congress not doing their da$mn job. Fix that and the rest fixes itself.

    • Tripper

      Unfortunately we don’t have 60 in the Senate. If we did, it could be incredible. Repeal Obamacare and replace it with nothing at all, while also eliminating half the worthless federal agencies. Repeal Title IX (the law leftists have used to cut college boys’ sports teams and rip away their due process rights). Amend the Civil Rights Acts to prohibit any special preferences for sexual deviants. Make it MUCH easier to remove federal judges, to give them some accountability.
      We need seven or eight more senators in 2018 (Manchin might help us with some things). Let’s get to work.

    • mathbrown73

      Ata777, Dr. Hanson has been gifted with the “Old American Soul.” His memory of the historical trends throughout the American Journey ties the reality many of us still hold very dear. That you and I agree on this is evident in your comment. I hope you join me in remarking to your legislators that this country is nearing or on a precipice. Only common sense and firm action will save this present Union. Where is Abe? We need one. Thanks for summing up a prescient article by my favorite commentator.

      • Lunagirl

        Love me my Victor Hanson. He is a stalwart beacon of truth telling. God Bless him.

        • mathbrown73

          You are so righteous!

    • mk

      First, there were some good points to this article. But two thoughts on your comment and those below.

      1. By and large, you are wrong about liberals. The only other explanation is that you (i.e. the stereotypical conservative) are irredeemably radical and will overreact to even mild disagreements. Have some perspective, please. Learn to understand the language of liberals instead of going with your gut reaction. Have some humility and don’t assume half the population (or 1/3 according to a comment below) is nuts.

      2. The GOP couldn’t even repeal the ACA on its own. Their congressional majorities are significantly smaller than the Dems’ in 2008. Their President couldn’t even win the popular vote, whereas Obama beat McCain by 7%. And despite his superior position, Obama made bipartisanship a centerpiece of his rhetoric, made heavy compromises on the stimulus bill, implemented a Republican healthcare plan, caved on tax cuts, etc. Unless the commenters here are all teenagers, I don’t understand the arrogance that can make you expect to ignore (or demonize) half of the population (plus your own moderate voters!) and survive electorally for more than 2-4 years.

  • Keith Benbrook

    the alt-left is better described as the ctrl-left

  • Richie Rich

    The democrat party is the Alt-Left.

  • Clutchdriven

    You can see where it’s taking them. A good shellacking in 2018 would go a long way towards ending this freedom destroying movement of the left.

  • strongmind

    Best article I have seen explaining the BS of today’s self-righteous leftists.

  • Browns Fan42

    This article is spot on. JFK, Harry Truman, and th 1990s version of Bill and Hillary Clinton would be outcasts in today’s Democratic Party.

    • Hominid

      Not the 90s version of Bill-Hill — you’re short-term memory must be failing. Did you forget that Bill’s first initiative was Hillarycare??? Bill benefitted from being personally unprincipled and disciplined by a Repub Congress.

  • JimmysAttackRabbit

    Curiously Crazy Coastal Party, (CCCP).

  • LionHeart0712

    Such a too long article for such a simple subject.
    It isn’t an “alternative left” all those issues are mostly smoke screens. There is only one left, those are what the “Ultimate Left” uses to hide behind to fool people to join the cause.
    The cause?
    Elitist Socialism!
    They only care about destroying middle class. They have been working to undermine our Constitution to get to Socialism with a ruling class and a ruled class, everyone is Government run.
    Study the old Soviet Union, the U S S R, the United Soviet Socialist Republic. That is the Dems Ultimate goal.

    • Hominid

      That’s right — it’s humanities professor bullshiite.

  • Hominid

    This essay is just another example of “my delusions are better than your delusions” sociopolitical bullshiite. These humanities types live to engage in these bullshiite arguments and amorphous “definitions.” The bottom line is that there are those of us who subscribe to Americanist values which are antithetical to and incompatible with marxist tenets and doctrines. Spare us the shape-shifting labels and philosophical machinations.

    • Browns Fan42

      This is an English-only forum. Please try again.

      • E. T. Bass

        He’s having trouble distinguishing reality from delusion.

        • Hominid

          You’re projecting.

  • PeacePromoter

    The article explains why Democrats have landed here:

    “The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble: In state government things are worse, if anything. The GOP now controls historical record number of governors’ mansions, including a majority of New England governorships. Tuesday’s election swapped around a few state legislative houses but left Democrats controlling a distinct minority. The same story applies further down ballot, where most elected attorneys general, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, and so forth are Republicans.” http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13576488/democratic-party-smoking-pile-rubble

  • Trump is moderate and nationalist in conservative clothing.

    The Trump message is too centrist, aimed at the upper class crony-capitalists, not willing to cut back entitlements, and too soft on Obamacare repeal.

    The Left does not represent traditional liberalism. It drives the Democratic Party and RINO.

    It advocates a parasitic socialism/crony-capitalism rather than nourishing free market capitalism.

    The age-old left wing pretext is that the noble ends of “fairness”—equality of result justifies government mandated redistribution.

    Billionaire grandees from Wall Street to Silicon Valley to Hollywood are social justice mavens (read they are so wealthy that they are personally exempt from the deleterious ramifications of their own ideology that falls on the poorer and less influential). The idea that life emulates ideology is nonexistent.

    Relativism invents standards of probity to fit the prevalent perception of morality.

  • Peta Johnson

    The Democratic Party will be reformed from within if (1) the Supreme Court bans compulsory public sector unionism, as it was about to do when Scalia J. died; (2) the border is secured – hence the lunacy over the President ‘s carefully measured immigration orders; (3) the GOP cuts off the student loan money and replaces it with real estate loans and (4) education vouchers take hold.

    Without academia, the public sector unions, the teachers’ unions and third world peasants, the Left is composed of some crackpots on both coasts.

    • E. T. Bass

      (5) the alt-left punks start seeing their comrades going to jail in large numbers.

      • Peta Johnson

        Well that is how the Southern Democrats used the House Un-American Activities Committee, etc. successfully until LBJ’s betrayal.

  • E. T. Bass

    The mask slipped completely off their faces during the last eight years thanks to the guy who said of the violent criminal OWS mob “you are the reason I ran for president” and who also invited BLM – a straight-up racist hate group – into the White House for encouragement . . . . now, with the democrat party base in shambles and reduced to groups of agitated morons being driven by one false narrative after another; Barack Hussein Alinsky is sunning himself in some So. Pacific paradise, sipping on an umbrella drink, dictating his “memoirs” to some cabana boy and is laughing his azz off.

    How’s that “identity politics” working out for you lefties?

  • OK_Sam

    I like to refer to the alt-left as the mean-left. That is much more descriptive of their behavior lately.

    • Its_All_Baloney

      “Juvenile delinquents” is the old term.

    • Lurker

      Calling your enemy “meanies” makes you sound like a pussy.

      • OK_Sam

        Bleh.

  • Lurker

    This is the closest to boomerposting I’ve seen AG come. “AltLeft” is cringeworthy. Just call them communists.

    • Hominid

      Exactly!!!! It’s philosophy professor bullshiite.

    • rene591

      so based on that the ” AltRight ” is the Nazies? I thing Riechsfuehrer Trump would agree

      • JamesDrouin

        Wel, buttercup, you might want to look up the origins of “NAZI” before you decide to display your ignorance, laziness, and stupidity in a public setting.

        • rene591

          the right side of a dysfunctional society. See Germany 1933-1945. similar to communists circa Soviet Union 1917-1991. you really do not believe that the right wing was beamed into space ships in 1932 and returned to Germany in 1946?

          • JamesDrouin

            Ooooops … you kinda, sorta, ‘forgot’ that the “National Socialist Party” WAS the NAZIs, didn’t you.

            Now, just bend yourself into pretzels how socialism came from the right.

          • rene591

            If it talks like a duck( right wing dictator) and walks like a duck( right wing dictator) then it is a duck( Riechsfuehrer Trump)

          • JamesDrouin

            Good of you to admit that since you post like an idiot, you ARE an idiot.

          • rene591

            May want to rest your arm. that Sieg Heil gets tiring .

          • JamesDrouin

            Wow, what a ‘neat’ attempt to change the subject from your ignorance!!!

            And, in that vain buttercup, you should pop your head out of your diseased rancid colon, it’s definitely dark and nasty up there and IS making you even more delusional than you’ve documented so far!!!

            Oh, and FYI, any time you believe you’ve stoked up on enough of your breakfast cereal of choice, feel free to look me up and continue this conversation in person … but make sure you’re up to date on your ObamaDeathCare policy because neither myself nor any other taxpayer gonna be stuck with the cost of hauling your carcass off.

          • rene591

            Filibuster time for Mitch. Now all eyes turn to the great turtle(Gamera). watch the reptile squirm out of this. He predicted a confirmation by end of the week. place your bets on the Turtle Ladies and gentlemen

          • JamesDrouin

            Is poor wittle baby retreating into drugs ot just more bvtt-ugly delusion???

      • Lurker

        That’s what the Democrats call us. Aren’t you paying attention?

        • rene591

          well if the shoe fits( glove in LA). What we have are two wings that are absolutely insane. on the right you have the Alt Right -Nazi-white supremacy vs the Alt Left Communist – Socialist destroyers. fortunately us in the center (middle) think you are both certifiable nuts

          • Lurker

            The center is quickly disappearing and you’ll need to choose a side.

          • rene591

            Center will hold , it will be the extremes that disappear into that good night

          • Lurker

            Keep telling yourself that.

  • Wayne Lusvardi

    Below a large proportion of commenters apparently use their real names on this conservative website. However, if i go to websites where there are liberal commenters, almost none of them use their real names. They stay masked just as the photo of the AltLeft protesters above. Why is there a proclivity of liberal commenters to stay masked on websites and conservatives to use real names? This is almost a sociological law: the Left hides who they are.

    • Alyce Wellington

      I hide who I am because I don’t want any of these crazy motherfuckers on the left to find me and hurt my family.

    • JamesDrouin

      Liberals are witless, or so very nearly so as to be witless, so their using avatars worthy of prepubescent 8-year olds is to be expected.

    • Its_All_Baloney

      Using your real name on these websites, then posting as a conservative, is electronic suicide. The left will go after you like a pit bull. These are people who think that protesting outside a businessman’s house because he supported a popular referendum that was mainstream 8 years ago but goes against this year’s chosen manifesto, makes them righteous warriors. Make yourself a target, and they’ll shoot. So, why make yourself a target?

  • JamesDrouin

    “What is the “Alt” Left?”

    Simple: “Pure Unadulterated Lunacy”.

    • David

      How is that different than a liberal?!?!? 🙂

      • RPVG

        The spelling.

  • doug masnaghetti

    The democrat party is the alt-left. Bunch of repulsive liberal fascists: intolerant, ignorant, innmerate, racists, VIOLENT

  • David

    The Alt Left are liberals who admit they are communists, instead of just being liberals who pretend they aren’t.

  • The Democrat Party is the left. Call them the new left, the old left, it makes no difference, left is left, and the inevitable end of leftism is oppression, hunger and misery.
    The use of the smear campaign, and the propaganda machine, and the silencing of speech, etc. – it all follows the same familiar pattern, and we know exactly where it ends. The left must be fought with an acute awareness of the historical context, and an unrelenting determination to expose it’s true nature, and remove it’s influence from any source of power.

  • Ray Wulfe

    Wow, you know it’s funny, but I saw someone refer to the alt left just last week on a discussion board at PJmedia, and now here’s an article about it. So I conclude that it’s a meme created by a bunch of trolls because the alt right’s neo Nazi underpinnings are becoming more apparent.

    • RPVG

      The NAZIs were Socialists, virtually the OPPOSITE of right wingers.

      • Ray Wulfe

        Sorry, but I have to disagree. The emphasis on white identity is at the heart of the entire body of alt right viewpoints. Also, I do not see any indication that Bannon’s goals are in any way focussed on shrinking the size of government. He is out to increase government’s reach.

  • AssociateProfessor

    Please do not confuse the “alt-left”, which is a loosely defined term for people who broadly subscribe to liberalism (even classical!) and reject social justice pieties, and the “ctrl-left” a postmodern philosophy which has infected and destroyed the liberal dream.

    • Ray Wulfe

      Wow, you’re really good at sounding smart.

      • AssociateProfessor

        And you’re pretty good at brainless snark.

  • James

    Enough with the euphemisms:

    Alt-Left = Communists
    Alt-Right = Fascists

    • Its_All_Baloney

      The old labels no longer apply. America’s political/social leftists combine elements of both communism and fascism. They want total control, as in communism, but they’re willing to use fascist building blocks to get it.
      What the MSM calls “Alt-Right” is a few fringe movements based largely on racial identity, with followers numbering in the low hundreds. Please note that racial identity on the Right is Satanic, evil beyond mere evil, a capital crime worthy of the worst possible punishments; but racial identity on the Left — La Raza, BLM et al — is righteous and good and all things wonderful. That’s the first indication that when you’re dealing with leftists, you’re dealing with people who never left junior high school.

    • RPVG

      Fascists are Socialists (NAZIs). Totalitarians. The essential difference between Socialism and Communism is… Socialism ends with force. Communism begins with force.

  • RaymondJelli

    I think VDH is over thinking this a bit. He is an academic so he sees this as how it all plays out in academia. Actually the Alt-Left is just the confluence of corrupt political machine politicians, corporate desire for rock bottom illegal alien labor, Islamic oil states bribery of public officials and low life activists in Occupy.

    If there is no idea you can get from an academic that you can’t get from a drug addled slob in an Occupy tent then you don’t have an intellectual movement. You’ve got dirtbags in supposed positions of trust.

  • IndieOne

    This article is pure fiction. The establishment Democrats control the party, as they have for decades now. Since they are establishment. there is nothing “alt” about them. Alternative to what?? You saying trying to put the Clintons back in the White House is “alternative” strategy? Absurd.

    The second part that is wrong is the notion that these establishment Democrats are “left.” They in fact abandoned the left long ago. Bill Clinton’s strategy while president was “triangulation,” or adopting conservative positions to appeal to more conservative voters and get legislation passed. And he moved right on the most important issues: Economics for domestic policy, and use of military for foreign policy. Along with the Republicans in Congress, he deregulated the banks, deregulated the telecommunications industry, exploded the prison population and gutted welfare. He abandoned labor and began to side with management. On foreign policy, he began aggressive use of military in eastern europe and continued it the middle east. Clinton style triangulation has endured with the establishment Dems on through the Obama era, and they were laying the groundwork for Hillary to so the same. All of these policies are in direct conflict with liberal principles. The way establishment Dems pose left is by maintaining liberal positions on social issues like gun control and abortion rights. (These also happen to be two of the issues that gets the right the most riled, and exactly the sort of culture wars this article obsesses with, while ignoring the bigger issues I mentioned).

    • IndieOne

      All these accusations of communism in the comments section are also absurd. These are the establishment Democrats we are talking about. They nominated Hillary, the queen of Wall Street, to be president. Not only that, but Wall Street, the epicenter of capitalism, wanted Hillary. Can we at least remember that before tossing around paranoid accusations about communism?

    • Its_All_Baloney

      Bill Clinton triangulated. Barry Obama did not. You write as if 2009-2016 never happened. But, it did. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a Clinton compromise designed to allow gays to serve in the military. Under Clinton, it was hailed as a positive step forward. Under Obama, it was excoriated as oppression of minority rights. That is only one example, but instructive. Obama worked overtime to undo everything Clinton accomplished; and while Clinton governed by tacking to the center and gaining the support of the majority, Obama governed by tacking to the left, ignoring the majority, and ruling like a monarch using his “Pen and Phone” after the voters denied him the necessary legislative power.
      The key point, again, is that Clinton governed by absorbing and working to the middle. Obama ignored and delegitimized anyone who disagreed with him. Clinton pursued policies that could work over time because the majority of voters were behind them. Obama didn’t, and now his agenda is on the rocks, bleeding out, dying a well-deserved death.
      Or to put it more succinctly: Clinton governed. Obama ruled. Americans don’t like being ruled.

      • IndieOne

        Well, you gave one example and it was yet another social issue that inflames the culture wars (gays in the military). We have to keep our eye on the ball; the important issues that affect the largest number of people. As I said before, economics in domestic policy, and use of military in foreign policy.

        As for Obama, he most certainly triangulated right. The whole security state apparatus that was ramped-up by Bush was continued and even expanded under Obama. He deported more illegals than any other president. He made Bush’s tax cuts permanent. He was pushing those godforsaken trade deals right up until the end. He cracked down on the Occupy movement and stamped it out. He was bombing seven different countries. And his big “liberal” health care plan was actually the conservative plan that was hatched by the Heritage Foundation and first adopted by Gov. Mitt Romney. No, Obama is not nearly as left as you think he is.

        • Its_All_Baloney

          Under your criteria, Poppa Joe Stalin was a right wing dictator.

  • Deckard Cain

    Incredibly articulate and succinct piece on what the left is and how they operate today.

  • swek

    the alt-left are those horrible, miserable communists who believe that Americans should enjoy the same universal access to health care that British, French and Germans do

    Miserable commies!!

    • RPVG

      What good is universal access to horrible, rationed health care?

  • Bruce C Snow

    I call it the “Ult-left.” It is Progressivism, NOT Liberalism. The Ult-left gives ultimatums. If you don’t agree you lose your job, business, social standing, government contracts, etc. Old School Liberals wouldn’t dream of punishing people who sincerely don’t totally agree with them. Now it is chastise, berate, boycott and play the race, anti-woman, anti-LBGTQ cards over the slightest infractions.

  • wheezer

    Webb, Manchin and others like them – the last vestiges of JFK democrats

  • smarbag77

    He left out the transgender agenda of indoctrinating kids as young as the first grade that the sex you are born with is totally fluid, trying to completely blur the lines between male and female to break down the family and increase the power of the state.

  • Lance Sjogren

    The regular left is frightening enough.

  • mrboz

    In other words, the democratic party has become a cult. Detached from truth, reason, or logic – the progressive moonies are only interested in propping up their messiahs.

  • eh the real “alt left” is actually a bunch of socially liberal racialists within the ‘alt right’ movement.

  • Augustus1984

    The alt-left are the “Bernie-or-Bust” fanatics, Jill Stein Jacobins (like old Cornel West), blame-America-first Putin apologists like Oliver Stone and Stephen Cohen.
    This author is just making up some bloody slop to throw to his alt-right nationalist readers. For a more thoughtful and accurate account of the alt-left, read this:
    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/why-the-alt-left-is-a-problem

  • Mendota2

    The fact these fascists cover their faces in public like bank robbers and terrorists clearly explains they intend to commit crimes. It’s sad to see police officers were killed in Dallas, yet cops haven’t executed a single one of these scums as they deserve.

  • John Morris

    Shorter version:

    The “Alt-Left” is the same old left, they just got tired of pretending and believed their own propaganda that “Demographic Destiny” was already here. Dumb.

    And VDH still refuses to see what the Alt-Right is. We aren’t Conservative because we understand a Conservative does not want to actually win because they do not even know what winning would look like. They don’t have a vision of what they want, just a desire to slow the move left. The Alt-Right (or at least the various factions within it) are defined by what they want as much as general opposition to boththe evil of the Progs and the obstruction of the Conservatives.

  • jenny McKinney

    victor davis hanson — truly one of the great thinkers of our time

    another fantastic article, thank you!

  • thult

    There is NOTHING “alternative” about it/them! This is who the Democrat/Socialist/Progressive/Marxists ARE!!!

  • Wellstone

    The Alt-Left lives on, but only in VDH’s Alt-Reality

  • Democraticvoter16

    Victor Hanson should stick to farming! He says things about the Democrats that have been said about the Republicans. What’s the old saying, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you. His article reminds me of someone who is childish and very shortsighted.

    • TimothyLane

      In other words, you can’t actually refute any of his arguments.

  • Brendon Shipley

    Alt left? No no no. You mean Ctrl Left.

  • ENTP

    You know, I know this is trolling, but I’ll bite. It’s been a while since I thought of this stuff, but some of the concepts Mr. Hanson is defining above, he’s using wrong. Here’s the handful I know about:

    1) “narrative” isn’t a stand in for truth. Narrative is about the importance or meaningfulness of facts. The idea is that there are infinitely many true things, but the ones that matter depend on what you’re talking about (i.e. the ‘narrative’). For example, the price of oil might be relevant to a narrative about the stock market or middle east politics, but its not got a lot to do with football. Liberals care about this concept when people try to shift narratives to make facts irrelevant (e.g., the problem with “all lives matter” is that it’s shifting focus away from a specific problem and thus allowing folks to ignore it).

    2) “my truth” thing isn’t a replacement for “truth”–it’s an annoying limitation . The idea here is that all knowledge exists in someone’s head (aka “all knowledge is embodied”), and people cannot remove themselves from their experience. So how do we get at real truth from that? There are a number of theories: 1) intuition is a real thing 2) truth exists with agreed upon paradigms (e.g., physics, chemistry); 3) knowledge can be “inter-subjective” and if it’s inter-subjective enough, that’s what people call objective. Donna Haraway and Thomas Kuhn (maybe misremembering spellings) are two people who talk about this in a non-political context.

    3) “privilege” just refers to not having bad shit happen to you. It’s not got anything to do with truth. I know, it’s confusing how it’s phrased as “privilege” rather than just “lacking bad shit happening,” but I think that’s a deliberate attempt to highlight the fact that not having bad stuff happen to you is not the “normal” for a lot of people.

    4) The power-truth thing is people trying to pretend they understand Foucault. No one does. I don’t. But liberal academic types like to give it lip service, and it’s like a game of telephone at this point. Hence it seems dumb.

    5) There is a legitimate tension between the “politics of equality” and the “politics of identity” threads of the progressive movement. But they’ve both got merit (treating people equally is almost certainly a good idea; and being treated differently almost certainly gives people a different perspective), and the really interesting question is how to integrate both.

    6) There are people with dumb views on all parts of the political spectrum. Don’t lump reasonable people in with the people who aren’t reasonable. And since it’s hard to tell whose who at the outset, try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

  • amendingangel

    Hmmm. I knew the right wing was behind this. There is no alt-left. Why these things pop up in my newsfeed from these biased, irrelevant sites, is a mystery.

  • Dave781

    The Alt-right is not more conservative than the mainstream right, they have just gone in a completely different direction. So the extreme left is not the same thing as the Alt-left. I have seen the anti-vaxxers and the 9/11 “truthers” referred to as the Alt-left, but socialists, communists etc. are just the extreme left.

    Also you can be pro-Israel and still be Alt-right.

  • Charles

    Surprise! the entire american political systems is stupid! Democrats, republicans, alt right, alt left, they’re all fucking morons!! Maybe instead of picking sides and labeling others, we should just follow our basic intuitions and respect everyone..It baffles me that people want to sit here and argue over a boatload of morally corrupt shitheads, while in the mean time, they’re getting screwed over more and more every day. The system does not, could not, and will not ever care about any of you or your opinions. Just be good people, and stop worrying about the unfixable government.

  • CONSTITUTIONAL INSURGENT

    Democrat Liberal Progressives have not been this angry since January 1, 1863 when Republican President Lincoln freed all their slaves.

  • Alex David

    Ask Sean Hannity

  • Gary Thomas

    As my son so eloquently stated, it would be interesting to see a debate between Hillary 2008 and Hillary 2016.

  • TimothyLane

    The alt-left is simply the same old tribal left, but even more left-wing than it used to be. “No enemies on the left” leads inherently to a leftward ratchet of the party.

  • bilahn

    This may be an accurate description of the radical left, but in no way do they control the Democratic party. On the other hand, currently, the radical right IS the Republican party.

    Let the venom begin.

  • chan

    Should American conservatives Caucasians be honored with respect? i listened to Rep. Ryan and Sen. Cruz discuss health care for American citizens. Each seem to disrespect the era in which they live.
    The American Republican party’s ideology, principles, and leadership consider immediate issues, concerns, and people beyond their and its capability.
    Anything American, jobs, schooling, families, society, politics, and economics looking back, past today, April 3, 2017 worth remembering?
    Do Republican party leaders, members, or constituents prefer and can identify with the united States of America of yesterdays? Why?
    Scary, can the Republican party muster Congress, President, and Supreme court justices to force America’s yesterday onto, this era, we now live in?
    American conservative Caucasians what about America, today, April 3, 2017, which is not great?
    Why the return to the Dark Ages as Rep. Ryan and Sen. Cruz pleaded, a couple of weeks ago?

  • Excellent article point of reality facts / Truth.

    quote
    “A chief tenet of Alt-Left nullification is that the innate moral superiority of the Left allows it to render inert any law it finds reactionary or unhelpful to its agenda (immigration law, the ACA employer mandate, the Defense of Marriage Act, the contractual order of Chrysler’s creditors, or NSA surveillance laws)—on the premise that such principles are not transferable to other groups who do not share its supposedly unique ethical agendas.”

    As with anything we have learned from the past, from human civilization as stated through truisms (warnings) from wise iconic philosophers and leaders from Socrates to Winston Churchill, insidious evil, however it is manifested, have disguised, it is ever omnipresent no matter what period and era of time in human civilized existence.

    But the one innate factor of truth is, is such immoral insidious parasitic toxic evil, however it is manifested, if not confronted and defeated by those who live in and amongst it, it will consume whatever and whoever it is aimed at.

    Rules are designed to keep a civilized peaceful people within society in a standard agreed upon universal order of compliance which all must abide by. But once those rules-principles of standards are breached, no longer abided, and worse are allowed by the rest of society to be violated for a specific entity, group of people, etc, then that civilized society is no longer in universal orbit. Thus the system, society will break apart and collapse, unless a stronger force can stop the cause (alt-Left) from growing out of control like a cancerous tumor metastasizing beyond salvation.

    This may be a more theoretical or philosophical description, but it is the truth about human beings, good and evil nonetheless.

    What it means is the left must be defeated at all costs, period, and at the same time, the same must be done with Islamist Muslim Jihadist Fundamentalism / Terrorism, anti-Semitism, Hate, for which the 2 socio-political and religious ideologies have allied with each other- aka the Unholy Alliance of Evil.

    Sadly, can we expect the GOP Est Republicrats that control the political leadership to do this – NO ! They are just as much the problem as the “alt-left” Democrats. Thus it must fall onto we the people at the grass roots level to take this fight to the end, to be the firewall saviors of our own freedoms and liberty existence.

    This is why the Freedom Caucus is so vital in representing a symbolic flame of hope and leadership we need and must have, one that stands our ground no matter what.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/78656f878e0d48aac8389b6b78d88c20b6ce2e88e70b0545a79d95374fa5b9c6.jpg

  • Bad Wolf

    All the Transnational Progressive or alt-left is, is rebranded Marxism sweetened up with the distractions of environmentalism, feminism, and an endless proliferation of emergent minorities claiming special rights. The distractions are necessary because Marxism failed so badly to deliver th goods economically that it was totally discredited by the 1990s – especially compared to the explosion of prosperity that arose in countries that adopted market economies. BUT the Marxism is essential because it delivers control of the economy to the left which gives them the opportunity to enrich themselves, pay off their buddies and constituencies and basically expropriate the wealth of others and divert itself into making the leftists wealthy and powerful. It is not a coincidence that the government employees – with pay an benefit >1.5X what they would get for the same work in the private sector are so supportive of the agenda of the left, for example.

    People who are naturally good at doing the work to create real wealth in the real world naturally prefer an economic system where rewards are allocated in proportion to wealth created (a system that leads to more and more wealth being created). People who are not naturally good at doing the work to create real wealth in the real world but who are good at manipulating others, uniting people against some group they vilify, naturally prefer a system where wealth is allocated in proportion to political clout. This is the conflict between free marketeers and Marxists and the Progressives are just a re-branded group of Marxists.

  • temmy9 .

    Not alt-left

    Ctrl-left

  • jhsif

    No such thing as ‘alt’ left! IF it’s LIBERAL it’s left whether it comes from a democrap or a RINO! Last GOOD democrat was Grover Cleveland, FIRST good REPUBLICAN (contrary to popular belief was McKinley NOT Lincoln the Tyrant! Mckinley PROVED his goodness as a Republican when his monstrous opponent Teddy Roosevelt had him assassinated for the McKinley Tariff! (Republicans and Tariffs don;t mix)