The Labyrinth of Oppressions

When the human experience is simplistically divided into two worlds, then things increasingly do not easily fit.

Specifically, what happens when the number of victims begins to outnumber the pool of oppressors? At that point can the oppressed become victims of the oppressed?

The following news stories illustrate the increasingly incoherent world of the aggrieved and their aggressors:

Item: Nancy Pelosi is on a tour to blast the new tax reform and reduction law, whose savings often will result in $1,000 or more per annum to families. The law already had encouraged private enterprise bonuses to employees due to employer savings. Pelosi habitually scoffs that such savings are “crumbs.” At a recent speech, after she intoned that income inequality would be exacerbated, a woman in the audience shouted out, “How much are you worth, Nancy?”  

Fair question. She and her husband, a developer and property investor (with apparently good connections within the bureaucracy of federal construction, land sales, and property acquisitions) are worth over $100 million. They own more than one multimillion-dollar home. And soon the Pelosis are likely to pay tens of thousands of dollars more in California property and income taxes that are no longer fully deductible under the new law that she so energetically despises.

Could that banal fact explain why Pelosi is so heated about a reform that gives the middle class more take-home pay, and will create more jobs and bonuses from the private sector—partly at the expense of blue-state, high-income professionals like herself?

From this teachable moment, we could conclude that progressivism is so often promoted by the very rich. They are best positioned to game the system and seek exemption through virtue-signaling about the poor. The Pelosis of our postmodern world assume that they are not to be subject to the ramification of their ideologies (she dismissed the rude questioning without answering). And they so often exhibit a peculiar contempt for the working middle classes. The latter are clueless, in need of guidance, and supposedly deluded by the promise of “crumbs”—given their lack of education and sophistication, and the absence of the romance accorded to the distant poor. How did we ever get to a point where a progressive politician on the barricades, worth $100 million, lectures the middle class that their extra $200-300 a month are crumbs?

Item: Tavis Smiley is now suing PBS for supposedly “racially hostile” motives in abruptly firing him. His dismissal came in the wake of other fallen NPR and PBS kingpins like Garrison Keillor and Charlie Rose. The latter two allegedly either groped and grossed out female subordinates or leveraged their asymmetrical power to coerce sex.

As of yet, we have no idea whether PBS acted properly in firing Smiley. His severance was predicated on the results of an outside law firm’s investigation that public television commissioned. Legal eagles supposedly found Smiley culpable of numerous liaisons with workplace subordinates (“multiple sexual encounters with subordinates over many years and yielded credible allegations of additional misconduct inconsistent with the values and standards of PBS”). In the old days, he would be presumed innocent until proven guilty, or would have shrugged that two consenting adults are responsible enough to know the often-dicey parameters of either a romantic or merely carnal relationship.

But the point is that these are the new days. PBS has been extraordinary generous to Smiley in giving him show for some 14 years and showcasing his often provocative attacks on conservatives and those whom he claims manipulate to their advantage so-called white supremacy.

But Smiley should know that when one divides the human experience simplistically into victims and oppressors, a progressive hierarchy of supposed exploitation is inevitable. In Smiley’s case, he must also appreciate the always changing calibrations among the vying oppressed.

In the wake of Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo movement, Smiley’s own sense of victimization  for now must unfortunately come in a distant second. Indeed, racially based grievances cannot provide exemption from the present climate, in which even unsubstantiated sexual assault charges are treated as convictions requiring only sentencing.

Item: The new “Black Panther” Marvel Comics movie is hailed as both a milestone in the genre and a sign of a new Hollywood. Black screenwriters, producers, and directors not only are supplanting the incestuous old-boy network of Hollywood, but are doing so in spectacularly profitable fashion and entirely on the basis of merit, as adjudicated by profits from audience receipts.

While the film’s noble characters are predominately gifted African-Americans and powerful women, some are now irate that not only are there no gay characters, but rumors persist that an edgy lesbian scene was cut out. Or, as actress Florence Karumba put it of a few lost gay flirtation moments: “The final result that we’ve seen, there were a few scenes that have been cut. Different scenes, also. They didn’t make it into the movie for certain reasons, and at that point, I have to say: What their reason is, I can’t tell you, because nobody told me about whether it’s in or not.” In sum, are all movies supposed to find ways to proportionally represent characters on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, and national origin?

From this silly minor kerfuffle, one might infer that the core targeted audience of the comics action film may be African-American youth, males especially. If the lyrics of rap music, the sermonizing of the many of the black churches, or the riffs of African-American comedians are any indication, there is a popular perception that overt homosexuality is not really seen as a civil rights question.

So a cynic might conclude that profits outweighed progressive solidarity: the lesbian edgy parts were cut for fear of offending moviegoers—in a way that might have provoked outrage had the film been a suburban blue-state psychodrama.

Given the profits of the movie, and because the offense did not involve #MeToo and was not an overt rebuke to feminism (cf. the recent scandal over director Nate Parker’s “The Birth of a Nation”), the argument of proportional identity representation goes nowhere.

We are reaching circular firing squad moments—and a topsy-turvy world.

The concept of “disparate impact” is asterisked by the disproportional “meritocracy” of the NFL or NBA. Yet meritocratic Asian admittances at UC Berkeley are seen as some sort of unnatural “overrepresentation,” and thus in the past were carefully and stealthily trimmed. (Isn’t a professional sports billet considered far more lucrative than an undergraduate slot at Berkeley?)

Cultural appropriation aimed at whites is not reciprocal. The doctrine does not absurdly mean that Latinas should not dye their blond, or that talented African-Americans should not become great violinists or opera singers, or that Asian actors should not play Hamlet or Lady Macbeth. But strangely, it does mean that those who are not minorities should not play minority roles, or even adopt for their own the fashions and styles of nonwhite peoples.

We are told that the concealing and carrying of firearms should be outlawed. Armed guards at schools only ensure greater violence. Mace and pepper spray suffice instead of bullets.

Yet politicians, celebrities and marquee athletes require well-armed bodyguards, on the premise that in their unique cases, guns really do both deter and in extremis protect the important. Do armed guards protect or provoke?

Post-Freddie Grey Baltimore has become a far more dangerous place for African-Americans and for small business owners—even as once oppressive and supposedly Neanderthal police became more socially aware and adopted enlightened reforms.

There are a few common denominators to all these paradoxes that overwhelm the daily news.

One, people are people, unique individuals, not monolithic cut-outs of classes, races, or religions.

Two, in comparative global terms, it is hard for anyone to be oppressed in a free-wheeling, rich, and leisured 21st-century America. The efforts to appear so can hinge on the embarrassing.

Three, when movements, such as the identity politics core of progressivism, rely on shared oppressions, and when the categories of the oppressed in many demographic groups outnumber the available oppressors, we should expect a confused competition of grievances.

Four, victimhood cannot serve as the basis of a viable political movement. Contemporary oppression requires a Byzantine regulatory handbook of qualifications, exceptions, and nuances to rank competing reparatory claims on society and culture. How else to account for things like multibillionaire Oprah Winfrey being “discriminated” against in a Swiss boutique on the basis of supposedly not easily being accorded a customer’s look at a $38,000 crocodile-skin handbag? And is such a luxury even permissible in the era of PETA?

Who can calibrate the current plight of California feminist icon, #MeToo leader, and Latina assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, who in the recent past has called for fellow legislators merely accused of sexual harassment to resign from office and to be ostracized by their associates?

Yet Garcia herself now stands accused of sexual assault. She is on temporary sabbatical. She insists she is innocent, won’t quit the legislature, and denies the independent allegation of four subordinates, who claim that they were groped, and propositioned by a supposedly randy Garcia. She now finds herself in a Thucydidean moment in which she yearns for the civil liberty protections that she was so eager to deny to others.

So who will police the police? Who is left to victimize the victims? Is it possible that the oppressed can oppress other oppressed?

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. 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. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, The Case for Trump and the newly released The Dying Citizen.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

106 responses to “The Labyrinth of Oppressions”

  1. Why can’t you just say it?? It is not like you don’t know. Jews are antagonizing the white Christian world out of a deep deep abiding hatred of Christ, Christians and Christianity and are seeking the death and destruction of all things Christian.

      • One thing you should understand by his statement that the only Identity Religion would naturally be attracted to Identity Politics if they were able to game it. What are the odds that they gamed it?

      • You really should learn to speak standard English !!!

    • You’d fit in great w/ the left, the real home of anti-semites.

  2. I had entirely forgotten about Victor Davis Hanson. He serves one purpose: to make dumb people think they’re smart.
    A former teacher at a community college makes a career tosses week old fish into a pot, flavors it with the occasional “in extremis”. and adherents to an intellectually bankrupt movement eat it up, thinking they are eating Bouillabaisse.

    • Interesting. An ad hominem attack followed by non-sequitors — without one refutation of any fact or point in logic. Yet you claim intellectual superiority for yourself. Proves once again that SJW liberals are smug and out of touch with reality.

      • Nicely said. I wonder if he understood it?????????

      • Dave Main rode the short bus to school. He doesn’t understand noffin.

      • Excellent reply. Now all that is left is for the rest of us to call him a leftard idiot.

      • Wow. Are you serious? This entire VDH piece is a smug series of non-sequitors and ad hominen attacks, with no common thread but “gee, look at all these silly people.”

      • Once again, a self-congratulatory yet content-free comment. No worries. Your silly, unsupported assertions do a fine job of discrediting your “philosophy” all on their own.

      • Illuminate me. What is the great theme of VDH’s piece except for “here’s black people doing some things for which I can criticize them. Oh, and I’ll sprinkle in some latin so JJS thinks he’s smart for agreeing with me”

      • Clearly your reading comprehension is unsuited for this discussion forum. If you must complain that a Professor of Classics uses common Latin terms commonly found in scholarly discourse, it might be better if you return to your usual haunts at HuffPo, DailyKos and Cartoon Network.

        From your reply it is apparent that you have no clue that Tavis Smiley is black, and VDH is defending him against the emotional rush to judgement typical of Pelosi DEMS like yourself.

    • If you pretend to cast a stone at VDH, at least check the grammar and punctuation in your post.

      But you’re right in the sense that he made you think you’re smart.

      • I didn’t know that “bouillabaisse” required capitalization. Stupid me…

      • Poor thing !!! He was desperately trying to sound smarter than he would have by saying seafood stew…..

    • Time for you to admit that you have never learned to think for yourself, and have no plans to start now.

    • You’re a leftard idiot.
      Go cry us another mug of your salty leftard tears as we wait for the next election.

    • Just because your parents were related before they were married is no reason to take your diaper rash out on everyone else.

    • The universities produce students who come in woefully ignorant and leave as complete morons

    • That’s a real nice DOPINION ya got there… DOH!!

      • Suds getting to what passes for your brains, bunky? You should see somebody about that.

      • The Tide Pods are giving you guys a reprieve from the other old standby — the “mothers basement” gag.
        You’re all so predictable: No wonder the Russians can write bots mimicking you uninventive dolts so easily.

  3. Dr. Hanson, in answer to your question, “Is it possible that the oppressed can oppress other oppressed?” this definition appeared in a local column: “‘Intersectionality’ — a bizarre system of inverse oppression ‘superiority’ in which ‘oppressed’ identity groups ranked higher on the ‘oppression’ scale, i.e., the less-oppressed, are considered oppressors of those lower in the hierarchy. Only elderly, heterosexual, white males are totally unoppressed.”

    • It’s more concisely known as “psychosis.” Most people are irrational to the point of delusional.

  4. “One, people are people, unique individuals, not monolithic cut-outs of classes, races, or religions.”

    Not for the purposes of progressive political machinations, they’re not. Not by a long shot.

    • In fact, not at all. Most people are mindless sheep who simply adopt the style of their “role-models.”

      • The doomsday preppers call them sheeple and think they will come out on top of them. Absent a meteor strike or similar disaster that converts their stacked cases of Beanie Weenies to the most valuable commodities on the planet that won’t happen.

  5. It is heartwarming to watch the left eat their own. The transitory illusion of unity afforded progressives by the Trump presidency will ultimately founder on the shoals of hierarchical “virtue purity”. I note with relish the rejection of progressive war horse Dianne Feinstein by the state party.

  6. The uncanny ability of Liberals to simultaneously hold contradictory views might prove to be their downfall. How could such a disposition fail to promote disunity? Prone to sniping and discord as Liberals are, this intellectual dysfunction can’t help but inspire different factions to eat their own. I cannot imagine a more deserving fate for such a pathetic cohort.

    • The way the liberals hold onto contradictory views is through the compartmentalization of those views, in which a specific view fits for a specific situation, careful to keep those situations separate from others where that contradiction would show itself. And the liberals are careful not to remind their followers of past situations where those views were different than today. It’s all about keeping their followers focused on the narrative of the moment, hoping that their followers don’t remember past narratives that were different than the current ones.

      • Yeah, what about all that good work that was being done taking down statues n such? Guess that got boring.

      • That is just another skirmish won by the antiAmerican enemy. No point dwelling on it – they’re on to the next target.

      • “hoping that their followers don’t remember”

        Their followers are totally on board and if they are deceived it is because they want to be and wouldn’t have it any other way.

    • What do you mean, “contradictory visions”? Like “debt is bad and we shouldn’t keep accumulating more”, then enacting a tax bill that adds ten trillion to the national debt over a period of a decade?

      • You mean like ObaMao added his 9 trillion to the debt? That was okay?

      • But we’re not trying here to shift the discussion to Obama like a little kid would, we’re trying to stay on topic and discuss whether the GOP seems to be holding “contradictory visions” when it talks about how awful it is to run up the national debt and then goes ahead and does it anyway, by a spectacular ten trillion dollars when the economy ISN’T in deep recession.

      • However, your numbers are wrong. The CBO and the NYT have reported that the tax bill will add 1.4 trillion to the debt by 2027. Is that on topic enough for you?

      • And you’ve failed miserably to offer any sort of convincing rebuttal, my friend.

      • The tax reform does NOT add ten trillion over a decade – you’re a Leftist liar.

        The tax reform may, in fact, not add a single penny to the deficit.

        What adds increasingly to the debt are the Democrat entitlement spending programs. Those UNConstitional programs account for more that 70% of government spending.

      • Yes, it does add $10 trillion to the national debt, beginning with several hundred billion dollars this coming year. When you don’t actually reform entitlements but nevertheless cut revenues substantially by lowering tax rates (and raise spending on the military as well), you predictably get a mismatch which adds to the deficit. You can yammer on as much as you like about how the economy will rev up in response to lower tax rates, it doesn’t change the cold hard truth of what accountants – the ultimate truth tellers here – will tell you when they finally close the books a decade from now.

        And no, it’s not Democrats alone who are in love with spending, it’s your own voters who totally reject the idea of having their “unconstitutional” Social Security and Medicare taken away from them whenever it’s proposed. Indeed, a clear-eyed person might see them as more hypocritical than Democratic voters who’re at least willing to accept SOME taxes to pay for the goodies they want to have. Republican voters instead come increasingly across as the ultimate “I want to have my cake and eat it too” voter types, screeching for lower taxes but never wanting to accept the reality that maybe their own benefits will also have to be cut rather than just the “Democrat neighbors’” benefits down the street in order to fund those fatter paychecks.

        I personally don’t even expect to receive my Social Security anymore, which is fine since I’ve begun arrangements a long time ago to save for my own retirement. But I’m sick and tired of the GOP pretending to be the more “fiscally responsible” party when in fact the cold hard accounting reveals them to arguably be less so than their opponents.

        Trump himself ran on the unrealistic platform of not cutting or otherwise reforming Social Security or Medicare, which his base loved, and then proceeded to lower the taxes necessary to pay for these huge entitlement programs. Nobody had a gun to his head when he signed that bill. Bottom line, it’s you guys who own the deficit at this point, and the fact remains you don’t any longer have the excuse of an imploding economy to at least partially justify the rising deficits.

      • It was the only appropriate response to your left-wing drivel.

      • An appropriate response would’ve been to point out how I’m wrong. Apparently you folks can’t manage that.

        The truth hurts. Tax cuts do make the economy run more briskly, but they don’t always increase revenues to a sufficient decree to compensate for the lower rates. In order to balance the budget, expenses also have to be curtailed. The GOP always talks manfully about doing that, but never actually engages with its voters on the field of battle.

      • Republicans used to understand, a long long time ago, that this was bad. Democrats never did.

      • A reasonable point, arguably a clear-eyed one when it comes to accepting responsibility for how the GOP is behaving nowadays.

    • Behold democracy! The second greatest hoax ever perpetrated.

    • I characterize the the liberal mindset as a bento box mentality – all neatly compartmentalized so that mutually contradictory ideas never meet and annihilate one another.

    • Orwell very aptly coined the phrase “doublethink”. The guy was so far ahead of his time. It should be required reading again – but, unfortunately, in today’s totally screwed up “education system”, “1984” might be seen as a “how to” manual for the more motivated Marxists.

  7. The oppressor game is bad enough when played out in the media and the courts. However the left has taken the game and put it in statutory law making crimes out of nothing while ignoring real crimes. The left whether you call it socialist, progressive or communist normalizes criminal behavior while calling normal behavior criminal. When Obama’s gang declared stopping Black thug crime to be racist (“disparate impact”), they made the police the criminal and the criminal the innocent “victim” (their favorite word). The crime becomes stopping the criminal from committing an actual crime, while making enforcing the law the crime being committed by the police. Only a brain dead leftist with a criminal’s mind would accept such inverted logic, The Parkland school shootings were the direct result of this policy.

    Instead of attacking the criminal behavior of young Blacks, Obama and his thugs made support of Black criminal behavior part of statutory law and paid local city, county and state governments to participate in the crimes. The real crimes being committed by not enforcing the law must be hidden in bureaucratic maze ware as Broward and Miami Dade did. The question is how many more of these illegal time bombs have been set by the Obama Justice Department in the last 8 years. Democrats control the major cities and are always looking for a good corruption scam. It gave millions for Broward and Miami Dade to spread around. It seems similar programs are likely in many cities increasing the crime rate.

    • ‘The left whether you call it socialist, progressive or communist normalizes criminal behavior while calling normal behavior criminal.’ Samuel Francis had a lovely phrase for this state of affairs: Anarcho-Tyranny. Anarchic lawlessness for criminals and tyranny for ordinary people whose ordinary behavior has been criminalized.

      • Anarcho-Tyranny, like it almost as much as Kakistocracy to define the Deep State.

  8. The Left always eats it’s own when it runs out of true oppression. Blue on Blue is going to tear them apart.

    • Not so sure. For the one thing the Blues all agree on is the evilness of the Reds. Good Blue leaders will focus their warring Red factions on the “fact” that Reds are Nazis, alt.righters, racists, homophobes, sexists, student killers, etc.

      • The Blues hold their extremely disparate coalition together by promising each single-greivance faction it will be preferred and selectively rewarded by the power elite. Those factions are in for a big surprise down the road.

  9. Loved the Pelosi comment. I guess she couldn’t answer because she was still chewing her cud from the Presidential State of the Union speech. Why hasn’t asked Maxine how come she lives in a 4 million dollar mansion when she pretends to care about the poor too?

  10. And for a final question: “Who can keep up with it?” or maybe “At what point does it all collapse under the weight of its own absurdity?”

    • When the invaders come to our shores and kill the few remaining strong and imposed their greater discipline upon our decadent and weak population.

      • Gℴℴgle offereing the people 97 dollars every hour to work parttime from the comfort of home … Work for few hours daily & spend more time with your own family … any individual can also have this online offer!!last Sunday I got a great new Chrysler after just earnin $6327 this past six weeks .it’s definitly the most rewarding but you can now not forgive yourself if you don’t get it.!qh462x:==>> http://GoogleProductsHomeBusinessOpportunity/earn/$99/h ♥f♥♥♥c♥j♥o♥♥♥n♥♥y♥v♥♥z♥o♥u♥♥♥h♥♥♥r♥♥z♥♥♥p♥i♥♥♥n♥v♥♥♥l♥♥♥m♥♥j♥o♥s♥♥w♥♥n♥u::::!cg70n:cwcafsf

  11. Some female is upset that lesbian scenes were cut out of a movie that is supposed to have maximum appeal to all audiences?
    If she wants to star in movies w/ lesbians there’s a whole genre of those films that she can go star in. I hear that the No Man’s Land series has quite the following.

  12. More ridiculous examples of people claiming to be oppressed:

    1. Christians in America wailing about being under assault.
    2. White men arguing that they can’t catch a fair break.
    3. Conservatives whining about people who criticize their arguments, and claiming that they don’t have a platform for stating their views.

    • Dummy. Your grotesquely insane stupidity is a good example of why we no longer have a country.

      Nice going lefties. Your fanaticism has once again succeeded in flushing an entire country down the toilet. Quite an impressive achievement.

      I recently read a comment, apparently by a foreigner, who was gloating about the disintegration of America. He said we deserved it. The disastrous failure of the American experiment though is going to send shock waves all over the world and have a profoundly negative effect everywhere, even where he lives.

      Certainly one effect of this will be to totally discredit the idea that “diversity” is something wonderful which is a shame since for the most part it did work quite well.

      • I agree that this country is in trouble, and that our troubles will be bad for the world. But you haven’t even tried to explain how I’m a “dummy.”

      • Dummies criticize the speck in the other’s eye while ignoring the plank in their own. THAT is why you’re a dummy.

      • Even if Trump turned out to be a totally worthless person he’d still be infinitely better than anything on the hate whitey left.

        The left is insane and sinking ever more deeply into it. Our society most surely is now sailing in uncharted waters. Does America even still exist as a country?

        “The Censorious Left’s Latest Mania: ‘Decolonizing Everything’ has a subtitle which says “Their obsession with destroying white, euro-centric ‘domination,’ wherever it may be, has become patronizing and authoritarian.” A good example of how our wonderfully progressive society is tumbling into the abyss.

        “Inside a Public School Social Justice Factory”

        “Controversial ‘Problem of Whiteness’ course reintroduced at UW-Madison”

      • How does any of that have any effect on your life? What do you even mean when you ask whether America “still exist[s] as a country”?

        From my perspective things in general are better than at any point in human history. That doesn’t mean that we’re in a utopia, but crime is down, people aren’t starving in America, and there are no major wars. And that’s been the case for a while. This BS about how American is being destroyed from within has been claimed for at least the past 100 years and it’s never true.

      • If you read the articles you’d understand why America has already ceased to exist as a country.

        We’re already in a low intensity civil war. I’ve lived in Chicago all my life and have never met a white supremacist yet according to the left, they’re everywhere, even in the White House where a White Supremacist Nazi is working for Putin. I consider the left insane. Leftists consider people like me to be deplorably evil racists who simply must be stopped.

        I recently read an interview with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who said we really no longer have anything in common with each other in this society.

        Isn’t commonality a necessary ingredient though for a functional society? How about social cohesion and trust? How about a common reality? All the ingredients that are the foundation of a society are now gone. Half the country intensely hates Trump and refuses to accept him as president. The inability to transition to a new government after an election is a classic sign of a failed state. America is now a failed state.

        Many people believe America is simply too big and too powerful to collapse but many people also believed that about the Soviet Union. No one in 1985 would have believed that the USSR, the mighty “Evil Empire”, would be a disintegrating mess in 10 years.

        I told that to someone last year who said “But the Soviet Union was a collection of separate countries”. What we have here though is a collection of separate realities which is a much deadlier situation.

        America was extremely fortunate to have avoided the raging insanity that ripped apart so many countries during the dreadful twentieth century. Our luck seems to have run out.

      • As I said earlier, I agree that this is a dangerous time for America, and therefore the world. But I don’t see how you blame leftists for the divisions in society after (a) Obama was faced with a Republican Congress that refused to cooperate in any manner; (b) the current President spent several years accusing Obama of having been born overseas, and (c) the previous Democratic President was impeached over lying about an extramarital affair after a years-long investigation failed to turn up any prosecutable crimes.

      • Obama spent 20 years in a south side of Chicago church that gave Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award. That single fact is enough to show what kind of a person he is and to totally disqualify him from ever being in the government in any role let alone as a two term president.

        Just imagine the hysteria there’d be on the left if it were suddenly discovered that Trump had spent 20 years in a church that had given David Duke a lifetime achievement award. They’d claim it was absolute proof that Trump is a Nazi, that he needs to be impeached immediately and all those who voted for that monster need to be tracked down and punished for voting for someone so obviously evil.

        I notice you carefully ignore saying anything about the hate whitey fanaticism flourishing in our wonderfully progressive society. We sure do exist in entirely different realities.

      • You keep making wild general statements with no specifics or imagining “what if” scenarios that you’ve decided prove your point.

        And your last sentence is ironic, to put it mildly, given the goofy thesis of VDH’s article. I’m sure that it’s possible to find some marginalized idiots who both “hate whitey” and are “progessive,” but I have to tell you that I live in an overwhelmingly white town in an overwhelmingly white county in a densely populated, demographically diverse state that is among the more liberal in the country, and I just don’t see it.

      • Your beloved Obama spent 20 years in a south side of Chicago church that gave Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award. One of Farrakhan’s “achievements” was to preach to blacks that Jewish doctors were injecting the AIDS virus into black babies.

        You don’t see a problem with a man who spent 20 years in a church like this being a two term president because you’re a progressive white leftist. I naturally hate you just as deeply as you hate me. We lack a common reality. We have no country. Time will tell what fate has in store for us.

      • I don’t know why you think I hate you. I don’t even know you. I have very close friends and relatives who voted for Trump whom I love and admire. They’re just wrong, but not bad people.

  13. Sick of the righteous indignation brigade. Leftist morality without any underpinnings of principle, lead to all the chaos that we now see

    • It’s not that she’s done “nothing” – that wouldn’t be a problem – it’s that she’s done great harm.

      People who WANT government to do things for them ARE the problem.

  14. The left’s virtue signaling absolves them of all responsibility for the victims of their policies. They mean well,and they’re smarter and more sympathetic than we are.

  15. It borders on the absurd. Case in point is the recruitment by ANTIFA at the University of Austin, Texas of the mentally unstable into it’s ranks in order to help them in the direction and purpose of life.

    • The ultimate appeal of Liberalism is their rejection of accountability. Who doesn’t want their degeneracy celebrated?

  16. Even if Trump turned out to be a totally worthless person he’d still be infinitely better than anything on the hate whitey left.

    The left is insane and sinking ever more deeply into it. Our society most surely is now sailing in uncharted waters. Does America even still exist as a country?

    “The Censorious Left’s Latest Mania: ‘Decolonizing Everything’ has a subtitle which says “Their obsession with destroying white, euro-centric ‘domination,’ wherever it may be, has become patronizing and authoritarian.” A good example of how our wonderfully progressive society is tumbling into the abyss.

    “Inside a Public School Social Justice Factory”

    “Controversial ‘Problem of Whiteness’ course reintroduced at UW-Madison”

    • Don’t be too sure – in many ways an incompetent ally can play into the hands of the enemy and, over the long haul, do more harm than good.

  17. I thought it was $98 yesterday, did you get a raise??

  18. It is a replay of the French Revolution, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and Orwell. A militant, revolutionary movement that purges impurity until there’s no one left. “Intersectionality” is an actual academic construct that calculates who is the most oppressed. And people compete to be a part of a victim group. Nancy Pelosi herself recently told a story about how her grandson wishes he had a darker complexion.

    Hopefully this is the insanity of the Obama era reaching its disintegration point. If it continues, there can be no good outcome for anyone.

  19. My way or the highway….until it is me laying on the pavement.

  20. All shitliberalism is based on lies and hypocrisy.
    As Orwell said, “Be most wary of those pursuing power using ‘progress’ and ‘equality.’ They’re almost always about neither.”
    Given they have no principles or morals, it’s time to stop debating shitlibs … and time to start killing them.

    • If the Democrats did not have double standards they would nave no standards at all.

  21. Another brilliant article, Prof.Hanson. You’re consistently able to grasp the many paradoxes and dangers of American leftists today, which is the samosa the Democrat Party unfortunately, and explain it in stark and vivid returns. You’re a national treasure.

    If you read these comments, what do you think of National Review’s new policy of restricting comments to paid subscribers only? The results so far are embarrassing – 8 comments are now a great showing. I used to love the rough and tumble but erudite comment section – often more entertaining than some articles – not your own, ever! I read fewer stories, 50% less, knowing there will be no debate below.

  22. Thank you, VDH!

    All of us capable of critical thinking have seen where this was going for the last 50 years. It is truly mind-numbing to try to keep abreast of the ever-changing relative ranks of old, accepted victims and new, emerging victims. It verges on the hilarious to watch a multi-victim mentally juggle the various benefits and opportunities of their own competing claims to victimhood.

    One salient point you may have considered and rejected, but I have not: The willingness to accept failure and less in order to preserve the victim status that “earns” greater rewards than one (mis)calculates one is able to earn on one’s own merits and efforts.