Is the GOP an Authoritarian Cult?

(Question re-phrased from Quora).

This allegation keeps popping up with the notion that if you repeat it ad infinitum you can somehow will it to be true. However nonsense multiplied is still nonsense. So let me let you into a little secret behind Trump’s appeal to the GOP voter.

Donald Trump is supported by the vast majority of Republicans as he champions policies that resonate with them. He also advances these policies with an enthusiasm that other GOP politicians can rarely match. It is as simple as that.

This is the same reason that Democratic voters rallied behind both Messrs. Clinton and Obama. I know….. It is shocking. Who would have thought? No need for the tin foil hat.

So what are these Trump policies?

• a tough stance against illegal immigration and other aspects of cross-border crime
• strong support for the Second Amendment Rights of Americans
• opposition to Late Term abortion and a pro-active stance in favor of the right to life
• a renegotiation of disadvantageous trade deals
• reduction of unnecessary regulation that stifle economic growth
• initiation of critical tax breaks that increase real take home income
• a pledge to revitalize hard hit US industries
• a commitment to enhance and refurbish the US military
• appointment of judges that adhere to an originalist position on the constitution
• necessary pushback against economic collectivism
• the establishment of a bridgehead in opposition to what Republicans voters see as the deleterious effects of the cultural wars
• rollback of ineffective Obama era foreign policy decisions regarding Syria and Iran.

All of these are highly valued by the majority of Republican voters and indeed most are championed by Trump’s opponents in the GOP itself. Yes there is an anti-Trump opposition here. There Are Plenty Of Anti-Trump Republicans. You Just Have To Know Where To Look.

Now this does not mean that Trump doesn’t make mistakes. Of course he does. I personally wish that he would be more conciliatory towards his opponents and give Twitter (as an attack medium) a break. Although in an era where journalistic integrity seems to be something of the past I can fully understand his rationale here.

Source: Tony Phyrillas on Politics

Trump has his flaws, like so many political leaders, but he is also more transparent than most. This has the net effect of needlessly creating openings for attacks. His opponents have predictably seized on this.

Yes there is a hardcore minority that have elevated his being to a larger-than-life status but this is not unusual. Obama, Kennedy and FDR all tapped a similar vein. In fact it wasn’t so long ago that No. 44 was seen as a cult figure.

https://www.investors.com/politi...

On the surface it seems that Trump’s hardcore base is pronounced. Perhaps it is a function of his populist origin or it may be a consequence of the realization that in the era of bland politicians he shines with a greater luminosity. Like him or hate him. Trump does have charisma and certainly offers a ‘Presence of Being’.

So ‘Orange-man-bad’ has appeal but why then are Republican voters - who claim to value integrity - not going after him with added gusto when he does err? Why do they consistently jump to his defense? GOP support for Trump shows no overt signs of cracking

Source: Ben Garrison

For that you can blame the Democrats and their respective sycophants in the media.

Trump take down has been the mode of operation since day one following the 2016 election. We saw this with the giant post-election hissy fit, the actions of the intelligence organization elites, Russian collusion hysteria, the Stormy Daniels saga, the conjuring up of action involving the 25th Amendment and now the giant sequence of hearsays that is the Ukraine Impeachment ‘case’. How is any of this supposed to be bring Republicans around? If anything it is doing the opposite and strengthening resolve. The only aspect that is clear is that the Democratic political intent is not about discovering the truth. Instead it involves bringing down or weakening a GOP president ahead of the 2020 election.

GOP voters see through this and will not play ball with a party that has been disingenuous from the get-go.

Is Bernie Sanders Far Left?

My Answer on Quora.

There seem to be very few radicals who view themselves as extreme. As far as they are concerned they are the ‘enlightened ones’ who see beyond the shadows on the cave wall. It is everybody else that is in the dark. The question is one of perspective.

However Sanders is not a fool. You don’t survive this long playing the system if you were. He knows that he has to be careful as he is trying to sell these ‘ideas’ in a country that has a political center of gravity that veers to the right.

Source: The Mercury News

So his strategy is to soft sell the poison pill under the guise of a benevolent and caring Democratic Socialism. Who doesn’t like Democracy? This is a game plan that he can live by. Collectivist political radicalism, since the days of Rousseau, is all about the will to power. The playing field and modus operandi is a means to an end. Sanders is a disciple of such thinking.

Why Bernie Sanders' Communist Misadventures Still Matter

Sometimes though it does slip out. The Far Left has a history of going off the deep end. Bernie Sanders’s Pro-Sandinista Past Is a Problem and Bernie Sanders: 2020 hopeful explains Cuban leader Castro's success, criticizes Reagan in resurfaced interview.

Yes even the uber liberal Slate occasionally recognizes this. Sanders’ Soft Spot for Latin American Tyrants Is a Problem

However Sanders knows where he is headed. He is on a mission to fundamentally alter the system and he loathes capitalism. Those who believe that he is acting as a modern day FDR, with the bigger picture of saving the market system in his heart, are deluding themselves. Sanders Distinguishes Himself From Warren by Noting That She Has Said 'I Am a Capitalist to My Bones'

Read his writing. Look at his history. Follow his career. Sander’s politics is all about the forced redistribution of wealth to fit an OUGHT. Discover the Networks | Bernie Sanders

He is and has always been a man of the Far Left but if he campaigns under that platform he would be another Eugene Debs or Norman Thomas. Historical footnotes at best.

Devious as this is, his methodology makes complete sense from a practical perspective. Even if he personally fails at the ballot box his impact has helped drive the Democratic Party from a seemingly liberal institution, to a woke chamber of virtue signalling progressives each trying to outdo themselves with their various menus of destructive policies.

Source: Rob.Rogers.com

Come what may Sanders will go down in history as the man who transformed the party of JFK into a battering ram for socialist collectivism. Even in defeat he can celebrate victory. Who needs an armed revolution when you can offload historically failed policies to an electorate that is seemingly ignorant of its failures elsewhere? Rand Paul: Why Bernie Sanders’ socialism hurts the poor as much as the rich and The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All.

This is the Sanders legacy.

Source:

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/o...
2. How Socialist Is Bernie Sanders?
3. Sanders in 1985 Defended the Socialist Revolution in Nicaragua
4. Opinion | A Rough Night for Socialism
5. Bernie’s Bad Health-Care Plan | National Review
6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/n...

What is a moderate in politics?

Another Quora question I answered.

It used to be someone who could entertain vital aspects of both sides of the political spectrum without jumping into the torrent below. In the reality of power politics today though it is someone who realizes that they need more than the conventional party base to be consistently elected on the national level. Jumping into the torrent may at times be necessary. Just bring your flippers and have a lifeguard nearby.

In what way does the Conservative Party victory in Great Britain impact the American Democratic Party?

Question Asked in Quora (with reference to Michael Bloomberg). My Answer

The biggest message is a political reaffirmation of the notion that when ‘you go woke you go broke’. Boris Johnson deserves credit for masterminding a Tory victory in the UK election (Get Brexit Done was a powerful slogan) but there is no doubt that his victory was given a large assist by the fact that the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, veered so sharply to the left that Johnson merely had to click and point. Corbyn was the contemporary version of former Labour Party leader Michael Foot who was trounced by Margaret Thatcher in 1983. It was predictable then as it is now.

Michael Bloomberg is correct to express concern (as has Barack Obama). The slate of Democratic Party candidates running for the White House in 2020 have taken the party on a very sharp left wing trajectory (cancellation of student debt, medicare for all, wealth tax, very relaxed illegal immigration policies, reparations for slavery etc).

They have moved the center of gravity of the party beyond the locus of the political Goldilocks zone and while this may offer utility in the primaries, it will prove to be a toxic burden when the bigger case for the Oval Office is made in front of the entire nation as a whole.

Could Jean Charest return to become the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada?

My Answer on Quora. 

I really hope not. This sounds like Brian Mulroney all over again. However there is certainly a strong movement in the Conservative Party who believe that he is the individual who has the needed appeal to make inroads into Quebec and the GTA.

There is a strong argument for this (after all Mulroney did win two elections with this strategy) but I could see such an approach leading to a schism on the right. This was the case after Mulroney when Conservatism was forced into the political wilderness. A better choice for the Conservatives is Rona Ambrose

If liberalism and economical freedom have passed so many successful tests in many countries for many years, why do communists keep trying?

My Answer on Quora.

This is an excellent question. I believe it comes down to a several factors.

Source: Vanity Fair

1. Most people advocating for Communism have never lived themselves in a communist country. The ‘grass-is-greener-on the other side’ lure is very strong.
2. Communism has an innate appeal in that it promises a heaven-on-Earth. Many people find this attractive. The fact that it cannot deliver this utopia in reality, is downplayed by the passion of its rhetoric. In short it has a romantic appeal that favors emotion over reason.
3. Communism’s central economic planning mantra reverberates with those who struggle with the short term uncertainty that the market economy delivers at times. What they fail to understand is that the market delivers feedback via the mechanism of price at a far more effective rate than the dated information that central planners are forced to rely on. It is for this reason that shortages are all too often a problem in centrally planned economies. Uncertainty is the price we pay for a more efficient system.
4. Communists speaks to a sense of entitlement through its propaganda, by focusing on what we ‘ought to have’ and ‘what is owed to us’.
5. Advocates of Communism consistently shift the goalposts when it is found wanting on the empirical front. We saw this after the Cold War. It denies previous failure by playing up the No True Scotsman fallacy.No True Scotsman
6. It promises vengeance against the other. This appeals to those who gain strength off their perceived Victimhood status. Ultimately this feeds into Nietzsche’s Will to Power.
7. Communism thrives when the populace is ignorant of history. The education system hasn’t helped in this regard which is why there is a chic to Communism in North America. Many people are barely aware of the horrors of Stalin’s Forced Famines/Purges, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, the Chinese Culture Revolution, Cambodia’s Killing Fields, Marxist destruction of the Ethiopian economy and numerous other examples. These evils need to be highlighted but are often downplayed. Each one of them is a function of Far Left social engineering. and failed economic collectivism.Mass killings under communist regimes - Wikipedia
8. Communism can mutate to broaden its appeal. We see this with race, gender and ethnicity replacing class as a key driver for change. Marxists have also been very successful in promoting their agenda in the church via the vehicle of Liberation Theology.They have also hijacked a great deal of the Environmental movement. Communism is hip again – but until it means liberty, count me out, comrade
9. The Gramscian March Through the Institutions has helped further the career of various Marxist apologists and Far Left ideologues in academia, the arts and the government. This has provided platforms of note from which these proponents can attack our Liberal Institutions with legitimacy of status. Why our intellectuals have missed the reality of Marxism and The Left's long march will be hard to stop
10. Communism has a cult like appeal. Some would say it is a secular religion. In terms of belonging to a system greater than oneself, communism hits this notion full on. This seems to be the appeal to millennials in a post-Christian Era.. What My Days as a Marxist Taught Me About Modern Political Cults - Quillette

Karl Marx - Cool dude according to some. Source: Liberty Maniacs.

Additional Reading

1. The Staggering Toll of the Russian Revolution | Yuri N. Maltsev
2. 100 Years of Communism—and 100 Million Dead
3. Why Antonio Gramsci is the Marxist thinker for our times

Why did the NDP lose so many seats?

The NDP is no longer needed as a party. In fact most of the mandate for their existence has been taken over by the Liberal Party and to some extent the BQ. At one time, they filled the function of representing worker interests in the country and could rely on solid support from the unions but as the Liberal Party has drifted leftward under Justin Trudeau the NDP have been crowded out. In fact as far as union interests are concerned the Grits may be a better option. For one they are actually electable nationally.

It also didn’t help the NDP’s chances that there is a third left-of-center party in the equation, the ‘cooler’ Greens, who have been poaching votes from the more fuddy-duddy orange party.

Now it is true that the NDP had a renaissance under Jack Layton, who grew the party to its greatest heights (especially with respect to their success in Quebec) in the noughties, but this was largely a false dawn. It was Layton’s character and personal charm that carried this surge. Once he departed the scene, so did the support, despite the fact that under the helm of Tom Mulcair, the NDP actually had a capable leader.

With Jagmeet Singh, the party has returned to its natural level. What we have seen is not so much a loss of seats by the NDP but a restoration of the typical order which has historically defined the NDP as Canada’s laggard third party.

A golden opportunity was also lost here. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics...

Despite all of this, the NDP may have added leverage in propping up the minority Grits in key issues, where the the government doesn’t enjoy widespread support. Who knows what favors they will extract for their service?

Since Trump was elected, what exactly does the "conservative" political position stand for these days?

My Answer on Quora.

There is no single conservative position with respect to the day-to-day practice of politics. However there are a number of broader points that virtually all conservatives agree with this. These are:

• The maintenance of individual rights and freedoms
• Respect for the Rule of Law
• A deference toward meritocracy
• Skepticism of radical change
• Checks on government bureaucracy
• Opposition to tyranny
• Support for the Private Ownership of Property.
• Safeguarding of workable tradition
• Transcendent Moral Order (consistent with Natural law)

In the US these all largely guaranteed in the country’s constitution. This however is not necessarily the case elsewhere.

Donald Trump, The GOP, The Canadian Conservative Party, the British Torys, the Australian Liberal Party or any other right or center-right mainstream political party are merely avenues that advance aspects of conservative thinking.

In many a case they are supported by conservatives as the alternatives are worse.

None of these political entities transcend the universal applicability of the powerful notions outlined above.

Thoughts on the Canadian Election

Canadian Election Map 2019 Source: Wikipedia Red-Liberal, Blue-Conservative (Tory), Orange-NDP, Turquoise- Bloc Quebecois - Green (take a guess).

Results: Liberal 157, Conservative 121, Bloc Quebecois 32, NDP 24. Green 3, Independent 1

Justin Trudeau will continue to govern as PM despite the fact that two-thirds of the population wanted someone else. So much for the SNC-Lavalin debacle and the old fashioned notion of ethics. He is a winner by default albeit in a minority government.

The most undeserving part winner though is the NDP, who can make the call on key points despite the fact that their performance at the polls was dismal. More tax-the-rich to appease the masses. Same violin tune. Different year. No thought to the obvious question as to how wealth is generated in the first place.

News Flash...it ain't big government.

The big winner though is the Bloc Quebecois which of course means a return to the days of constitutional blackmail.

My message to the Tories though - is that you blew it. The popular vote counts for nothing if you can’t turn that advantage into seats. The party needs a new leader STAT. Rona Ambrose is the obvious choice. Taking back the 905 area is key. Andrew Scheer simply didn't cut it. Not enough distance between him and the Liberals. Charisma matters when you are up against PM Selfie. Max Bernier could have had a crack at it once upon a time, but his giant hissy fit cost him.

The Greens won an extra seat but In terms of policy they really are not needed. The Liberals own their environmental talking points anyway. If you can't do a decent job as spoilers on the left then exit la gauche.

Climate change will happen regardless of the vaunted plans out there. Although a crop of renewable energy subsidy hogs may grow richer in the process with the rest of Canada footing the bill. If the elites were serious about the problem they would provide more funding for nuclear energy. Enough with this virtue signalling and system of kickbacks.

My heart goes out to Alberta who will be continue to pay the price for the environmental hysteria. Expect the state of the nation to worsen because of it.

With respect though to the country as a whole the Canadian debt will grow as key budget problems are kicked further down the road. Don't even get me started on unfunded liabilities and our poor economic growth. Food Prices are going through the roof while wages are stagnant. If Trudeau went to the supermarket himself, instead of schmoozing with the Trust Fund Generation, he would realize this. I am not holding my breath here.

Yes it will be more of the same. The NDP will drag the Liberals further to the left and future generations will pay the price for our economic folly.

Was there an election? Yes there was. Will we learn anything from it? Not bloody likely.

Sources

Canada’s economy practically grinds to a halt — and nobody saw it coming

Food Prices Just Went Up At All Of Canada's Major Grocery Stores

Canadian household debt-to-income ratio rises in Q2 - BNN Bloomberg

Canadians rack up non-mortgage debt amid rising delinquency rates in Q2: Equifax

What is the least left leaning fact checker?

The least left-leaning fact-checking website is probably the centrist FactCheck, Party Lines Archives - FactCheck.org but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter and I say this as somebody who is center-right.

I am also going to go out on a limb and tell you why these fact checking sites are actually useful for Classic Liberals and Conservatives.

This picture of migrant children in cages was taken in 2014. It was wrongly attributed to attack Donald Trump in 2018 . Here is the AP Fact Check. AP FACT CHECK: 2014 photo wrongly used to hit Trump policies

But before we get there. Try this experiment yourself.

Pick twenty stories on Snopes or Politifact Or FactCheck and predict before looking at their evaluation whether the story is correct or not. If you are the type of person who samples news from across the political spectrum, have a well honed BS detector and an eye for the hyperbole I can guarantee that at the very least you will be able to knock almost ninety percent of these right out of the park.

To assist here are a few simple heuristics that could help you.

1. If a story seems way-over-the top it is most likely false
2. Claims of the best, greatest, strongest and highest are almost always false
3. Conspiracies are generally incorrect or unsubstantiated
4. Politicians on all sides of the aisle regularly bungle statistics
5. The same politicians are even worse with the details of history (even if they get the general idea correct).

Fact Checking sites build their reputation by debunking this low hanging fruit and in this respect I give them credit. They basically save you time for what you could do yourself. This is far and away the vast majority of material on their sites. Good riddance…we don’t need nonsense clouding our analysis.

Source: Presidential Fact Check Cartoon - Chip Bok's Bokbluster

But what about the left wing bias? Isn’t this a concern?

Oddly enough not really as much as you would think. You see in order for Fact Checkers to have credibility (and if they don’t they won’t last long) they have to at the very least get the facts straight and contrary to the oft repeat cliche here on Quora - Facts do not have a left wing bias. Hell they have no bias. They are what they are. Which means that ultimately there is a constraint factor that restricts the spin within the fact check medium.

Check these out

Ocasio-Cortez wrong on several counts about unemployment

Gillibrand's claim on stock trade tax isn't the whole story

Kamala Harris' False claim on auto industry jobs

Barack Obama wrong on limits of US gun laws

Clinton on the hot seat with Wisconsin voter claim

Video: Harris, Warren on Michael Brown Shooting - FactCheck.org

I am not sure if you noticed but many of these checks center around strong Progressive talking points (the wage economy, taxes, job growth, gun laws, voter suppression and race crimes). They are not the meaningless softballs referred to earlier.

All of these checks actually support conservative positions on these key issues. If one is true to the facts these ought to be welcomed, especially as Bubble Progressives with almost no exception treat these Fact Checkers as hooray voices for their ideological position. They would be wise to dig deeper. All too often this is not the case.

You see you can’t have it both ways. If you use the fact checkers to justify your ideology then you have to be intellectual honest and not ignore the many times that the fact checker flips your well held belief on its head. Swords can cut in many directions. Conservatives need to make Progressives live by their own book of rules here (paraphrasing the radical Saul Alinsky).

Source: How to fact-check | Africa Check

Would the same criticism not apply to Conservatives?

It would be for conservatives who are wedded to doctrine that requires a certain purity. All ideologues are susceptible to this. However Conservatism is more of an attitude than an ideology.See Gavin Kanowitz's answer to In what way do conservatives think differently than other ideologies?

The attitude encompasses a strong empiricist focus. Conservatives ought not to let this go. This is its big advantage over Progressivism.

Consequently it is critical for Conservatives to reflect on one’s assumption and rework them if the evidence supports it. This does not mean that one should forego skepticism but an above board analysis that pokes holes in what one believes to be true can if treated correctly actually solidify the pragmatic stance that many conservatives take.

So how should one approach a Fact Checking Site?

1. Focus on the numbers and the hard facts rather than the opinions. Politifact and AP Fact Checker often weaken their analysis by delving into the latter. This is where the left wing bias comes in.
2. Check numerous sources when reaching a particular claim. If a Fact Checkers provides a link to a primary source go there yourself
3. Don’t live or die by the Fact Checker. They are not gospel and appear to have a selection bias with respect to which claims/stories they wish to fact check. Keep this in mind. They also err and at times can be shoddy with their research. Check this out The ‘Fact-Checkers’ Do Not Check Facts | National Review
4. Remember as well that there is no substitute for a thorough self directed investigation.

Fact Checkers are at the very best the Cliff Notes for any topic. Within the very narrow specific fact mandate they can have credibility. Beyond that they appear to be on far more shaky ground.

Is there such a thing as the illiberal left or is that a myth?

Yes they exist and sadly it is not a myth. Here is an example from an Anti-War Demonstration in San Francisco in 2003

Source: We Support Our Troops When They SHOOT Their Officers

The illiberal left can also be described as the Regressive Left (or simply Regressives) - a term that was first coined by the Muslim liberal reformer Maajid Nawaz and popularized by Sam Harris, Dave Rubin and Richard Dawkins. It is not a new phenomenon with a history going back to the French Revolution.

Source: Maajid Nawaz- the Times

Regressives see Western Civilization as inherently evil and in chronic need of restructuring along a perceived ideal. The Will to Power drives their aspiration. Various segments will resort to violence if it is deemed necessary. Regressives are however prepared to tolerate other counter radicalisms (eg. Islamism) if that ideology is directed at the same primary target. Freedom of speech however is only appreciated if it works in their favor. At its most fundamental it is anti-democratic but will use the vehicle of democracy as a means to an end.

Included in the Regressive grouping are the various Marxist Revolutionary tendencies, much of the New Left, a growing share of ‘equality of outcome’ progressives (aka SJWs) and their fellow travelers in the shrill and outrage media. In France this roughly corresponds to the Red-Green-Brown alliance. Red–green–brown alliance - Wikipedia

Fortunately there is a non-regressive left who are well exemplified by the Euston Manifesto. The Euston Manifesto.

So how do you spot a Regressive ?

Look at the Trail of Hatred which is starting to look more and more like an Interstate at this point in time . Here is a list of eight warning signs.

While not all Regressives are defined by each and every point below if you hit five of them or more you are probably on to something big.

1.Hatred of the US: The US is an economic, scientific and culturally successful free market driven country. It also led the fight that ultimately culminated in the defeat of the Regressive Soviet Union. Hatred of the US is a very useful mechanism in uniting conflict Regressive ideologies. The leftist extension of its hatred of the US carries over to a vile disdain of other US influenced organizations such as the IMF, World Bank and NATO.

2. Hatred of Capitalism: Capitalism stands in the way of the world wide spread of International Socialism and its variances (Trotskyism, Maoism, Marxism, Eco-fascism etc) which Regressives seek to promote. It is important to note that it is not globalization that Regressives detest - their ideologies hinge on a global outlook as well – but the proliferation of the free market mantra.

3. Hatred of the Nature View Point: Regressives for the most part abhor genetic explanations especially in the field of psychometrics, as it undermines the relevant nurture based constructs that they believe can be manipulated to create the respective nirvana. Such a bias has manifested itself in the ideological clearing houses that go by the euphemisms of ‘studies disciplines’ in many universities.

4. Hatred of Organized Religion: In Regressive thought the organized traditional religions need to 'fade away' or be annihilated (depending on the urgency) so that their specific collectivist vision predominates. Organized religions also have a nasty habit of undermining leftist totalitarianism. Nevertheless Regressives will tolerate organized religion - and have done so through the mechanism of Liberation Theology - if it too opposes a greater threat viz. the US and Western Liberalism. Regressive sympathy for Islamism is an outcrop of such thinking.

5. Hatred of Tradition: Regressive Leftism centers on the twin notions of destruction and re-building. Tradition represents that which has to be destroyed as it is the product of the ‘old order’ (which in Regressive eyes is tainted…you know the Patriarchy and all of that).

Regressives, from the early days of the French Revolution - remember the guillotine happy Jacobin - have been hostile to tradition seeking to replace existing structures and establishments with those of their own making.

6. Hatred of Standards: Standards of excellence throw a wrench into the workings of Regressive Leftism and its adherence to moral and intellectual relativism. Standards also provide additional support for the ‘old order’ and validate the tradition that leftists wish to dismantle. It is for this reason that Post-Modernist thinking with its emphasis on anti-establishment rhetoric is so popular with leftists in university settings.

7. Hatred of Individuality: Regressives are ultimately opposed to individuality, although they will appear to offer tacit support in the short run as bait for the creative class. Individuality contradicts the groupthink creed inherent in Regressive ideology. Look no further than the way the Soviet Union suppressed artistic freedom and then co-opted it as a tool for the state.

8. Hatred of Debate/Counter Thought: Regressives are quick to complain about their voices being marginalized - there is strength in victimhood - yet once power is achieved are quick to negate free speech. Regressive championing of university speech codes, mandated language, human rights tribunals and ‘offense directed’ litigation are testament to this reality in the day-to-day.

Is the Regressive left not just a right wing bogeyman?

Not at all. In fact its growing strength should concern modern liberals and indeed every thinking person on the left who values Western Civilization.

It is not that we weren’t warned about this before.

Thank You George Orwell.

Picture Source: British Library. Orwell - A Man of the Left who could see through the facade of Regressivism and was willing to take his own side to task for not being forceful enough in rejecting i