Hillary Calls for End of Civility in Politics, Incites Violence Against Republicans — Scalise Fires Back..

The Daily Caller reports, “Antifa protesters blocked traffic and almost started a riot during a Saturday march and vigil,” and we’re reminded again – as if we need another memory aid on this matter – that current social interaction is spinning out of control.

On top of that, folks don’t seem particularly enraged about it. Nothing much to see here, just the way it is and is going to be, move along.

Accounts abound of “protesters running down the street, and a group chasing an older white-haired man to his car … protesters blocking the road and trying to direct traffic during the vigil.” [A] man … yelled while approaching [a] vehicle. “… Get the f* down the road.”

Of course, we shouldn’t be completely taken aback by the proliferation of developments like this. Bad behavior is increasingly being excused, rationalized, even encouraged from high-profile people; so heretofore “low-profile” people are taking the cue.

“The Democratic Party today supports violence to get their point across. There’s no debating that at this point. It started with Antifa which has used violence for years now but the Democrats would dismiss them as being on the fringe. Then Antifa got more and more popular. Keith Ellison supported them. Leaders stopped denouncing them. Then Maxine Waters came along and started encouraging liberals to harass conservatives in public.  … Republican offices have been attacked and defaced. It’s a violent mess and the Democratic Party can no longer argue that the violence is on the fringe.”

“In fact, they aren’t even really making the argument anymore. Democrats at the highest levels of the party are openly embracing a ‘whatever it takes’ attitude when it comes to political debate.”

Exhibit A: Hillary Clinton who just announced to CNN: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.” Steve Scalise was quick to fire back on that one.

Where to begin? The problems with her statement are legion – and not merely because she’s a Democrat or a Clinton, but because her reasoning is functionally meaningless. What she really means is: ‘You cannot be civil with a political party that disagrees with your agenda’.

Pro-life? Can’t be civil to ya. Pro-traditional marriage? Rudeness in order. A supporter of America’s military? Bring on the bullying. Endorsing limited government, low taxes, restricted spending? All bets are off!

Judicial Watch’s Jerry Dunleavy perceptively tweeted: “So Republicans cannot be civil with Democrats? Interesting.”

If it applies for Team Hillary, I suppose it has to apply for Team Anti-Hillary, right? Where does this road end?

Hillary’s CNN battle-cry is really a variation on a popular cliché, a self-justifying, catch-all excuse that suspends the requirement for basic decency: In war, there are no rules.  Well – and pardon the pun –  with all due respect, that’s a pile of profound-sounding and convenient buncombe.

You do see the problem with Hillary’s admission, right? Either side, every side of every issue, could say that about every and any disagreement – particularly since nowadays everything is of an existential magnitude to activists.

The Daily Caller reports, “Antifa protesters blocked traffic and almost started a riot during a Saturday march and vigil,” and we’re reminded again – as if we need another memory aid on this matter – that current social interaction is spinning out of control.

On top of that, folks don’t seem particularly enraged about it. Nothing much to see here, just the way it is and is going to be, move along.

Accounts abound of “protesters running down the street, and a group chasing an older white-haired man to his car … protesters blocking the road and trying to direct traffic during the vigil.” [A] man … yelled while approaching [a] vehicle. “… Get the f* down the road.”

Of course, we shouldn’t be completely taken aback by the proliferation of developments like this. Bad behavior is increasingly being excused, rationalized, even encouraged from high-profile people; so heretofore “low-profile” people are taking the cue.

YoungConservatives’ Andrew Mark Miller reflects:

“The Democratic Party today supports violence to get their point across. There’s no debating that at this point. It started with Antifa which has used violence for years now but the Democrats would dismiss them as being on the fringe. Then Antifa got more and more popular. Keith Ellison supported them. Leaders stopped denouncing them. Then Maxine Waters came along and started encouraging liberals to harass conservatives in public.  … Republican offices have been attacked and defaced. It’s a violent mess and the Democratic Party can no longer argue that the violence is on the fringe.”

“In fact, they aren’t even really making the argument anymore. Democrats at the highest levels of the party are openly embracing a ‘whatever it takes’ attitude when it comes to political debate.”

Exhibit A: Hillary Clinton who just announced to CNN: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.” Steve Scalise was quick to fire back on that one.

Where to begin? The problems with her statement are legion – and not merely because she’s a Democrat or a Clinton, but because her reasoning is functionally meaningless. What she really means is: ‘You cannot be civil with a political party that disagrees with your agenda’.

Pro-life? Can’t be civil to ya. Pro-traditional marriage? Rudeness in order. A supporter of America’s military? Bring on the bullying. Endorsing limited government, low taxes, restricted spending? All bets are off!

Judicial Watch’s Jerry Dunleavy perceptively tweeted: “So Republicans cannot be civil with Democrats? Interesting.”

If it applies for Team Hillary, I suppose it has to apply for Team Anti-Hillary, right? Where does this road end?

Hillary’s CNN battle-cry is really a variation on a popular cliché, a self-justifying, catch-all excuse that suspends the requirement for basic decency: In war, there are no rules.  Well – and pardon the pun –  with all due respect, that’s a pile of profound-sounding and convenient buncombe.

You do see the problem with Hillary’s admission, right? Either side, every side of every issue, could say that about every and any disagreement – particularly since nowadays everything is of an existential magnitude to activists.

Unnervingly, the radical progs have pre-emptively taken a page from the former first lady’s book for some time now.

Miller already mentioned the mobbish Antifa. I’ll throw in Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, any one of a number of man- and/or white- and or conservative-hating media figures… Georgetown University Professor Christine Fair comes to mind:

“All [Republican Senator Brett Kavanaugh supporters] deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine?”

How about the New York Times’ tech-writer Sarah Jeong who pre-her NYT gig had written, “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men … are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

You simply must ask yourself: What if it had been a Republican white male professor or pundit who screeched similar stuff against liberal women of color? They’d be identified as a recently fired-professor or a recently fired-pundit. No denying that.

Conservatives must push back against Hillary’s pernicious counsel, rejecting not just their savage opposition, but savagery itself. While we’re on the subject, everyone with an opinion right left or center must do the same.

If we become like “them” in challenging “them,” regardless of the political outcome, who wins? Unloading cruel and damaging statements in criticizing those who are unloading cruel and damaging statements against you doesn’t make a lot of sense. And it’s not helpful.

We might “win” the occasional policy argument or current events debate if we unscrupulously go-low, go-nasty — but in the long run, if we lose our humanity and the anchor of our civil civilization, what, really, have we gained?

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>