CommentsCHATMATES-I assume this is my third and final installment of WILTL. It was a pleasure sharing with readers of all political stripes my previous two pieces of the same name. Coincidentally, "Why I Left the Left," part 1, was posted in late August of 2017; part 2, was published in late August of 2018.
Fast forward to late August 2019, and I have a few more timely and relevant reflections on the "Left." To be clear again, I do not believe all Dem voters have gone too "Left." However, I do maintain that the Party leadership has. I have three issues to address.
WORDS have meaning. At least, they did.
A few months ago, I came upon an online meme showing a draping U.S. flag next to a Nazi banner with this caption: "75 years without Nazism was nice." This suggested that the current administration is akin to the Third Reich. Very bluntly, to that I say, if Mr. Trump had been the leader of Germany in the 1940s, there would not have been about six million Jewish lives snuffed out. Furthermore, if our current federal government was of the Nazi persuasion, whoever created that meme would probably never be heard from again.
Now, let's discuss a reckless influence on our youth, which I reckon to be a greater issue. While children unknowingly scroll through their iPads, iPhones, or i-Whatevers, they may indeed come upon the Nazi meme as I described above. Being impressionable (along with some adults), they may easily make a mental note--consciously or unconsciously--that Nazism is equal to the U.S. government. An unconscious indoctrination may prove to be especially damaging. Now, enter a very "anti-Trump" parent whose child asks, "Dad, is the U.S. government, right now, kind of like the Nazis were, then?" Grabbing a timely "teachable" moment, the parent might say, "Yeah, right now with Trump, yeah, it's like that." Then you have a child with a very warped view of both reality and history who may share that idea with peers. Welcome to a gradual flow of propaganda. To make matters worse, if the Nazi Holocaust is brought up to this child, it is not so far-fetched to imagine him or her comparing horrific photos of Auschwitz with pictures from our southern border, given the use of the term “concentration camps."
On the issue of concentration camps, this brings us to the fiasco created by Alexandra Ocasio Cortez (AOC). She claimed she was perfectly justified to call the U.S. migrant detention centers "concentration camps" and was surprised by the backlash. How did she think she was justified? She said that technically, a "concentration" of people is a large group corralled into a relatively small space. Since the migrant camps are highly concentrated with people. . . well, you get where she was going with this.
Two things must be pointed out. First, in her rant, she said, “. . . 'never again' means something." If we are true to history, we know that motto has been used specifically in referring to the horrors of the Holocaust. If AOC argues that she did not realize what "never again" historically refers to, then perhaps she should go back to history class, learn this stuff, and then run again for Congress.
Point #2: She is correct that the detention centers are "technically" concentration camps; that is, they're places where groups of people are held (concentrated). That said, there is a very important difference between denotative and connotative meanings in language. In other words, there's the "letter" of words and the "spirit" of words, respectively.
Let's think about this. If someone said, "They're showing a concentration camp on the History Channel,” what will ninety-nine percent of the population assume it is--a Nazi death camp or a migrant detention center in Denver? I believe AOC knows the answer. She purposely said what she said in the hope of recklessly comparing the current administration to an incomparable horrifying era. By the way, I will not even get into Allen Frances, that "doctor" who compared Mr. Trump’s “camps” with the death camps of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. My oh, my, how history can be irreverently manipulated. As a closing thought, for all the above reasons, it's my opinion that AOC hates the current president more than she loves the country.
The "yeah, buts. . .”
In many a conversation I've had both on social media and face-to-face, there is a trope that rears its head a lot: "Yeah, but. . ." I believe I'm hearing it even more now. Whether I'm talking about the stock market doing better, lower unemployment, or Trump ripping up the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership (which could have been called TP), the common rebuttals are, "Yeah, but. . .he doesn't talk presidential," or "Yeah, but. . .his tweets are so off-the-wall," and so forth. For the sake of argument, we will say there is merit to the (CNN-emboldened) long list of "yeah-but" anti-Trump memes.
However, in logical and constructive discussion, these negations should not devalue the validity of the affirmations (i.e., the arguably "good stuff" he's done). Ideally, if the goal is a "non-bias" nirvana, the pros and cons are disjoint sets. If it were a Venn Diagram, there would be no "intersectionality," between the pros and cons. One more example: "Yeah, but, if you vote for Trump, you're enabling KKK types, many of whom are his supporters." My rebuttal to that would be, "But, by voting Dem, you're enabling Antifa, a group that is known for perpetuating violence and vandalism." One can find subsets in any group to make general cases for a given electorate.
It's getting so left 'round here. . .even the word "left" is jealous.
I watched the Democratic debates; I saw all 20 candidates. And I agreed with them on some things, like climate issues. But friends, I do believe the Dem Party is moving so far left, that it's almost unrecognizable from the Bill Clinton era, for example. Candidates on both sides of the aisle used to publicly support securing the border. Now, some Dem candidates are espousing "open borders." This is evidenced by in the fact that many folks who saw the debates assumed that all the candidates were "open border."
How so? If you remember last month, Bernie Sanders was asked at an event about (and even complimented) on his "open borders" position. Sanders, with a bit of surprise in his face (and his hands) quickly cleared the air, saying that he is in no way for an open border policy. How else has the party gone way left? Well, here's a quick list: Free health care. Free tuition. Free health care for all undocumented folks. Reparations. The slippery slide into socialism. All the "-phobe" and "-ism" tropes. Diversity at all costs in the United States, but U.S. Unity? Well, not so much.
Wrap it up, and on to 2020
As said before, I believe I didn't really leave the Dem Party, but rather, the party left me. And guess what? I'd (maybe) be willing to go back--if the party goes back to the way it was in the mid-nineties. I want a party that values the "workin' man” (person), the environment, stronger background checks, renewable energy, patriotism, border enforcement, capitalist enterprise, and unity as much as diversity. However, after all is said and done, when it comes to improving the “electability” image of the Democrat Party, there will probably be more said than done. Let's grab the popcorn and a healthy drink and watch how this plays out.
(Kevin Suscavage worked as staff with the CA Assembly, originated the "Butterfly Bill," and has pieces found in CityWatch LA, North Valley Reporter, CA Political Review, and the Jewish Journal.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
