Neo-Progressive Hypocrisy: Half of U.S. Electorate is Oblivious

Written by Brian Kalman exclusively for SouthFront

Not even 24 hours after the U.S. presidential election was concluded, people identifying themselves as progressives, leftists, socialists and even communists took to the streets of major U.S. cities to voice their refutation of the U.S. electoral process. Demonstrations were conducted in Portland, Oakland, Chicago, Boston and New York, all of which have been Democrat administered cities for decades, and where the majority of the electorate voted for Hillary Clinton. Some of these demonstrations involved the wanton destruction and vandalism of both public and private property.

Demonstrators in Austin, Texas. Someone must have forgotten to bring the American flag.

Slogans such as “Black lives matter”, “Trump is not my president”, and “Never Trump” were shouted ad nauseam. All of the supposedly tolerant and inclusive progressives did not get their way, as the majority of the country decided not to vote for a corrupt, pathological liar who is undoubtedly the most pro-war candidate ever to run in a presidential primary. Those demonstrators interviewed seemed to have no understanding of how presidential votes are conducted in the U.S., could not articulate their reasoning for not recognizing Trump’s victory beyond regurgitating the un-substantiated talking points promoted by the establishment owned mainstream media, nor did they even know what system of government the United States embraces.

Firstly, let’s take a look at the first slogan. Demonstrators marching on the streets of Chicago were shown on mainstream media networks shouting the slogan “Black lives matter” repeatedly. What this has to do with Trump winning the election can only be guessed. He has never made disparaging remarks regarding African Americans. He has received praise from Jessie Jackson for his efforts to aid the advancement of minorities and people of color in corporate America. He also made sure that when he opened his Mar a Lago golf club in Palm Beach, Florida that there were no restrictions based on race or religion. He alone fought the city council and the local elites to desegregate the club. Long established golf clubs in Palm Beach remain segregated to this day. Trump has never held any political office, nor any executive branch position in the government that the Black Lives Matter organization says systematically disenfranchises and victimizes African Americans. The protesters apparent candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton, has been working as a major decision maker in that very government for over 30 years.

Hillary Clinton speaking at the 9th Annual Women in Policing Conference on August 11th, 1994. She spoke in support of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which was signed into law by her husband, President Bill Clinton.

If this glaring hypocrisy wasn’t enough, how about the very fact that this slogan of “Black lives matter” was being shouted on the streets of Chicago, the city that has seen more African Americans die at the hands of other African Americans than any other place in the nation?  As of the writing of this article there have been 680 homicides in the city of Chicago, most of them committed by blacks while targeting other blacks. 501 of these victims were black. 82 of the known assailants against them were also black. The true number is most likely much higher, as only 20 percent of assailants were identified. Black assailants accounted for over 12 percent of all solved homicides, with all other racial groups accounting for just over 7 percent.

Chicago detectives inspecting the scene of one of the 501 murders of an African American in the city this year.

Why isn’t anyone talking about these black lives? Apparently, the only black lives that matter are those lost at the hands of a white police officer. Just to contrast the above numbers, there have been a total of 21 police involved shootings in Chicago over the same time period, resulting in the deaths of 7 individuals. I am sorry to say that black lives in Chicago obviously do not matter at all to the progressives, the mass media or the federal government. Only black lives that fit the phony narrative pushed by all of the above groups, that an inherently racist white citizenry and system (symbolized so easily by a handful of white police officers) is killing young black men at will all over the country. This is a total fallacy, but a wonderful narrative to drive a wedge between different demographics and distract all of them from the very real causes of violence against African Americans in our society.

I am sorry to disappoint all the neo-progressives and neo-liberals out there, but the cause of these deaths is not guns. Chicago has the most restrictive firearms ownership laws in the nation, and has for over 30 years. So where are all these guns coming from? Where they always come from when used by criminals, the illegal black market. Criminals are called criminals because they break the law. Draconian gun control laws have not saved black lives in Chicago. The only thing they have done is disarm poor black citizens surrounded by violence, and increased the value of firearms on the black market. Inanimate objects are not the cause of deviant and harmful human behavior, and attempting to restrict them from society at large will never solve the root problem.

Which brings us to one of the most easily identifiable root causes of black on black homicide in Chicago, and one that is directly linked to the federal government. The war on drugs. Advertised as an attempt to prohibit the harmful and destructive influence of natural and manmade substances on our society, the prohibition of numerous narcotics is actually meant to cause civil strife, increase the policing and surveillance powers of the federal government, enrich and empower the criminal “justice” system, eliminate natural and affordable competition for the pharmaceutical industry, provide big money laundering opportunities to the big banks ( think HSBC) and to enrich the huge U.S. prison industry. Just think how many black lives would be saved if marijuana was legalized? How many young black men are incarcerated every day for the crime of possessing the dried leaves of a plant? A plant that has many medicinal benefits and no harmful side effects? The criminality created by the prohibition of a historically helpful, naturally occurring substance has led to the vast majority of black on black homicides, and the incarceration of millions of black men. These men are sacrificed for the increasing power wielded by the federal government and the profits afforded powerful industries and financial institutions. Prohibition of Alcohol in the 1920s did not stop people from consuming alcohol. It did create a crime wave across the country the likes of which had never been seen before, and encouraged they expansion of the federal government. We apparently haven’t learned our lesson.

If black lives really mattered to these protesters, why were they presumably supporting Hillary Clinton for president, a woman who helped solidify federal drug war policy, advanced the concept of harsh mandatory sentences for drug possession and “three-strike” sentencing while First Lady in the 1990s, and who has also used her vast influence in politics to work like a high dollar whore for the very industries that benefit from the “War on Drugs”? Is it hypocrisy or delusion? Instead of mindlessly repeating a hollow slogan, support movements to decriminalize marijuana, support non-establishment candidates for political office, and educate yourself on the truth behind the injustices truly plaguing American society.

Now let’s look at the next slogan, “Trump is not my president.” This slogan appears to repudiate the legitimacy of the election, or that the demonstrators’ do not recognize the governmental mechanisms established in the Constitution for election of candidates to the office of the presidency. Some of the protesters could not understand how Donald Trump could be elected by winning a majority of the electoral votes, yet not gaining the majority of the “popular” vote. This dismay clearly exhibits their misunderstanding of the very foundational principals of our national government.

Although a tad bit more eloquent than the sign on the left, the sign on the right illustrates the total misunderstanding of the U.S. electoral process.

The United States (formerly referred to as These United States) of America is NOT a democracy. It was founded after long debate and deliberations as a constitutional republic. There are very important and fundamental differences between the two. A pure democracy gives ultimate power to the majority, and thus, the minority is always at the mercy of the majority. A constitutional republic aims to protect the minority (all the way down to the minority of the individual) from the often misguided and self-serving desires of the majority, through the establishment of supreme laws, codified in a national constitution, that protects them from the predations of their government and their fellow citizens. The United States Constitution went even further, separating and limiting powers of the state in a number of different ways, so as to protect the minority from the concentration and abuse of power by forces within government, and from popular movements of the majority of the electorate that might arise that would deprive the minority of their god given (natural) rights.

Thus, the United States is not a democracy, but is a constitutional republic that utilizes certain democratic principles. It is superior to a democracy, in that it aims to safeguard every single citizen, irrespective of political belief or association, religious belief, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation from the prevailing majority beliefs of the age. It attempts to protect the citizen from the predations of tyrannical government and the “rule of the mob” at the same time. This concept is eloquently explained by Thomas Jefferson who stated,

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

This system of government has been weakened over time, by successive administrations that have all moved to concentrate power in the hands of the federal, or central government. Many checks and balances as codified in the original Constitution have been eroded or overthrown through constitutional amendments or illegal federal power grabs. The Electoral College is one safeguard that remains.

It is hard for many young Americans today, including the mindless demonstrators in question, to understand that this nation was once a confederation of strongly independent states. These states were very much independent republics in a federation of republics. They ceded very limited powers to a central government that was only able to wield these powers in the pursuit of very specific aims. This small and limited federal government was further kept in check by internal division between executive, judicial and legislative functions in the hopes of providing an added balance of power. Sadly, after only 241 years, most of the checks and balances and separations of powers have been eroded, ignored, usurped and overthrown. The Electoral College is one of the last remaining mechanisms of our constitutional republic that protects the states from both the federal government and the “rule of the mob”.

The framers of the Constitution understood that the only way to protect each and every state, regardless of population, and in the interest of protecting the individual cultural identity, economic interests, religious composition, and political affiliations of those states, was to establish a weighted average in voting in matters that effected all the states. If a simple popular vote system was adopted, this would theoretically mean that just a few powerful and heavily populated states would always dominate a majority of less populated ones. Why should any state acquiesce to the dominion of any other state in the selection of the chief executive officer of the union? What right do California and a handful of Northeastern states have to dominate the majority of the other states in electing the most powerful official in the executive office of the federal government? They should not and do not. This is a fundamental principal in our constitutional republican form of government that has survived since its founding and for good reason. It takes the very same concept of protecting the minority from the majority at an individual level, and elevates it to the level of the states themselves.

In summary, the majority vote of the states is not the same as the majority vote of each and every citizen. The former protects the will of the population of each and every state, while at the same time apportioning added weigh to each state based on their respective population. It is a fair way to balance the will of the states with the will of the general electorate, while protecting each state from the dominance of any other state. When these protesters chanted “Trump is not my president” they showed that they have no idea how or why the election was conducted the way it was, and why the outcome legitimately reflects the will of all of the States.

Are the red splatters supposed to represent rotten tomatoes or the results of an assassin’s bullet?

Lastly, the slogan “Never Trump” insinuates that the demonstrators will never recognize the outcome of the election. Trump was the target of severe criticism when he brought up the issue of voter fraud and election fraud in the run-up to the election. He was publicly called-out by the establishment during the second debate, to agree to honor the results of the election regardless of the outcome in an effort to “preserve the sanctity of the system of elections”. Trump refused to commit to such a statement, and was broadly criticized by the main stream media and the Democratic Party. Now that the election is over, and Trump has soundly defeated Hillary Clinton, the media is apparently embracing the demonstrators’ desire not to recognize the election results. This double standard is clear for all the world to see in the biased coverage of an establishment media that has shown itself to be totally out of touch with reality at best, and at worst, to be in total collusion with the Democratic Party. WikiLeaks’s efforts to inform the American public by leaking the emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta, revealed that a majority of mainstream media outlets were in fact working directly with Hillary’s campaign to influence the opinions of the public and to promote her campaign.

Is this an anti-Trump protest or a demonstration for LGBT rights in Mexico?

We are all now witnessing the intolerance of the neo-liberal and neo-progressive political forces in our society. While claiming to advance liberal ideals and promote tolerance and inclusivity, these political forces will only tolerate or include those that agree with them. Disagree with their politics and they will brand you a racist, a Nazi, a homophobe or xenophobe. You will be shunned and ostracized. They have clearly shown their disrespect for liberal values by refusing to abide by the laws of the nation and refusing to respect the will of the majority of society. The U.S. Constitution was born from the classical liberal ideals that were considered heresy by the political establishment of the day, while the supposed “liberals” of today have no respect at all for these ideals.

We are also bearing witness to the ignorance of a large portion of the American electorate. They are incapable of critical thinking. As opposed to taking the time to diligently research the candidates and their respective histories, they rely on the establishment media to spoon feed them a false narrative. They are totally ignorant of the classical liberal principles behind the founding of our nation and its Constitution, nor do they understand how our system of government is supposed to work. When asked by a citizen upon the final ratification of the Constitution, if the nation was going to be a monarchy or a republic, Benjamin Franklin is said to have replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”  If the thousands of anti-trump demonstrators are any gauge of the average U.S. citizen, the republic is in grave danger.

Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years. He currently resides and works in the Caribbean.