Understanding Trump and Trumpism Part 6: The Inaugural, The Campaign, and Making America Great Again

Newt focuses Part 6 of his Understanding Trump and Trumpism series on President Trump’s inaugural and first week in office.

TRANSCRIPT

Thank you, Ed. I would note for those of you who have been following this that the introductions have become less glowing and dramatically briefer the longer we’ve done it. The first couple of times, Ed built me up to a point where I got really excited about listening to the guy until I realized it was me. Now we’re back down to a more normal … And as all of you know, I’m a very big fan of the work that Heritage did in the Reagan years. Attorney General Meese is here, and he knows how big an impact Heritage had in the initial phase. I really think that what Heritage is doing this time in the transition is very much in the tradition of what they did back in 1980 and 1981. I’m honored to be able to come and to share with you.

This is the fifth of a series we’re doing in January. We also did a speech on December 13th on the principles of Trump and Trumpism, and a speech at the National Defense University on December 14th on national security and Trump. The final speech will be, I think, Monday. Then this set of a total of six speeches this month and two earlier speeches are the core of what will be a booklet in the spring on understanding Trump, and an effort to really put it in context. Something happened this morning that I think is a perfect lead-in to both understanding Trump and to thinking about the inaugural address in a much more profound and fundamental way than the elite media is capable of. That is that Trump this morning Tweeted about launching an investigation into illegal voting.

I was on Fox this morning, and I was asked, “Gee, isn’t this a diversion? Why are we still focused on the election?” I tried to explain that a number of us have felt for a very long time that dead people voting is inappropriate. Non-citizens voting is inappropriate. That it is legitimate to actually ask for an identity system where we know that the person voting is both alive and legal, and that every time we get into this, Democrats start screaming, “Racism,” which leads me to believe they have a large vested interest in illegal voting. Now, I was getting ready for this speech, and I want to show you the continuity of Trump and the seriousness of Trump, which nobody in the elite media can cope with because he is so outside their world that they keep looking at individual dots … It’s like looking at one dot on the wall and failing to recognize that it’s part of 700 dots that make up a rhinoceros.

The news media goes from dot to dot in constant amazement and confusion. This is Trump speaking at Gettysburg in October. Quote, “The system is totally rigged and broken. First, the issue of voter fraud.” So this morning’s Tweet goes back to a speech at Gettysburg, which nobody apparently in the news media could figure out because it’s so far away and so complicated to use the internet to track these things down, or to have somebody in your news organization whose job is to know what Trump has already said. According … This is Trump again, “According to Pew, there are 24 million voter registrations in the United States that are either invalid or significantly inaccurate. And when I say that there are such inaccuracies, it’s unbelievable. 1.8 million dead people are registered to vote, and some of them are voting. I wonder how that happens.

2.8 million people are registered in more than one state. These are the numbers, folks. These are the numbers. 14% of non-citizens are registered to vote,” closed quote. The elite media doesn’t want to cope with it, but the fact is, Donald J. Trump has been saying consistently, as a candidate and as president, we have a problem with voter fraud in America. There are several states where the Democrats are going to be in real trouble if only legal citizens are allowed to vote … live, legal citizens. This is not a trivial thing, but I thought the more important point was it showed you the continuity that Trump is engaged in, that these are not just things that are passing moments where he wakes up and says, “Oh, gee, I think I’ll Tweet about illegal voting,” or, “I think I’ll … ”

You know, this is in fact a thematic about the corruption of America by political machines who have a vested interest in voting people who are either dead or illegal because they can’t win in an election that only involves people who are legal citizens of the United States and alive, which are, I think, two reasonable criteria for being allowed to vote. I want to start, actually, at the end of the inaugural address because I think it gives you the rhythm and the drive and the flavor that we’re now seeing. The news media is beginning to realize that as an entrepreneur, who is also in many ways an existentialist … and by that I mean: Donald Trump lives in the moment. He is totally engaged. He has total energy. He is totally focused. And that’s true all day long.

He gets by with less sleep than most people I’ve ever met, and he does so with more energy than anyone I’ve ever met. I mean, he really is in the Theodore Roosevelt tradition of just pure energy. Part of the reason he’s pure energy is he loves what he’s doing, and he loves being at the center of attention. He’s figured out a way to really be at the center of attention. He’s president of the United States. I mean, you know, if what you need to wrap up your life is having lots of attention, being president’s a pretty … So he gets up every morning, and the first thing he knows every morning is: he’s Donald Trump, and he’s president, and you’re not. This gives him an enormous level of energy. He then takes that energy and turns it into decisions, which, again, is part of really what confuses the elite media.

Trump is not an academic. He’s not a theoretician. He doesn’t take his enormous energy and turn it into words, he turns it … He paints with action. It’s by understanding his actions that you begin to understand what he’s doing and how he’s doing it. Now, I would argue that the inaugural, in fact, was a very well-done speech, and that when he has to, he can actually put together a very compelling, powerful statement. But that’s not his first instinct. His first instinct is to make a decision and enforce it, and inspect it and make sure it happens. Here’s how he closed the inaugural, which I think it was very compelling, and this sort of leads into what you’ve seen in the last few days.

He says, “The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.” That’s a reasonably good warning. “Do not allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. We will not fail.” By the way, I suspect he looked at the demonstrations on Saturday as the personification of exactly that point. They want to challenge him, and they want to challenge the American people, fine. They can put on really weird hats and use really nasty language and dream of blowing up the White House, and they will lose. He goes on to say, “Our country will thrive and prosper again.” This is part of why I’m intrigued with how he’s going to live this out.

The next paragraph, “We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries, and technologies of tomorrow. A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.” This is almost John F. Kennedy quality. I mean, very similar pattern: optimistic, positive, science and technology based, moving to a dramatically better future. It’ll be interesting to see as they go through budget fights and other things, how do they develop a totally new approach of public-private partnership that actually dramatically accelerates science in solving disease and getting into space, and creating jobs and strengthening national security?

Quote … And I thought this was very compelling, and it’s very disappointing. Not unexpected, but disappointing, that the elite media so totally failed to pick up on this next part. “It’s time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American flag.” Now, that’s the second point in the speech where he repudiates racism of any kind. You would have thought that the press would have thought, “This is a good thing.” But of course they had to rush in first to report that he had taken out Martin Luther King, Jr.’s bust from the White House, because their theme is: he has to be a racist because he’s a Republican conservative, so how can he not be a racist? Because after all, if he’s not a racist and he starts getting black and Latino votes based on values other than racism, the Democratic party won’t come back for at least 50 years.

This is outside their mantra, but for the country, when you talk about … This was not a divisive speech. This was a speech that talks about bringing us together, which of course is totally outside the New York Times, CBS News mean of trying to describe what’s going on. He goes on to say, “Whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the wind-swept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty creator. So to all Americans in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words: You will never be ignored again. Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.”

Now, if a Liberal Democrat had said those paragraphs, the New York Times would have swooned. NBC would have devoted an entire special to the genius of the inauguration. They would have talked about how he is bringing us together. I mean, this is language of togetherness. It’s a language of the whole country working on the same themes. Repudiated, of course, the next day by a group of vulgar, hostile, and determined nihilist of the left. And repudiated that day by young fascists running around breaking windows and harassing people. But he’s talking about unity. He’s trying to bring us together. Then he closes in what I thought … Callista and I both talked about it afterwards when were still on the Diocese and still just deeply impacted by this.

He says, “Together, we will make America strong again. We will make America wealthy again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And yes, together we will make America great again.” Now, part of the reason I wanted to start with his close is: he’s going right back to the campaign. This is not a stupid man. This was the theme which allowed him to beat 16 other Republicans. This is the theme which allowed him to beat the elite news media. This is the theme which allowed him to beat a billion dollar campaign by Hillary Clinton. Of course it shocks all the liberals, because it turns out he may actually have meant what he campaigned on, which people voted for, and that puts him so outside liberalism and so outside the traditional establishment.

That is unthinkable, therefore it can’t be true. And yet this speech, this inaugural, grows directly out of a two-year campaign and has now led into the first week of activism, which, guess what? happens to reflect the campaign. What’s he focusing on? Job creation, immigration, shrinking government, all the things he campaigned on. Guess what that probably means? He’s probably going to continue to do just this. I was also struck at the very beginning of the inaugural. With the intensity of the use of “we”, when we just had a president who found it hard to get through a sentence without the word “I”, and who I think in one speech had … Sean Hannity claimed last night had 79 I’s in one speech, which, if you were Obama, made perfect sense, because to Obama, the entire thing was about him. He was always puzzled by all those other people.

Trump, who in many ways you can caricature as focused on himself and talking about his campaign and having things that are huge, but listen to how he opens. “We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and restore its promise for all of our people.” Now you can take that opening sentence and build an eight-year administration around it, and remind every appointee and every civil servant and everybody in the House and Senate: what is this about? What is the Trumpian Revolution about? It’s about the citizens joined in a great national effort rebuilding the country and restoring its promise for all of our citizens. I can tell you, we went through a dialogue on this in the spring.

It went from, “Make American Great Again,” to, “Make American Great Again for All Americans,” and beginning to consciously … which really reached its apex in a speech at an African-American church in Detroit in September, and a speech in Charlotte in October, where he talked about a new deal for African-Americans. It’s a very conscious statement by Trump at the very beginning of the inaugural, that his commitment is to all Americans. Again, contrast this with the young fascists who are running around demonstrating spitting on Gold Star families, harassing people trying to go either to the inaugural or the ball, breaking windows in an act of total nihilism, or the following day, the hostility, which, I have to say, part of me found it humorous that if you weren’t left enough, that it didn’t count.

The folks who were there who represented the transgender community were offended that the people who represented feminism hadn’t been inclusive enough, early enough, and they weren’t sure that pure feminists should be allowed to come because they weren’t necessarily equal to the task. If males were there, they wondered why the males were there, even if they were totally supportive, because it wasn’t really appropriate. I mean, you have to read the coverage of all the different factions who hate … They hate each other. I mean, they don’t just hate Trump. They hate each other. Which is why it’s very hard … They can’t have a Tea Party movement because they’re not happy enough to be a party.

Notice how he continues with this language, “Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for many, many years to come.” Again, I think he really does understand that as president of the United States and leader of the United States, he ultimately, inevitably is a leader for the planet. We’re too big an economy. We’re too strong militarily. We have too great a dominance in culture to just think of ourselves. While he wants to put America first, he wants to put America first within a world system in which he’s deeply aware that we are tied to the entire planet. “We will face challenges, we will confront hardships, but we will get the job done.” It’s important to understand this part of him.

I remember talking to him. I think it was in early October when we were sort of at one of the bottom points of the campaign. He said … We were on the phone … and he said, “Remember, I will win.” At the very lowest moments, he had to think through … He wasn’t quite sure yet how he would win. They hadn’t made the final decision to go for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, but they knew that the conversation they were going to have is, “Okay, how are we going to win?” It wasn’t, “How are we going to lose?” Or, “Maybe we should give up.” Or, you know, “We just can’t do it.” This deep part of Trump, which he wants to imbue in the entire country. You know, don’t talk about disabilities, talk about capabilities. Look at the Wounded Warrior Program and ask yourself, “For every American who’s on disability, what is it they can do?” Not, “What is it they can’t do?”

Look at every person who currently is on welfare and on food stamps and ask, “Is there a way to get them to a job?” Look at every person who currently is unemployed and ask, “What can I do to help small businesses hire people?” In Colorado alone, I was talking with Senator Cory Gardner, who pointed out that there are about 200,000 businesses in Colorado. If each just hired one more person, you just added 200,000 people to the workforce, 200,000 people paying taxes, 200,000 taking care of their families. The Trump mindset is to look at problems and turn them into opportunities, and to figure out: how are we going to now make the transition from this problem to this opportunity?

He then makes an assertion, and this is why I thought, in many ways, that this related directly to Lincoln, as I talked about the other day. He says, quote, “We are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to the American people.” Now, at this point, he’s making an assertion for uniqueness, which we have not truly heard since 1861. He’s saying the consequence … This is why, while the margin may have been narrow and the election may have been in the electoral college, et cetera, the fact is the scale of the decision was enormous. Down this road is Clinton, the old order, an even more radical court. Down this road is an entrepreneurial driving conservatism that’s pro free market with a conservative court. This may have been as wide an election choice as any of us have seen in our lifetime.

It’s in that context that he’s saying, “Look, this is not a normal inaugural. This is a historic event.” He says … And this is his condemnation of the old order in both parties. Those reporters … Again, this is one of those things where the argument over the size of the crowd, and the argument over the nastiness of the demonstrators, drown out what should have been a very serious focus in national media, because he is making a specific condemnation. It’s very powerful. He says, quote, “Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across the land.”

Now, first of all, this is very, very good language, and very clear and very compelling. He goes on to say, “That all changes starting right here and right now because this moment is your moment, it belongs to you.” I have to confess, having watched him over the last few years, I wasn’t sure if he was going to get up and be a little bit of a hot dog and say a little bit of what he said at the CIA. You know, that, “This moment’s my moment. I got here and you didn’t.” But he didn’t. I mean, look at the statesmanship. Look at the discipline. Look at the desire to communicate with every American that this administration is about you. It’s not about Donald Trump. He fails if it’s about Donald Trump, but he succeeds if he convinces his entire team that they serve the people.

He goes on to say, “What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.” This is pure Lincoln. As I cited the other day, with help from Dr. Guelzo at Gettysburg College, this reliance on the sovereignty of the people is at the heart of both of American populism and of the whole sense of what makes both Lincoln and Trump so different. He goes on to say, “January 20, 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.” Now, I believe that what that leads to is very dramatic civil service reform. I believe that, because today, the bureaucracy and the lawyers run the country. To truly enact what he is describing, he will have to reform the civil service so it, in fact, it is responsive to the nation’s elected leadership. That will be a very significant struggle and a very real challenge.

I think that it’s important to go back … I recommend all of you to read the entire speech slowly. Think about it. Underline it. This is a very thoughtful, very profound statement of a fundamentally different direction for America by somebody who has earned the right to tell us what he honestly thinks, because his campaigning, his courage … I mean, nobody else could have done what he did. I don’t know of anybody else who could have come out of nowhere and beaten 16 Republican candidates. I don’t know anybody else who could have taken on the entire elite media and beaten them. I don’t know of anybody else who could have taken on a billion dollar Hillary campaign and won. Occasionally people say to me, “Oh, some other Republican would have won by a bigger margin.” Baloney.

I’ve been through a lot of campaigns in my career. It took force of will. It took a willingness to confront her. It took a willingness to be tough. I don’t know of any other candidate who could have done it the way he did it. He’s earned the right to tell us these things. Then there’s a passage I just want to share because it’s the perfect example of why the left and why the elite media has such a hard time dealing with Trump. He says, quote, “The American carnage stops right here and stops right now.” Many people in the media said that was such a dark term. What does he mean by carnage? Now, there were 4,000 people shot in Chicago last year. And Chicago per capita was third. St. Louis was first, Baltimore was second. Now, if 4,000 people being shot in your third largest city isn’t close to carnage, what would it take?

But see, the elite media doesn’t care. They didn’t fit any of the patterns. I mean, notice how little coverage we’ve gotten. South Side, Chicago’s a war zone. How many newspapers and how many TV shows have actually gone in … How can Rahm Emanuel preside over this human disaster and not think it’s carnage? You watch what’s about to happen. Trump, today, is signing an order on sanctuary cities. Part of that order, something that Attorney General Meese will remember, we historically assigned federal immigration personnel to co-locate with our major jails. When an illegal alien got out of jail, they got on a bus, and they were last seen leaving the country. Now, a whole sanctuary city process kicked out the federal agents. We currently release onto the street the criminal who’s here illegally who should be leaving.

I can’t wait to see Rahm Emmanuel explain why Chicago needs more murderers and more rapists on the street. That’s what this … This is very practical stuff. I mean, Trump’s not talking theory. Trump is talking about very practical things. You first saw this when he first began talking about illegal aliens who had killed people, and then he would bring up … When the media said, “Oh, it’s not really true. It doesn’t really happen,” he started to bring up on stage families of people who had been killed. All of a sudden, average, normal, everyday Americans went, “Wait a second. Why doesn’t the New York Times understand this is real?” Of course, they had all sorts of theoretical explanations.

I was reminded of the nuttiness of part of the Dukakis campaign, where Dukakis had ended up vetoing a bill that required school teachers to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Liberal attorneys understood that there was a theoretical explanation. It wasn’t true, by the way. The Supreme Court had upheld the right to say, “If you hold a public job, we can ask you to say the Pledge of Allegiance.” It’s different than: can we compel you as a citizen to say it? In order to hold a public job, we could ask you to say it. You ended up with the attorney general of Massachusetts on the TODAY Show explaining why it made sense to veto the Pledge of Allegiance. As one of the people trying to help George H. W. Bush win, I mean, I found myself watching that morning thinking, “Can we book him some more?” That’s what this fight’s going to be like.

I mean, if Liberal Democratic mayors, and Liberal Democratic governors, and Liberal Democratic members of the House and Senate want to jump up and explain, “No, we should not get rid of criminals. We should allow them back on the street … ” You can’t explain that. I mean, it is so irrational. If you watch it, you see Trump beginning to talk about … but he’s talking about a world they don’t believe in. If you’re a tenured faculty member at Stanford, you don’t quite notice the violence in San Francisco. If you’re a tenured faculty member at the University of Chicago, such as the last president, you apparently don’t notice the violence two miles away. If you’re normal people, you know it’s dangerous. You know it’s wrong. You know Americans shouldn’t be at risk.

That’s why I think you’re going to see a series of actions that will drive the left crazy, but for most Americans will simply be common sense. That’s frankly what we are now dealing with. One last thing. He says, quote, “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first.” Now, first of all, the “from this day forward” does sound a lot like John F. Kennedy, but second, think about it. He’s the president of the United States. He’s not the president of the international order. He’s not the president of the Paris Conference on something or other. He’s the president of one country. The left, of course, promptly says, “America first must mean Lindbergh and the neutrality against the Nazis in 1937 to 1940.”

Which it takes, frankly, a fair amount of sophistication and stupidity combined, because it gets us back to Nassim Taleb’s essay on Intellectual Yet Idiot. Because it’s fairly clear, Donald Trump has no reference at all to either Lindbergh, the Nazis, or 1937 debates about American policy. He goes on to say something that’s very, very important and should comfort people who worry about exactly: what does this all mean? Because he says … Let me find the exact quote. He says, quote, “It is the right of all nations to put their own interest first. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow.” He goes on to say, “We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the earth. But at the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America.”

Now, notice what he’s saying here. He’s saying, first of all, if he negotiates with Mexico, and when he meets with the Mexican president later on, guess what he expects the Mexican president to do? He expects him to represent Mexico. He’s just asking for the right to represent America. Now, in the U.S. State Department, this is such a radical idea, because the core … Part of it grew out of a historic anomaly. In 1945, we were over half the world’s gross domestic, gross product because we were the only major country that hadn’t been bombed. I mean, we’d found the perfect way to compete with Mercedes and Toyota. We bombed them. It’s not a technique you can use often. It happened as an accident of history. In the late ’40s and early ’50s, in order to sustain a world-wide anti-Soviet coalition, we got in a habit of using economics to subsidize policy. It was a perfectly rational thing.

We were so enormous compared to everybody else. We were so much wealthier. My dad, who served in the Army for 27 years, used to talk about going back home as the land of the big PX. There were so many things to buy. There were so many opportunities. Gradually, over a period of 60 years, we succeeded. The Soviet Union disappeared. Other countries became wealthier. We’re now at a point in time when we need to have a fundamental adjustment from what had been a “use American resources to subsidize the plant” to “represent American interest”. Not represent American interest in trying to crush anybody else, but represent American interest in honest negotiations where both sides are allowed to walk in a room and say, “Look, this is what I need, and this is what I can’t do.” Trump’s pretty good at this. It’s going to be fascinating to watch.

It’ll be fascinating to watch how he directs and trains the people around him, because he has a vision of how to get this done. The last point I’ll make about the speech in general is it has references to God, references to a supreme being, and I think combined with the six prayers that day, the most that we’ve ever had at an inaugural, it says something profound. Trump is not a publicly religious person, but I do think Trump is a person who believes that without God’s help, he wouldn’t have become president. I think he believes that he does have a moral obligation to, as he said during the campaign, to defend, for example, Christians who are being persecuted in the Middle East. I think he does think, in that sense, that religion matters, and that being concerned about religion matters, and that is essential.

Now, I want to take the closing few minutes and tie Trump into the essay that Ed talked about, which I think is so profound. I want to share a good bit of it with you. Trump at Gettysburg, in his opening lines, says, quote … This is Trump on October 22nd, which is, I think, the most important speech to the campaign, because it’s where he outlines his concept of a contract with the American voter, and he has a whole list of very big changes that he wants to achieve. I recommend it to everybody who wants some sense of the administration. He says, quote, “It is my privilege to be here in Gettysburg, hallowed ground where so many lives were given in service to freedom. An amazing place. President Lincoln served at a time of division like we’ve never seen before. It is my hope that we can look at his example to heal the divisions we are living through right now. We are a very divided nation,” closed quote.

Now, let me say, first of all, Lincoln began to reunify us after winning the war. It’s very important that … I actually think, in terms of dealing with Islamic supremacism, that we’re going to find ourselves studying Lincoln, who at one point locked up half the Maryland legislature, because Lincoln understood that he had to fight subversion at home. It would make … In fact, the bombers who bombed the World Trade Center the first time in 1993 were tried under a Sedition Act that was passed in the Civil War by Lincoln, because we were faced with domestic threats. We’re not used to talking about that, and the left worked so hard to avoid telling the truth about Soviet agents and Soviet espionage that they immediately go rigid when you discuss these kind of things.

Here’s what Dennis Prager wrote, and I was very struck by it. I agree with Ed that it is a very sobering … I recommend it to all of you. It’s entitled America’s Second Civil War, by Dennis Prager. Quote, “It is time that our society acknowledge a sad truth: America is currently fighting its second Civil War. In fact, with the obvious and enormous exception of attitudes In fact, with the obvious and enormous exception of attitudes toward slavery, Americans are more divided morally, ideologically, and politically today than they were during the Civil War. For that reason, just as the Great War came to be known as the First World War once there was a Second World War, the Civil War will become known as the First Civil War when more Americans come to regard the current battle as the Second Civil War. The Second Civil War, fortunately, differs in one other critically important way: It has thus far been largely nonviolent.

But given the increasing left-wing violence, such as riots, the violent taking over of college presidents’ offices, and the illegal occupation of state capitols, nonviolence is not guaranteed to be a permanent characteristic of the Second Civil War. There are those on both the left and the right who call for American unity. But these calls are either naive or disingenuous. Unity was possible between the right and liberals, but not between the right and the left. Liberalism, which was anti-left, pro-American, and deeply committed to the Judeo-Christian foundation of America, regarded the melting pot as the American ideal, fought for free speech for its opponents, regarded Western civilization as the greatest moral and artistic human achievement, and viewed the celebration of racial identity as racism, is now affirmed almost exclusively on the right and among a handful of people who don’t call themselves conservative.

The left, however, is opposed to every one of those core principles of liberalism. Like the left in every other country, the left in America sees America as essentially a racist, xenophobic, colonialist, imperialist, warmongering, money-worshipping, moronically religious nation. Just as in Western Europe, the left in America seeks to erase America’s Judeo-Christian foundations. The melting pot is regarded as nothing more than an anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic meme. The left suppresses free speech wherever possible for those who oppose it, labeling all non-left speech ‘hate speech’. To cite only one example, if you think Shakespeare was the greatest playwright or Bach the greatest composer, you are a proponent of dead white European males and therefore racist.

Without any important value held in common, how can there be unity between left and non-left? Obviously, there cannot. There will be unity only where the left vanquishes the right or the right vanquishes the left. Using the First Civil War analogy, American unity was achieved only after the South was vanquished and slavery abolished. How are those of us who oppose left-wing nihilism … There is no other word for an ideology that holds Western civilization and America’s core values in contempt … supposed to unite with ‘educators’,” educators is in quotes, “who instruct elementary school teachers to cease calling their students ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ because that implies gender identity? With English departments that don’t require reading Shakespeare in order to receive a degree in English?

With those who regard virtually every war America fought as imperialist and immoral? With those who regard the free market as a form of oppression? With those who want the state to control as much of American life as possible? With those who repeatedly tell America and its black minority that the greatest problems afflicting black Americans are all caused by white racism, ‘white privilege’, and ‘systemic racism’? With those who think that the nuclear family ideal is inherently misogynistic and homophobic? With those who hold that Israel is the villain in the Middle East? With those who claim that the term ‘Islamic terrorist’ is an expression of religious bigotry?

The third significant difference between the First and Second Civil Wars is that one side has been doing nearly all the fighting. That is how it has been able to take over schools … from elementary schools, to high schools, to universities … and indoctrinate America’s young people; how it has taken over nearly all the news media; and how it has taken over the entertainment media. The conservative side has lost on every one of these fronts because it has rarely fought back with anything near the ferocity with which the left fights. Name a Republican politician who has run against the left as opposed to running solely against his or her Democratic opponent.

And nearly all American conservatives, people who are proud of America and affirm its basic tenets, readily send their children to schools that indoctrinate their children against everything the parents hold precious. A mere handful protest when their child’s teacher ceases calling their son a boy or their daughter a girl, or makes ‘slave owner’ the defining characteristic of the Founding Fathers. With the defeat of the left in the last presidential election, the defeat of the left in two-thirds of the gubernatorial elections, and in a majority of House and Senate elections, this is likely the last chance liberals, conservatives, and the right have to defeat the American left. But it will not happen until these groups understand that we are fighting for the survival of America no less than the Union troops were in the First Civil War.”

I think Prager has it exactly right. I think that’s what the violence on Friday meant. I think that’s what the vicious, vulgar hostility on Saturday meant. I think that’s what the news media hostility on Sunday meant. I think that it’s important for us to understand this is going to go on every single day because they are embattled. If we do what we promise to do, if we do what Trump promised in his inaugural, we will be in a fight consistently from now until either we win or they win. I think that’s why this is so important.

Share this page