ELECTIONS

The Unapologetic Bias of the

American Left
Today’s Left sees their e orts bending in a preordained historical arc that
ends with ultimate progressive justice—and retributions.

By Victor Davis Hanson October 18, 2020

S
ome yearn for the ancient monopolistic days of network news, the adolescent
years of public radio and TV, and the still reputable New York Times—when once
upon a time the Le at least tried to mask their progressivism in sober and
judicious liberal façades.

An avuncular Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Jim Lehrer, or Abe Rosenthal at least went
through the motions of reporting news that was awkward or even embarrassing to the Le .
Their agenda was 1960s-vintage GreatSearch
Society liberalism, seen as the natural evolution from
the New Deal and post-war internationalism. Edward R. Murrow, the ACLU of old, and Free
Speech Movement at Berkeley—these were their liberal referents. Those days are gone.

Yet even during the Obama years, when studies showed the president had received the most
slanted media honeymoon in news history, overt media bias was, at least, as hotly denied as
it intensi ed. There were still a few ossi ed, quarter-hearted e orts now and then to
mention the IRS scandal, the surveillance of Associated Press reporters, the various
scandals embroiling the Veterans Administration, General Service Administration, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Secret Service. But even that thin
pretense is over now, too.
 Rejecting Objectivity 

What ended liberal dissimulation about slanted reporting is a new pride, or rather an
arrogance, about bias itself. The new liberated de ance is something like, “We are biased.
Damn proud of it. And what exactly do you plan on doing about it?”

Jim Rutenberg infamously announced in January 2017 his professionʼs proud de ance of
now ossi ed norms in a new age in which reporters would “throw out the textbook
American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century.” Christiane
Amanpour felt she was now released from the old chains of professed “objectivity.” “Much
of the media was tying itself in knots trying to di erentiate between balance, between
objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, the truth,” she said just a few weeks a er the 2016
election. “We cannot continue the old paradigm.” Michel Foucault could not have said it any
better.

Univisionʼs Jorge Ramos more or less ridiculed classical journalistic training and embraced
the liberation from the old bourgeois idea of “neutrality.”

1.00 BORDE
iFØRSTEKLASSES LIVE
___ kont
Nyspiller
FÅ
FÅ BONU
BONUS
Min. 18 år. Regler og v
Min. 18 år. Regler og vilkår gælder. Spil ansvarligt. Selvudelukkelse via
ROFUS. Kontakt
ROFUS.
Kontakt Spillemyndighedens
Spi
hjælpelinje på StopSpillet.dk

❮ Swipe ❯

Min. 18 år. Regler og vilkår gælder. Spil ansvarligt.

Selvudelukkelse via ROFUS. Kontakt Spillemyndighedens
hjælpelinje på StopSpillet.dk

“Saying that reporters should abandon neutrality on certain issues and choose sides may seem
at odds with everything thatʼs taught in journalism school. But there are times when the only
way we journalists can ful ll our primary social responsibility—challenging those in power—is
by leaving neutrality aside.”

Or as the New York Timesʼ Jim Roberts in 2016 put the new “Walter Durantyism”: “Yes. The
media is biased. Biased against hatred, sexism, racism, incompetence, belligerence,
inequality, To [sic] name a few.”

So said them all. In Orwellian terms, Robertsʼ media has now come to adore the
omnipresent progressive party line: “You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey
him: you must love him.”

When early on in the Trump Administration, the liberal Harvard Kennedy Schoolʼs
Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that in the rst 100 days all
news coverage was on average 80 percent anti-Trump—93 percent negative in the case of
CNN and NBC—no one seemed embarrassed.

Again, since May 2017, the bias has not merely increased but is now a badge of honor—
whether it was the months of “walls or closing in” fake stories of imminent Mueller
investigation indictments of the Trump family or the serial “Trump is nished”
psychodramas about the Logan Act, the Emoluments Clause, and the 25th Amendment. No
one in the media, to this day, a er the Mueller implosion, the ndings of Inspector General
Michael Horowitz, and the recent releases of Russian intercepts about the Clinton gambit to
fabricate a “collusion” election narrative, has ever said “We were wrong”—because they
really think they were “right” in pushing even untruth, given their hatred of Trump.

Cooking the Debates

We can see the new arrogance manifested in a variety of ways. In the recent debates and
town halls, the moderators were as praised by the media as they were a turn o to many in
the public who were disgusted by their arrogance in making no attempt to appear fair.

The most anti-Trump Fox News gure currently is Chris Wallace. Naturally, he was deemed
a perfect moderator—not so much in the old style as the token conservative, but in the new
liberal hope that more at Fox, too, have come to love Big Brother.

Wallace performed as expected, directing his gotcha questions to Trump and so balls to
Biden. When pre-debate observers predicted that Wallace would return to his earlier 2016
debate questioning mantra of “white supremacy”—once more selectively editing the old saw
of Trumpʼs Charlottesville remarks to eliminate his denunciation of white supremacists and
the KKK—Wallace not only met but exceeded their expectations with his “When will you
stop beating your wife?” hammering.

Susan Page, the vice-presidential debate moderator, also as predicted, adopted the same
unbalanced tactic with Vice President Pence and Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). She is
currently writing a likely favorable biography of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—
apparently no more worrisome a fact than had a debate moderator from American Greatness
announced that she was currently at work on a hagiography of Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

No wonder Trump said “No!” to a town-hall zoomed remote second debate—the medium in
which Candy Crowley had hijacked the 2012 debate and joined with Barack Obama and her
preselected questioners to advance her own agenda.

The now-canceled second debate moderator Steven Scully, of course, was a former Biden
intern. He had tweeted a request to the unhinged, arch-Trump hater Anthony Scaramucci,
seeking advice on how to best respond to Trumpʼs prescient accusations of his bias.

When that request was inadvertently publicly posted on Twitter rather than in an intended
private chat, Scully did not just lie by claiming, a er Carlos Danger, that he had been
“hacked” and never had done such a thing. He also then kept silent in the expectation that
the media class, in Joy Reid fashion, would swarm to his defense, prior to any formal
investigation of his improbable charges of computer malfeasance. And they did so on spec,
from Chris Wallace to C-Span and the federal debate commission itself. Scully is now seen
by the Le not as a prevaricator, but as a tragic hero. The subtext of his fall is not that he
was biased, but that he was oa shly so. Thereby in his legitimate activist and righteous
hatred of Trump, Scully rendered his prejudice politically ine ective.

The two town halls proved that they could have been easily combined into a second debate.
Both were live and conducted quite safely. But health concerns were not the criteria that got
the town hall debate canceled. Rather, it was legitimate fear for Bidenʼs ability to appear
again on a live stage with an aggressive Trump.

Both separate town halls followed predictable scripts without worry that they were
embarrassing themselves. Former key Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos asked questions
as if he were conducting an obsequious PBS pro le. Savannah Guthrie, the spouse of a
former Al Gore campaign traveling chief of sta , Democratic activist, and current liberal
lobbyist, Michael Feldman, sought to showboat her le -wing bona des (given that Guthrie
had been criticized by the Le for the crime of appearing on stage with Trump). From the
outset she assumed the role of the missing Biden, and heatedly debated Trump—but with
the twist of knowing all the questions in advance and adjudicating how much time each
would have in answering. All this was considered not just ne, but absolutely necessary by
the Le –a fact known in advance by the careerist Guthrie.

Big Tech’s Censorship

In the old days of the early 21st century, Silicon Valley and other tech giants went through
the motions that they were more interested in providing social media access, online buying,
and internet services than massaging them all to indoctrinate the public. Even during the
Obama years, they protested vehemently suggestions that they had given campaign cash
inordinately to le ist candidates, or were beginning to massage internet search results or
asymmetrically blocking conservative users.

Not now. Big Tech has o ered no coherent defense of its censorship of the Hunter Biden
laptop scandal, or even appeared to worry about the hypocrisy that they had gladly let
Trumpʼs illegally obtained and published tax returns y through the cyberworld, in the
manner that Christopher Steeleʼs leaked and made-up hoax was freely promulgated online
during the late critical days of the 2016 campaign.

Now Twitter, without much worry, just shrugs that it blocks even conservatives in
government from posting. White House public health and coronavirus advisor Dr. Scott Atlas
routinely is censored and shut down by Twitter for referencing scienti c studies that have
found in a cost-bene t analysis no arguments for lockdowns and blanket mask-wearing by
the public.

Facebook couldnʼt care less that it has been taken to task for its systematic bias in censoring
social media content. Their collective attitude toward government insistence that they not
censor oppositional views seems to be something like, “When we were a multibillion-dollar
industry, we feared you. Now that we are a multitrillion-dollar business, we despise you.”
Recently Amazonʼs many “platforms” temporarily banned access to documentarians Shelby
and Eli Steelesʼ new lm “What Killed Michael Brown?”

Amazon apparently was protecting its high standards so that it can continue to sell and
show serious documentaries like “Tickled” (From the showʼs description: “The less you
know about David Farrierʼs descent into the strange world of ʻcompetitive endurance
ticklingʼ before watching his 2016 documentary, the better. Su ce it to say that the answer
to whoʼs making videos of young men tickling each other while restrained is simultaneously
shocking and exactly what you think it is.”)

Yet Amazon considered exploration of what really happened at Ferguson not to meet such
high “content quality expectations.” It de antly added just three days before the
documentary was to be shown on Amazon platforms that it would not “be accepting
resubmission of this title and this decision may not be appealed.” So there!

One is le wondering whether a content-conscious Amazon will now pull the misogynist
“Bang Gang” and “Night Call Nurse” from its online lm catalog.

Tainted Popular Culture

The new de ance and the glee that comes from open bias have now saturated our culture,
as if the liberated Le in todayʼs globalized market has no need of half the U.S. population—
the supposed loser, unwoke half.

The NBA intensi es both its worship of the Chinese Communist Party and its utter disdain
for American democratic culture. When revenues crash from eroding viewership and
public criticism of collaboration with a government that institutionalized concentration
camps, democracy destruction, and state-sponsored racism and murder, the woke players
re back in defense of China, with “So what?” certainty.

Liberal writers used to warn us of “dark money,” as in the anti-Trump Koch family
donations to libertarian causes. Now there is no such thing as money being “dark.” The Le
is proud that most of the Fortune 400ʼs top-20 multibillionaires are generous progressive-
giving le ists, and that George Soros and Michael Bloomberg promise to infuse tens of
millions of dollars not just to fortify le ist candidates, but to massage the rules of voting
itself by reexamining voter eligibilities and methods of voting to enhance progressive
agendas.

Pollsters used to highlight moderate liberal leads to jack up enthusiasm. But in the nal few
days of a race, they began o ering more realistic numbers to ensure that if the vote went
south, they would not go down with the ship.

Not now. At a time when the Zogby, Trafalgar, Democracy Institute, or Rasmussen polls
show Trumpʼs favorability climbing, and the race tightening in the last three weeks, we are
to believe YouGov, Reuters, or Politico that the president ghts a 10-15 percent negative
favorability gap. Perhaps. But one wonders why, in the context of 2016, we never saw a
symmetrical split, half of the polls believing Trump would lose sizably in the Electoral
College, and half winning by a substantial number.

Given the similarly asymmetrical record of the Senate in grilling and voting on Supreme
Court picks, one would have thought a er the Kavanaugh hearing, which cost Democrats a
chance to take back the Senate, the Le would have tried to appear respectful and
professional in questioning the brilliant, learned, personable, and charismatic Amy Coney
Barrett. Such an expectation was not absurd, given that in just a few weeks they bragged
that they would recapture the Senate in a way they had failed in 2016 and 2018.

Le unsaid was the tic of the Le to destroy not just the nomination chances of a Robert
Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, but their very characters and careers—while
assuming that an Elena Kagan or Sonya Sotomayor deserved overwhelming bipartisan
support given they were progressive and enlightened.

Forget the Old Rules

But in the climate of the new de ance, the Le now believes that even the appearance of
fairness and empirical objectivity is proof of weakness or lack of revolutionary bona des
and fervor. So they did their best to smear Barrett as a veritable Medieval Catholic
monarchist, an unthinking clone of the late but still very much hated Antonin Scalia, a
wacko cultist, a veritable murderer who would bring back-alley abortions and cancel health
care to those in the throes of cancer.

Behind all this unabashed venom lies a reasonable strategy. There is a long history of
conservative and Republican-appointed justices who eventually acquiesce, and, with hands
over ears, cry that they cannot take such social ostracism any more. In the manner of Harry
Blackmun, William Brennan, Lewis Powell, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart,
and Earl Warren, many Republican appointees eventually come to accept, and learn to love,
the Le .

Add the examples of the dishonest, discredited but very much alive “1619 Project,” or the
unapologetic admission of discrimination against Asian-American university applicants,
and we can sense not so much a brave new de ance, but a more calculated insolence that
the Le is at last soon going to dominate and alter politics as they have the major American
cultural and social institutions. They see their e orts bending in a preordained historical
arc that ends with ultimate progressive justice—and retributions. And in that context there
is no longer any need to play by the rules of fairness, or even to say that such rules need to
exist or indeed ever existed.

On November 3, we will see whether they are justi ably arrogant or suicidal.

Share on
 About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and
scholar of ancient warfare. He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno,
and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford Universityʼs Hoover
Institution. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was
awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a
farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends
related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars:
How the First Global Con ict was Fought and Won (Basic Books).

Archive

Photo: Getty Images

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible
news publisher that can provide a signi cant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original
content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

Enter your email Subscribe

44 responses to “The Unapologetic Bias of the American Left”

Peter63 10/18/20 at 11:28 pm

All this is very finely said; as always from Professor Hanson.
Yet I take issue with one remark: “They [the Le ] see their e orts bending in a preordained historical arc
that ends with ultimate progressive justice—and retributions.”
I think it is all-important to abandon the charitable notion that most Le ies actually desire to see a better
world than the present one.
This is not true.
They tell themselves they want a much improved version of society, but actually they LOATHE
CIVILIZATION, the very idea of it.
They want to destroy what there is of it, and make the world a place of vile tawdriness of every kind.
There are a few people who profess and call themselves Socialists or Communists who do indeed want to
better humankind; but they are a small minority, supplying the others with valuable propagandistic cover.
Most Le ies are of the Devil’s party.
They wish to see mankind become as morally tenth-rate, as ethically contemptible, as possible.
To this end every kind of degradation is a help.
Tent cities in Los Angeles, homeless everywhere, people relieving their bowels openly on the streets; high
taxation driving out enterprise, filth of every kind ruling the roast? – This IS the Socialist Utopia, the happy
hunting-ground of their dreams. A failed state is in their view not a bug, but a sublime feature.
If you ask how the Tech and other zillionaires who fund them find their own accounts in the prospect of
inhabiting such a nightmare, I think the answer is that they don’t look ahead and see any such outcome
for themselves.
Their hitherto always successful greed has made them self-besotted. They assume that IN ANY WORLD OF
THE FUTURE they will always be secure in their gated compounds, protected by a phalanx of skilled
bodyguards, buying government favour, protection and influence to their hearts’ content.
Success has stupefied them. They are like the big business honchos who talked President Hindenburg into
putting Hitler into the German government in 1933. They wanted him to stamp on the trade unions and
rein in his private army, the SA, so that it no longer carried on beating people up in the streets.
He delivered on both counts; but he also made the Big Business chie ains helpless prisoners of a terror
regime, like everybody else.

Reply

Stan Pakulla 10/19/20 at 5:14 am

Peter,
I am saving your comment to my file. Not only is it well-written, it is …. true. What really, have liberals
and progressives successfully “managed” or …. “improved?” Our public schools? Big cities? The
Federal Government? They are ignorant self-absorbed gri ers, into improving their own financial well-
being at the expense of everyone else. The Clintons and Obamas quickly come to mind.

Reply

Urodoc 10/19/20 at 10:18 am

Add the Bidens to that list of Le ist/Democrat crime families.

L. E. Joiner 10/19/20 at 6:30 am

Well said! The elite Le may prat about ‘equality’ (of results, not opportunity), but “Some animals are
more equal than others” is their real aim. A mammoth Venezuela is fine with them, so long as they are
on top.

Reply

M. Burns 10/19/20 at 6:40 am

My daughter lives in Santa Monica, Ca. She voted for Obama twice, and Hillary in 2016. I shared an
article with her by Michael Anton, an excerpt from his book, about the dysfunction in California. She is
now thinking of voting for Trump. What you write about the filth on the streets of Los Angeles is hitting
home with lots of younger people in California. They are beginning to wonder who is letting this
happen, etc. It may come to pass that in the future, the “woke” generation of younger Californians, will
wake up, for real, and vote for sane people who will restore law, order and public health.

Reply

Orenv 10/19/20 at 6:41 am

I think they are true believers who deceive themselves. Their path to enlightenment has been shown
time and again to be a path to human despair and death. But they think this time since THEY are in
charge it will be di erent. All the while many of them speak of the need for retribution, which is what
causes all the trouble in the first place.

Reply

Ward Dorrity 10/19/20 at 9:20 am

Dr. Hanson has aptly described the near-end product of the Gramscian “long march through the
institutions.” The ultimate destination of the long march is a hellscape of totalitarianism, cruelty,
slavery and slaughter. Those who would be our masters would far rather rule in hell atop a pile of
smouldering ruins and stinking corpses than leave the rest of us alone to live our lives as we see fit.
And they are not about to simply shrug their shoulders and walk away when they lose this November.
Here’s the reason why:

It is my opinion that the horrors of the last 150 years are the direct result of the rise of the will to power
and its usurpation of the role that individual conscience, moral restraint and religious sanction
traditionally played in Western human a airs. In modern times, the will to power has expressed itself
in the desire for the power to control the lives of others down to the smallest details. Worse, it has
expressed itself as the desire to kill without restraint or fear of consequence. The great irony is that this
interventionist (and ultimately, eliminationist) mindset is precisely what modern ‘progressives’ accuse
conservatives of harboring. Yet, all available evidence points to the fact that those who call themselves
‘progressives’ above all desire to wield the power to decide who lives and who dies.
Here is the Vulcan mind-meld translation of the core premise of the modern progressive Le : you have
no right to live. By their lights, you are no more than a thing, an animal, or a machine. Therefore, you
have no right to the fruits of your labors; which means: you have no right to your own life. You become
mere property of the state, a fungible asset to be used, to be disposed of, and ultimately to be
eliminated on a whim. This premise is, has been, and continues to be central to those who have
engaged in the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of millions of human beings in modern times, and
who have enslaved, impoverished and tortured hundreds of millions more. By their lights, you are a
‘resource’ at best. Or you are in their way and must be eliminated. There in a nutshell are the last 150
years of bad ideas and their practical consequences.
So here’s a bold assertion that some of you will dismiss out of hand: there are those in government –
and those who seek control of your government – who simply want you dead. They would kill you with
neither hesitation nor remorse if they could get away with it. Why? Because you are in their way and
because your very existence is an a ront to all that they believe. Failing that, they would settle for
taking everything you have if they felt that they could do so without being held accountable. They
would use the apparatus of the state to censor your speech, punish you for your politically incorrect
thoughts, confiscate the fruits of your labor, seize your property, disarm you and thus render you
helpless and defenseless, and in the end, dictate the very terms of your existence if they could do so
with impunity. And worse, far worse – they would see you su er simply because they can. Because
they want to. And worse still, because, they like it.
Here’s your picture: Open warfare in this country is inevitable because there is no reconciliation
possible with those who claim that your life simply does not belong to you. You cannot make peace
with those who demand not only your economic submission, but your intellectual and spiritual
surrender as well. The price of surrender has been and always will be more than anyone of reason and
good will can ever care to pay. As philosopher Sidney Hook once wrote:

“Those who say that life is worth living at any cost have written for themselves an epitaph of infamy,
for there is no cause and no person they would not betray to stay alive…”
There are many of us, myself among them, who constitute an entirely di erent class of humanity than
these killers without conscience and their enablers. We are neither interested in power nor its abuse.
We are satisfied to live our lives in peace with ourselves and with others, and we derive great
satisfaction in seeing others enjoy life as we do. We believe that our lives and our minds are sovereign,
and that the fruits of our labors are not forfeit to the first thug who demands them at the point of a
gun. We are never the initiators of violence. We judge others solely by their competence and by their
character. We hold dear the defining values of our Western Christian culture as they were described so
eloquently by renowned historian Carroll Quigley:
“Love, humility, brotherhood, cooperation, the sanctity of work, the fellowship of community, the
image of man as a fellow creature made in the image of God, respect for women as personalities and
partners of men, mutual helpmates on the road to spiritual salvation, and the vision of our universe,
with all of its diversity, complexity, and multitude of creatures, as a reflection of the power and
goodness of God…”

These basic aspects of Christ’s teachings are for all intents and purposes totally lacking throughout the
hearts, minds and outlook of the killers without conscience, their agents and their followers who seek
to lay waste to our world.
The final first-principles question is this: To whom does the world belong? Does it belong to those of us
who wish to live free of coercion or to the killers without conscience? Does it belong to those who
uphold the core outlook of Western Christianity as the standard of their values, or to those who uphold
the standard of death?
Can those of us who are passionately committed to the ideals of life, liberty, and the sovereign dignity
of the individual hope to persist in the face of such an inevitable tragedy? Our one hope is that this
pack of will-to-power driven monsters will turn upon themselves and consume one another before
they have time to get to the rest of us. Those of us with the wisdom to prepare and the courage to step
forward and rebuild our uniquely American civilization a er the fall of this republic are our best and
only hope for a decent and humane civilization.

Mind you, even if we prevail, we will not have seen the end of these monsters, these killers without
conscience. The desire to control others and to harm others without consequence appears to be ‘black
code’ that’s written into our all-too-human DNA. Modern ideology – that is, all of the modern
totalitarian ‘isms’ – communism, socialism, fascism and so on – provide the perfect environment for
that ‘black code’ of the will to power to prosper and flourish. This is one of our great human failings,
an aspect of our tragic nature that must always be recognized, resisted, fought and destroyed, even if
only for a little while. But for that, we’d be out among the stars by now. We may make it there yet.
I conclude this with a quote from G. Warren Nutter, the late, great University of Virginia economist and
proponent of liberty:
“The greatness of a society does not come from its monuments but from the kind of people it
produces. Justice, responsibility, and humanity – these are the qualities of greatness in a people. Only
the humane can remain free, and only the free can remain humane…”

Reply

Nicholas DeLuca 10/19/20 at 11:07 am

Dorrity has produced a dissembling polemic that should warm the hearts of the Trump True
believers. It is verbose nonsense. He has misrepresented Gramsci’s political theory in attempt
to paint Democrats as Marxist criminal conspirators intent on destroying America.
“The ultimate destination of the long march is a hellscape of totalitarianism, cruelty, slavery
and slaughter. Those who would be our masters would far rather rule in hell atop a pile of
smouldering (sic) ruins and stinking corpses than leave the rest of us alone to live our lives as
we see fit. ” That is totally wrong , perverse and most of all disgusting.

It is another baseless conspiracy theory.

Robert Ford 10/19/20 at 12:39 pm

Ward Dorrity, the answer to your question is a Constitutional Republic and the Rule of Law.

Neal 10/19/20 at 10:47 am

Well said. The only factor missing, is a charismatic voice to emerge from the antifa-BLM ranks, and
America shall have her very own Hitler.

Reply

Nicholas DeLuca 10/19/20 at 11:17 am

Neal, The Right wing has its own ” charismatic voice” , Donald Trump . He has a large cult
following . To suggest that Antifa or BLM is going to lead an progressive revolution, is risible. It
is however a Trump Talking point .

What is more concerning to me is the Trump Fascist movement to undermine the Rule of Law
and responsible government , to pack the Federal judiciary with conservative judges, to
continue to exacerbate the growing income gap by further cutting taxes for the wealthy and
well connected and continue voter suppression .

Urodoc 10/19/20 at 10:55 am

Very interesting bringing up the role of German Big business in the rise of Adolf Hitler. A point for all
concerned, patriotic Americans to ponder is the FACT that Adolf Hitler, the most evil and nefarious
dictator in all human history, was DEMOCRATICALLY elected to government. Once in government he
 legally advanced his influence and power such that in January 1933 he was sworn in as German
Chancellor (a er having been appointed to that position by President Paul Hindenburg). Following
this appointment Hitler continued to build his coalition in the Reichstag (utilizing threats and
covert/overt acts of violence against rivals as well as “legitimate” legislation such as the so-called
Enabling Act and The Reichstag Fire Decree) until eventually he had control of both the Legislative as
well as Executive branches of German government. When Hindenburg died in August 1934 Hitler
abolished the o ice of President merging its powers with those of the Chancellor. Thus the Third Reich
and Nazi dictatorship was born with Hitler assuming the mantle of “Fuhrer und Reichkanzler” (i.e.
leader and chancellor) that was very soon therea er just shortened to “Der Fuhrer” (The Leader). The
rest is history. The German nation was one of the most educated, advanced, technologically superior,
and cultured nations on the face of the Earth (probably more so than we Americans) yet this flagrant
power grab went on right under their noses within a very short period of time. Don’t ever think that
things such as this can’t happen here and that as Americans we are immune to abuse of power by
“elected” politicians metastasizing to tyranny or even dictatorship. To do so is to invite disaster.

Reply

Begemot 10/18/20 at 11:31 pm

So, the le believes its’ own BS. Victor Davis Hanson also believes his own BS. Rush Limbaugh believes his
own BS. What a trivial observation. For the pretentious Conrad Black we’ll say: what a jejune observation.

Reply

LoneMediaNomad 10/19/20 at 12:10 am

Neither VDH, Rush Limbaugh or “the pretentious Conrad Black,” seek to force their bias down
everyone’s throat through the force of law or the force of the violent mob.
Yet that is exactly what the le has done as stated clearly and with numerous examples in VDH’s
editorial.
On the other hand, VDH, Rush Limbaugh and “the pretentious Conrad Black,” woo other minds to their
way of thinking with reasoned rhetoric and scrupulously researched editorial.

Reply

stephen 10/19/20 at 8:21 am

So…what handle did you troll AG with before-with Discus?

Reply

Ben Leucking 10/19/20 at 11:14 am

And sadly, we can no longer block this sniveling pos.

Nicholas DeLuca 10/19/20 at 11:18 am

Yes indeed.

Reply

LoneMediaNomad 10/19/20 at 12:00 am

At the apex of Christian Western Civilization sits the Declaration of Independence in which the new
Americans demanded among the powers of the earth “the separate and equal station to which the Laws
of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

Without “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” knowledge becomes myth and justice becomes bias, or as
Plato put it in his Republic, “the advantage of the stronger.”
American justice has become le ist bias. And since the le owns nearly every American institution, justice
is always to its advantage since it is the stronger political force. Or as Donald Trump would say, “the fix is
in.”

That is what I understand from this latest VDH editorial.

 Reply

MJ 10/19/20 at 3:26 am
For the le to win, they only need to win among themselves. They care not a wit about the vast
deplorables that put presidents and senators in their position. This means they see themselves at the top
of the le ist food chain. Their position and assistance to the le ists in power allow them a seat at the
table.

But they have double downed on their own power. As if being louder is all you need to do to be heard.
More microphones in unison will not stop Americans from casting their votes and if, God willing, Trump is
our president and we can unseat Democrats in the House and Senate, there will be a major shi in power
structure again.

Their disposition will not change, they will only become angrier. Either they win and lavish in their utopian
lives under a Biden presidency or they become less and less relevant.

Reply

Fiscalconserv58 10/19/20 at 5:07 am

As a young man I can admit that I too, was sometimes blinded by my own bias. I think almost
everyone could realize that as well. But seeing an entire class of folks, le leaning liberals, so
consumed by hate and bias is really quite astonishing. But being so blinded by hatred ultimately
harms the individual, constantly looking through the bias lens leads one eventually to a great fall. The
next 2 weeks are going to be interesting to watch. Pass the popcorn please, extra butter!
No Joe, not Corn-pop, popcorn!

Reply

Joe Cogan 10/19/20 at 6:19 am

The right largely abandoned any pretense of objectivity in journalism ages ago, and VDH is whining that
the le is finally following suit now? There’s a word for that: chutzpah.

Reply

Orenv 10/19/20 at 6:44 am

The di erence mainly is in the ability to project this bias. In this, the le wins the print and video
media, the right wins in talk radio. More people are influenced by the former two.

Reply

Tom Anderson 10/19/20 at 9:15 am

That is hilarious. The projection is so strong with the author and Orenv. Have you ever seen a
Trump rally? No facts, only lies and emotion. Stoke the fear of the other. Logic and facts are on
the side of the le and when the discussions become longer than a bumper sticker the right
loses interest and screams Trump 2020 and runs for cover. The lack of introspection and the
level of projection on the right is beyond measure.

Joe Cogan 10/19/20 at 10:42 am

You seem to be forgetting FAUX News.

stephen 10/19/20 at 8:23 am

There are words for you, too…

Reply

JDL 10/19/20 at 7:09 am

The le incites the masses through emotion. This year’s emotion is hate. It is only a means to the end of
power, control, and wealth (see Clintons and Obamas) serving the purest emotion—greed.

Reply

Paul D Hilsenrath 10/19/20 at 7:16 am

VDH, presumably out of respect for the incumbent, did not mention Chief Justice Roberts, but I will.
Conservative civility be damned!

Reply

Chris_zzz 10/19/20 at 7:17 am

Woke progressives have accomplished something quite extraordinary: they dominate politics, business,
academia, news, entertainment, and art and non-profit institutions, even though only about 15% of the
U.S. population actually agrees with their ideology. It is no wonder that woke progressives abhor
populism and are experts at manipulating both the truth and the public through identity politics and
other Marxist power games. For those of us who are le -leaning centrists committed to the classical liberal
traditions of equality, freedom, fairness, racial harmony, patriotism, and objective truth, we are now
orphans without a party and without any worthy leaders. Maybe the end of the Cold War wasn’t such a
good thing a er all. It seems to have removed the incentive for people to cooperate in the civic realm.

Reply

Rick Neill 10/19/20 at 8:47 am

Which figures from the arts and entertainments of the 20th century do the Woke progressives claim to
be fond of? Which former household names from stage and screen? From music? Which now-long-ago
movies, shows, songs, music do they think well of?

Maybe they do not say in case they give the impression that America may not have been a er all a
nasty, horrible, horrible place. Maybe they do not say so in case they remind Americans that America
has talent, and a pedigree of talent. That would suggest clearly that America was alright all along.
They would not want Americans to dust o their old records in order to find new inspiration in a
saturated digital age.

It’s amazing it has been le to a non-entertainment-industry figure, Trump, to rattle o in the public
sphere formerly household names of America’s top-of-the-range artists and entertainers, which he did
at Mount Rushmore.
Though he could have added Rodgers and Hammerstein, and a whole host of others.
Just not a pip from the Dems on anything from the past whom they are fond of. Was Elvis born in
Khazakstan?

Reply

Dan Warren 10/19/20 at 11:06 am

I use the term ‘the Le ist Cult’ to describe this group.

They are the most dangerous enemy America has ever faced, because they are an internal enemy.

Reply

Ben Leucking 10/19/20 at 11:56 am

Hint: Quit playing word games. If you are a “le leaning centrist,” you are still a le ist.

Reply

Rick Neill 10/19/20 at 7:43 am

Something is terribly wrong when organisations like the NBA go out of their way to NOT find fault with
China, yet go out of their way to find fault with America. It’s hypocrisy at its finest.

Reply
afhack62 10/19/20 at 9:00 am

The flipside is that fair-minded people are now relieved of the burden of regarding “le wing journalism”
as being fact-based. Le wing “journalists” will regret making this transition possible. A good part of the
e ectiveness they once enjoyed was due to the reluctance of fair-minded people to see them as they
really are. This also frees le wing “journalists” to feed the dupes who believe their nonsense as much of it
as they can swallow. Now, that is real liberation.

Reply

Tom Anderson 10/19/20 at 9:23 am

Wow, Rush woos other minds with reasoned rhetoric and scrupulously researched editorial? That
statement is so opposite of the truth it’s unbelievable that anyone could possibly believe it. Rush spews
lies, emotion and nonsense. There is nothing researched about his bile. Your lack of connection with
reality is mind boggling.

Reply

LoneMediaNomad 10/19/20 at 9:54 am

Tom, You just expressed your intense bias as le ist myth exactly as I described in a previous comment.
Can you name one lie that Rush has told?

Plus, emotional appeal is a show biz element characteristic to all successful broadcasting. Otherwise,
no ratings. Consequently, criticizing something for being what it is by nature is just more of your own
le ist bias based in myth.

Rush is excellence in broadcasting. He is so well schooled and trained that a er you listen to him,
everyone else sounds like static. You will also be amazed at how friendly and a able he is.

Reply

Christopher Chantrill 10/19/20 at 9:45 am

When you are shutting down the opposition, it means that your beliefs, your agenda have failed.

The only remaining question is the size of the butcher’s bill.

Reply

itsy_bitsy 10/19/20 at 9:47 am

The Vietnam War was the turning point for biased media! Up until that time political di erences never
really overpowered the news itself. But during that time period we saw the beginnings of what we are
forced to live with today. Only now we have watched media, big business, and democrats join together in
a triumvirate that has attempted to overpower everything and everyone else, forcing their world view and
self serving agenda on the rest of America. This group has worked to force Conservatives, Republicans and
a good share of the American public against a brick wall, they thought! However, we don’t give up easily
and many of us are darn smart. Trump arrived on the scene at the right time and he is the only one who
has been able to stand against them so far. However, the American public is behind him for the most part,
and they are dedicated. I look forward to seeing Hunter Biden in jail and his father, if not there, then
destroyed and le in total disgrace. Next let’s take on the biased press and big business that has WAY over
stepped their bounds.

Reply

John Truman 10/19/20 at 10:43 am

Le ists want to dismantle America.
They want to displace USA’s founding people.
They want to burn down Western Civilization.
They are Maoist Cultural Revolutionaries.
They want to ConquerDC & LootUSA.
 Reply

hollywood 10/19/20 at 10:53 am

You lied again, professor. The town hall debate was not cancelled to protect Biden. It was cancelled
because Trump refused to show. Try telling the truth, sir.
As for being biased and unapologetic, you are correct, I am. Because I am tired of living under the reign of
the worst POTUS in US history. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/16/opinion/donald-trump-
worst-president.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
We are going to win, and you can go pound sand.

Reply

Douglas Proudfoot 10/19/20 at 12:57 pm

I don’t see any di erence between being “on the right side of history” and divine right monarchy. In both
cases, whatever you do is completely justified. Under both there are no limits to power. When Joe Biden
says, “I am the Democratic Party,” I hear Louis XIV saying, “The state, that’s me.” The only di erence is that
Joe can only wish for the power of Louis XIV. Joe’s actual role is as the powerless figurehead King Louis
XIII, while Kamala Harris plays the real power behind the throne, Cardinal Richelieu.

Reply

hollywood 10/19/20 at 1:56 pm

You underestimate Biden, perhaps due to sexism on your part.

Reply

Hustla 10/19/20 at 1:50 pm

“The new defiance and the glee that comes from open bias have now saturated our culture, as if the
liberated Le in today’s globalized market has no need of half the U.S. population—the supposed loser,
unwoke half.”

Yeah that’s their mistake, they’re alienating more than half the population, the le ie bubble amplified by
the majority of talking heads, news organizations and Twitter doesn’t mean their numbers are as great as
they believe it to be.

Reply

A Billion Bees 10/19/20 at 1:53 pm

The le ist ethos is they’d rather be the totalitarian dictators of a sewer than equal participants in a
republic that functions. They crave power and power alone at all costs. The goal isn’t necessarily a failed
state but if they can rule over it, it’s fine by them.

Reply

hollywood 10/19/20 at 1:57 pm

Projection.

Reply

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

Comment
Name *

Email *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Privacy Policy Terms of Service

©2013 - 2020 American Greatness. All rights reserved.

America’s Talking is a registered trademark of Braveheart Media Holdings LLC. All rights reserved.