Hillary Clinton, like all progressives, is projecting her own hatred and radicalism onto her opponents, claiming that communists (whom she still quaintly insists on calling “Democrats”) would certainly be civil if they could, but that civility simply is not possible as long as Republicans remain in power.
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”
Notice, first, that Clinton’s justification for incivility is that the Republicans want to “destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” which is merely an extreme way of saying they want to defeat your ideas with opposing ideas. And as for “destroying” what the other side cares about, it takes a lot of gall, does it not, for a Marxist bent on undermining the American republic, its constitution, its deference to the rule of law, and all its traditional institutions — family, church, self-reliance, freedom of speech, the right of self-defense, etc. — to accuse those who would defend these things against those Marxists of wanting to destroy what she cares about?
Next, notice that she clearly contrasts civility with “strength” — “the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.” This means that by “strength,” Clinton, like all her leftist cohorts, means not electoral power, independence, or defensive ability — i.e., the forms of strength that are clearly consistent with civil society — but rather the assertion of “uncivil” power, i.e., coercive power, which inherently implies, when conditions call for it (that is, when resistance is unrelenting) physical violence. And she is saying this form of “strength” — coercive, uncivil power — is justified, or indeed “the only thing” suitable, until and unless the Democratic Party regains control of Congress.
Think about that for a moment. Hillary Clinton, a former first lady, long-time senator and secretary of state, the woman who won the popular vote in the 2016 election and thus came within a hair’s breadth of being President of the United States, is now saying that progressives being uncivil is not only justified, but unavoidable, as long as Republicans win elections, by which she means as long as Democrats are denied ruling power.
According to this logic, “civility” is impossible until progressivism becomes the law of the land, and all resistance is vanquished.
Is it any wonder then, that Clinton, like other leading progressives, has always been so adamant about the desirability of confiscating guns? Civility, in her view, is coextensive with progressive rule. Anything which stands as an obstacle or potential limit to that rule must be eliminated as a condition for restoring civility.
Meanwhile, Rand Paul says he fears a political assassination may be the result of the recent spate of elevated rhetoric from American progressives. He is right, of course, about the heightened danger to prominent Republicans stemming from all the overt calls on the left for violence and face-to-face confrontations with GOP representatives; but that danger is actually a small matter compared to the broader social threat indicated by these increasingly frequent and brazen calls for “incivility” from “respectable” Democrats, public figures, and academics.
What you are seeing in America today is the early flashes of the fulfillment of the Weather Underground’s old dream of a “prairie fire.” The call is out, and is apparently being heeded, for millions of indoctrinated young radicals, or infantilized older radicals, to “get in the faces” of not only elected government officials, but normal, decent citizens in every classroom, shopping mall, restaurant, or family gathering in America, every day. The social arsonists are being told by their cynical leaders that the time for persuasive argument, or even emotional outbursts, is over; it is time to simply demand deference to their ever-evolving notions of “justice,” and to intimidate classmates, professors, senior citizens, and religious people with threats of violence, public shaming, demeaning allegations, or other forms of abuse and social isolation until they get what they want, namely coercive and especially punitive authority.
Today’s progressive vanguard wishes to make ordinary life impossible for decent people, by turning every situation into a potential confrontation with the roving Marxist tribunal, hounding and ostracizing everyone who does not share their radical progressive vision as intolerant, uncivil — and socially dispensable.