Don's Tuesday Column

           THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson   Red Bluff Daily News   3/06/2018

                Confrontational, organized left

A book, “Confrontational Politics” by H. L. Richardson, a former State Senator and founder of Gun Owners of America, has provided insights into numerous political developments over the years. He wrote it to expose the tactics and strategy of the progressive left so that the conservative right could see how the left's machine movement works to get results and marginalize us, and to help inform us in effectively resisting them and advancing our goals.

Morton Blackwell’s forward: Richardson spells out how to practice political confrontation “To defeat the effort of the political left to change the American system of government into one resembling the socialist welfare states of the rest of the world…His key point about his opponents is they usually practice the politics of deception to advance programs the vast majority of Americans would never support if they knew the outcomes.” Written in 1998, it foreshadowed the leftist anti-Bush, anti-war years, the Obama/Democrat-led assault from Washington, as well as the emergence of Trump-deranged, quasi-socialist “resistance.”

Richardson observes: 1) The left uses each “cause” or issue to broaden its base of activists and allies and needs regular controversies to bring out hitherto inactive supporters for purposes of incorporating “new blood” into existing, divergent interest groups. 2) Over the years those activists become linked through mailing (and emailing) lists, and now social media, to become a ready army of meeting attendees, demonstration placard-waving voices, and letter-writing and phone-calling advocates. Behind-the-scenes, well-funded organizers create it all.

3) They have a campus-inspired term, “intersectionality,” to focus the pool of “skulls full of mush” on the rotating cause “du jour,” and maintain a sense of urgency through frequent outrage. 4) They keep chipping away at opposition, while gaining in their agenda, by “slicing the sausage,” or making inexorable gains at the expense of conservative issues, and doggedly fighting any efforts to roll back those gains. British former-PM Margaret Thatcher coined the phrase to describe the never-ending efforts of the left to make inroads against the capitalist free-market in favor of socialist solutions. A little slice her and there, never to be restored.

Among Richardson’s points was the importance, for conservatives, to recognize that the left uses “confrontation” against us because our culture values avoiding overt unpleasantness. “Being nice” informs much of our traditional society and values: don’t make waves; don’t provoke others; if they are insistent or demanding, give ground for the sake of social politeness. Hence, leftism aggressively pushes its cause to the detriment of the rest of us.

Going back to the 2010 rise of the Tea Party movement, you may recall the near-hysteria that emerged on TV, opinion pages and among liberals in elected office. What couldn’t be refuted—after the slanders of ignorance and “astroturfing” became inoperative—was the vast support among most citizens for the earnest, widespread, anxious concern, even anger, over profligate deficit spending and the government takeover of health care via Obamacare.

We’ve seen the supposedly sympathetic cause of the “Dreamers” recede so that an even more visceral issue—gun violence and gun rights—can provide greater opportunities for advancing the core progressive/socialist agenda: Undermining support for, and understanding of, the 2^nd Amendment among the under-40 demographic; moving every level of that support, from marginal to minimal, in the direction of the anti-gun rights position; and motivating all anti-gunners, as well as their sympathizers, to vote for Democrats in November.

 Both DACA and anti-gunners rely on the deep pockets of institutional leftist interest groups, and on young hordes of protesters to provide camera-ready national and local news coverage. It’s the old “bandwagon” tactic, appearing on our screens, augmented by politicians.

Let’s dispense with the anti-NRA hysteria first. It’s right out of the “Rules for Radicals” Saul Alinsky guidebook: They, the anti-gun left, have targeted for isolation, condemnation and retribution an organization—not only its 5 million members but also the tens of millions of supporters of gun rights—that had nothing to do with the Florida high school shooter. Myths and lies flew around the net, disproved and debunked, about the NRA training the deranged killer.

Look up “Attacking the NRA is really attacking everyday Americans,” by Marc A. Thiessen, to get a perspective on the real agenda of the left: peeling away your gun rights. The news media/Democrat complex want you to forget about the NRA instructor and his AR-15 that saved lives—a good guy with a gun—before any officer could arrive at last year’s Texas church shooting. They certainly won’t do basic journalistic investigation into the many schools, and the hundreds of school personnel that are quietly carrying concealed handguns, keeping kids safe.

Consider the relative lack of anger at the actual killer and the deputies that waited outside while students and teachers were shot and died; no outrage over reducing school discipline and jail time for young criminals. To wit: “Obama’s lax discipline policies made schools dangerous” and “Behind Cruz’s Florida Rampage, Obama’s School-Leniency Policy,” both by Paul Sperry; “Did the Progressive ‘Broward County Solution’ Cost 17 Student Lives?” by Jack Cashill. “School Discipline Gaps, an Ongoing Mystery” by John Hinderaker, notes the pressure to reduce minority disciplinary actions by effectively slapping miscreants' wrists.

Lastly, read “The ‘March for Our Lives’ is Sheer Astroturfing” by Kim Quade, and “Why Did It Take Two Weeks To Discover Parkland Students’ Astroturfing? The response was professionalized…It’s not a bunch of magical kids in somebody’s living room,” by David Hines.