- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

American Stalinism Then and Now

Eighty years ago, many American intellectuals, particularly those who regarded themselves as the vanguard of progressivism, were devout Stalinists. That is, they believed—and believed passionately—that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not the United States, represented the wave of the future. Guided by Joseph Stalin, the USSR was pointing the way to more humane, equitable, and peaceful global order. During the 1930s, according to Lionel Trilling, in his day the very embodiment of highbrow sophistication, “a large and influential part of the intellectual class” treated Stalinism as “sacrosanct.” Belief was mandatory. To hold a contrary view was to risk becoming a pariah.

In September 1932, to cite one example, a manifesto signed by several dozen leading lights of the American literary scene described the Soviet Union as a place where unemployment had been “wiped out” and a “cultural revolution of many dimensions has been won on many fronts.” In the USSR, “for the first time in recorded history a civilization has emerged unified by a living faith in man’s ability to create a classless society.” The signatories—including such notables as Sherwood Anderson, Theodore Dreiser, John Dos Passos, Sydney Hook, Langston Hughes, Lincoln Steffens, and Edmund Wilson—urged “writers, artists, scientists, teachers, engineers,” and all “honest professional workers” to vote for the Communist Party in the upcoming presidential election. A Communist victory, they said, would enable the United States to embrace the Soviet model and Soviet policies, thereby ending the Great Depression and advancing the cause of social justice.  

American intellectuals of this era saw Stalin himself as a model of enlightened leadership. Simply put, he was The Man. The Soviet chief was all but single-handedly transforming his country into a worker’s paradise. In 1933, when the Nazi Party gained power in Germany, Stalin’s standing in the eyes of his American admirers increased further. Fascism seemed everywhere on the rise. Stalin alone appeared to grasp the threat. He alone possessed the courage and the will to address it.

So when the Moscow Trials of 1936-1938 suggested that the Soviet leader might not be Mr. Nice Guy after all, American Stalinists rushed to his defense. “A Statement by American Progressives,” signed by the likes of Nelson Algren, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, John Howard Lawson, Dorothy Parker, George Seldes, and Irwin Shaw, paid tribute to Stalin’s stupendous achievements, which included:

the peaceful and progressive solution of the problems of all minority peoples and nationalities within its borders; the magnificent gains in industry and agriculture; the increase in the standard of living; the growth of educational and cultural opportunities and health facilities; the active participation of the overwhelming majority of the people in the processes of social development; [and] the sane foreign policy that makes the Soviet Union an outstanding leader for the preservation of peace.

The guilt of those Stalin was hauling into the dock was incontrovertible. The “sheer weight of the evidence,” the Americans insisted, showed that those being purged—their loyalty to the revolution hitherto unquestioned—were getting what they deserved. The accused had “resorted to duplicity and conspiracy and allied themselves with long-standing enemies of the Soviet Union—nationalists who had ties with capitalist, fascist, and White Guard allies, and even with former czarist agents provocateurs.” By extension, anyone disputing these propositions was both an enemy of truth and an ally, whether witting or not, of Hitler and Mussolini. Among progressives, dissent on these matters was not to be tolerated. To publicly express a different opinion was to invite expulsion from the ranks of the intelligentsia.

In fact, of course, the Soviet Union was a brutal and oppressive police state and Stalin a mass murderer with megalomaniacal tendencies. Indeed, soon after the American progressives issued their endorsement of the Moscow show trials, the USSR and Nazi Germany signed a nonaggression pact, spelling the doom of Poland and much else besides.

If the Thirties were, as W. H. Auden wrote, a “low, dishonest decade,” one contributing factor was smug American intellectuals who enthusiastically bought into and promoted one of the 20th century’s most grotesque deceptions. American Stalinism represented the abandonment of critical thinking in pursuit of truth—the intellectual’s proper function—in favor of a bizarre, if momentarily fashionable, ideological fetish. Whether directly or indirectly, Stalin’s American acolytes inflicted incalculable damage on the cause of liberty, social justice, and simple decency.

change_me

I submit that something similar is occurring today. Ours is another low, dishonest era, for which progressive intellectuals will one day have much to answer. Not unlike the Stalinists of the 1930s, many of today’s most prominent writers and thinkers—that “herd of independent minds,” in Harold Rosenberg’s derisive description—have forfeited any actual independence of mind in favor of fashionable ideological fetish.  

As was the case with the American Stalinists, they demand conformity and permit no dissent. Rather than socialism as interpreted by Marx and further refined by Lenin and Stalin, their agenda centers on demolishing traditional norms related to sex, gender, and sexuality, all in the name of perfecting freedom.  

In their ranks, the spirit (not the substance) of American Stalinism has found a rebirth. Like the devout Stalinists of yore, they see utopia just around the corner. Their latest version looks to uninhibited sexual expression, compulsory diversity, and infinite choice on all matters pertaining to personal identity to make things right.  

The contempt for bourgeoisie values cultivated among American Stalinists back in the 1930s—due process and the presumption of innocence, for example—finds its counterpart today in contempt for the so-called heteronormative order. As was the case during the Moscow Trials, accusation suffices as evidence of guilt, even when it comes to doling out punishment, shunning and public humiliation have today replaced exile and execution.

As evidence, consider the treatment accorded to Katie Roiphe for having published an essay in Harper’s magazine (where I am a contributing editor) that failed to offer an unequivocal endorsement of post-Harvey Weinstein attitudes regarding sexual assault and harassment. Even before her essay appeared, Roiphe was subject to vicious attacks based on rumors of what it might contain. As one anticipatory executioner tweeted, “man if katie roiphe publishes that article she can consider her career over.” The Old Bolsheviks who fell afoul of Stalin back in the Thirties might have sympathized with Ms. Roiphe’s plight.

Today, cultural progressives are riding very high indeed. For proof, spend a couple of days perusing the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post or taking in the latest hot movie or TV series. Ironically, the incoherence of the Trump presidency and Donald Trump’s amply documented record of morally repugnant behavior have boosted the progressive cause even further. If progressives have seemingly emerged triumphant in the culture wars, then surely Trump deserves credit for carrying them across the goal line.

We may doubt that the utopia imagined by today’s progressives will ever make its appearance. In Trilling’s judgment, the leftist intellectuals of the 1930s, enamored with Stalin’s USSR, gave birth to a politics marked chiefly by a “dull rigidity.” For all of their ostensible “solicitude for mankind [sic],” they lacked wit, imagination, and creativity, not to mention a minimally adequate understanding of human nature. They were not only misguided, but also boring. It was only a matter of time before they got their comeuppance. So, too, with today’s cultural ideologues.

Andrew Bacevich is The American Conservative’s writer-at-large.

65 Comments (Open | Close)

65 Comments To "American Stalinism Then and Now"

#1 Comment By Dimitri Cavalli On March 8, 2018 @ 5:39 pm

In response to Mark (“Trump Not Responsible…), I believe Trump’s reputation with the left will increase by about one iota.

Whoever is the next Republican Presidential nominee will be naturally seen by the left as “worse,” and MORE “dangerous,” “racist,” “fascist,” and will drown more puppies than Trump.

The left wants power and wants to keep power. To get and keep power in the United States, the left’s candidate (usually the Democratic nominee) has to win the election. So naturally the left tries to scare voters into supporting their boy/girl by demonizing the alternative.

And, yes, conservatives do it too. I thought some of the worst writing that Thomas Sowell, whose work I’ve enjoyed since high school in the late 1980s, in 2007-2008 were his “scare” pieces about Obama. Yes, Obama sucked as President but not on Weimar Republic or “Iran will get the Bomb!” levels.

#2 Comment By MM On March 8, 2018 @ 7:27 pm

YKW: “Whether they were conservatives of progressives I do not know.”

Those individuals and government officials promoting eugenics and segregation in the U.S. at the time called themselves progressives.

However, I’ll point out the Mr. Youknowho cites selective facts in order to blame the U.S. exclusively for inspiring some of the worst war crimes of the 20th Century.

Not all relevant facts, which I’ll provide. Arguably far more inspiring to those responsible for the Holocaust were:

– Germany’s own barbaric colonial policies in Namibia before WWI, along with King Leopold’s exploitation of the Congo.
– The genocide perpetrated by the Young Turks against the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire, Germany’s ally during WWI. Hitler literally cited this as an example of how a nation could get away with the mass killing of a minority population.
– And lastly, the Biggest Lie prior to WWII, the famine orchestrated by the Soviet government in the Ukraine in the early 1930s, which was totally denied at the time with the help of Western leftists.

Germany had plenty of *much worse* examples to draw upon. It didn’t need to rely on the U.S. for inspiration for terrible domestic policies.

To suggest otherwise is typical left-wing rubbish…

#3 Comment By Sam On March 9, 2018 @ 12:46 am

Today’s illiberal liberals also lack wit and imagination (which is evident in some of the defensive reactions to this piece). They would bore me to death were it not for the threat they pose to free speech and common decency.

#4 Comment By Denise Johnson On March 9, 2018 @ 1:14 am

I have seen a side of AB that I believe stems from his Catholicism, his faithfulness to God, country and family,and the terrible loss of his only son, a Lt.in the army in the hideous war in Iraq. Stoic as he is publicly and in print, the dedication to doing what he believes is good and right,and still losing his heir to that legacy,while noisy, showy sexual revolutionaries broadcast their grievances must be like the proverbial thorn in Paul’s side that certainly fester ed and erupted with blood and pus at times. I, too, am taken aback by this release from my favorite author on military history and endless war. I think grief and anger can cause this, and I excuse him for not seeing or hearing the pain and loss of the victims of the gender normative tyranny in our predominately religious culture. We are talking about human beings who want to be free to love as they choose. Isn’t that more amenable to us than human beings who want to be free to hate as they choose?

#5 Comment By Light Horse Harry On March 9, 2018 @ 3:50 pm

One would have to be stoic indeed to ignore Denise Johnson’s eruption of cant.

As AB coolly points out, we are seeing the deep structure of Stalinism recapitulated , as the children of socialism’s former vanguard embrace the cultural hegemony of the Homintern much as their parent’s once did the Comintern.

I cannot excuse her for not seeing or hearing the civilizational pain and loss of that arise from normalizing the rhetoric of motives of the left

To some, seeking to tyrranize culture is always the wave of the future, and as social media, Hollywood, PBS & NPR combine to continuously indoctinate hundreds of millions with the Progressive content of magazines like The Nation that only tens of thousands read, semantic agression has become their most powerful weapon.

Just as Trump has all but banished reality from Republican discourse, “Heteropatriarchy’, “structural racism and “gender normative tyranny ” have morphed from postmodern cliches into the building blocks of a neototalitalian view of the world.

#6 Comment By Jake Basson On March 9, 2018 @ 7:12 pm

I sympathize, though I’d replace ‘progressive’ with ‘liberal’ to make your point here. Most self-identified progressives center class issues, and would probably rank race issues as more important than sex/gender. An almost single-minded obsession with identity politics, one whose above-described excesses leave little room for questions of oligarchy and class, is the province of the center-left moreso than the far left.

#7 Comment By TomB On March 9, 2018 @ 11:14 pm

I’m a moderate — which means to me that I try very hard to look at each issue individually and not lump folks into left/right or liberal/conservative dichotomous stereotypes. I see and agree with the threat from illiberal ‘liberals’, but I see the same thing on the right, too. Those of us who were and are militantly anti-authoritarians (formerly anti-Communists in many cases, also see a threat to freedoms and tolerance coming from those who style themselves ‘conservatives’ — though radicals would be a better designation in many cases. I know people on both ends of the left-right spectrum personally and, frankly, their capacity for hatred frightens me. I suppose I am a ‘romantic’ to hope for a resurgence of moderation and compromise, but so be it. America is rapidly becoming tribal, and that’s not a good glue for a nation-state. As for the left being apologists for things akin to Stalinism, I suspect a few folks are ‘there’, but many more are not. Ditto people on the right who are extremists. While some self-styled ‘conservatives’ are crazies, most are not. Unfortunately immoderate expression and exaggeration have become ‘acceptable’ since the idea seems to be that any actions or speech, be they violent or duplicitous, are justified because ‘that’s what it takes to win’. (I call this the Tonya Harding approach, if you will remember back to that deplorable incident). Perhaps I’m the voice of one crying in the desert, but I hope at least a few Americans will step back and refrain from calling each other fascists, Stalinists, communists, socialists, reactionaries, etc, etc, etc. United we stand and divided… well, what?

#8 Comment By Professor Nerd On March 10, 2018 @ 8:14 am

A ridiculous article from an otherwise fine author. The panic over gender and sex issues on this site is overwhelming.

#9 Comment By Cynthia McLean On March 10, 2018 @ 8:31 pm

I agree with Jake Basson that the “illiberal liberals” who focus only on identity politics tend to be the centre-left, or what I would call Corporate Democrats. That’s in good part why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election.

#10 Comment By Peter H On March 11, 2018 @ 8:40 am

The left’s ideas on gender and sex are probably not viable and are leading to the breakdown of the family, with enormous consequences. They are worth panicking over.
Trump’s election amounted to a social conservative landslide. Why? Because every Trump voter was willing to vote for an old-fashioned male chauvinist, and indeed a deliberately provocative one. Meanwhile, Hillary’s ethnic bloc voters couldn’t care a fig about transgender rights, the ozone layer, gun control, or DACA Dreamers, even if their official spokesmen, paid for by wealthy white liberals, pretend to care about these things.
If I am right, what’s the upshot? The upshot is that the silent majority is more silent than ever and its elected surrogates are not providing it with any grip on the handles of power. This creates a vacuum which a forceful, violent right might fill. Think about this possibility when you are urging overly polite conservatives “to avoid divisiveness” and “not to stoop to the level” of their opponents. Fascism is mostly a response of last resort to the helplessness of the respectable right when asked to counter people who, like Stalin, have no interest in respecting the rights of their opponents.

#11 Comment By Denise Johnson On March 11, 2018 @ 10:12 pm

I said earlier was that AB could be excused in my opinion, because of possible introspection as one of the millions of deployed in our lifetime. The numbers of Vietnam War applicants for VA services has risen sharply and account for reportedly 60% of requests for help in the post 9/11 years. One explanation given was that most soldiers could put aside traumatic events when they return to a hectic civilian life of family, employment, social, and civic demands; however, these distractions begin to decline with age. The body slows down and ailments of aging or old injuries force the veteran to more sedentary life . Memories long ago shelved begin to re-visit, and possibly, to torment the soldier as wars today refresh memories. Trauma is not thought to be curable—only treatable. Moral injury is a new term for the guilt of soldiers who followed orders for the sake of the Mission, but became dedicated to protecting his/her buddy on the left and on the right—because that is the best guarantee of survival. Sometimes, that buddy and others, died anyway.
Andrew Bachevich’s life– education at West Point, service in Vietnam and Desert Storm, and his son’s similar journey—and ultimate sacrifice in Iraq–certainly was shadowed on both sides of the road by the growing political conflict between cultural and military dogmas. AB witnessed the weakening of the military male tribe. Rape became a reportable crime in the 21st century, along with murder in JAG prosecutions. Such war crimes could not be ignored or redefined. Due process followed, but facts could never again be obscured or “lost” because of our technological advances in news reporting. Justice is easier find with truth (and cell phones) at her side.
AB may fear history repeating itself with the sudden swell of political identity “wars” in society, but I see them more as a layers of evolution. It is not the same onion as in the 1930’s. We do not have to follow the lead of a small, esoteric group anymore. We have resources. We have a voice.

When I was younger, a girl who dressed “immodestly or indecently” always lost credibility against rape or sexual assault charges. There was unspoken, deeply rooted tribal loyalty for the guy, whose big head was overruled by his little head. (An expression I learned from my husband, who learned it in the navy.)
Five years ago, I was the 12th juror chosen for a trial of a young man accused of rape by a young woman who had smoked dope with him, then walked with him to a park late at night. Four hours later, she said, she escaped from him. He was convicted in one afternoon—without testifying, and here is one startling reason why it was wrapped up quickly: All that was required for conviction of rape was that all the jurors would say they BELIEVED the accuser. Even discrepancies from witnesses or missing evidence did not, the Judge clearly said, cause a conflict as long as we believed HER testimony. So there you have it, Mr. Bacevich, due process, from accusation of a crime, to investigation, to arrest, to trial by judge and jury to conviction and jail.
Again, we simply had to say we believed the accuser’s verbal testimony. What a tremendously wide swing in that societal pendulum! AB has to recognize just how slowly that pendulum moved since the first baby-boomer was born in 1946. It is doubtful that men and women who want to “Do what is good and right” (Ben Franklin’s words) and who believe the testimony of a woman who has nothing to gain by “coming out” about the assault(s) she endured will mutate and multiply into other crimes against the state.
One commentator said this magazine is too concerned with sex. If true, thanks goes to the so-called identity-politics that can be heard quickly, loudly and widely because of the Internet-of-all-Things. And, thankfully, books. I imagine a professor of military history and international relations does not have time for historical fiction. From fiction I’ve learned that the roles of gender, race and class had been so ingrained in our culture that it was like living in a Petri dish until the Internet was made. I’ve learned that change from something immoral or inhumane can take decades—or centuries. At the turn of the 19th century, syphilis was rampant in large cities and could not be slowed because it could not be discussed! Sexual mores during the Victorian era prevented medical school educators from stepping on the privileged rights of the upper class men, single and married, who were allowed their visits to brothels as long as they were discreet. Thousands of women and babies were infected and died. Adults died a horrible death or lost their sanity. A painful moment in civilization, a penicillin cure today, and the oldest profession continues.
Read “The Virgin Cure” for a depiction of these times not mentioned in history books in the last century.
Not a reader of fiction? Call any Veteran’s Hospital that specializes in mental health issues and ask how many patients are women suffering from the traumas of battle AND of betrayal by their “buddies” or commanding officers committing sexual assault. Where I live, there is one building reserved for these women.
Also a good read: “Love My Weapon More Than You.”
Since I first discovered AB in 2008 in a book, “How America Ends its Wars” I was hooked by his intelligence and his honesty in writing. The Conservative war mongering and largely Republican supported military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against led to my wish for creative destruction of that industry that would gradually move workers from war preparation and killing to something–anything– better for the common good. The trouble is, my Conservative friends do not believe that best political choices are those that will benefit the most people or do the most good. That is not the legacy of our Founding Fathers, they say.
Because the books I have read for nine years tell me that Americans overall are not concerned with the death of the “others”. We have not seen death and obliteration on our own land. That is what AB fears, that endless wars have not changed our priorities because they have not entered our hearts and souls. Americans need visuals; the Pentagon made sure we would not get pictures from the Middle East wars. Vietnam had taught them that visuals and vocalization of dissent and protests can end wars before the “Mission” is accomplished—whether that mission is elimination of terror, developing democracy or filling freighters with cheap oil.
You all (should) have read AB’s books. I also enrolled in his Edx online course that was superb teaching, learning and dialogue about his most recent book,” America’s War for the Greater Middle East, A Military History” prior to publication. I felt challenged by my lack of military-history, but my classmates were drafted for the Vietnam War, after all. Someone asked Professor Bacevich to recommend a book that would best depict the type of war our volunteer force has encountered in the Middle East. He recommended “The Yellow Birds.” It is described as a novel by the author. You can read it and decide for yourself. Read it, and wonder with me if AB could be impacted by TODAY’s “pain of civilization” plus frustration, anger, sorrow, and possibly survivor’s guilt. He could be thinking,” What have we done, and what can I do to stop it from getting worse?

#12 Comment By Denise Johnson On March 12, 2018 @ 1:14 am

For: Lighthorse Harry: I cannot think why you called me a hypocrite since we have never met in any venue. I am neither religious nor sentimental. But if I had a “cant “ to release from within, it would derive from having read these books since 2010. The selections with two asterisks are the books that were the most difficult, i.e. painful, to finish. Perhaps you have read some of these?

Lament for America, Decline of the Superpower, Plan for Renewal, Earl Fry
Between War and Peace, How America Ends Its Wars, Col. Matthew Moten
The Oil Kings, Andrew Scott Cooper
In an Instant, Bob and Lee Woodruff
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col.Dave Grossman
Photojournalists on War: the Untold Stories from Iraq, Michael Kamber
They Were Soldiers, Ann Jones**
Fire and Forget, Short Stories from the Long War.
Re-Deployment, Phil Klay
The Kill Switch, Phil, Zabriskie
The Yellow Birds, by Kevin Powers**
Leaving the Wire, An Infantryman’s Iraq, David Ervin
The Good Soldiers, David Finkel**
Thank You for Your Service, David Finkel**
The Forever War, Dexter Filkin
Drift, Rachel Maddow
No Good Men Among the Living, Anand Gopal
Breach of Trust, How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country
Washington Rules American’s Path to Permanent War
The Limits of Power, The End to American Exceptionalism
America’s War for the Greater Middle East, A Military History
Bloods—Black Veterans of the Vietnam War, An Oral History, Wallace Terry**
Fields of Fire, James Webb
The Lone Survivor, Marcus Luttrell**
Kaboom, Matt Gallagher
Love My Rifle More Than You, Kayla William
Section 60, Robert M Pool
A Long Way Gone, Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah**

#13 Comment By Mark Martinez On March 12, 2018 @ 12:42 pm

this article is gold. and it is a big reason why I no longer side with leftists having been raised on the left. the groupthink and conformity-over-sanity that exists there along with the complete lack of care for evidence, facts and science has driven me out.

I don’t really consider myself ‘of the right’, but I have certainly been labeled ‘alt-right’ and a ‘nazi’ and a white supremacist by these communist turds. For the record I am MEXICAN BORN and a self-deported ‘dreamer’

#14 Comment By Eric On March 12, 2018 @ 8:00 pm

For all their mind bending idiosyncrasies and straight up idiocies, the progressive left right now is riding high because the Republican party screwed up. It elected a vulgar, egotistical flip flopping narcissist with no respect for the rule of law with highly suspect connections to a resurgent Russian empire. And they continue to screw up with a knee jerk groupthink support for this habitual liar worthy of any 30’s leftist clique or Berkley student activist group. At least the 30’s leftists eventually turned on Stalin (see The God That Failed). Current conservatives, and sadly Evangelicals, have cast their lot with a man with no allegiance to any but himself and seemingly, due to past and highly suspect connections, the Kremlin. In doing so they’ve cashed in on their credibility to such a degree their only hope in the 2020 election is for more Russian assistance and the Electoral College. Despite a few defections, I don’t see that changing. The Koch brothers and their oligarchical fellow travelers here and abroad bought the Republican Party lock, stock and barrel. Though how well that will works with a President who goes wherever the wind blows remains to be seen.

Moderate democrats endorsed a woman with ridiculous political baggage and a demeanor so insincere no tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists’ accusations seemed implausible once she opened her mouth. They won’t suffer as much for that in the coming elections – certainly nowhere near what I’d like. But they will suffer as the progressives win more converts being the more credible of the two options.

And you know what? I’m totally behind the progressives this round. I tell people the Democrats want to take my guns; the Republicans want to take everything else. And I mean EVERYTHING else.
– Social Security (without reimbursing what I paid into it)
– Medicare (without reimbursing what I paid into it)
– Civilian police forcing (replaced by military geared storm troopers with no restrictions on use of force)
– Clean air (rolling back environmental standards)
– Clean water (rolling back environmental standards)
– Public lands (rolling back environmental standards and selling them off to strip mining companies)
– Endangered species (rolling back environmental standards)
– A stable banking and investment environment (rolling back banking and investment regulations, allowing 2008 to reoccur)
– An equitable society (by making Nazism and routine racism of the KKK sort viable again)
– Renewable resources (discouraging alternative, renewable energy for filthy, non renewable oil and coal)
– Our coastlines (ignoring global warming. Yeah, I know. It’s all a big lie told by scientists world wide to start a world socialist government. That’s what the oil, gas, and coal industry want you to believe. Ignoring that scientists are generally apolitical and corporations are not)
– Undermine our Republic (defending “corporations as people” and allowing unlimited corporate donations. If corporations are people, can I get a death penalty for the CEO if the company kills someone?)
– American gun culture, once a bastion of responsibility, now a Walter Mitty caricature of itself
– Good internet (by destroying net neutrality and enabling US internet companies to rape the consumer and still provide the worst internet of any developed nation. Adam Smith’s rules only make sense to the Republican Party when nobody pays them to ignore him.)
– Our standing on the world stage. (Trump, by any measure, looks like a buffoon)
– Personal privacy (Admittedly, the NSA is a baby from both parties.)
– Even the appearance the Federal Government operates according to some ethics

Everything but guns. Oh, wait. The President suddenly thinks it’s OK to seize guns without the rule of law. So I guess I’m hosed on that front too.

Conservatives are a vital part of the Republic. But the Republican Party needs to be burned down to the basement and rebuilt.

#15 Comment By Winston On March 13, 2018 @ 10:34 am

I think Left’s LGT identity politics is off base. But about sexual harassment;it has been pervasive and it is good that orgs have become more sensitive.