"Inciting violence"

I recently got into a debate with a notable Christian leader (whom I won't name) who argues Trump did "incite violence" with the Capitol Hill "rioters", which of course is one of the bases for why Trump has been impeached again. Here are my (edited) replies.

---

1. The irony is you call for avoiding political polarization as well as being fair-minded to political opponents, but you're not fair-minded about Trump and his supporters - which, if anything, only ramps up the political polarization.

2. No, Trump did not "incite violence". I suspect most people who think Trump "incited violence" are probably accepting the mainstream media's narrative about Trump without much scrutiny. I find a considerable amount to disagree with and criticize Trump for, but "inciting violence" on Capitol Hill isn't one of them.

3. However, if Trump "incited violence", then:

Biden "incited violence" when he said: "If we were in high school, I'd take him [Trump] behind the gym and beat the hell out of him".

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi "incited violence" when she said these words in 2017.

Former president Obama arguably "incited violence" in his Dallas speech which led to the deaths of police officers.

Here's a two minute video of the many times that Democrats threatened violence against Trump and his supporters back in 2016.

Also, see this recent article titled "10 Times Democrats Urged Violence Against Trump And His Supporters".

Consider when Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters "deplorables" or when Biden called Trump supporters "ugly folks". This kind of rhetoric could arguably be said to "incite violence".

Or Congresswoman Ilhan Omar often tweeting words which are arguably anti-Semitic.

Or the has-been singer Madonna saying: "Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House."

Or B-list comedian Kathy Griffin being allowed to re-tweet her infamous tweet about a bloody and beheaded Trump just after the Nov. 3rd election at the end of last year.

Or just search for almost anything Antifa or even BLM have said, much of which arguably "incited violence" too.

I don't use these examples to show a double standard, per se, though these examples do represent a double standard by the left. Rather I use these examples to say the following. I'd be willing to accept that their words shouldn't be construed as "inciting violence", even though there have been some people who have undertaken violent actions as a result of their words. So the real question becomes: what constitutes "incitement to violence"?

4. If it's accurate to characterize the people who broke into Capitol Hill as "hardcore Trump supporters" who "stormed" Capitol Hill, then why isn't it accurate to characterize what Antifa did over the months leading up to the election as "hardcore Biden supporters" who "stormed" many American cities and in fact did much worse things than those who "stormed" Capitol Hill did?

5. Another problem is you seem to be lumping all Trump supporters together with those who "stormed" Capitol Hill. At the very least, you should clarify that's not what you're doing.

If someone lumps all Trump supporters in DC together as if they all "stormed" Capitol Hill, let alone that all Trump supporters support what happened on Capitol Hill, then isn't that committing a guilt by assocation fallacy? At least, it seems unfair and it seems to increase political polarization to lump in all Trump supporters with those "Trump supporters" who "stormed" Capitol Hill. Especially when most Trump supporters condemn those who "stormed" Capitol Hill. Why should the ~5,000 "Trump supporters" at Capitol Hill represent the ~74 million people who voted for Trump?

Not all who "stormed" Capitol Hill were Trump supporters. For example, look up John Sullivan. Sullivan is the now-arrested Antifa member who pretended to be a Trump supporter at Capitol Hill and actively incited people to "storm" Capitol Hill. See here for example. Of course, this isn't to excuse those who "stormed" Capitol Hill, but it does implicate John Sullivan and possibly Antifa as well. By the way, why doesn't the mainstream media have constant media coverage condemning John Sullivan for his role?

If you're willing to be "generous" toward our opponents, why not also be willing to be "generous" to all people including "Trump supporters"? Wouldn't it be considered "generous" to assume the majority of Trump supporters at Capitol Hill were peacefully protesting outside rather than accept the narrative that they were all "rioters" or worse? At least until all is made clear?

6. Although I identify as a political conservative, I can respect classical liberals. However, how many classical liberals are left in the Democratic party today? Perhaps Tulsi Gabbard? Joe Manchin? I don't know. Consider philosopher Bill Vallicella's recent post:

Like many conservatives, I didn't start out as one. My background is working class, my parents were Democrats, and so was I until the age of 41. I came of age in the '60s. One of my heroes was John F. Kennedy, "the intrepid skipper of the PT 109" as I described him in a school essay written in the fifth grade. I was all for the Civil Rights movement. Musically my heroes were Bob Dylan and Joan Baez. I thrilled to his Blowin' in the Wind and his other civil rights anthems.

As I see it, those civil rights battles were fought and they were won. But then the rot set in as the party of JFK liberals became the extremists and the destructive leftists that they are today. For example, Affirmative Action in its original sense gave way to reverse discrimination, race-norming, minority set-asides, identity politics and the betrayal of Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that people be judged "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." To judge people by the content of their character is to judge them as individuals which is precisely the opposite of what tribalists and identity politicians do.

As liberals have become extremists, people with moderate views such as myself have become conservatives.

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. day, a good day to read his Letter from a Birmingham Jail and reflect on how the race-delusional totalitarians who now infest the Democrat Party have strayed from King's ideas and vision.

---

1. It's true that Trump's rhetoric is often provocative, belligerent, polarizing, foolish, and so forth. That almost goes without saying. Nevertheless, provocative, belligerent, polarizing, and foolish rhetoric isn't necessarily tantamount to "inciting violence".

There's an extremely high threshold to reach if you want to say speech is "incitement to violence". In fact, if rhetoric or speech is found to be "inciting violence", then it's punishable as a crime. Which, of course, the left and others are more than happy to see Trump punished by way of impeachment and being found guilty of impeachment. I'd argue impeachment has become a farce today, but perhaps that's another debate for another time.

2. The rhetoric of liberals and leftists including Biden himself is quite arguably just as "inflammatory" as Trump's rhetoric, if not worse, yet I wouldn't necessarily say Biden et al are "inciting violence". If Biden's rhetoric is not "inciting violence" despite being at least as provocative or "inflammatory" as Trump's rhetoric, then why is Trump's rhetoric considered "inciting violence" but Biden's is not? What exactly is "inciting violence"? That's mainly what I'm trying to do with my examples. I'm not trying to make a tu quoque argument, per se, or not primarily, though the hypocrisy and double standards are definitely disconcerting.

3. Again, to say rhetoric is "inciting violence" under the First Amendment is a very high bar. It's alleging that speech has crossed a line. It's alleging that speech which is normally protected under the First Amendment should no longer be protected under the First Amendment. That's a serious and weighty allegation that needs to be proven.

4. So what is incitement to violence? I'm not a lawyer. To my knowledge, incitement to violence involves at least three criteria. First, speech that creates an immediate risk of harm to another person(s). Second, it is speech that targets a specific and identifiable person(s). Third, it is speech with a plan of action involved.

5. Perhaps a better way to see what constitutes "incitement" is to study the two touchstone Supreme Court cases in what constitutes "incitement".

a. The first case is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Brandenburg was a member and leader of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). He spoke reprehensible words about African-Americans. He arguably encouraged generalized violence against African-Americans; his words were certainly much clearer than Trump's words. He was charged with "incitement", and his case went to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court determined that Brandenburg did not commit "incitement". The Supreme Court said that's because, despite how vile his words were, Brandenburg did not suggest any particular person(s) be harmed, he did not have a plan of action for harming anyone, and he spoke vaguely and in generalized terms. Perhaps one might argue this was in the late 1960s when the Supreme Court was ruled by a majority of white men who would likely argue favorably for another white man.

b. This is where the second case in what constitutes "incitement" helps. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982), several white-owned businesses filed lawsuits against an African-American leader of the Civil Rights Movement named Charles Evers. Evers had given a public speech at an NAACP rally in which he encouraged people to boycott businesses because they were white-owned and white-only businesses. Evers even said in his speech: "If we catch any of you going into these racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck." Evers' speech used inflammatory rhetoric, especially by the standards of the day, and Evers' speech involved the potential for violence, but is Evers' speech "incitement to violence"? Is Evers' speech no longer protected speech under the First Amendment? In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that Evers' speech was not "incitement to violence" and also that Evers' speech was indeed protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

In short, the Supreme Court ruled in both cases - a KKK leader's speech calling for violence against African-Americans and a Civil Rights' leader's speech calling for breaking people's necks - that both are protected under the First Amendment and neither are "incitement to violence".

As such, I don't see how Trump's speech - which does not seem more inflammatory than either Brandenburg's or Evers' speeches - could be considered "inciting violence".

6. You say there's a difference between burning down a neighborhood (like Antifa did) and invading the government (like the Capitol Hill "rioters" did).

a. Sure, there's a difference. However, hasn't Antifa also "invaded" the government by "invading" state capitol buildings? In fact, Antifa set up its own government, i.e., the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone aka CHAZ. Surely CHAZ is more "insurrectionist" than even what the Capitol Hill "rioters" did?

b. I don't see a difference in kind between local or state government vs. federal government in this particular case, even if there's a difference of degree. What's the argument for a difference in kind?

c. America has had a long tradition of "storming" government buildings. Just look at what happened during the Civil Rights and Vietnam War era. More recently, see the Women's March, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Center for Popular Democracy (all of which are leftist organizations) "storming" into Washington, DC's Capitol Hill building and straight into Senator Chuck Grassley's offices. This was during Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings in 2018. Yet I don't recall anyone on the left ever having a problem with these people "storming" Capitol Hill.

d. Is it because the "insurrectionists" wanted to overthrow the government? But again, what about Antifa wanting to set up their own independent government, viz. CHAZ? Why do leftists only seem to condemn "insurrection" when it suits their political purposes (e.g. if Biden is president and it's Trump supporters who are protesting) and support or even laud "insurrection" when it suits their political purposes (e.g. if Trump is president and it's the left protesting)?

---

1. I think this whole "inciting violence" primarily reflects the mainstream media's narrative against Trump.

a. By the mainstream media, I'm referring to organizations like the NYT, WaPo, AP, MSNBC, CNN, NPR. Even FOX skews politically moderate, despite having some notable conservatives on board (e.g. Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity). The NYT has Ross Douthat and Bret Stephens, but Douthat is hard to pin down, and certainly not a traditional conservative, while Stephens is hugely anti-Trump.

b. I think it's obvious to any reasonable-minded person that the mainstream media has been highly biased and prejudiced against Trump and conservatives in general. This has been the case since the very first day Trump took office if not earlier - and I'd be inclined to argue earlier.

Take, for instance, how many times the mainstream media as well as Democratic leaders have said or implied Trump is an illegitimate president over the past 4 years. In fact, as late as 2019, Hillary Clinton herself maintained that Trump is an illegitimate president, but I don't recall anyone in the mainstrean media calling her biased, said she was attempting to "subvert" the 2016 election, said she was power hungry with tyrannical designs, or the like. Yet these things are routinely said about Trump and his supporters by the mainstream media.

More importantly, see the work of Timothy Groseclose (Ph.D., Stanford University). Groseclose is a professor of political science with a strong computer science background. Specifically, consider his book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. The book was published in 2012, which obviously was well before Trump was anything more than a reality television star and real estate mogul. If I recall, Groseclose points out two pertinent points. First, he points out that over 90% of the members of the mainstream media are Democrats and vote as such in every major election. The state of California is usually considered the flagship liberal state. In the 2020 election, approximately 64% of Californian voters voted for Biden, while approximately 34% voted for Trump. Hence, on the face of it (percentages), the mainstream media would seem to be even more left-wing than California! What's more, Groseclose's second point is that the mainstream media's bias against Republicans and conservatives in the US benefits the Democratic Party anywhere between 6 to 10 points depending on the election. Arguably a one point difference in each of the battleground states would have been enough for Trump to have won this election.

In short, how can any reasonable-minded person trust what the mainstream media says when it reports on Trump and his supporters?

2. There's also the issue of big tech giants.

a. I'm referring to companies like the FAANG companies (i.e. Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google), Microsoft, Twitter, and a handful of others. All very rich, powerful, influential.

b. I doubt it's coincidental that big tech companies like Twitter and Facebook censored Trump and other conservatives within days after it was announced the Democrats would head all the relevant Senate committees regarding regulating big tech companies.

c. At best, the big tech companies seem to play both sides. Both Democrats and Republicans, both the left and the right. So they'll say to conservatives, please don't regulate us because we are all for capitalism! Then they'll turn around and say to liberals, please don't regulate us because we'll donate millions to your campaigns! And from what I've read, big tech does donate far more to the Democratic party than they do to the Republican party.

d. If anyone wants to complain about the problem with capitalist corporations influencing American politics, which liberals and the left have historically opposed (haven't they?), then why not begin with big tech companies? Consider Google and Apple removing Parler off Google Play and the Apple Store. Also, consider Amazon (AWS) suddenly refusing to host Parler without giving Parler a 30 day notification per their contract so Parler can have time to find a different host (presumably Amazon prefers to absorb the cost of the lawsuits against breaking the contract than letting Parler grow too much). All this could potentially represent leftist bias against other viewpoints. And/or it could represent a huge corporation squashing the little guy because the little guy is becoming too successful and won't agree to a buy-out. Even if it's "merely" the latter, shouldn't that be a concern to any and all Americans who want to see fair competition in business?

e. Here is an eye-opening interview with an anonymous Amazon (AWS) cybersecurity engineer about Amazon.

As pointed out in the article, Amazon Web Services (AWS) controls nearly 50% of the public cloud market in the world. I've read elsewhere that Microsoft controls around 15% and Google around 5%. If so, then these 3 companies control around 70% of the public cloud market in the entire world. That's huge.

Outside the top 3, I think the next other major player or two are Chinese companies. But would anyone in their right mind trust their businesses to companies that could potentially be spied on by the Chinese Communist Party?

Anyway, should 3 companies be allowed to control 70% of all the public cloud market on planet Earth? Especially when tons of businesses depend on the services of these 3 companies?

f. Honestly, the debates around big tech shouldn't be so politicized. They could be bipartisan. All people in the world who value democratic (small "d") principles and ideals should be concerned with how powerful these big tech companies have become. Even Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who is certainly no Trump supporter, and about as anti-Trump as any political leader can be, spoke out about Twitter censoring Trump. Likewise, consider what Russian pro-democracy leader Alexey Navalny said about Twitter banning Trump, and Navalny is no Trump supporter either.

g. If big tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google have the ability to ban Trump, then that means they have the ability to ban just about any individual including Biden, Merkel, or whoever your favorite politician or celebrity or even friend happens to be. They can easily censor or ban the average American if they wish. That should be a concern to everyone who values free speech.

3. Double standards from the American left.

a. Of course, the people who illegally entered Capitol Hill should be condemned. That's what the majority of American conservatives have said. Yet the mainstream media (90% or more of whom are leftists per the research of people like Groseclose mentioned above) keeps conflating American conservatives with those who "stormed" Capitol Hill. The mainstream media keeps making it sound like anyone who voted for Trump, for any reason, or anyone who is a Republican (excepting Never Trumpers), or anyone who is even a conservative in general, should be lumped into the same category as those who "stormed" Capitol Hill and thus treated accordingly. Basically, the mainstream media are attempting to demonize anyone who is not as anti-Trump as the mainstream media is. Conservatives are made social pariahs by our own countrymen and countrywomen.

b. In fact, the mainstream media have a track record of demonizing conservatives. We've been called or associated with racists, white supremacists, KKK members, sexists, patriarchs, homophobes, and on and on for years now. That's often the narrative - if you're a conservative, or at least if you don't agree with us about what we think is important, then you must be racist, sexist, etc. Even those who aren't white but who are racial minorities are called "Uncle Toms", "Uncle Juans", "Uncle Chans", or the like because they're not white yet they're conservative. Meanwhile those on the left get a pass by the mainstream media. Those on the left can say the most racist things and get away with it. Just look at Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's anti-Semitic tweets. They are even praised by the mainstream media.

c. By contrast, Antifa literally burned down businesses, looted, rioted, and even violently attacked other people. Antifa destroyed government property. Antifa created an independent and sovereign "zone" within the United States, viz. CHAZ. Did Democratic political leaders including Biden or did the mainstream media condemn Antifa as much as they condemn those who "stormed" Capitol Hill? Of course, I'd say both those who "stormed" Capitol Hill and Antifa should be condemned, but Democratic leaders including Biden and mainstream media don't do that. At best, Democratic leaders including Biden and the mainstream media lay kid gloves on Antifa, while are severe with the Capitol Hill folks. It's a clear double standard.

d. Consider how leftist politicians have locked down Americans during this COVID pandemic. Okay, that's fine, but the problem is they themselves don't abide by their own rules.

The governor of California Gavin Newsom dined at a posh restaurant called the French Laundry with a large group of people at the same time Californians were forbidden from dining out with a large group of people. He later issued a public apology, but otherwise no significant repercussions to him. That wouldn't be how the average California would have been treated under his government.

Likewise, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi went to get her hair done at a hair salon during the pandemic even while she told Americans not do go to businesses including getting a hair cut and she oversaw many businesses suffer. She doesn't abide by her own rules either.

Same goes for New Jersey governor Phil Murphy and his family who were recorded dining out in a large group shortly after Murphy issued lockdowns for people in the state. The mainstream media didn't focus on what Murphy did, but instead they focused on the people "harassing" Murphy and his family. It's true the Americans who "harassed" Murphy and his family shouldn't have done so, but it's also true that Murphy and his family are breaking their own rules. The mainstream media should have reported on both and condemned both, but that's not what they did by and large.

Much to say about governor of New York Andrew Cuomo too. But the mainstream media hails Cuomo as a hero, even though New York is one of the worst in terms of COVID cases and deaths, despite the fact that Cuomo has been quite severe with locking down New York. Cuomo even sent NYPD door to door against religious people in their own homes because there was suspicion they had a large gathering. At the same time, the mainstream media harshly criticizes the governors of red states who aren't as bad as New York.

And, most recently, Biden issued an executive order requiring masks on federal property on the first day of his administration. A few hours later, Biden was photographed not wearing a mask on federal property at the Lincoln Memorial. When asked about this, Biden's Press Secretary Jen Psaki said "we have bigger issues to worry about at this moment in time". Imagine if that had been Kayleigh McEnany's response. How would the press have responded? Would the press have responded by criticizing the member of the press who asked this question in the first place and supporting McEnany as White House Press Secretary? Because that's what the press did with Psaki.

e. Interestingly, I've read Trump could have used his powers under a pandemic to take better control of the situation. If he did, then perhaps Trump could have been the tyrant or dictator that the Democratic party and the mainstream media constantly portrayed him to be. Yet he didn't do so. He didn't use federal powers to, say, send in federal troops to quell civil unrest caused by Antifa leftists, even though a pandemic arguably could have given him the justification to do so without necessitating the states agree. However, Trump left it to each of the state governments to control their own situation, with minimal federal oversight, even though a pandemic and public health safety would have been justification for Trump to do much more.

At the same time, the governors of California and New York, for example, which are both very leftist states, have used their powers as governors during a pandemic to do what Trump refused to do. They have taken much more control over their own states than Trump took control of the US vis-a-vis the pandemic.

Yet somehow the mainstream media says Trump is the tyrant, while Gov. Newsom and Gov. Cuomo are praised as heroes, despite the latter two exercising more power and curtailing more personal liberties than Trump did during the pandemic.

f. So many more examples. I haven't even touched on how the mainstream media barely brought up the Hunter Biden scandal. Or barely covered how Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell slept with Chinese spy Fang Fang aka Christine Fang. Yet they are more than happy to cover Trump's Russian collusion despite the fact that the Mueller Report found nothing in the end. I'm not saying don't cover Trump's Russia collusion, but I'm saying if Americans get to hear non-stop news coverage on Trump's collusion with Russia, then where's the same level of coverage on Hunter Biden, Eric Swalwell, and others I could list?

g. Another example is Trump skipped Biden's inauguration, which I don't think he should have, but the left chastized him for doing so. Yet AOC also skipped Biden's inauguration because she didn't "feel safe" around Republicans. Where's the left's outrage against AOC? Is it okay for Congressional representatives to skip the inauguration, but not presidents, according to leftists?

In short, while I'm sure there's some degree of double standards on both the left and the right, the left is overrun with hypocrisy and double standards.

5. Admittedly, I don't think the Republicans have been a great party either. But at least they tend to have a "live and let live" attitude unlike modern Democrats. Republicans are more hands-off and wish to let people do what they want. Laissez-faire economics, small government, etc. They're more aligned with libertarians in that respect.

6. By contrast, the Democrats have become meddlers, to put it mildly. By "meddlers" I mean what the character River Tam said in the science fiction movie Serenity: "People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."

Actually, it's worse than that. The Democrats are now a party of the very left. AOC and the Squad are the tail wagging the dog. And the left is vengeful. Truce or peace isn't acceptable to the left. They want to shame dissenters into submission or, failing that, destroy them. The left wants to "cancel" all opposition.

7. Biden is a fairweather politician. His views change with the prevailing winds. That can be seen in his track record over his nearly 50 years in politics. Everyone knows Biden will do what most favors his political fortunes. As such, Biden is extremely malleable, which is one reason he was picked by the Democrats instead of a more idealistic candidate like Bernie Sanders. Plus Sanders couldn't have won a nationwide election; he's too radical for many moderate or centrist Americans. Biden is the Potemkin village candidate who can be whatever you want him to be.

8. As many have half-jokingly said, Biden should watch his back when it comes to his VP, Kamala Harris, who is one of the most leftist members of the Democratic party. Speaking of which, why doesn't the mainstream media ask Biden important and relevant questions like whether he's concerned about his mental ability to function as president (like they constantly asked of Trump)? Whether he's concerned about Harris backstabbing him? Whether he thinks Team Harris is the one putting out "leaks" regarding Biden's mental competence, Hunter Biden, and other potential scandals to his administration? Whether there's any truth to the notion that the Democrats will end the Senate filibuster, add Puerto Rico and/or Washington DC as states, pack the Supreme Court, and seek to effectively end the electoral college via the NPVIC? Technically these are all "legal", but isn't using these technically "legal" means not an attempt to "subvert" our system of government like Trump supposedly tried to "subvert" our system of government? Why isn't this a threat to our very republic? These are the kinds of questions a truly "free press" should be asking Biden and the Democrats. If the press is going to hold Trump's feet to the fire, then they should do the same with Biden. Why don't they?

9. Although Trump lost, arguably Trumpism won. And America remains as divided as ever. If not more so.

Remember the Democrats were supposed to utterly crush Trump and the Republican party. Poll after poll after poll predicted that before the election. But the Democrats won a presidential election in somewhat dubious fashion. And in the midst of a pandemic. And in the midst of civil unrest by Antifa and BLM. And in the midst of tremendous economic uncertainties. And with the significant help of the mainstream media (which as Groseclose argues benefits the Democratic party 6 to 10 points) as well as big tech's social media interference seemingly censoring conservative far more than liberals. And with the cloud hanging over universal mail-in ballots and last-minute changes to voting in battleground states. And so on and so forth. If even one or two of these factors changed, then it's arguable Trump would have won. That's how close the election was. The odds were stacked against Trump and conservatives in general, I think.

Or to put it another way, I've said well before the election that if Biden won, then it would be primarily thanks to the coastal elites, mainstream media, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the Ivory Tower (or more specifically years of indoctrination from elite academic institutions which have created a generation of Americans who are badly educated, with substantial student loans and debt, only able to find lower paid work like bartending when they think they deserve a six figure salary - basically AOC in a nutshell), etc. However, if Trump won, then it would be primariy thanks to average Americans with small or medium sized businesses. For example, look at the major donors and donation patterns for each party during the 2020 election.

b. Even the Senate came down to Georgia when it was supposed to be an overwhelming victory for the Democrats according to the pre-election polls.

c. The Republicans picked up way more House seats than they should have, when Democrats should have been the ones picking up a lot more House seats.

d. Republicans made net gains in the gubernatorial elections including picking up an extra governorship. For example, Montana was supposed to have been a toss-up before the election, but Republicans won it by several points.

e. State legislatures were close, but again the Republicans won overall, with New Hampshire and Montana shifting from a divided government to Republican control.

f. More can be seen here.

10. It'd be good if there truly is "unity" without giving up one's own values and principles. But that takes both sides wishing to make peace and come to terms with one another. However, I don't see the left wishing to do so, even though I do see many on the right wishing to lower the rhetoric, be more reasonable, and so on (e.g. Ben Shapiro always inviting leftists and others who disagree with him on his Sunday specials in order to dialogue with them but very few have accepted, same with Dennis Prager). What I see from the left, especially now that they're in control of our political institutions, albeit by a hair's breath, is that their strategy of unfairly calling or labeling conservatives racists, sexists, homophobes, and so on works, so why would they change it?

In addition, the left largely controls our culture, and as some have said, culture is upstream from politics. That is, if people's minds are changed by the culture (e.g. more people become receptive to messages about same-sex marriage produced by Hollywood and the Ivory Tower), then it becomes easier to turn this into public policy. So in a sense the culture wars matter even more than politics, but the left has been winning the culture wars. Anyway, given the sheer dominance of the left in the culture wars and now victory in politics, why would the left wish to make peace? If you're winning, would you want to call a truce let alone compromise? Perhaps out of some sense of morality, but the left also thinks it has the moral high ground while they think most conservatives are white supremacists and the like.

---

1. Again, the left "stormed" Capitol Hill during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. But no one said they were trying to overthrow the government when they did that. Actually, the media treated the Democrats who stormed Capitol Hill like they were the Rebel Alliance resisting Darth Vader and the Empire.

2. Again, if anyone is inciting animosity, it's the establishment media who are stirring up and dividing Americans instead of reporting impartial, non-partisan, objective, factual news. Where are the "news rooms" today? Are there any "news rooms" left? The "news rooms" at CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the NYT, the WaPO, and other places seem to be "leftist activist rooms". If the media wants to be activists, then they should come out and say it. Instead they pretend like they're objective news reporters when they're in fact activists and lobbyists for the Democrats. The mainstream media is indistinguishable from the Democratic party.

3. There are prominent theologically conservative Christian leaders who often talk about the need for white conservative Christians to pursue racial reconciliation (which seems to assume there's a problem with how white conservative Christians are pursuing race relations with non-whites), for male Christians to behave better toward female Christians (which seems to assume there's a problem with how male Christians are treating female Christians), for Christians in general to better love our "enemies" which includes LGBTQs and Muslims (which seems to assume we're not loving them in our daily relations), and so on.

Now, sure, I grant some conservative Christians may need to hear this message. However, is this the case for the majority of theologically conservative Christians? At least in my experience, most the theologically conservative Christians I know seem to be striving to live faithful lives in the midst of a hostile world, which includes striving to judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, by honoring their sisters in Christ, by loving our enemies, by being peace-makers, by building bridges, etc.

Yet when prominent Christian leaders talk this way to average Christians, it seems like they're chastizing or rebuking average Christians for failing to accept the assumptions of the left which conclude with how conservatives (especially white conservative Christians) are the ones primarily to blame for vices like racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and so on. Again, some Christians may be to blame, but Christians in general or the church as a whole? Why should conservative Christians accept that we are primarily to blame for the social injustices in our society? This isn't to suggest we couldn't do with some soul searching of our own, but there's a difference between soul searching and self flagellation.

At the same time, these Christian leaders may be godly men and women. They may be as innocent as doves. But they don't seem to be as shrewd as serpents when it comes to dealing with the children of this world, which includes the left and what they've been doing in the culture and society today. Yet, the prominent Christian leaders I have in mind aren't proponents of pacifism or hermitism or even two kingdoms theology, at least not as far as I know. Why should Christians necessarily agree with how the world looks at us? What's more, the barbarians are at the gates, but the counsel from Christian leaders is we should be bridge-builders and peace-makers and humble ourselves to the barbarians who want to destroy our families and our faith? Maybe I'm putting it too extremely, but that's sometimes how it comes across when I read what they write or listen to what they say. Anyway, it doesn't seem to me that the majority of conservative Christians are the main problem when it comes to "political polarization", yet we're often the ones most on the receiving end of rebukes from our own Christian leaders.

Again, I'm all for building bridges and making peace with our enemies where possible. Who wouldn't be? But peace is only possible if both sides want peace. Again, right now the left is in control of most major social and cultural institutions in America (e.g. Hollywood, establishment media, social media, academia, big tech). Now they are in control of most of our nation's major political institutions (e.g. the White House, the Senate, the House). Given their dominance, why would they want to make peace?

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this, but I think a better message to hear is the following. Christians, love your enemies, build bridges, make peace where possible. However, if not possible, if your enemies refuse to make peace with you, if your enemies are intent on hostility and in "canceling" you, then fight! Fight in a godly way, fight in a reasonable way, yes, but fight! Fight for your faith, fight for your families, fight for the sake of all that's true and good and beautiful! Trust God, don't give up, fight! Are there any Christian leaders who are saying this to their people? I hope there are.