xml:space="preserve">
xml:space="preserve">
Advertisement
Advertisement

Vigliotti: Those on the left previewing how they would lead | COMMENTARY

Four events in the past two weeks have demonstrated how the left will govern if it wins in November. These include President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, his contracting coronavirus, his rejection of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s stimulus bill, and his ordering declassified all documents relating to the Russian collusion narrative.

As Barrett’s confirmation process nears, some on the left have intensified their prejudice to Catholicism. Though Pelosi has declared that Barrett’s Catholic faith must be “off-limits” in the confirmation proceedings, many liberals have echoed Sen. Diane Feinstein’s previous callous comment that “the dogma lives loudly within” Barrett. Some have even declared Barrett’s religious faith will bring about the end of women’s rights.

Advertisement

But Barrett defies that too-often accepted claim about women, that you can be of the home or the workplace, but not both; and that you can be religious or independent, but not both. Barrett is devout, a wife, a mother, and a working professional. She is her own woman, and her choices are her own.

Therein, Barrett is constitutionally-astute, and liberals assume that Barrett will follow their own method of judicial activism, altering policy and law through the courts rather than the legislature. In other words, they believe Barrett will behave like a liberal judge without the liberal worldview. Because she is not such an activist, she is unacceptable to them. Because she would reorient the Supreme Court firmly toward the Constitution, they say she must be opposed.

Advertisement

This, despite the paradox that, as was the case during the president’s impeachment trial, those on the left are again claiming they are defenders of an inviolable and sacred Constitution by opposing Barrett: They support the Constitution so strongly they reject someone who is going to decide by it?

Many liberals have consequently threatened to pack the court if Barrett’s nomination succeeds. This is not a threat, but a promise, using the Supreme Court as leverage for political ends. Packing the bench would erode the crucially impartial authority and validity of the Supreme Court by making it subject to politics rather than the law.

Politics has also weighted heavily in how the left responded to the president’s coronavirus diagnosis. While some on the left, to their credit, genuinely wished him well, there were too many who crossed lines of decency, and wished him death. That there should be such expressions, or such glee in those expressions, is disgusting.

On Monday, the president was released from Walter Reed medical center with the consent of his doctors. As President Ronald Reagan did during his assassination attempt, Trump made his own way to and from the hospital. Trump, though still ill, vowed to return to the campaign, demonstrating a Reaganesque form of traditional American manhood, in which men do what they can under the circumstances to behave confidently, capably, and in pursuit of their responsibilities.

In response, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin bizarrely demanded that Walter Reed be “defunded” because of Trump’s release, while others on the left claimed that Trump is faking his illness or using it as a way to avoid the hard issues of the campaign. When Trump later urged Americans to not be afraid of the virus, he was called reckless — despite the fact that Trump nowhere urged Americans to be reckless. Any reasonable listener could only take away that Trump was urging Americans to be safe, but not fearful.

Midweek, Trump halted negotiations with Pelosi on her $2.4-trillion coronavirus stimulus bill. Pelosi’s refusal to compromise, let alone her inclusion of items in the bill which have nothing to do with the economic welfare and physical health of American citizens (such as banning voter ID requirements and cashless bail) means that financial relief and medical help become political leverage. Trump has readily agreed to a clean bill focused only on stimulus checks, but Pelosi has not.

Trump further rocked the political and legal landscape with his directive to declassify all documents relating to Russian collusion. While the impact of this remains in becoming, two things are already very clear. First, some liberals are categorically dismissing the documents as unimportant as a way to preemptively undermine their contents. Second, where wrongdoing occurs, those responsible must be charged and brought to justice. If Democrats are serious about election integrity, they will agree.

As it is, the consequences of November will be even more crucial than 2016. The promise-threats made by Democrats, and the attitudes, responses, and expressions of many on the left denote not only radicalization, but a preview of what will come with their gaining leadership.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Vice President Mike Pence made that staggeringly clear. When the left doesn’t get what it wants, they respond by changing the rules. That is one of the most radical — and disturbing — aspects of all.

Joe Vigliotti, a contributor to The Flip Side and a Taneytown city councilman, writes from Taneytown. His column appears every other Friday. Email him through his website at www.jvigliotti.com.

Recommended on Baltimore Sun

Advertisement
Advertisement