Are progressives or conservatives a greater threat to democracy?

Can democracy survive? (C-Span)

Could both sides be right that the other side is the biggest threat?

Obviously, both sides can’t be right. One side or the other is the biggest threat. But if you watch MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews or loads of other media, you’ll discover that both sides believe that the threat comes exclusively from the other side.

Here are some examples

It’s tiresome. Annoying. Repeated ad nadeem. And wrong. Here’s the truth: You can find threats to democracy from both sides, serious ones. But you never, ever hear that said in this politically poisonous atmosphere.

Yes, Jan 6 posed a threat to democracy. As we’ve been reminded over and over again by the hyper-partisan, Democratic-controlled “Select” House committee. And yet, that committee itself is a threat to democracy,

Jan. 6 and its aftermath confirm there are degrees of threats. Whoever tried to stop by extra-legal means the confirmation by the Electoral College of Joe Biden as president posed a threat. That’s the truth, whether they did it by inciting a crowd of blockheads to invade the Capitol or by the individuals who menaced legitimately elected officials carrying out their constitutional responsibility,

That’s why I”m for a full exposure of anyone who did that, including former President Donald Trump, the goofy Proud Boys or any freelance rioters. Preferably, the job belongs to a special counsel who is insulated from the obvious left-wing, Democratic bias in the Justice Department that now hobbles the true application of justice. If that means the indictment and trial of a former president, so be it.

As for the “mob” that had marched to the Capitol, as if their lemming-like minds were somehow controlled by Trump: If they didn’t force their way into the Capitol, fight the police and engage in specific law-breaking activities, their peaceful protests ought not to be a threat to democracy. It was their right to assemble, petition the government and speak, or shout, their minds.

And yet…

The Jan. 6 committee is itself a threat to democracy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cast aside centuries of precedent by not allowing the minority party (GOP) to select its own members for the “select” committee. She has brazenly excluded the voices of elected representatives of a specific group of people–Republicans in red states–in pursuit of a partisan goal. She has created a show trial by refusing to allow the accused (and already convicted) to cross-examine the witnesses. Pelosi would have been right at home at the Cuban show trials conducted by Fidel Castro.

Castro’s show trial. Maybe the defendants were guilty, but democracy was trashed by holding a show trial in a sports arena with a cheering crowd,

Let me go on. While universal access to the ballot box is an essential element of democracy, the Democratic war against election security is itself a threat to democracy. Claiming that having to have an ID to vote is an effort to deny the vote to black voters is a dangerous charade. Voter fraud is truly a threat to democracy; to ignore it is to reveal crass political motivation.

Now for Trump: He’s a threat to democracy because he doesn’t seem to understand democratic principles. To think that Vice President Mike Pence could single-handedly stymie the Electoral College is a clear symptom that Trump is either ignorant or a true danger. His ego stands in the way of self-government as prescribed in the Constitution, laws, judicial caselaw and deeply ingrained tradition. He ought not run again.

But on the other hand…

One of the biggest threats to democracy was the “Russian hoax.” Democrats, such as Rep. Adam Schiff of California, concocted out of whole cloth a fantasy about Trump being in cahoots with Russia. It wasn’t just an unconscionable attempt to subvert Trump’s election. It involved the political corruption of the FBI, intelligence agencies and the FISA court. (Why hasn’t that court held anyone in contempt for lying to it?)

Speaking of elections. The damage done to their credibility has been extensive thanks to Trump and (to a lesser extent) Stacey Abrams, the defeated Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate. I think there’s plenty of evidence of election fraud, but whether there was enough to overturn an election, I don’t know. And how, for heaven’s sake, would an election be overturned now?

And now for the media: No, Washington Post, while “democracy dies in darkness”–your slogan–thanks to you and your left-wing legacy, corporate, mass and social media colleagues, democracy is dying in ignorance.

Too many examples of destructive bias are available to go into any depth here. By denying, discrediting or ignoring legitimate issues raised by conservatives, Republicans or other people you’ve already judged to be wrong, if not despicable, the left-wing media’s threat to democracy is enormous,

The tilt is obvious to just about everyone, except for the practitioners of what used to be called journalism. As a former journalist, I cannot adequately describe my loathing for how they have corrupted what once was a proud and essential profession. What the hell are they teaching in journalism schools these days? Where the hell are my former “old school” colleagues who understood and tried to practice objective, fair journalism? Do you truly accept this corruption or have you been so cowed by the woke among you that you’re in hiding?

There are more threats to democracy, but I leave them for now to make a plea for an end to the–what?–evilization of politics. Respect is an essential ingredient for a functioning democracy. Ability to listen and.compromise is too. America is, or at least should be, the best example to the world that democracy works. Autocratic regimes in China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and elsewhere are determined to prove that democracy doesn’t.

If we continue on the present path, they’ll be right

To subscribe to The Barbershop, type your email address in the box and click the “create subscription” button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: Can democracy work?

Comments

Leave a comment
  • "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cast aside centuries of precedent by not allowing the minority party (GOP) to select its own members for the “select” committee. "
    ------------------------------------------------------
    No, Dennis, prior Speakers have rejected proposed committee members who have made it known that they rejected the purpose of the committees. And Jordan was involved in the January 6 activities (messaging Trump that day) and therefore liable to be investigated and have to give testimony.

    Pelosi rejected 2 of the Republican's 5 proposed members on he January 6th committee, the minority leader (McCarthy) pulled the rest of his own accord.

  • In reply to Grundoon:

    Ah, caught me. So, help me out. Educate me about the prior speakers who have rejected proposed committee members.Names? Were the circumstances the same? McCarthy pulled the rest out after it became clear that Pelosi was planning a show trial. Do you agree that the witnesses should not be subjected to challenging cross-examination? Also, maybe Pelosi should have had nothing to say about who serves on the committee because she had her own explaining to do about her bungled role in the Jan. 6 riots and should have been called as a witness. Why? Because she was in charge of Capitol security; she needs to explain why she failed so miserably about doing her job.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    "Educate me about the prior speakers who have rejected proposed committee members.Names? Were the circumstances the same?"
    -----------------------------------------------
    Most recent example was Dennis Hastert in 2005. He wanted to turn the investigation into the Shrub's Hurricane Katrina response into a whitewash, so he rejected the panel members the Democrats put forward.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    "McCarthy pulled the rest out after it became clear that Pelosi was planning a show trial."
    ----------------------------------
    Wrong, McCarthy pulled the rest because he and trump didn't want to give the January 6th committee credence. Now the Reptards are admitting they made a mistake in so doing. See today's (6/23) New York Times. So if there no challenging cross-examination, it's because the Repubs screwed up. That's on them, not the Democrats.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    "...maybe Pelosi should have had nothing to say about who serves on the committee because she had her own explaining to do about her bungled role in the Jan. 6 riots and should have been called as a witness."
    ------------------------------------------
    If McCathy had not pulled his people in an attempt to sabotage the committee, Pelosi might have been subpoenaed. We'll never know. Then there's the small fact that the reason more guards were needed was solely because Trump fomented an insurrection to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

  • In reply to Grundoon:

    "Then there's the small fact that the reason more guards were needed was solely because Trump fomented an insurrection to stop the peaceful transfer of power."
    -----------
    Wrong. The intelligence agencies warned days ahead of possible trouble.Pelosi should have acted to ensure that the Capitol and the Electoral College were secure. The public deserves to find out what went wrong, and to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
    +++++++++++++
    "If McCathy had not pulled his people in an attempt to sabotage the committee, Pelosi might have been subpoenaed. We'll never know"

    You're kidding, of course. You really think that a Pelosi would allow herself under any circumstances to be questioned? This is an sample of how your ideology demands that you imagine things and always toe the partisan line.

    -------------'
    "That's on them, not the Democrats."

    Oh sure. It's clear to anyone that the committee was established to objectively and comprehensively get the whole truth about Jan. 6, including a thorough examination of the failure to protect the Capitol.

    =====

    Hastert removed those members after it had considered the DeLay stuff. Pelosi did it before, making sure that the witnesses were not closely cross-examined. Making sure that the Republicans she appoints to the committee are less likely to pursue the same line of hard questioning as, say, Jordan. Until Hastert, the committee was clearly bi-partisan. So, yes, Hastert departed from tradition. Aside from Pelosi and Hastert, were there others?

    A more important point, though: That someone else did the deed before does not excuse Pelosi's actions. Pelosi had an opportunity to return the committee to its traditional and historic bi-partisan balance, and she didn't.

    I'm not defending Trump or the Capitol invaders. Unlike you, who seems willing to always, no matter what, to defend people who deserve to be criticized .

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    "Wrong. The intelligence agencies warned days ahead of possible trouble."
    ----------------------------------------
    Yup, and the possible trouble was rooted in Trump -- in mid-December, 2020 -- calling on the "cavalry" to come to DC. Nobody imagined that Trump would encourage people to actually go to Congress itself.

    Sing and dance all you want, but Trump fomented an insurrection. That Pelosi refused to seat a possible material witness (Jordan) or people who had already stated in public that they would not allow the committee to work simply goes to the fact that the hearings would not be a sham. McCarthy pulled three Republicans on his own volition. You can't blame Pelosi for that.

    As for unlike me, I have never defended the Capitol invaders.

  • In reply to Grundoon:

    Can you read? I'm not arguing that Trump didn't "tormented the insurrection." McCarthy pulled the three Republicans when it became apparent it would not be the kind of objective hearing that should be conducted. If McCarthy, when in the majority, had been Speaker and did the same to Pelosi, would she have tolerated it? Maybe pull her own members off the committee?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    "McCarthy pulled the three Republicans when it became apparent it would not be the kind of objective hearing that should be conducted. If McCarthy, when in the majority, had been Speaker and did the same to Pelosi, would she have tolerated it? Maybe pull her own members off the committee?"
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Wrong. McCathy pulled all of his committee members when it became apparent that the committee wouldn't be the whitewash McCathy wanted. If that included the three nominees he put forward that Pelosi agreed to, so be it. You also conveniently ignore the fact that Jordan was a material witness, and Banks had already tried to undercut the committee. Your silence is deafening. Stop whining that McCarthy's attempt to derail the committee failed, and stop pretending that McCarthy wanted an objective committee.

    As for Pelosi, she didn't pull her nominees for other committees before, including in 2005, when pedophile Hastert rejected her entire slate of nominees to the Katrina commission --which the Republicans did NOT want to be objective (some things never change, apparently), so your speculation falls flat in that regard, too.

  • A major threat to our democracy just un folded in front of our very eyes. You might have missed it since the partisan, liberal media refused to cover the story. A conservative sitting Supreme Court Justice was marked for assassination. If the plot had succeeded the balance of the Supreme Court would have been altered. A liberal sitting president would have replaced a conservative jurist appointed by his conservative predecessor with a liberal judge due to the criminal murder of the other judge. Isn't that the same result as assassinating a president (see Abe, McKinley, almost Teddy Rooseveldt, a governor(see Huey Long), or a mayor(Anton Cermak) to achieve a different political outcome for years and administrations to come? A major "coup" to change the shape and form of a governmental institution?

  • If the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v Wade it won't be conservatives in the streets rioting and looting. It will be Democrats and progressives.

  • "A major threat to our democracy just un folded in front of our very eyes. You might have missed it since the partisan, liberal media refused to cover the story. A conservative sitting Supreme Court Justice was marked for assassination."
    ---------------------------------------------------
    What are you babbling about? The story has been all over the mainstream news. Also, a lone wolf wacko on the attack is not a major attack on democracy.

    You don't do hysteria well, HSparks.

  • In reply to Grundoon:

    And not a peep from Dementia Joe and the Democrat leadership condemning it. The silence speaks for itself. Hence, Democrats/Progressives are a threat to a free people. The "lone wolf" is the advance guard as the violent Democrats/Progressives prepare to riot and burn if the decision does not go their way. They are already practicing with attacks on pro-life organizations and churches.

    Time to recycle the "mostly peaceful" label as buildings and cities burn at the hands of these Dem Party operatives.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    "And not a peep from Dementia Joe and the Democrat leadership condemning it."
    -----------------------------------------
    Now you're simply lying, Richard, The mainstream media has reported on Biden and others condemning it.

  • In reply to Grundoon:

    I actually missed Dementia Joe's condemnation, so I sit corrected. Don't be so quick to allege a lie, Grundy Chuck.

    One thing that Joe and the Dems have not condemned is the violation of federal law that has gone on for weeks of protesters outside the residences of the Justices. Nor have any of the Democrat protesters been arrested. I'm not wrong on that.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Nor have the Democrats condemned the recent attacks on pro-life organizations and churches by other Democrats.

  • And Huey Long was a populist, not conservative. He was killed by a jealous husband.

  • dead is dead...assassination is wrong...story was buried to be forgotten and intelligent people know it. Babbling to you seems to be anything you don't agree with. Nothing personal...we are all entitled to our opinions but facts are facts Mr, Grundoon.

  • In reply to HSPARKS:

    "Babbling to you seems to be anything you don't agree with."
    --------------------------------------
    Actually, babbling to me is when one tries to turn personal revenge for seducing a wife into a political act by people who had nothing to do with it -- which is what you did.

    And just how was the assassination of Long "buried to be forgotten"? More babbling on your part, apparently.

  • "I think there’s plenty of evidence of election fraud, but whether there was enough to overturn an election, I don’t know. And how, for heaven’s sake, would an election be overturned now?"

    OK. Give us the evidence. Or do you have just theories and no evidence, like Guiliani?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Among those who have written about it, I'd suggest you read Molly Hemingway's "Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections." But I suspect that you'll reject that out of hand because she's on the wrong side. In other words, there's no evidence because the people who provide it don't agree with you.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    I looked into the book and it appears to be another garden variety salmagundi of allegations and conspiracy theories.

    What evidence of fraud did you extract from it?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    The only election fraud that exists happens when Republican win. Everybody knows that.

  • BTW, enough harping about the absence of true contemporary journalists. There are plenty of them. You simply choose to ignore them for political reasons.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I agree. But can you name them?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I'll name one. James O'Keefe, Project Veritas. Do you ignore O'Keefe for political reasons? Asking for a Leftist friend.

  • Grundoon...are you willing to admit that the attempted assassination of a sitting Supreme Court Judge is an assault on our democracy? Maybe it's just another random act easily dismissed after a very brief news cycle by main street media..."move on, nothing to see here." Or do you want to nit pick about the accuracy of Huey Long's demise? Political acts of gun violence are unacceptable...always. Ask Rep. Steve Scalise what he thinks. BTW I don't remember seeing Anderson Cooper, David Muir, Nora O'Donnell, Don lemon, Morning Joe getting out of breath from all the coverage they and their networks gave to the Kavanaugh story.

  • "Grundoon...are you willing to admit that the attempted assassination of a sitting Supreme Court Judge is an assault on our democracy? "
    ---------------------------------------------
    Yes.
    ====================================
    "Or do you want to nit pick about the accuracy of Huey Long's demise? Political acts of gun violence are unacceptable...always."
    ------------------------------------------------
    Long's assassination was not a political act. It was a domestic matter and the cuckold took his revenge on Long.
    =====================================
    As for reporters' breathing habits, your recollections are irrelevant, as are mine. The arrest of the guy going after Kavanaugh is still in the news.

    And no, one lone wacko going after one Justice is not the same as the president trying to overturn an election he legitimately lost and then try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Yes, the prolifers should accept legal abortions with limits, preferably for me the 24 week fetus viability limit. That still…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • The real "win" will be when hearts and minds are changed about slaughtering babies in the womb. The progressives have…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Nicely put, Dennis. Not sure I can get behind the democracy argument, but your sentiments are good, and well expressed.
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:
      Mobs don't wait for the doors to open; They barge in on their own. A simple fact that Dennis is…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Thien Ha Bet (thabet) is considered as the house that owns the largest and most diverse online game store. There…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement: