media treatment if extremism in American politics

Extremism, with its absolutism, penchant for violence and intolerance of differing views, is not desirable, whether from the left or right. There are, however, profound differences in the dangers posed by the two opposing sides, and in the way they are treated by key sources.

Right wing extremism is a fringe movement largely rejected by conservatives, Republicans, and others on the right. Left wing extremism has become the heart and soul of the Progressive movement, supported by a number of key leaders of the Democratic Party, academia, and some of the media.

Far rightists are generally ostracized by the GOP, conservative donors and related organizations. Their counterparts on the left are well supported, feted even.

Extremists on the right are (correctly) criticized without penalty. However, individuals and organizations which point out the dangers of leftists are irrationally and falsely branded as racists, fascists, as well as just about any other epithet imaginable.

Universities and news outlets bend over backwards in attempts to portray left wing extremists in the best possible light. When a particularly outrageous act is committed, great pains are taken to say the perpetrator is a loner, not a leftist at all, or was responding to unbearable stimuli. Any act committed by an individual who has the remotest inclination to agree with conservatives is imputed to be the liability of everyone on that side of the ideological divide.

Coverage of even the most serious acts committed by a Progressive perpetrator fairly quickly leave the news cycle.

Consider how rapidly the horrendous attempt at the mass assassination of Republican congressmen at a baseball practice, in which four individuals were shot, the most serious being Rep. Steve Scalise. (R-Louisiana) left the news cycle. Consider how differently the incident would have been treated if the victims had been leftist Democrats.

Academia and the media have muddied the discourse by portraying the most heinous historic left-wing extremists as rightists. When the Soviet Union was falling, the Communist old guard were referred to by media sources as “conservatives.” Hitler’s horrible National Socialists are only referred to as Nazis, to cover up their left- wing reality. Indeed, the Antisemitism that characterizes socialists from Hitler to the Soviet Union to Democrats Rasida Talib, Illian Omar and former DNC vice chair and current Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison remains largely unspoken, as does the barely concealed Antisemitism of the “BDS” (boycott, disinvestment, sanction) movement so popular on the Left, particularly within universities. Little has ever been discussed about the Obama Administrations’ inexplicable tilt towards Iran, and its attempts to alienate America from Israel.

Biased Progressive history books dwell on every American flaw, incorrectly asserted to be the result of conservative thinking, even though those errors have been long rectified. However, they scrupulously overlook the hundred million murders, economic disasters, and terrible oppression committed by extreme left-wing governments over the past 100 years, and ongoing still. It’s barely mentioned that Democrats have been the party of slavery and segregation.

The refusal to acknowledge left wing extremism can be discerned in Hollywood’s Progressive popular entertainment venues. There is a common plot in many television dramas. A horrible crime or act of terror is committed, and all indications point to a left-wing extremist group. But in the final moments, the real culprit is exposed to be a right-wing businessman or conservative politician.

Antifa, the left-wing masked stormtroopers who have a penchant for street rioting, property damage, and physical assaults, have received protected status within their key arena, Portland, Oregon. The mayor of that city has encouraged the police to essentially stand down and surrender the streets to them during their outbreaks. Nothing was done when journalist Andy Ngo was beaten so severely by an Antifa mob that he required hospitalization.

The response to this and Antifa’s other outrages? As reported by the Daily Wire:

The heavy usage of alcohol even though getting any PDE-5 inhibitor must be avoided due to the fact cialis prescription cost that your urinary tract is obstructed due to various causes. This is because testosterone binds to androgen receptors on the prostate viagra pills wholesale cancer cells. Kamagra jellies are available in a range of lip-smacking flavors such women viagra australia as orange, strawberry, pineapple, cherry, mint and bananas to name a few. Purchase Online this pill are accessible without remedy however it is seen that buy female viagra ED problems is most common in people over the age of 40.

“Democrat Rep. Debra Haaland (D-NM) proclaimed that far-left extremist group Antifa consists of ‘peaceful protesters’ who are just trying to protect Portland from “domestic terrorism.”

Photo: Wikipedia

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.