Who Wants to Divide America?

Thus, what seems like a minor event, a few players knelling in protest of the American flag and national anthem, is part of a much larger movement linked in an ideology well ensconced in some of the country’s leading institutions, an ideology that wants all Americans to be on their knees in submission to a New World Order alien to everything the United States has ever known. Directing protests at the national anthem or the American flag crosses the line of proper debate by casting the country itself as a negative object. And when the flag is burned, it implies a desire to destroy the country for which it stands.

blue_logo
By William R. Hawkins l October 18, 2017

The narrative in the mainstream media is that President Donald Trump is dividing the country. This harkens back to the 2016 presidential campaign when this line was a mainstay of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. She had to counter Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan of national unity. After several false starts, she finally settled on “Stronger Together” as her campaign slogan in an attempt to also express a nationalist sentiment. The actual context of her platform, however, was still the standard liberal-left dogma of class and racial conflict and sub-national identity politics based on the notion that interest groups can only gain at the expense of other interest groups; the drumbeat of “redistribution.”

Since the election, the Left has gone ballistic with an explicitly anti-nationalist campaign of “resistance” meant to frustrate the Trump administration at every turn. If the President is successful in pulling the country together behind common goals, then the political future of the Left is bleak. Liberal strategists are thus caught in a bind. They know that the American people want unity and effective government; they want the “sovereignty, prosperity and security” that President Trump spoke of at the United Nations; but leftist ideology cannot provide these public goods because it aims at revolution and the “transformation” of society. History shows such movements always produce chaos, followed by tyranny as they attempt to pound the square peg of humanity through the perfect round hole of their radical theories. So, the Left must transfer the image of disorder and strife to the Right so that they can claim that their agenda will restore order; their order. Thus, riots and terrorist acts are always “provoked” by those in authority, not planned by self-styled revolutionaries who have declared war on society.

The mainstream media, which has always been liberal, is now trending towards the far Left. “Fake news” is a tactic, known as disinformation in the world of covert operations, which is working all too well. For example, a new ABC News poll found in regard to President Trump, “The public by 66-28 percent says he’s done more to divide than to unite the country, considerably worse than the highest ‘divide’ scores for his two predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, both 55 percent.”

A Reuter’s poll gave a more in-depth look at opinion that was more favorable to the conservative side, but was still headlined by Reuters as “A majority of adults disagree with Trump on firing athletes who kneel during anthem.” This was true, but the same poll found that 58 percent of respondents thought “Professional athletes should be required to stand during the national anthem at sporting events.” So, the real issue is what to do if they don’t obey? A more positive indication of how people feel was that 84 percent said they stand when the anthem is played at an event they are attending, a number that was fairly constant whether one identified as a Democrat, Republican or Independent. Seventy-four percent added that they also put their hand over their heart when hearing the anthem. So, the problem of showing disrespect for the symbols of the United States is not with the majority, but with a minority who hate the country as a whole for what it stands for. The United States was built on different principles than the ones they hold, so America’s success is illegitimate and the nation must be brought down in disgrace.

President Trump ran on a platform of nationalism.

That aligns him with traditional conservatives, but not with all elements of the Republican Party which also includes libertarians who reject any collective identity, and those politicians who cannot see anything beyond Corporate America. These splits have frustrated the White House repeatedly, especially in contrast to the solid liberal block across the aisle. The media, of course, wants to blame the man who is preaching unity rather than the factions that have crippled Congress, with the ABC News poll claiming that 59 percent believe “Trump has not brought needed change.”

In his UN speech and elsewhere, Trump declared his focus is on results, not ideology. It is this sentiment that separates the conservative-nationalist mindset from the rest of a political spectrum that draws inspiration from intellectual constructs of what an ideal world should look like. Such “idealists” are given a favorable nod that is not warranted. Experience has repeatedly shown, often at great cost, that when their ideologies are implemented the results are disastrous; not an ideal outcome.

The connection between the delusions of left-wing ideology and the NFL protests is presented by Colin Kaepernick, the San Francisco quarterback who started the uproar. He attended a press conference wearing a t-shirt with the image of Fidel Castro meeting Malcolm X. “Over a teleconference call, Kaepernick reportedly praised Castro for investing in Cuba’s education system, as opposed to the American investment in the prison system, according to [Armando] Salguero” a Miami Herald columnist. On his website, Kaepernick claims he is out to “fight oppression of all kinds globally.”

Hatred of one’s own country often leads to a shift in allegiance to foreign lands and leaders based on a supposedly shared ideology. This was common during the Cold War since Marxism is the core of Left-wing thought. But this phenomenon continues even after the collapse of Soviet Communism because the Left is still motivated primarily by hatred for “capitalist-imperialist” America. Thus, there is an embrace of any rival power or foreign movement that shares hostility to the U.S. Take for example Vjay Pashad, a self-described Marxist who holds the endowed George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. His PhD is from the University of Chicago. He is a very privileged member of academe. Yet, he is also an example of someone who wants to bring down the society within which he has enjoyed success.

On September 6, Pashad was the keynote speaker on a program celebrating the centennial of the Russian Revolution. The event was held at the University of Illinois-Urbana, my undergrad alma mater. It was sponsored by some 22 university departments, colleges and study centers. The theme was “The Russian Revolution as the Mirror of Third World Aspirations” and was an echo of the old Soviet line about being the vanguard of a global “anti-colonial” movement even as the Red Army built a new empire in Eastern Europe and in satraps around the world. The USSR was also the mortal enemy of the United States. Pashad would like to see a resurgent Russia along with other powers threatening America again. Vladimir Putin is not the only one to lament the fall of the Soviet Union; he has fellow travelers in faculty lounges all across America. And we are worried about radicalization from Internet messages sent from caves in the Middle East?

In a recent interview, Pashad said “When the BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa] alliance emerged in the 2000s, I looked at the emergence favorably, not because I thought these powers would save the world, but, my hope was that the emergence of the BRICS project would rebalance world power and create a multi-polar world” which would undermine U.S. “hegemony.” He has turned pessimistic, however, because “right-wing” parties have taken power in India and Brazil. Thus, the coalition originally formed by Russia and China to combat the U.S. (under the rubric of promoting economic development) is losing its cohesion. Indeed, India has threatened to withdraw from BRICS because it needs American support against a two-front war with China and Pakistan. Pashad, whose heritage is Indian, might understand this if he had any allegiance to anything beyond his ideology. He is all too typical of those who dominate discussion on college campuses today, intent on squeezing any patriotic sentiments out of their students. It is a completely unnatural endeavor, but then ideology is not about human nature or human history; it is about fantasies that turn into nightmares.

Ryan Harvey, the author who interviewed Pashad, argues “There are very few signs that a collapse or weakening of US hegemony will, by itself, lead to a more peaceful or just period for the world. The question is, ultimately, what powers will fill these voids, and how will they relate to the needs and desires of people?” So, it is not enough to protest or subvert America, knocking society off balance, gutting its military or crippling the economy; other powers must be built up to take America’s place. In the end, the U.S. must lose to its enemies and fall under the dominion of those with a very different agenda for the future. Thus, what seems like a minor event, a few players knelling in protest of the American flag and national anthem, is part of a much larger movement linked in an ideology well ensconced in some of the country’s leading institutions, an ideology that wants all Americans to be on their knees in submission to a New World Order alien to everything the United States has ever known.

This does not mean that all dissent is treason; motivation and intent are the determining factors. There is plenty for people of good will to discuss about what will make us more prosperous, secure and happy. But debating within a framework of what is best for America is fundamentally different from what those are doing who advocate for causes and movements that are meant to make us weaker and to aid our enemies.

Directing protests at the national anthem or the American flag crosses the line of proper debate by casting the country itself as a negative object. And when the flag is burned, it implies a desire to destroy the country for which it stands. There are those who do want to see that happen, but they are a minority even among those who criticize current policy. Those who want to play a constructive role in making America a better place need to consider what is the appropriate way to do so and not allow themselves to be drawn into the illegitimate mob of anti-Americans. If we don’t stand for and by our country, we will be dragged down by our enemies.


William R. Hawkins, a former economics professor and Congressional staffer, is a consultant specializing in international economics and national security issues. He is a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis, of the Conservative-Online-Journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

Related Articles