Since the country began to experience the leftward tilt of Congress and the Obama administration, there have been innumerable articles, editorials, academic dissertations and verbal altercations between members of the left and right over whether Obama and company should be defined as socialists, communists, fascists, or my personal favorite, simply idiots.
In point of fact, the actual label is immaterial. Defining socialism, communism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism (as it is understood at this time in history) as different from each other is roughly equivalent to describing the definitions of fat, obese, portly, “big boned,” husky, and plump as being essentially different from one another. I know this to be a fact since each of the second group of labels has been applied to me at one time or other throughout my life. Sometimes simultaneously.
There is little, if any, difference between socialists, communists, fascists, progressives, liberals, monarchists, theocrats, and the current crop of Democrats in either House of Congress, or the White House. The commonality among all these supposedly differentiable groups is that they all base their various political philosophies on an underlying assumption that they are, in fact, superior to ordinary citizens. They believe, and act upon, the idea that they alone are capable of ruling. Not governing, but ruling. This assumption is usually based on pure fantasy, just as the “divine right of kings” was used to justify rule by a monarch. At least in that case, the king was simply the designated executive for God. Today’s liberal-progressives don’t feel they need that justification since they are all so obviously superior to anyone in the “country class” as defined by Angelo Codevilla. (1)
These self-appointed elitists feel that they are immensely smarter than the average citizen. Of course that really doesn’t say much for the intellect of these self-described aristocrats since, to hear them describe it, the average citizen is not much brighter than a garden slug. They feel even more superior to those obviously inferior people who persist in clinging to their religion and guns.
These autocratic egotists feel entitled to tell everyone how to live their lives, what to think, what, and how much, to eat, where to live and, naturally, how to vote. In extreme cases, such as China under Mao, or a theocratic hierarchy in many Muslim nations, they even determine what the average citizen will wear. As a matter of historical fact, they not only feel that they have the right to tell everyone else how to live, but that they will coerce these idealized behaviors that they feel are “for the good of the peasants” on the general public by force, taxation or imprisonment of those who resist.
This compulsion to coerce behavioral change, to exercise complete and total control over other human beings through the exercise of absolute power has yet one more label which is not listed above. Rather than refer to such creatures as socialists, communists, fascists, progressives, liberals, monarchists or theocrats it might be more accurate to assign a non-political label more in keeping with their actual behavior. There is one other group of people, one not normally involved in governing, which uses intimidation, force, coercion and threats of violence to get the behavioral change that they seek. Members of this particular non-political group are commonly referred to as rapists.
Studies have shown time and again that rape, although sexual in context, is really a crime where the ultimate goal is the exercise of power and control over the rapist’s victim and against the victim’s will. Victims of rape are frequently murdered if they resist. They are often beaten to the point of serious and permanent disability. Yet it has also been found that many rapists are incapable of actually having sex with their victim, so sexual gratification is frequently a relatively insignificant part of the act of rape.
For political (rather than non-political) rapists there seems to be a similar behavioral incongruence. The political rapist almost always claims that they are trying to make society more perfect. They are simply trying to insure “social justice”, while carefully avoiding a clear definition of the term. They are only trying to “protect the children” while bankrupting their futures. Yet their actual behavior belies the claims, just as the non-political rapist describes what they do in purely sexual terms, even when they are physically impotent.
It seems, then, that when trying to describe the current Congressional majority and the current administration using political labels, the result is the victims of their activities have given them a perfect alibi. By allowing them to split verbal hairs, they deflect accusations by claiming not to be wannabe totalitarian dictators, but merely socialists seeking “redistributive justice”, and no one could possibly object to that, right? Re-labeling is a popular tactic used by the legacy media, such as referring in the 60s and early 70s to the Viet Cong as “agrarian reformers.”
Fortunately for those of us who are bombarded daily by Orwellian descriptions of the “help” we are getting from the current government, the term rapist is rather difficult to re-label as something innocuous. After all, “sexual predator” really doesn’t sound a whole lot better than rapist. It is time to stop using media approved labels for an out of control legislature and executive branch and begin using a term which almost every man, and absolutely every woman, can understand and relate to: political rapist.
(1) The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It, Angelo M. Codevilla, Beaufort Books (2010)