By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In contrast to recent discussions promoting civility, the author argues that hatred towards specific ideologies is necessary. The author contends that civility allows harmful individuals and policies to flourish, citing examples of voter suppression, xenophobia, and inadequate veteran care. Instead of compromise, the author advocates for actively opposing anti-democratic forces and their harmful agendas. This rejection of civility is presented as a necessary step to combat what the author views as dangerous political positions.
Read the original article here
Civility gets us nowhere, many argue, and the era of left-leaning political politeness needs to end. The idea that engaging in courteous debate will somehow sway opponents is, for many, a demonstrably false assumption. The belief that working together harmoniously will lead to progress has, in their view, only resulted in the empowerment of those who actively disregard established rules and norms. The past eight years, at minimum, have shown that this approach is ineffective, they contend.
The time for collaboration, some believe, is over. The current political climate is likened to a war, not a debate, necessitating a more assertive and combative approach. This echoes historical parallels, drawing comparisons to World War II, where fighting was necessary despite the preference for peace. The core principle is that extending tolerance to those who are intolerant only strengthens the intolerant forces, eventually leading to their dominance. This, they argue, creates a situation where tolerance itself is undermined.
Taking the high road, many now believe, has only led to negative outcomes, creating a situation where a more aggressive approach is required to reverse the course. Repeated attempts at civility, especially since 2016, have seemingly only resulted in the continued erosion of democratic values and principles. The call to action becomes increasingly insistent; a shift is needed from passive tolerance to active opposition.
One recurring theme is the perceived inaction of the Democratic Party. It’s argued that the Democrats’ adherence to old rules of political engagement has actively hurt their cause. Their reluctance to abandon traditional norms of decorum, some say, has allowed the Republican Party to seize power and enable the actions of figures like Trump. The belief that bipartisanship remains a viable strategy is deemed unrealistic.
The criticism extends to a supposed attempt to maintain a passive left-wing base, preventing genuine activism and demands for substantial social and economic changes. Maintaining the status quo, many believe, serves only to prevent disruptive action that could challenge the existing power structures. The idea of peaceful resistance and token gestures is seen as woefully inadequate.
The assertion that Democrats are equally beholden to big corporate interests as Republicans is frequently made, highlighting the need for systemic changes beyond simple political maneuvering. The social contract, many feel, has been broken as laws are not equally enforced, resulting in a call for stronger measures to counteract this imbalance. Compromise, in this context, is viewed as a failed strategy, suggesting instead a need for a forceful response to aggressive actions.
The suggestion that Democrats are overly concerned with civility while Republicans are obsessed with issues such as transgender rights is disputed. The counter-argument highlights the successful prosecution of Trump on multiple charges, emphasizing that the system itself is flawed, pointing to a captured Supreme Court and blatant partisan bias. The failure lies not with a lack of effort but with a broken and corrupt system.
The need for a candidate who can engage with a wider range of voters, not just those already within the established political sphere, is highlighted. This includes an ability to connect with those outside the traditional left-leaning media and engaging in more aggressive communication. A clear and unapologetic left-wing stance is seen as crucial in countering the more assertive rhetoric of the opposition.
Ignoring the most extreme elements of the opposing party, focusing instead on regaining lost voters, is also proposed as a viable strategy. Balancing the need for forceful opposition with personal responsibilities and the need for family protection is acknowledged as a complex issue. Those who can contribute to the struggle are encouraged, while others may need to focus on their personal lives and family.
The ongoing attacks, such as Musk’s call for the punishment of Vindman, are used as evidence of the increasingly dangerous political climate. The idea that civility can prevail in such an environment is dismissed, with many concluding that they are already facing a life-or-death struggle.
The repeated claim that the left has advocated for stronger action is contrasted with the perceived unwillingness of the Democratic Party to adopt a similar strategy. Years of advocating for more forceful action are juxtaposed with what many see as a continued failure to adapt to the evolving political landscape.
Ultimately, the idea of a “kumbaya” era on the left is rejected outright. The argument hinges on the idea that civility has not been genuinely attempted, and that the continued adherence to traditional decorum has only enabled the advancement of authoritarian and anti-democratic forces. The conclusion is clear: a more forceful and assertive approach is not just necessary, but urgent.