Let’s start with Gingrich. While I don’t care for his words “Liberal Fascism”, his main points are solid. 1. There is a growing authoritarian leftism in this country that can certainly be seen on college campuses. 2. Shame on the media for not holding these college campuses to the same standards as they do rightist groups. 3. The problem is less the students and more the faculty (though I think this was Santorum’s point.) I want to add to that last one. As a young college adjunct, I see this too. The older, established college professors are usually decisively leftist in their political slant and are not as open-minded as they likely were in their youth. Lastly, before I move onto Van Jones, I want to explain why I disagree with Gingrich’s choice of words “Liberal Fascism”. Fascism is a strong word, maybe not totally off here. Liberalism, however, has nothing to do with this. (I will post a link to an excellent article from a liberal magazine called “The Nation” that should clarify this). But essentially, liberals are supposed to be open-minded and tolerant, and we certainly don’t see that from the mainstream left in America today.
Now, Van Jones. First, I agree the right is becoming increasingly ludicrous in America today. The recent votes in Wisconsin, well, I half agree with Wisconsin. Do states have the right to secede from the union? Certainly not. In the US Constitution, Article 1 Sec. 10, it is stated that “No state shall enter any treaty, alliance, or confederation”. However, on nullification, Van Jones quickly dismissed this claim and gave a rather weak and factually incorrect explanation. He argued that the last time states threatened nullification, it was over segregation. Way to play the race card and poison the well! Aside from that fallacy, it’s simply wrong. States use nullification now, and not over segregation. Any state that legalizes marijuana is nullifying the federal laws against it. Before a recent Supreme Court ruling, states that allowed same-sex marriage were nullifying DOMA. Nullification is certainly debatable, but Van Jones dismisses it as though only a few kooks in a fortified trailer with assault rifles would say such a thing. No, this is a serious debate for constitutional scholars! Still, I like Van Jones all in all. He’s “on the left” but often thinks outside the box.
Well, that’s just my two-cents on Crossfire. If I find a vid of this episode, or this clip, I’ll add it here.
This is that “The Nation” article I mentioned above, using the example of Colbert to explain the difference between liberalism and this growing authoritarian leftism: