Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. We Are the Resistance!

 

Have you noticed lately the number of journalists who are regularly using the term “the Resistance” when they refer to the members of the Left? Do you realize how they have subtly been indoctrinated to use the term resistance and they are unintentionally legitimizing the work of the Left? The word resistance has been co-opted by the Left, and it’s time that we not only hold them to account, but we should consider embracing the term for the political Right.

Resistance movements describe groups that formed to resist armies that were invading and destroying legitimate countries:

A resistance movement is an organized effort by some portion of the civil population of a country to resist the legally established government or an occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability. It may seek to achieve its objects through either the use of nonviolent resistance (sometimes called civil resistance) or the use of armed force. In many cases, as for example in Norway in the Second World War, a resistance movement may employ both violent and non-violent methods, usually operating under different organizations and acting in different phases or geographical areas within a country.

Members of a resistance movement were lauded by those populations that were suffering under the invasion of, for example, Nazi Germany. Today we continue to honor those people who risked their own lives to fight against the enemy and saved the lives of those who were victimized.

Today, we see the political Left in this country trying to legitimize their own actions by calling themselves the Resistance in reaction to the election of Donald Trump; Kimberley Strassel describes this phenomenon in her new book:

The Resistance from the start was instead about delegitimizing Trump, mobilizing the machinery of the government against him, and using any other means available to void the results of 2016. That zero-sum mentality all but guaranteed that the Resistance would immediately start taking out some of America’s norms and institutions.

Almost every segment of society has been invaded by the political Left and its supporters. Universities and government including all three branches are being attacked from within and without; the administrative state in particular has been allowed to attack government officials without consequences. Our culture has suffered attacks on social media, in journalism—the list is substantial. Even religious organizations are being infiltrated by these groups.

To look at just one example of these efforts, we can look at the work of George Soros and his Open Society Foundations. The reach of his tentacles is astounding. Here are some facts:

  • The Soros organization funds 206 organizations in the U.S. alone.
  • Soros’s Open Society Foundations granted $407,790,344 in gifts and commitments to higher education since the year 2000.
  • D.C.’s newest foreign policy think tank, funded by libertarian Charles Koch and left-wing George Soros, was co-founded by a nonprofit leader who was integral to the passage of the controversial Iran nuclear deal. Trita Parsi and the group’s other four co-founders, Andrew Bacevich, Stephen Wertheim, Eli Clifton, and Suzanne DiMaggio, are all pro-Iran deal advocates, as well as harsh critics of U.S. foreign policy and of Israel.

Here is the description of this new organization:

The new Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, funded with $500,000 each from the libertarian and left-wing billionaires, says it is named for President John Quincy Adams, who said that America ‘goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.’

The new think tank was announced earlier this week in an op-ed which said the new group ‘is one of the most remarkable partnerships in modern American political history’ and that Koch and Soros believe ‘the United States must end its ‘forever war’ and adopt an entirely new foreign policy.’

Of course, Soros and his ilk want to determine the nature of our foreign policy, regardless of what our president might say. I wonder if John Quincy Adams would be pleased about this supposedly patriotic effort by Soros and Koch.

There are many more billionaires who are contributing to the Leftist agenda. Most of them proudly and publicly acknowledge their Leftist label.


In the face of these actions that are intended to destroy and transform our country, here is what I’m proposing. First, we must take back the “Resistance” term; we must stop crediting the Left with this term and we should call them what they are: The Enemy. I encourage you to think of other names (that maintain the Ricochet CoC) that we could use.

Second, we need to adopt new language for the political Right. We are the ones fighting an illegitimate and destructive takeover of every aspect of our country. We must let everyone know that we are the Resistance and that we are the ones trying to save our country. And each of us must make the effort to back up our words.

A simple example of this type of action was taken by Senator Martha McSally yesterday:

When asked by Manu Raju on Thursday whether the upper chamber should ‘consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial,’ an exasperated McSally replied, ‘Manu, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not talking to you.’ Footage of the exchange, which occurred in the hallway of a Senate building, was aired on CNN.

To be clear, Raju’s question was legitimate and he had every right to ask it. I’m glad he did. The press exists to hold lawmakers like McSally to account, confronting them with the questions they don’t want to answer. That said, McSally’s dig was both hilarious and deeply satisfying. More importantly, it just wasn’t all that outrageous.

Of course, the Leftist media went crazy, demanding McSally apologize to Raju. I think what she did was admirable. She is following in President Trump’s footsteps, fearless in her criticism and truthful as well. She and the President have set the new standard for the political battle, and I applaud her. It’s time we step up, push back, and stand up for this country.

We are the Resistance!

There are 31 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Racette Contributor

    The irony is that resisting is precisely what conservatives do. We represent cultural inertia, the reluctance to change.

    I don’t think we’ll be able to reclaim the word, simply because the left is much better at sloganeering than we are. (They also get better press, of course.) But I appreciate your point.

    • #1
    • January 17, 2020, at 10:06 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    The irony is that resisting is precisely what conservatives do. We represent cultural inertia, the reluctance to change.

    I don’t think we’ll be able to reclaim the word, simply because the left is much better at sloganeering than we are. (They also get better press, of course.) But I appreciate your point.

    The difference is that we are resisting them. We are fighting back. I frankly don’t care what we call it. We’ve seen some fighting back from Senators and Representatives, so I know we can do it. We must do it, if we want to save this country.

    • #2
    • January 17, 2020, at 10:15 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  3. Hoyacon Member

    I’ve had similar conversations with left-leaning friends, some of whom participated in the protest movements of the ’60s-’70s.

    It starts out with me saying something like “How does it feel to be the establishment?” and goes downhill from there.

    I live in an area where every elected representative, save for the President, is on the left from school board on up. Our principal print media is the Washington Post. Local network news? Fuggedaboutit.

    When I point these things out, I’m told that the “real power” in the country is still on the right. You mean, I say, like the entertainment industry? And, oh by the way, have you checked donations to Hillary in the last campaign or the number of “woke” billionaires–one of whom annoys me nightly with his presidential campaign ads? Speaking of “woke,” do you really think corporate America is concerned with much other than pandering to the loudest voices?

    The moral of the story is that many on the left derive their energy from perceiving themselves as the underdog and from being part of the “struggle.” But that shipped sailed quite awhile ago.

    • #3
    • January 17, 2020, at 10:20 AM PST
    • 18 likes
  4. Henry Racette Contributor

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I’ve had similar conversations with left-leaning friends, some of whom participated in the protest movements of the ’60s-’70s.

    It starts out with me saying something like “How does it feel to be the establishment?” and goes downhill from there.

    I live in an area where every elected representative, save for the President, is on the left from school board on up. Our principal print media is the Washington Post. Local network news? Fuggedaboutit.

    When I point these things out, I’m told that the “real power” in the country is still on the right. You mean, I say, like the entertainment industry? And, oh by the way, have you checked donations to Hillary in the last campaign or the number of “woke” billionaires–one of whom annoys me nightly with his presidential campaign ads? Speaking of “woke,” do you really think corporate America is concerned with much other than pandering to the loudest voices?

    The moral of the story is that many on the left derive their energy from perceiving themselves as the underdog and from being part of the “struggle.” But that shipped sailed quite awhile ago.

    Yup. The old phrase “speaking truth to power” is now, when used by the left, wrong on two counts.

    • #4
    • January 17, 2020, at 10:25 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    The moral of the story is that many on the left derive their energy from perceiving themselves as the underdog and from being part of the “struggle.” But that shipped sailed quite awhile ago.

    That is why we probably waste our time to reason with the radical Left. The facts don’t matter. I think that calling them out (although we can consider being more tactful than McSally) and saying we’re not going to respond because they will misrepresent what we say, because they will twist it to meet their agenda, because they don’t care about the truth. Since the media ignores or twists what we say, why cooperate with them? We might get better press by simply shutting them down. They can refuse to report that, or they can say we refused to answer (or that we must be hiding something). If enough Republicans do this, saying they care about the truth, not the Leftist agenda, people are going to notice. How could the press they give us get much worse? We must stop making excuses for being cooperative and stop worrying about “being nice.” I think we can resist and fight back with dignity!

    • #5
    • January 17, 2020, at 10:33 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Here’s another example, a letter sent from Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows to the FISC–

    “Please explain whether you believe that the FISC bears any responsibility for the FBI’s illegal surveillance of Carter Page,” they asked. “Please explain and detail when the FISC first received any indication that information contained in the FBI’s surveillance applications for Carter Page was misleading or false. Please explain what actions, if any, the FISC took at that time to address the FBI’s misconduct.”

    The two lawmakers told Boasberg that they expected him to deliver complete and forthcoming answers to their oversight questions no later than January 30.

    I’m not clear on who the FISC reports to, although Chief Justice John Roberts appoints them. If they report to him, I hope a copy of the letter was sent to him, too.

    • #6
    • January 17, 2020, at 10:55 AM PST
    • 1 like
  7. Manny Member

    As usual, the left is being typically absurd. Resistance implies a baseline upon which you are trying to conserve. Resistance is the very opposite of progressiveness. It’s conservative at its root.

    • #7
    • January 17, 2020, at 10:55 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  8. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    The Strassel book is excellent. We listened to it driving to California. Lee Smith’s book is also excellent. The Koch brothers (only one is left) were libertarians and I generally do not trust libertarians on foreign policy or immigration. That said, I am in favor of rolling back the 50 year effort of using foreign policy as social work. I think we should have left Afghanistan ten years ago. In retrospect, the Iraq War was a mistake although that’s a very complicated topic. Gulf War I was probably necessary. April Glaspie may have been the one to set it off, inadvertently,

    Many of the billionaires funding the left may be buying insurance, or trying to.

    • #8
    • January 17, 2020, at 11:13 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  9. Randy Webster Member

    Susan Quinn: Do you realize how they have subtly been indoctrinated to use the term resistance and they are unintentionally legitimizing the work of the Left?

    What makes you think it’s unintentional?

    • #9
    • January 17, 2020, at 11:15 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    The Koch brothers (only one is left) were libertarians and I generally do not trust libertarians on foreign policy or immigration. That said, I am in favor of rolling back the 50 year effort of using foreign policy as social work.

    I agree, @michaelkennedy, with all you say. Bring ’em home, but not because Soros is setting our policy!

    • #10
    • January 17, 2020, at 11:17 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Do you realize how they have subtly been indoctrinated to use the term resistance and they are unintentionally legitimizing the work of the Left?

    What makes you think it’s unintentional?

    When Molly Hemingway says it, I have to believe it’s unintentional. The rest of them, meh.

    • #11
    • January 17, 2020, at 11:18 AM PST
    • Like
  12. Rodin Member

    As @henryracette says, resistance is conservative. What the Left is engaged in is an insurgency. But by using the term resistance they invite common cause with more conservative thinkers in their insurgency. And worse, it is an insurgency in support of an invasion and a form of political genocide where ideas die, not people. But history demonstrates that plenty of people die when ideas are marked for death. 

    • #12
    • January 17, 2020, at 11:39 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  13. Randy Webster Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    When Molly Hemingway says it, I have to believe it’s unintentional. The rest of them, meh.

    Even Shakespeare nodded occasionally.

    • #13
    • January 17, 2020, at 12:03 PM PST
    • 1 like
  14. The Reticulator Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    The irony is that resisting is precisely what conservatives do. We represent cultural inertia, the reluctance to change.

    I don’t think we’ll be able to reclaim the word, simply because the left is much better at sloganeering than we are. (They also get better press, of course.) But I appreciate your point.

    I’m with Susan on this. Keep using the term to describe our role. Don’t make a point of it; just do it in passing. It has the advantage of confusing some people who could benefit from a little confusion. Assume rather than argue, unless, perhaps, we’re called on to argue the point.

    I do the same when referring to myself as a liberal.

    Whether that results in our “taking it back,” is less important. It could happen, but I wouldn’t obsess over it.

    • #14
    • January 17, 2020, at 1:31 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  15. Zafar Member

    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

    True anywhere.

    Though it takes more than appropriating a label or denying it to others?

    • #15
    • January 17, 2020, at 3:07 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  16. David Foster Member
    David FosterJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    The “progressive” Left likes to analogize itself to the anti-Nazi resistance movements in France and other European nations. Actually, it is more similar to the Nazi (and Communist) resistance movements against the Weimar Republic.

    • #16
    • January 17, 2020, at 8:13 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  17. Danny Alexander Inactive

    Point 1: Not only is the phenomenon on the Left not “resistance,” what it *is*, in the aggregate (as well as in certain specific cases many/most of us here have been following), is *sedition* — hence the apt use many of us make here of the term “coup.”

    Point 2: From a “Family Guy” episode in which Chris Griffin — who later on improbably gets Taylor Swift to consent to be his high school homecoming dance date — initially complains to his baby brother Stewie about being turned down by every girl he attempts to invite:

    Stewie: Ahh, don’t listen to them… They’re just being haters!

    Chris: What’s a “hater”?

    Stewie: Oh, it’s just something people say instead of working to change their own flaws.

    **Substitute the word “hater” with “resister”**

    • #17
    • January 18, 2020, at 1:09 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  18. David Foster Member
    David FosterJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Here’s a statement from the Bonhoeffer Society calling for ending Trump’s presidency:

    https://sojo.net/articles/international-bonhoeffer-society-calls-ending-donald-trumps-presidency-statement-concern

    I don’t remember hearing of this society objecting to the Nazi-like tendencies of Antifa, or the prominent role played by anti-Semites in the Democratic Party, or the interference with freedom of conscious of the part of that party, or….

    This is just vile.

    • #18
    • January 18, 2020, at 5:58 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  19. Jim Beck Member

    Morning Zafar,

    What did those Roman oppressors ever give us?! Of course, when one gets to define who the oppressors are, then there is a lot of latitude for self expression, we get to create ourselves as heroes saving the world against the capitalist oppressors. They may have ruined the world with carbon but at least we have these cool fiberglass sail boats. Here is a little Monty Python.

    • #19
    • January 18, 2020, at 6:33 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  20. Zafar Member

    Jim Beck (View Comment):
    Of course, when one gets to define who the oppressors are, then there is a lot of latitude for self expression, we get to create ourselves as heroes saving the world against the capitalist oppressors.

    Or Leftists, however we define them, or in fact even Pastafarians if the fancy takes us.

    Absolutely. The common thread in all these narrative[s] is that we’re heroes. (Which we totally are!)

    • #20
    • January 18, 2020, at 7:05 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  21. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    David Foster (View Comment):

    The “progressive” Left likes to analogize itself to the anti-Nazi resistance movements in France and other European nations. Actually, it is more similar to the Nazi (and Communist) resistance movements against the Weimar Republic.

    There is some doubt about the intensity of the French Resistance, I have read a book called “D-Day Through German Eyes.”

    https://www.amazon.com/DAY-Through-German-Eyes-Hidden/dp/1539586391/

    It is quite interesting. A German reporter for “Signal,” the German Army magazine, interviewed soldiers in the “West Wall” fortifications before D Day. They had had no problems with French civilians. Years later, his grandson tracked down many of the surviving German Army veterans to get their accounts of the invasion. Pretty interesting.

    • #21
    • January 18, 2020, at 7:28 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  22. David Foster Member
    David FosterJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    There is some doubt about the intensity of the French Resistance, I have read a book called “D-Day Through German Eyes.”

    It varied a great deal from region to region. In 2001, I spent some time with Francis Cammaerts, the British agent of Special Operations Executive who was responsible for sparking and organizing resistance activities over a wide area in southern France. Cammaerts told me that the population in his area was very supportive, and he paid special tribute to the housewives, whose contributions he had found indispensable.

     

     

    • #22
    • January 18, 2020, at 7:35 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  23. TBA Coolidge

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    The irony is that resisting is precisely what conservatives do. We represent cultural inertia, the reluctance to change.

    I don’t think we’ll be able to reclaim the word, simply because the left is much better at sloganeering than we are. (They also get better press, of course.) But I appreciate your point.

    The difference is that we are resisting them. We are fighting back. I frankly don’t care what we call it. We’ve seen some fighting back from Senators and Representatives, so I know we can do it. We must do it, if we want to save this country.

    “Speaking Truth to Posers?” 

    • #23
    • January 18, 2020, at 10:23 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  24. TBA Coolidge

    A lot of what I hate about ‘the Resistance’ is how much it tracks with ‘Dumbledore’s Army’; these people are in a fantasy land where Trump is Voldemort, Sauron, and Emperor Palpatine, and they are the heroic plucky little guys who…well, they don’t really do much of anything but make ignorant posts online. For which I suppose I should be grateful. Much like the hippies of yore, they are ineffectually yawping while the press scores cool points by reporting on them.

    Of more concern are the ones who speak of ‘change from within’, some of whom must surely be governmental ‘leakers’ who are moles for all practical purposes.

    And of more concern still are the people who may buy into the fantasy wholesale and use it as a justification for extreme measures. See also; Weather Underground.

    • #24
    • January 18, 2020, at 12:40 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  25. Rightfromthestart Coolidge

    I’m amused by these reporters who seem to think they are some kind of sacred priesthood who cannot be insulted. I’ve been waiting for decades for a president who’s first order if business every day is to kick The NY Times and the rest in their tiny little b@lls

    • #25
    • January 18, 2020, at 3:04 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  26. David Foster Member
    David FosterJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):
    I’m amused by these reporters who seem to think they are some kind of sacred priesthood who cannot be insulted.

    Indeed. It’s pretty clear that the First Amendment does not establish a special privileged class; instead, “freedom of the press” refers to freedom of the PRINTING press. At the time of the Founders, there were no vast media empires such as CNN (owned by AT&T), NBC (owned by Comcast), or The Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos.) Anyone could buy a hand press, or pay for service on a job printer’s press.

    I think the idea of a special media class is partly a side effect of a particular stage of technology. With print media, high-speed presses and Linotypes were expensive; so was distribution; in the case of broadcasting, equipment was expensive and licenses limited due to limited frequency availability. So the number of people “doing journalism” was to some extent limited by technology and economics.

    That’s all changed now.

     

    • #26
    • January 18, 2020, at 4:05 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  27. The Reticulator Member

    David Foster (View Comment):

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):
    I’m amused by these reporters who seem to think they are some kind of sacred priesthood who cannot be insulted.

    Indeed. It’s pretty clear that the First Amendment does not establish a special privileged class; instead, “freedom of the press” refers to freedom of the PRINTING press. At the time of the Founders, there were no vast media empires such as CNN (owned by AT&T), NBC (owned by Comcast), or The Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos.) Anyone could buy a hand press, or pay for service on a job printer’s press.

    I think the idea of a special media class is partly a side effect of a particular stage of technology. With print media, high-speed presses and Linotypes were expensive; so was distribution; in the case of broadcasting, equipment was expensive and licenses limited due to limited frequency availability. So the number of people “doing journalism” was to some extent limited by technology and economics.

    That’s all changed now.

    And if they think they are some sort of special, self-regulating profession, we can point out that they have failed to act as a profession which would discipline and/or expel members who violate professional standards. Look at Dan Rather. And that’s just for starters.

    • #27
    • January 18, 2020, at 6:07 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  28. Zafar Member

    Susan Quinn: To be clear, Raju’s question was legitimate and he had every right to ask it. I’m glad he did. The press exists to hold lawmakers like McSally to account, confronting them with the questions they don’t want to answer. That said, McSally’s dig was both hilarious and deeply satisfying. More importantly, it just wasn’t all that outrageous.

    But did she ever answer the question?

    That seems more important than an ability to diss members of the press.

    If the press corps isn’t expected to hold her accountable for you, the people, who is?

    • #28
    • January 18, 2020, at 7:00 PM PST
    • Like
  29. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: To be clear, Raju’s question was legitimate and he had every right to ask it. I’m glad he did. The press exists to hold lawmakers like McSally to account, confronting them with the questions they don’t want to answer. That said, McSally’s dig was both hilarious and deeply satisfying. More importantly, it just wasn’t all that outrageous.

    But did she ever answer the question?

    That seems more important than an ability to diss members of the press.

    If the press corps isn’t expected to hold her accountable for you, the people, who is?

    I don’t remember the question. But often questions are asked that are intended to entrap. The answers are often distorted by the press. A question can be stupid or irrelevant. So they are often meaningless or entrapping or biased questions. The press is not always entitled to answers. I’ll give her a pass.

    • #29
    • January 19, 2020, at 5:15 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  30. Zafar Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    I don’t remember the question.

    This one:

    …asked by Manu Raju on Thursday whether the upper chamber should ‘consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial,’

    • #30
    • January 19, 2020, at 7:13 AM PST
    • 1 like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.