To Kavanaugh, Or Not To Kavanaugh? That Is The Question

Friends, my latest article addresses conservative criticism of Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's latest pick for the Supreme Court.  I believe this criticism to be overblown, as I explain in my latest article, coming soon to American Greatness.  Will Kavanaugh be the firebrand reactionary zealot that you and I pine for?  That I can't guarantee, but I do believe he'll be a distinct improvement on Anthony Kennedy, and that's my personal litmus test.  Kavanaugh passes!  My hope, though, is that the Supreme Court is only starting its journey down the Golden Road of Trumpism.  Time will tell.
 

Brett Kavanaugh Isn't Defined By The Swamp That Spawned Him

Conservatives all across America are asking themselves: who is Brett Kavanaugh, and what kind of Supreme Court Justice will he make? The answers are myriad and mostly speculative.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial analyst for FoxNews, has written an article about why he is “deeply disappointed” in President Trump's decision to nominate Kavanaugh. While some of his concerns may be valid, Napolitano's main argument – that Kavanaugh is tainted by his associations with the DC swamp – makes little sense.

First, Napolitano defines the swamp as “the permanent government and its enablers in the legal, financial, diplomatic and intelligence communities in Washington.” Conveniently, therefore, Napolitano excludes the media from the swamp, although surely the Washington establishment relies first and foremost on its “enablers” in the mainstream media to keep it in power. Napolitano himself, as a FoxNews analyst, could be accused of swampiness. My first reaction to Napolitano's denigration of Kavanaugh as a swamp monster, therefore, is: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Furthermore, we should understand that “the swamp” is ill-defined. As Napolitano admits, it seems never to include anyone we like. For conservatives, an outspoken liberal politician or a Trump-hating bureaucrat or FBI agent is a creature of the swamp, surely, but a right-minded old hand in Washington is instead a “seasoned veteran”. This just means that “the swamp” is a largely pejorative concept, and often those who employ it are engaged in plain, old-fashioned name-calling.

Now, if there is any objective, literal meaning to “the swamp”, it describes a Washington elite that is interconnected, resistant to meaningful change, and corruptly uses governmental power and federal largesse to protect and reward allies and punish and undermine perceived enemies. DC politicians vary in the degree to which they might be identified with such swampy behaviors and attitudes, but one thing is clear: both parties are equally befouled. 

We must further acknowledge that there are very few people in positions of influence in our government who are utterly divorced from the swamp, or who could be described as moral purists or true political newcomers. President Trump appointed several DC outsiders to his cabinet, yes, but even he – the swamp monster's mot-feared natural predator – had to add many “seasoned veterans” to his administration. Without them, and their experience, the Executive Branch simply could not function. Does this mean that Trump's criticism of the swamp is disingenuous? Not necessarily, because, from a practical standpoint, no swamp can be drained unless you enter it first...

The most important point is this: long-time Washington ties, and even the occasional lapse into swampy attitudes and behavior, do not and should not exclude a politician, or a judge, from recruitment into President Trump's campaign to reinvigorate America. The over-hasty denigration of political figures who are deeply embedded in the Washington establishment risks the loss of their knowledge, influence, and experience, and it neglects the obvious fact that, while they can be powerful enemies when provoked, they can also be invaluable allies when harnessed to a noble cause. Mitch McConnell, for example, may be about as swampy and sly as a Senator can get, but he has also overseen a successful strategy to prevent the judiciary from falling into liberal hands. We owe him a huge debt of thanks. I, for one, will gladly hold my nose and overlook the vile emanations of the swamp to achieve historic victories like these.

Judge Napolitano goes on in his article to suggest that Kavanaugh will be a disappointment as a Supreme Court Justice because he is infected with the “values” and the “culture” of the swamp. Kavanaugh believes, for instance, that Americans' rights to privacy should be weighed against the imperative of national security. He believes that the President should be shielded from some types of lawsuits while in office. Napolitano interprets these views to mean that Kavanaugh will support an unchecked, potentially totalitarian “deep state”. Napolitano even suggests that Kavanaugh is somehow complicit in deep state efforts to undermine Trump himself, but all of this is a gross over-reading of the few signals we presently have regarding Kavanaugh's mindset and his legal and constitutional philosophy. Simply put, Kavanaugh has never ruled on most truly momentous issues, nor has he enunciated clear views on most of them. We should suspend judgment, therefore. 

We also shouldn't assume that, because Kavanaugh sometimes associates with swamp monsters, he is captive to their “values”. Does Judge Napolitano, who teaches classes at Brooklyn Law School, accept and practice, for this reason, the radical PC “values” of academia? Of course not. It would be silly to suggest that he does. No one is defined exclusively by the company he keeps.

It might also be prudent to consider the possibility that, if Kavanaugh is in any sense a swamp monster, with a predilection for establishment “culture”, the experience of the next few weeks and months, when large parts of the swamp will be working furiously to malign and destroy him, may cure him definitively of his swamp fever. Who can say? In any case, Kavanaugh's “values”, and the degree to which they may change over the years, are largely unknowable. His decisions, on the other hand, are a matter of record, as are his partisan political leanings, and these ought to make conservatives pleased and confident.

In the end, the fact that President Trump has nominated an experienced, mildly swampy jurist with connections to the Bushes should not concern conservatives and lovers of liberty as much as Napolitano suggests. Every objective reading of Kavanaugh's record has tended to indicate that he will be a Supreme Court Justice considerably to the right of Anthony Kennedy, who he will replace. It is hard, therefore, to see his elevation to the Court as anything but a win.

Conservatives, therefore, should support Kavanaugh without misgivings. They should also keep in mind that, if they would have preferred a more forceful, fervent conservative judge like Amy Coney Barrett, she may yet get her chance. 

When it comes to Trumpifying the judiciary, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are a good start, but arguably the best is yet to come.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

And here is the American Greatness version:

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/14/brett-kavanaugh-isnt-defined-by-the-swamp-that-spawned-him/ 

Boris Strikes Back!

Friends, the WaddyIsRight empire is once again pulsating with life, now that I'm back from a brief hiatus in southern California.  I plan to reflect on the current social/political state of that region -- my ancestral homeland -- in the coming days, but in the meantime I notched another Newsmaker interview with Brian O'Neil, and you won't want to miss it.  This week we naturally discussed President Trump's selection of Brett Kavanaugh as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.  I give my analysis of Kavanaugh, and more importantly I rate his chances of confirmation as, well, very high.  America, therefore, is about to get Trumpier (like it or not)!  We also discussed the bombshell developments in Britain, where Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, a dynamic oddball, has resigned in protest of what he perceives as Prime Minister Theresa May's lukewarm pursuit of Brexit: British exit from the E.U.  For those who believe in national sovereignty (and if you follow this blog you probably do), the fate of Brexit is critical.  Could Theresa May be on the way out?  Could the Conservative Party redefine itself along nationalist lines?  Stay tuned, and enjoy the broadcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BtyjEDJq_o&feature=youtu.be

Happy Birthday, USA!

Best wishes for a highly enjoyable Independence Day for you and yours!  We certainly are lucky to live in the USA, although much work remains to be done to make America as great as it can be...  We're getting there!

When you get a chance, listen to my latest interview with Brian O'Neil on WLEA 1480.  We discussed the wave of anti-ICE sentiment, the Mexican presidential election, and perhaps most importantly the golden opportunity we now have to reshape the Supreme Court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40VmsnrBUd4&feature=youtu.be

A Supremely Delightful 4th of July

Friends, let me be the first to wish all of you a very happy July 4th, and to wish the U.S. of A. the very happiest of birthdays! This Independence Day, we have more than usual to be thankful for, because, if President Trump follows the Neil Gorsuch playbook, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is about to get a whole lot greater...  Sure, retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was okay, but we can do better, and we will, I feel sure, very soon.  My latest article discusses what a historic opportunity this Supreme Court pick is.  America will never be the same, and the lefties are...apoplectic.  Clearly we're doing something right!

A Supreme Triumph for Trump Supporters

When thoughtful conservatives and Republicans voted for Donald Trump in 2016, they did so in part because they knew that he would be among the nation's most consequential Presidents, regardless of his occasional lapses in decorum or the steep learning curve he might face. This is because conservatives knew that the next President would be called on to fill the huge backlog of judicial vacancies that accumulated during the last years of Barack Obama's presidency. In addition, many other federal judges were approaching retirement age, so it stood to reason that the opportunity to remold the judiciary would be vast. Most importantly, given conservatives' narrow 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, whomever was elected in 2016 would literally decide, on his or her own, the country's fate, at least in a legal and constitutional sense. The stakes could not have been higher.

Trump won, and the American Right breathed a collective sigh of relief. One could even argue that Donald Trump, by slaying the Clintonian dragon, saved American democracy. Why? Because, if Hillary had prevailed, she would have appointed judges who would have interpreted the law and the Constitution in a typically leftist fashion – that is, they would have disregarded precedent, twisted the Founders' words, and conjured new legal standards out of thin air, if need be, to achieve their goals of “social justice” and leftist primacy. With a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, future elections in America would arguably have been irrelevant, because no conservative electoral success would have changed the fact that the country would have been ruled by black-robed radicals. These power-grabbing judges would have quickly quashed any conservative law or policy (or election result?) that offended them. That would have been the end of liberty and government by the people. Trump saved us from this miserable fate, and that is to his eternal credit. 

In his first foray into judicial nominations, Trump choose Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court – a fantastic pick in every sense: ideologically, in terms of his youth (and thus his staying power on the Court), and because of his professionalism and poise. 

Happily, Trump's positive influence on the Supreme Court won't end there. With his latest pick, Trump can actually reshape the Court, as opposed to merely maintaining its long-standing moderately conservative bent. He can meaningfully reorient the federal judiciary towards fidelity to the law and the Constitution, as well as a literal and historically-sound interpretation of their meaning. We have an opportunity, therefore, to overturn the innumerable legal travesties that have emerged from the Court over the last several decades. 

Time and again, the Court has expanded the authority of the federal government, especially the judiciary, and flouted the will of the people and their elected representatives. It has further eroded the powers of the states, and dictated the legalization and normalization of immorality in ways that would have appalled the men who wrote the laws, clauses, and amendments from which the Courts' rulings allegedly stem. We simply cannot overstate the importance of reversing this execrable trend and promoting a renaissance of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Ultimately, the health, well-being, and even the survival of our Republic depends on it. Assuming that President Trump eventually gets to appoint even one more additional Supreme Court Justice – say, a replacement for one of the four liberal Justices still serving – then the reorientation of the Court would become not only profound but practically irreversible.

The Left appears to understand the dangers it faces. A recent article in The Daily Beast entitled “Anthony Kennedy, You Are a Total Disgrace to America” (!) confirms this. The author, Michael Tomasky, acknowledges the extremely slim odds of the Senate rejecting Trump's nominee. As he observes, the playbook for judicial confirmation has long been clear: assuming a judge says as little as possible, and nothing of substance, during his or her confirmation hearings, Senate approval is a foregone conclusion. Moderate Senators, including red-state Democrats, will have no obvious reason to deny the President his constitutional prerogative of selecting judges for the high court. Ergo, barring a dramatic error on the part of the administration or Trump's nominee, the Supreme Court will soon include two “Trump conservatives”. Hallelujah!

One further result may be, as Tomasky perceives, that the Left's crusade to remove Donald Trump from office may definitively falter. Why? Because it is difficult, if not fanciful, to imagine that the House of Representatives would vote to impeach him, and two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict and thus eject him from the Oval Office. In all likelihood, such machinations would only stand a chance of success if special counsel Mueller was aided in his efforts by the Supreme Court itself. Just as unfavorable Supreme Court decisions ultimately spelled the end of Richard Nixon's presidency, so too could a stern rebuke from a conservative-leaning high court be the (theoretical) deathblow to President Trump. If Anthony Kennedy is replaced with a hard-line conservative, however, that scenario will become even less likely than it is now. In short, it appears that anti-impeachment forces will for the foreseeable future enjoy clear control of two of the three branches of government (the presidency and the judiciary), and they may well maintain their dominance in the third, the Congress, if the much-ballyhooed “blue wave” fails to crest. Thus, the slow-moving coup against President Trump may peter out into nothingness. Good!

Tomasky forecasts other ramifications of an additional Trump appointee on the Supreme Court, including the overturning of Roe v.Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, meaning that the sensitive issues of abortion and gay marriage would once again be addressed by the individual states as they see fit. To liberals, this is the stuff of the End of Days: they insist that we must have total national conformity with leftist dogma on these issues, or else we will be plunged into abject medieval darkness. For those who remember what life was like in the pre-Roe and pre-Obergefell eras, however, the future will not look so dire. In fact, it could look decidedly brighter, depending on one's moral compass.

All this can be credited to President Trump, yes, and to Justice Kennedy, who wisely chose to retire at this specific moment. More accurately, though, it is the American people who deserve plaudits and gratitude at this seminal moment in our country's history. It is they, after all, who elected Donald Trump as our President in 2016 (against the “advice” of the mainstream media), and it is therefore they who saved us from legal/constitutional oblivion, and created the potential for a rebirth and rediscovery of the first principles and foundations of our Republic.

For years, conservatives have only dared to hope for one thing from the Supreme Court: that it would cease to do further damage to our nation, its system of government, and to American society and morals. Now, we can hope for more: we can aspire to point the U.S. in a new direction, one of our (and the Founders') choosing. It is, without a doubt, an exciting and triumphant moment.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

And here's the Townhall version:

https://townhall.com/columnists/nicholaswaddy/2018/07/04/a-supreme-triumph-for-trump-supporters-n2497003 

ICE, ICE Baby!

Congrats to Kirsten Gillibrand, one of my home state Senators, for becoming the new semi-official Ice Queen!  Why do I say that?  Because Gillibrand is now the first Senator to call for the abolition of ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  That's rapidly becoming a litmus test on the Left, you see.  Back in Obama's day, ICE's main task was to provide free bus travel to recently arrived "refugees", so they could settle in anywhere in the U.S. they pleased.  Now, President Trump is allowing ICE to perform what has always been its essential function: to enforce our immigration laws, including those that call for the deportation of illegal immigrants.  Lefties find these laws, and all law enforcement officials who execute them, offensive, so, they reason, let's abolish ICE!  You have to admire their moxie.  Even President Trump, who finds the missteps of the FBI highly annoying, has never suggested that we abolish the FBI.  The Dems have no such qualms.  And what would be the result of such a calamitous decision?  For that, I give you the sage words of Tucker Carlson.  Read on:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/29/abolish-ice-goes-mainstream-as-gillibrand-de-blasio-back-calls.html

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/29/tucker-carlson-abolishing-ice-ocasio-cortez-gillibrand-not-thinking-problems

And what, you ask, does any of this have to do with a picture of Gillibrand and Bill Clinton campaigning together?  Oh, nothing much.  I just thought it was worth reminding you that, before Gillibrand was the fiercest #MeToo anti-sexual harassment activist around, she was a HUUUUGE admirer of Bill Clinton.  The times they are a-changin'...

Just When You Thought the Left Couldn't Get Kookier

Friends, you won't want to miss my latest interview on WLEA 1480's Newsmaker program.  We discussed the wave of harassment that liberals (led by firebrand Trump-hater Maxine Waters) are now directing at Republican elected officials and Trump appointees, including Sarah Sanders, Pam Bondi, and Kirstjen Nielson.  (Funny how Republican women are always in the firing line.)  We also considered the Supreme Court's vindication of President Trump's travel ban, Brexit, Europe's migrant crisis, and Hillary Clinton's latest grousing about the results of the 2016 Presidential election.  Check it out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk1JCI6uwt4&feature=youtu.be

Child Exploitation: A Guide for Liberals

Friends, have you noticed how the Left's talking points are increasingly reliant not on rational arguments but appeals to crass emotionalism?  The critique (if it can be called that) of President Trump's "family separation" policy was a notable case in point.  How the mighty are fallen, I say.  It's inconceivable that Walter Cronkite or even Dan Rather in his prime would have hidden behind a crying child instead of making a rational argument about the issues of the day.  No more.  It's a race to the bottom, and the bottom, it appears, is replete with bawling youngsters.  Expect to see a lot more of them in primetime.

Read all about it in my latest article, coming soon to a news website or a newspaper near you...

The Left's Last Resort: Crying Children

It seems that, having exhausted all rational and pseudo-rational arguments – without having made even a small dent in Republicans' support for President Trump – leftists are increasingly reducing their talking points and their life philosophy to one simple idea: Donald Trump is despicable because he makes babies cry. How, you may well ask, did we get to this point in our national discourse? It is particularly remarkable given how fond liberals are of reminding us of their superior intelligence and unfailing devotion to “logic”. Both points are belied by what we have seen in recent weeks.

One could argue that, when the great machine of leftism can only continue to function by lubricating itself with children's tears, this is a sure sign that the movement has become truly desperate. This may be true, and yet the recent fixation with (misleading and even staged) images of miserable kids at the U.S.-Mexican border is arguably just a further elaboration of a long-dominant theme in leftist politics: the cult of the victim. Surely, liberals opine, whomever has suffered is entitled to our sympathy, and to some kind of restitution. (You can see why trial lawyers lean left!) Since, moreover, leftists invariably think in terms of groups, for them the primacy of victimhood means essentially this: they should have a monopoly on deciding which groups are most deserving of compassion, indulgence, and gratification, based on their relative positions in the hierarchy of suffering and oppression. Now, if one buys into this spurious logic, then needless to say it becomes extremely important for each group to make its claims to victimhood as loudly and as emotively as possible. And so we find ourselves witnessing, to our universal consternation, a nightly parade of crying babies in our “news” broadcasts. Nothing could make greater sense, from a leftist perspective.

But why illegal immigrants? Surely the Left could find a group better suited to victim/hero status than a mass of people united by no common bond except their failure to adhere to U.S. immigration laws... Not necessarily!

Illegal immigrants have long appealed to the Left as an aggrieved minority. The fact that they are potential voters and usually reliable Democrats doesn't hurt their cause, of course, but it is their robust victimhood and sheer downtroddenness that really earns the liberal's respect. Nonetheless, the Left's current position – that no illegal immigrant parent should ever be separated from his or her child, when U.S. servicemen as well as Americans charged with crimes are accorded no such accommodation – is an extraordinary logical leap, even if, like a good liberal, one assumes that “victims” should have superior rights to “oppressors”. Again, though, one must understand that it isn't logic that sustains this thinking in the first place. It is instead the drumbeat repetition of images (and even audio clips) that drive home the fundamentally emotional message: Trump's policy at the border is different, and obscenely wrong, because it produces the palpable effect of sobbing children. People who choose to make children sad, moreover, are monsters. Thus, Trump is the worst of the worst and the lowest of the low. The evidence of bawling toddlers only confirms what leftists already know to be true.

The natural rejoinder to this strange species of sentimentality is this: lots of things make children cry, and lots of children are crying, both in this country and in others. Why, then, does the suffering only of the children who can credibly be called victims of Trumpism merit our attention and remedial action? 

As “Angels Moms” demonstrated on Friday, June 22^nd in an event hosted by President Trump, a strong case can be made that illegal immigrants can just as easily be the cause of misery, both for children and adults, as they are victims of mistreatment. Angel Moms are U.S. mothers who have lost children to illegal alien criminals. Surely they, who have been permanently separated from their kids (at least in this life), have an even greater claim to public sympathy than those temporarily detained at the border, no? No, indeed, as the mainstream media sees it, because crimes committed by illegal immigrants are a non-issue. Why? Because to mention them makes advocates of “undocumented immigrants” sad and/or angry, and clearly we can't have that. Some tears, it seems, are worthier than others.

The broader implication of the Left's politics of despair is, of course, that conservatism, Republicanism, and nationalism all yield an aggregate quantity of crying children (and adults) far greater than that produced by, say, liberalism, political correctness, and socialism. In fact, though, there is not a shred of evidence to support this generalization. There are actually plenty of reasons to speculate that the opposite might be true. 

The 100 million people killed by Marxism in the 20^th century, for instance, presumably engendered a fair amount of despondency among their loved ones. On a lesser scale, the job losses and economic and social dislocation fostered by the waves of illegal immigration and one-sided trade deals beloved by liberals have also, one assumes, caused more than a few Americans, including children, to bemoan their fates. And yet, for some strange reason, the raw negative emotions produced by left-wing fiascos has never been considered newsworthy. C'est la vie.

To argue the same point from another perspective, how many Americans, including children, have been cheered by Donald Trump's election and its innumerable positive ramifications? How many children on the Korean Peninsula, and beyond, may sleep more soundly, may shed fewer tears, because of President Trump's decision to pursue denuclearization and a rapprochement with Kim Jong-un? How many children, adolescents, and young adults have been heartened to see job prospects improve, both for them and for their parents, because of the booming economy that Trump presides over? How many children walk to school or play in neighborhood parks with a greater sense of safety and well-being, because the Trump administration is vigorously deporting MS-13 thugs, instead of making excuses for them and shielding them from immigration authorities, as liberal “sanctuary” mayors and governors do every day? How many children have been liberated from stultifying, crime-infested public schools, and instead were able to attend private or religious schools, or be home-schooled, because of the farsighted policies of this administration? And, at the end of the day, how many children may, if Trump gets to appoint even one more Supreme Court Justice, experience the joys of life itself, because they were saved from abortion-on-demand?

It is not hard, as we see here, to argue that it is liberals and the Democratic Party that are the true enemies of children, and the more reliable instigators of their tears. In truth, though, these are still the arguments of sentimentalists and hucksters. They carry little weight, rationally speaking, because they are overwhelmingly based on anecdotes and emotional manipulation, not hard evidence and a balanced consideration of pros and cons. They are, in other words, the arguments of children, and those who think like them, not mature adults.

Which party, then, is the true champion of happiness, and which is the architect of torment and grief? That is a question best left to philosophers and theologians, not pundits and reporters. They may be experts at exploiting human emotions, including grief, but when it comes to identifying the true sources of joy and fulfillment, and of gloom and agony, they are at best only as insightful as all the rest of us mere mortals. Let us hope, therefore, that, in future they will stick to reporting the facts and keep their preaching to themselves.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

And here's the American Greatness version!

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/30/crying-babies-used-by-crybabies/ 

When All Else Fails, Liberals Turn To..."Demons Of The Infernal Realms"???

Friends, if there's one thing I love about liberals, they're just so adorably absurd! Witness this article about a planned campaign to rid the world of President Trump by a mass invocation of witches' curses against him. React as you deem suitable: guffaw, pray that God may protect and guide our President, shake your head at the lofty heights of self-righteousness to which the leftist mind can ascend... What a world we live in, eh?  I'll say this for Donald Trump: his detractors are a rogue's gallery of wingnuts, demagogues, and socialists. That makes me doubly glad I voted for him, and doubly thankful that he won!

https://nypost.com/2017/02/24/witches-around-the-world-plot-mass-spell-against-trump/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons

No Child Was Harmed In The Production Of This Radio Broadcast

Friends, you won't want to miss my latest interview on WLEA's Newsmaker program hosted by Brian O'Neil.  We talked about the family separation controversy at the U.S. border, tariffs against China, Facebook, Governor Cuomo, and more!  Prepare to be amazed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=720&v=RoJw6S-mcbo

Wackos on Parade

Friends, I have some captivating sideshows for you today.

First, ever wondered what became of that feminist professor who wrote the stridently anti-male WaPo op-ed that I posted a few days ago?  Seems she's an embarrassment even to her leftist colleagues.  That's heartening, but it's only because she states her prejudices so baldly.  Prejudice itself is quite normative on the Left.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/northeastern-distancing-itself-from-professor-who-said-women-have-right-to-hate-men-because-ve-done-us-wrong.html

And check out this story about a communist who tried to become an officer in the U.S. Army!  It takes all kinds, but this was never going to work...unless, I suppose, Hillary had won the election.  Then perhaps he would have been made a five-star general?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/west-point-grad-who-posed-with-communism-will-win-in-cap-discharged.html

Lastly, consider this article, about a (lone) Democrat who laments the divisiveness of identity politics.  Of course, he's 100% right, which is a sure sign he won't win the Democratic nomination for Governor of Wisconsin.  In fact, expect him to discover he's actually a Republican within a few years.  Make no mistake -- the Dems are absolutely addicted to identity politics, as is academia.  You wouldn't believe the lunacy that this can sometimes engender.  The upside is that the Left can never agree on whose victimhood is the most excellent of all.  To put it another way, occasionally people of color, women, gays, Muslims, transgender folks, and the disabled don't all think the same way, and then what's a lefty to do?  Tie themselves in knots, naturally.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/19/democratic-candidate-decries-partys-identity-politics-and-victimology.html