Well, two of them, anyway
The internal strife within the Democrat party is palpable. The two warring sides are the moderate centrists who still believe in things like free speech, capitalism, and love for America and the radical progressive left who do not.
In perhaps the most bizarre interview Tucker’s conducted as yet on his new show, he spars with a graduate student over the student’s claim that college Republicans should be kicked off the NYU campus for inviting Gavin McInnes to speak and (apparently) thus forcing the progressives on campus to become violent.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson got into a heated exchange with a New York University grad student on Friday after the student recently advocated that his school silence their College Republicans club.
Kouross Esmaeli wrote an op-ed for NYU’s student newspaper after violence erupted at the school earlier this month when speaker Gavin McInnes was invited by NYU College Republicans to speak at the school. Eleven protesters were arrested during the riot.
But according to Esmaeli, it wasn’t the violent protesters who were at fault for the violence. Instead, it was the College Republicans who invited McInnes to speak, arguing that McInnes speech isn’t protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment.
So apparently, Esmaeli’s defense is the same one abusive partners use: “Look what you made me do!”
Esmaeli was thoroughly unpleasant from the beginning of the interview, calling Tucker a “free speech fundamentalist.”
The Blaze continues:
Esmaeli came out of the gate firing, telling Carlson that he’s a “free speech fundamentalist” and questioned Carlson over whether or not he thinks Al Qaeda should be able to recruit on college campuses or if people should be able to advocate killing police officers on campus.
However, Carlson didn’t take the bait, and explained with real facts why McInnes speech is protected, citing the 1969 Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case found that the government cannot suppress inflammatory speech, unless it directly incites violence.
“I cannot say, ‘Go smash the windows of that liquor store,’” Carlson said hypothetically, explaining the application behind the court case.
“Now if you would have taken 10 minutes to Google this, you’d know that,” he added. “And so there really is not a close call here. What he is doing is protected speech.”
What Esmaeli said in reply left Carlson speechless.
“My stance is this: That we do not live in a society in which any speech should or is guaranteed,” he said, adding that McInnes’ speech was “beyond the pale of responsible dialogue.”
“We cannot prevent people from expressing what they believe,” Carlson shot back. “That is the essence of our democratic values — and you don’t seem to understand that.”
Contrast this irrational sputtering with the articulate graduate student Tucker had interviewed earlier in the week. This young man, a graduate student and president of College Democrats of Maryland, spoke out against the recent trend of violence toward conservative speakers on campus.
In an article for the Huffington Post, Matt Teitelbaum, rejected the loud, violent progressive war on free speech, calling it regressive.
I am a liberal because I believe in liberty. First and foremost, my most cherished liberty is freedom of speech. The entire idea of freedom of speech is predicated on the notion that one must protect not only speech which they agree with, but also speech they disagree with. That also extends to speech which *gasp* offends you.
The violent rioters at UC Berkeley are representative of a phenomenon I and other actual liberals call the “regressive left.” The regressive left doesn’t truly stand for liberty. Instead, they stand for the idea that anyone that says anything which offends them or doesn’t fit their narrative can and should be silenced.
This regressive mindset is not only wrong, it is incredibly dangerous. A healthy public debate of ideas never silences anyone who wishes to engage in an open and honest dialogue about important issues.
Appearing on Tucker’s show, Teitelbaum explained that he is hoping to awaken the liberals—he’s sure they’re out there—who reject the violent regressive left and want to take their party back.
There is a chance, a slim chance I’ll grant you, that the liberal left may have had their fill of not only being lumped in with the radical progressives who reject free speech, diversity of thought, and anything resembling civility.
Former Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday, and he, too, was speaking to Democrats who reject the pull of the far left and want the party to course correct.
FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:
. . . . You and I were talking a minute ago about the confirmation process, it’s slow it down so that by 18 when the Democrats are very vulnerable particularly in the Senate they will not be a record of accomplishment that they can run against.
And at the same time the Democratic Party over the past five or six years has moved very far to the left. You know, when you can’t have a Jefferson/Jackson dinner which was the primary, you know, celebratory event of the Democratic Party for years because Jefferson and Jackson were slaveholders, they were also great American in their day, something just different has happened to the Democratic Party.
You think that they’re too focused on identity politics?
FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:
Well, I think that the message that has been shaped by the Democratic Party has been shaped toward identity politics. And they’ve lost the key part of their base, the people in, you know, my family history goes back to the Roosevelt Democrats, the people who believed that regardless of any of these identity segments you need to have a voice in a quarters of power for those who have no voice. And we’ve lost that with the Democratic Party. I’m not saying the Republicans have it. But–
I was just going to say the center’s been hollowed out. You can make an argument that the political center in both parties, because right now if you espouse that you were running for reelection, any Democrat were espousing what you just espoused which is, you know what, look, essentially you’re saying, hey, start working with him a little bit, accept the fact that he’s President, you’d get primaried. And you’d probably lose.
Webb, of course, is correct in saying that the media is playing a key role in pushing Democrats to the far left. Chuck Todd proves Webb’s point in this interaction.
Webb went on to explain that he thinks the Democrat party hasn’t taken time to reflect on their historic losses throughout Obama’s presidency.
FMR SEN. JIM WEBB:
That is a danger to people who would say those sorts of things. But the Democrats have not done the kind of self-reflection that they should have starting 2010. And I was talking about this in the ’10 elections. You’ve lost white working people. You’ve lost flyover land.
And you saw in this election what happens when people get frustrated enough that they say, “I’m not going to take this aristocracy.” You know, Bernie, good friend of mine. Bernie can talk about aristocracies all he wants. You know, the fact that you’ve made money doesn’t make you a member of that philosophy. Look at Franklin Roosevelt. But there is an aristocracy now that pervades American politics. It’s got to be broken somehow in both parties. And I think that’s what the Trump message was that echoed so strongly in these flyover communities.
Todd responds by completely ignoring these points and begins goading Webb, trying to get him to say who he voted for last November (Webb didn’t say, but he did make it clear he did not vote for Hillary.).
It’s not immediately apparent how these Democrats who see themselves as liberals, not progressives or regressives, can ever break through the violence and hysteria of the far left, but it is heartening to know that at least two of them are trying.