Image 01 Image 03

Liberals Starting To Push Back Against the Regressive Left?

Liberals Starting To Push Back Against the Regressive Left?

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.

The Blaze reports:

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.


. . . . 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?


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.


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.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The violent rioters at UC Berkeley are not interested in stopping speeches, they’re anarchists. They don’t care who is in charge, they want to destroy things and cause chaos.

    Have to vigorously disagree.

    They are fascists, doing the bidding of their handlers, waiting for their chance at power, just like Hitler’s Brownshirts, and Mao’s Red Guard.

      Diverso, ma uguale?! in reply to | February 15, 2017 at 9:14 am

      Fascists were the ones putting their foot down against these same anarchist and communist radicals almost a century ago. Can I rightly call you a lefty for so recklessly throwing labels around as they do.

        What is the difference between anarchists and fascists? Not the tactics. If these rioters wore brown shirts instead of black masks you could not tell the difference.

        Fascists usually have connection to a capitalist power base – like a Soros or a DNC.

          Diverso, ma uguale?! in reply to MattMusson. | February 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm

          Fascists are diametrically opposed to anarchists, easily evidenced by the rise of the nationalist movements of early 20th-century Europe which were in response to impending and actual social disorder caused by anarchists and communists. Sound familiar?

          The Brownshirts revolved around brawls with literal communist parties, at times defending their own right to assemble, but ultimately in defense of the nation’s future in the face of those threats. I don’t think you’ll find any reports of the Brownshirts beating up trashcans.

I feel bad that the Democrat Party is in disarray, and that various liberal factions are fighting amongst themselves. Wait a minute… no I don’t.

Sadly, Jim Webb represents about 1% of today’s Democrat party.

    tom swift in reply to Tom Servo. | February 14, 2017 at 11:34 pm

    He’s as big a dick as any of them.

    …we’ve lost that with the Democratic Party. I’m not saying the Republicans have it. But–

    He’s a Democrat first, and a human being a distant second.

      Tom Servo in reply to tom swift. | February 15, 2017 at 8:19 am

      Webb reminds me of the “blue dogs” who until recently were common in the southern states. They’re extinct now, because their game was to talk a big conservative game to their constituents, and then go to Washington and vote with Nancy Pelosi. Everyone finally caught on to what big liars and hypocrites they all were.

There were articles within the past few weeks that discussed how Ds were wondering how to “talk to” the voters. I saw the term many times – “talk to”. I wanted to shout – “how about talking with voters?”

Today I saw a tweet from President Trump – “Great parent-teacher listening session this morning with” VP Pence and DEd Secretary DeVos.

Notice the difference – a “listening session” or a “talking to”.

Even Webb spoke in negative terms by saying “flyover country” several times. He is just confirming the concept of the coastal elites vs everyone else.

I also dislike the term “folks” because it has a peasant or country feeling of people talked down to. Obama usually had a smile or chuckle to go along with using that term. “Let me be clear” usually meant that what followed was a lie. Hmm, it would be interesting to have a post where everyone discussed which words,like you know,you don’t like.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Liz. | February 14, 2017 at 8:22 pm

    RE: “I wanted to shout – “how about talking with voters?”

    Or better yet, how about Dems and RINOs actually listening to voters and then actually taking advice from voters – the way Trump did and does!

Is being a “free speech fundamentalist” supposed to be a bad thing? Since freaking when?

After graduation from the reeducation camps, these clowns should be forced to walk wearing Joy Villa “MAGA” gowns.

The violent anti-Semitic fring has taken over the party and won’t give it back without a violent counter revolution.

From their perspective, they are progressive.

Subotai Bahadur | February 14, 2017 at 10:50 pm

Not giving the GOPe auxiliary of the Democrats any slack, but this part of the article:

>>>>”moderate centrists who still believe in things like free speech, capitalism, and love for America”<<<<

We have not seen anything or anyone like this in the Democrat Party for decades. They were driven extinct by the totalitarians who control the Democrats now.

There are a lot of people who could benefit greatly by spending eight weeks with a Marine D.I.

I am a liberal because I believe in liberty.

Distilled silliness.

If we get set the WayBack Machine for the late 1780s, we see a considerable pile of books, pamphlets, letters, and speeches concerning the relationship between the citizen and his government. The essence of what I think we can fairly call the liberalism of the day was that the individual had to be liberated from his government. Liberty (and Liberalism) in this sense meant protection from arbitrary authority, whether it be that of the government or the mob. And that liberty is exactly what the Bill of Rights (which belongs to the next decade) codified.

No modern liberal is terribly concerned with liberty in this sense. I think most of them reject it, and reject it enthusiastically. The word is the same, but not the thoughts behind it. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and Liberalism is Liberalism.

“Illiberal left” is another way to describe progressives that are not democrats.

Anyone that supports Free Speech, truly supports it the way the 1st Amendment guarantees, is absolutely NOT a Liberal and never will be.

The universal Liberal position on the issue is precisely as Kouross Esmaeli describes. Shocking as that may seem to those unfamiliar with what the Left has become in America. He’s no outlier, he’s not a “radical” in any sense – he’s a mainstream Democrat expressing what his Party, and his ideology, firmly believe.

Interestingly, what the Left and those like Webb don’t understand, is what they’re defining as Liberal, is classical liberalism in many senses….and that’s really what the right and center are.
They don’t understand that the Democrat Party is no longer that by definition.

Some of them, maybe. Others are busy stoking fake outrage. Like this story.

Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

but see the money shot:

The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.