Author: Crowhill Report

Ford pardoned Nixon so the country could move on and heal. Schumer says the only way to heal is to have an impeachment trial.

My interview with Jacqui Cooper

It’s an interesting question. I think the basic argument for “no” is that the penalty is removal, and he’s already gone, while the basic argument for “yes” is that the penalty also includes not being able to hold an office of trust in the future. (Related – Rubio says it’s arrogant for the Senate to tell voters who they can vote for in the future)

On that second point, how far does it go? Can Congress impeach and convict someone who’s been out of office for years? What if, for example, Obama wanted to run for the Senate again. Could a Republican Congress impeach and convict him, thus barring him from that office?

I lean toward the opinion that trying to parse the language is largely posturing and justification. The real question about impeachment is whether they can get away with it politically. I don’t believe the courts can review an impeachment, and I don’t see why they’re bound to follow precedent. The only review is the voter.

From that point of view, Congress can impeach and convict for any reason they think they can explain to the voters.

My prediction is that the Senate will not convict, but both sides will use it to grandstand. They’ll all enjoy the distraction and the attention. Anything, you know, to avoid that nasty business of passing laws. And it will be so very unifying.

Coleman Hughes recommended https://ground.news/ on his podcast, and especially the “blindspot” feature. I spent a little time on it, and it’s pretty interesting.

They show a story, then show you how it’s reported by the left, right and center. I can’t vouch for how they create those groups or assign stories to them, but it’s an interesting concept.

The Blindspots page shows what stories the left or the right are ignoring. For example, the left is ignoring the calls for any investigation into Parler’s role in the Jan. 6 mess to include Facebook and Twitter, and the right is ignoring what Fauci and Birx are telling interviewers about the “nonsense” of the Trump years.

Thanks to Smitemouth’s recommendation, I recently read Live Not by Lies by Rod Dreher.

The book has two parts. In the first part, Dreher argues that we are rapidly entering a world of tyranny that has remarkable similarities to what people experienced under Hitler, Stalin and Mao. In the second part, he gives a meditation on Christian suffering under such tyranny.

I read the book to try to understand what the distinguishing traits of this tyranny are. In the introduction, he mentioned four.

1. “Elites and elite institutions [abandon] old-fashioned liberalism, based in defending the rights of the individual, and [replace] it with a progressive creed that regards justice in terms of groups. It encourages people to identify with groups — ethnic, sexual, and otherwise — and to think of Good and Evil as a matter of power dynamics among the groups.”
2. People living under such tyranny “can never be sure when those in power will come after [them] as a villain for having said or done something that was perfectly fine the day before.”
3. “[T]he consequence for violating the new taboos are extreme, including losing your livelihood and having your reputation ruined forever.”
4. “The foundation of totalitarianism is an ideology made of lies. The system depends for its existence on a people’s fear of challenging the lies.”

“A totalitarian society is one in which an ideology seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions, with the goal of bringing all aspects of society under control of that ideology. A totalitarian state is one that aspires to nothing less than defining and controlling reality.”

“Today in our societies, dissenters from the woke party line find their businesses, careers, and reputations destroyed. They are pushed out of the public square, stigmatized, canceled, and demonized as racists, sexists, homophobes, and the like. And they are afraid to resist, because they are confident that no one will join them or defend them.”

The new tyranny is able to be far more invasive than the old, since we have all voluntarily acceded to the demands of Big Data. Just today I read a story about how the FBI is using cell phone data to find everyone who was near the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Dreher calls the modern system “soft totalitarianism.”

“Under soft totalitarianism, the media, academia, corporate America, and other institutions are practicing Newspeak and compelling the rest of us to engage in doublethink every day. Men have periods. The woman standing in front of you is to be called ‘he.’ Diversity and inclusion means excluding those who object to ideological uniformity. Equity means treating persons unequally, regardless of their skills and achievements, to achieve an ideologically correct result.”

Dreher believes “modern liberalism’s goal [is to] free the individual from any unchosen obligation.” That’s a reasonable way to put it, from a certain point of view, but it’s also clearly contradictory, since liberalism expects us all to be obligated in many ways that we have not chosen. For example, I have not chosen to be obligated to use another person’s preferred pronouns.

If you’re looking for hope, this is not the book to read. Dreher believes the culture war is essentially over, and the bad guys won. He said “the collapse of civilizational order begins when its elites cease to be able to transmit faith in its institutions and customs to younger generations.” That ship has obviously sailed, so we are, by Dreher’s reckoning, way past the beginning of civilizational collapse.

One interesting difference between communist totalitarians and woke totalitarians is that the woke “don’t want to seize the means of economic production but rather the means of cultural production.” To which I would add, at least not yet.

Dreher’s book is largely based on interviews he’s had with people who have escaped from totalitarian regimes. They are, he says, amazed. They came here to find freedom, but instead they find that we are going down the same path of the tyrannies they just fled.

A lot of people think the threat isn’t very serious, since we still have the rule of law. “But over and over, dissidents told me that the law is not a reliable refuge; if the government is determined to take you out, it will manufacture a crime from the data is has captured, or otherwise deploy it to destroy your reputation.”

I don’t find that threat to be particularly frightening because I don’t think the main problem right now is the government. The threat we face is the woke takeover of corporate America. The law (at present) can’t help you when private corporations choose to ruin your reputation, “de-platform” you, refuse to offer services, or refuse to hire you because you don’t sign on to their ridiculous ideologies.

Woke ideology is like Nazi or communist ideology in that it expects you to accept contradictions and lies. You must change the badge on your social media platform to express solidarity with the latest woke nonsense, or you have to submit to diversity and inclusion workshops that teach absurd garbage. You can’t challenge woke orthodoxy without risking your job and your reputation. So people go along.

Dreher calls us to not live by lies — not to participate in them — and to prepare ourselves for the suffering that is likely to result.

I don’t accept his pessimism or his passivity. There is certainly a point where the only option is to be true to your beliefs and suffer for them, but I think there is still time to fight back.

Woke tyranny is already here, and it’s only going to get worse unless people strike back. Hard and fast.

Don’t live by lies, but — while we still have a chance — don’t allow these tyrants to win.