Talking, the Most Terrifying Thing to the Democrat Party

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Throughout the course of human history, one thing has been proven time and again: Words can build and destroy.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan gave an unforgettable speech not 100 yards away from the wall dividing East and West Berlin and said a simple phrase that has echoed throughout history.

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

It was a moment where Reagan’s “peace through strength” approach to world peace really shined, and it was a message to communists that the United States wouldn’t keep playing games with them. Reagan’s words invigorated pro-Democracy sentiment, and the resulting empowerment of the freedom movement there caused Russia’s resolve to weaken, thus leading to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

It’s a moment that proved that words can bring down figurative and physical barriers and one that authoritarian entities would never forget. If you are an authoritarian figure looking to hold onto or grow your power, the last thing you want people to do is talk freely.

Free speech is dangerous, especially to those whose entire existence relies on the creation and maintenance of fragile narratives. While every major political party has a set of narratives they’d rather not have challenged, Democrats are particularly reliant on narratives to push their agendas, which often revolve around fear-based authoritarianism.

Democrats use fear more than any other emotion to garner support. Fear of bigotry, white supremacy, science deniers, sickness, global warming, global cooling, racism, xenophobia, transphobia, theocracies, anti-abortionists, and hate speech—just to name a few.

(READ: The Leftist Culture of Fear and Loathing)

The thing about fear-based narratives is that they’re fragile by nature. An inconvenient fact here or even a little joke there can offset the frightening aspects of any subject and render an entire narrative useless.

Take, for instance, something that Democrats greatly fear; Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Democrat 2024 presidential candidate whose platform differs greatly from many in the Democrat Party. As was reported on Thursday by Bonchie, the House hearing on government censorship saw a moment where Democrats tried to censor RFK Jr. for hate speech. The hilarious irony aside, the excuse from Democrats was that Kennedy was being anti-Semitic.

He wasn’t, he was just citing a study about COVID-19 affecting Asian and Jewish people differently, albeit incorrectly.

But the hilarious part is that Democrats would come down on Kennedy for ant-Semitism and proclaim that he was trying to promote hate speech when the most celebrated members of their party are rabid anti-Semites and made that clear even recently. It’s something that makes you stop and realize that this wasn’t about anti-Semitism, it’s about Kennedy and the Democrats’ fear of his growing popularity, especially during a presidential election where they aren’t even allowing debate against Joe Biden.

He threatens the narrative and, as such, he can’t be allowed to speak freely. Not that the Democrats were able to stop him, but they did need a moment to make it seem like he shouldn’t be listened to by painting him as bigoted and hateful, with the hopeful side-effect of making people turn their support away from him and back toward Biden, the DNC’s choice for POTUS.

You just witnessed the creation of a narrative with the endgame of maintaining authority. The hope is that after establishing Kennedy as a bigot, anything he says afterward will be dismissed and ignored. If they can neutralize Kennedy’s image in the public eye, then people will censor Kennedy for the Democrats by turning away from him. Kennedy will no longer be a threat to the authority of the Democrat Party, and they can keep their figurative walls nice and high.

Let’s take another example we can find with just a light scroll down the front of RedState’s front page. Jennifer Van Laar’s Thursday report of IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler’s testimony has featured many instances of Democrat influence getting in the way of the Hunter Biden investigation including instances of obstruction. Democrats on the panel didn’t really bring any questions that could incriminate the Bidens, and their sudden view on leaks to the Washington Post changed overnight.

Then, as Nick Arama highlighted, one such complication of the investigation into Hunter came in the form of President Joe Biden himself showing up at the FBI field office while the probe into his son was underway on an “unrelated matter.”

You don’t need to be a genius to figure out how the presence of the most powerful man in the world visiting the office currently investigating his son could be a problem. Combined with the stonewalling and complication of the investigation process, you get multiple different types of censorship happening at once. Censorship by lack of facts, censorship through lack of investigation, and attempts at self-censorship through intimidation.

When the narrative is threatened, silence must reign. Free and fairly treated speech would threaten the narrative, and once the narrative is threatened, power is threatened. If simply speaking can destroy the Democrats, then they aren’t the power that they pretend to be. Their castle is built on sand and they know this. The slightest nudge or disturbance could begin an erosion that whittles away their power.

If your power structure is based on lies and deceit, then you don’t deserve power and eventually, the truth comes through, walls are torn down, and the powerful are reduced.

Speak up.


Trending on RedState Videos