The hard left actually believes it reflects the opinions of all Democrats and indeed all liberals.  This is simply not true.  The hard left is in conflict with the majority of Americans, left, right or center.  Does Mayor Adams of NYC agree with the border policy of the present administration?  Does anyone living in the areas distressed by their policies?

The hard left is a tiny minority, yet it yields amazing power, in the media, government, the courts, business, bureaucracies, and politics.  These self-proclaimed "elites" (hard left) are largely in control of what we see and hear.  Yes, they even call themselves "elite."

As David Brooks of the New Your Times mentioned, liberal elites (of which he is admittedly one) are so sure of their superiority (to those of us who have not been trained by professors in superior hard-left schools) that they dismiss the rest of us, many of whom are smarter and more knowledgeable, as common rabble, barely deserving of any constitutional rights.

David refers to those of us who didn't attend the superior colleges as "less educated."  But to them, "education" has nothing to do with learning useful facts, but with philosophy — and philosophy alone.  His "educated class" in society considers less enlightened Americans of a different, lower class, regardless of education.  "It's easy to understand why people in less-educated classes would conclude that they are under economic, political, cultural and moral assault — and why they've rallied around Trump as their best warrior against the educated class."

So if you are not a left-wing zealot, you were simply not properly educated?

If you see yourself as superior ("elite"), then by definition, you see others as inferior.  The problem (along with the fundamental misconception that they are superior) is that many on the hard left have lost their liberal foundation — being the champions of equal rights for all.  To paraphrase George Orwell, the hard left feel they are "more equal" than those of us who were not properly indoctrinated.

If you didn't attend the right college, you are to be ignored, regardless of your degrees, knowledge, or intelligence — because hard-left superiority is a faith-based religion founded upon worshiping whoever is in the hard-left spotlight today.  I call it "Liberal Fundamentalism." 

Liberal Fundamentalism changes daily.  You need to keep track of their current policies daily to maintain your philosophical superiority.

Yet he does acknowledge the problem that this causes:

Like all elites, we use language and mores as tools to recognize one another and exclude others. Using words like problematic, cisgender, Latinx and intersectional is a sure sign that you've got cultural capital coming out of your ears. Meanwhile, members of the less-educated classes have to walk on eggshells, because they never know when we've changed the usage rules, so that something that was sayable five years ago now gets you fired.

So being elite requires the use of multisyllabic language.  The more syllables you use, the more elite you are.  Master Yoda would not agree.

Brooks accurately asks, "Are we the bad guys?" but then excuses his class of elites, because after all, they are better than us.  They just need to sell their philosophy better because we're too dumb, too selfish, or perhaps too stupid or clever.

Curiously, they are challenged by simple facts, such as that under their leadership, our society is deteriorating, and we all see that they are against any steps that protect the citizen from the problems that these policies create. 

It is very inconvenient that it is obvious to the rest of us that their solution to society's problems is based upon the simple fact that it is easier to lower those better off than to raise up those who are disadvantaged.

It is ironic to see NYC mayor Adams protesting the actions of the "Elite Class" that he works for,  and to see that they ignore his pleas to help his city as they drive it into the ground.  The media, an obedient lapdog, never mention the real problem: that their hard-left philosophical goals outweigh any concern for those hurt by their policies.

We rabble need to adjust to their undefined future — a future that they refuse to illustrate.  What would life be like if they got their way?  All they give us is platitudes, like "better" or "equitable."  The problems are unavoidable potholes on the road to utopia.

But polarization is a problem they have caused. We should applaud Brooks for pointing this out.  But on the other hand, he doesn't see that they should address the schism that they created in the first place.  He doesn't conclude that they should change their philosophy, but simply change the approach.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. 

They refuse to see that people want a better future for themselves and their kids.  They do not seem to understand that no one seeks a life as a low-class citizen in a stagnant hard-left, Marxist "utopia."  Only an ant could aspire to live in an anthill. 

You could ask anyone in the lower classes in China, but don't, since if they tell you, it is off to prison for them.

Consider this fact: Americans from both parties are buying guns at unprecedented rates.  "July 2023 marks the 48th month in a row, 4 years, that has exceeded 1 million adjusted background checks in a single month," explained a statement from the National Shooting Sports Foundation."

Americans, liberal and otherwise, are arming themselves because they feel threatened by the deterioration of society, and unfortunately (for the hard left), we are not stupid.

Increases in crime are clearly due to hard-left lenient policies.  If there is more crime with more criminals on the street, the solution is clear to even us Neanderthals, indeed to anyone without liberal/moral-confusion: get and keep criminals off the street.  For that, you need more, not fewer cops.

If you are from Pennsylvania, you may recall 20 or so years ago, when Philadelphia was forced to allow carry.  Carjacking practically ended overnight.  Those most carjacked people were inner-city women, many of whom were not white.

How can anti–legal ownership gun laws protect the innocent?  They don't; they encourage criminals.  If it is legal to carry a gun, criminals are less likely to rob strangers on whim.

Being a liberal doesn't mean you are hard-left or think you are "elite."  Many liberals are buying guns these days.  They may be liberals, but they are not stupid.

What works works.  A mix of philosophies is what works best.  History has proven this over and over again: narrow philosophies never succeed.  We are not ants; we humans need some chaos.

Life is either dynamic or stagnant.  There is no third choice.

Image via Pxfuel.