Imagine we are in a court of law, that we have gone through a lengthy trial, and it is now time for closing arguments. On one side we have the plaintiff, progressive socialism, and on the other side there is the defendant, constitutional conservatism. Progressive socialism has brought a lawsuit against constitutional conservatism demanding control/power. Progressive socialism makes the claim that their ideological agenda is better, and the jury, the American people, must decide the case.

The legal representation for progressive socialism steps up to make their closing argument; the court room is still … and then it begins. The presentation is centered on the seminal assertion that it is not up to the individual to determine their level of success of achievement. It is the inherent right of progressive socialism to determine outcomes based upon their definition of fairness. The talking head for the plaintiff uses a quote of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” The presentation emphasizes that the focused redistribution of wealth from certain people identified as one-percenters is the best means to grow an economy – again, based upon fairness. There are certain ideals advocated such as universal basic income, free money, and how that can enable those less fortunate. There is a need for a single-payer healthcare system that will force everyone onto a government-run system, taking away any chance for an individual to decide what is best for their own healthcare.

The progressive socialist side strongly promotes the ideal that America should be open to anyone that wants to come here, irrespective of the rule of law, legality. The appeal is solely based upon a delusional emotion that this nation should not have any borders, or any enforcement of such against those here illegally. However, something very interesting happens in the court room. The lawyer for the progressive socialists sees someone in the jury make a facial expression that evidences disagreement. The lawyer goes into an apoplectic meltdown and begins to single out that juror, yelling and shouting obscenities, and accusing the juror of being a fascist.

Then the legal representative of the progressive socialists refers to the juror as a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, and a xenophobe. The juror seems shaken as the lawyer for the plaintiff becomes more enraged and issues a personal threat and tells the juror that they had better decide for the progressive socialists or else.

The judge, finally realizing that the progressive socialist lawyer is badgering the juror, bangs on the gavel and issues an order for the lawyer to restrain themselves and to act civilly. The lawyer replies that there will be no civility unless the jury decides in their favor.

Finally, after this heated confrontation, the legal representative for the defendant, constitutional conservatives, steps up to deliver their closing argument. The lawyer talks about what opportunity society has and that in the past two years more Americans are back to work, seeing historic levels of unemployment – the lowest ever in minority communities and a forty-nine-year low – and that poverty and food stamp rolls have been reduced. The legal representative of the defendant conveys the fact that wages are rising – the highest in about a decade. Consumer confidence is at an eighteen-year high. We have reduced impediments to economic growth in our nation to the point we have seen our GDP rise and a 30 percent increase in our financial markets. Americans are able to take vacations with their families and even enjoy a little bit of financial independence again.

The lawyer continues to mention how we have restored more production and manufacturing jobs in America; that our oil and natural gas industry is producing so that we can consume and even export our own energy resources.

We no longer hear about Islamic terrorism. Meanwhile, the lawyer for the progressive socialists shouts out, “Racist, Islamophobe!” and the Judge again has to intervene. We have a foreign policy that supports the principle of “peace through strength.” We are no longer sending billions of dollars to state sponsors of terrorism. We have moved our embassy to the rightful capital of our best ally in the Middle East, Israel. We are standing up to despots, dictators, and theocrats such as Russia where we are sending military support to Ukraine, and the Baltic States. There are no more rocket launches emanating from North Korea, and we are taking action to stop China from stealing our intellectual property and demanding forced technology transfers.

Bottom line, the lawyer for the defendant says, “We are no longer leading from behind, nor have a policy of strategic patience.”

In an outburst of complete rage, the lawyer for the plaintiff, the progressive socialists, stands and shouts, “But we hate you,” while holding a severed and bloodied head. And at that moment, in storms black-clad and hooded people, with masked faces, shouting and threatening the jury. These intruders into the court begin to destroy the courtroom, climb upon the symbols of justice, and accuse the judge of being a sexual deviant, of course, with no corroborating evidence.

Ladies and gentlemen, the American people are the jury in this case, and both arguments have been presented, much along this metaphorical parallel I have presented here. We are about to be sequestered and will have to deliberate and come back with a decision. The choices could not be more distinct, and the question posed is just as I have emphasized in previous commentaries.

Do you prefer equality of opportunity, or equality of outcomes? Do you want individual liberty, freedom, or collective subjugation? Do you believe that you, the possessor of the indomitable entrepreneurial American spirit built that, or that someone else – namely government – did? Do you believe that America is a sovereign nation with a border to defend, or is it just a piece of terrain that anyone can invade and occupy? Do you believe in the rule of law, or do you just want to be ruled?

Is civility defined as spirited debate over diverging principles of governance, or is it about tyrannical totalitarianism of ideological domination?

The case has been presented, and the jury must return its decision. Do you find the defendant, constitutional conservatism, guilty or innocent? Is it about objective truths or subjective, manipulative, rhetoric based upon emotionalism and a failed ideological agenda – one that has NEVER been successful in the world?

Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention this poignant fact: during the trial, there was an expert witness called Venezuela.

This column was originally published at CNSNews

The views expressed in CCNS member articles are not necessarily the views or positions of the entire CCNS. They are the views of the authors, who are members of the CCNS.

© 2024 Citizens Commission on National Security

© 2024 Citizens Commission on National Security