Scapegoats

Spencer Lindquist at The Federalist explains what holds the leftist coalition together given that it's comprised of so many disparate interests. It's a common hatred of non-leftist scapegoats:

One would think that natural political discord would occur between those who want to “eat the rich” and the rich themselves, or between those who abide by a patriarchal sexual ethic and a movement that endured a collective aneurysm when Florida told them teachers couldn’t talk about sexuality with elementary schoolers.

The natural splintering of this leftwing coalition is delayed through what the French philosopher Renee Girard referred to as the scapegoat mechanism.

Through the scapegoat mechanism, internal social conflict between groups or individuals can be deferred by identifying a villain, the scapegoat.

The scapegoat is held responsible by the conflicting parties, who mutually, although not always consciously, cast the blame on those who simultaneously fulfill the role of the victim and the villain.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains: “the victim must be thought of as a monstrous creature that transgressed some prohibition and deserved to be punished.

In such a manner, the community deceives itself into believing that the victim is the culprit of the communal crisis, and that the elimination of the victim will eventually restore peace.”

We see this scapegoat tactic employed frequently by the Iranian mullahs who divert blame for their egregious misgovernance by attributing all their misfortunes to the machinations of the Great Satan, i.e. the U.S, and the Little Satan, Israel.

So who are the scapegoats vilified by today's leftists? Lindquist writes:

Masculine men are turned into scapegoats when they are dubbed toxic, sexist enforcers of patriarchy. Christians similarly face accusations of oppressing women and those who are LGBT.

White people are also approved targets, thought to be inherently racist and privileged, simultaneously the beneficiaries and the managers of an intangible but ever-present system of oppression.

Even stable nuclear families are to be viewed with skepticism, either for perpetuating gender roles or straining the environment by daring to have kids.

Of course, anyone who effectively and persistently stands in the way of the left's march through the institutions on its way to total dominance and control of the culture is also subject to execration. Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Fox News, the list is lengthy.

Anyone on the list, or even moderately sympathetic to someone on the list, is considered a "deplorable" a "racist," "sexist," "bigot," or any of sundry "-phobes." The tactic is as intellectually absurd as it is vicious, but it's also very effective, especially when the bulk of the media and higher education constantly reinforce it.

You can read the rest of Lindquist's piece at the link. He closes it with this:

The simplest way to expose the incongruity of the leftwing coalition is to merely ask questions that highlight the absurdity of the progressive bloc.

Raise ethical inquiries about abortion or transgenderism among Democrat-aligned Muslims, or ask Austin tech workers why they support H1B visa programs that threaten their job security.

Ask progressive white women if they truly believe that they and their “white tears” will be able to maintain their rapidly deteriorating status among the oppressed and the immunity that comes with it.

Question radical feminists who rage against toxic masculinity, asking why they support mass immigration from highly patriarchal Islamic countries. Or ask a Seattle communist what the appropriate tax rate is for the millionaire who funded the neoliberal candidate he ended up voting for.

It'd be interesting to see how these folks would respond to these queries, but as Lindquist cautions, "This must be done without trafficking in the same dangerous divisiveness that the left used in their ascent to power, without engaging in scapegoating ourselves."