By Any Means Necessary

National Review's Jim Geraghty noted last week that,

Americans are far more likely to see Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders: 40 percent say this descriptor applies more to the GOP, with just 16% saying it applies to the Democrats. They’re also more likely to call Republicans the party that can get things done by 36 percent to 19 percent, and the party of change, by 32 percent to 25 percent.

After the Democrats' pathetic response to the ongoing ICE "protests" in LA where thugs tried to kill cops, and Democrats both tacitly and explicitly sided with the rioters, and following Trump's more forceful response in which he ordered in 2000 national guardsmen to stanch the damage, those numbers will probably look even worse for Democrats.

Geraghty offers this thought to Democrats who aspire to greater popularity with the electorate:

Crazy idea, fellas. What if you tried governing well? I mean, really well — so well that even your state’s Republicans are impressed. What if, after (at least) four years of being governor somewhere, you could point to lower unemployment, higher wages, a more affordable cost of living, higher test scores in schools, lower crime rates, infrastructure that isn’t full of potholes, and a general satisfaction with public services? What if your state government was prepared for natural disasters?

Yeah, that would be difficult to achieve. But that is, you know, the core duty of government. If you demonstrated competence at governing, people might trust you with the presidency and like-minded congressional majorities!

I mean, maybe that stuff matters more than ensuring local police never cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and that males can participate in high school girls’ sports, and free bus rides, and so on.

Geraghty's right, of course, but the problem is that the chaos isn't, as much of our media would have us believe, merely the cry of innocent people democratically airing their grievances. Rather, it's one more episode in a century-old effort to bring the West to its knees. Many Democrats, knowingly or unknowingly, are in the grip of a Marxist ideology that calls for the destruction of the institutions and civil structures of the West, and they know that the sort of good governance Geraghty suggests will do nothing to advance their revolution. Attacking traditional morality, co-opting our institutions, and abetting chaos in our streets will.

Some on the Left may prefer that the revolution be accomplished through peaceful means, they may prefer to boil the frog in the pot gradually without the frog realizing that it's being boiled, but if they encounter resistance, if people like Trump stand in their way, then they have few qualms about resorting to mayhem and bloodshed.

If, for instance, Israel is a tiny island of Western values amidst a vast Islamic sea then Israel must be destroyed, which is the meaning of "from river to the sea, Palestine will be free," and Jews everywhere must be punished. If ICE is an impediment to reducing white, wealthy, capitalist America to parity with the rest of the world, a transformation which is to be effected by overwhelming our institutions with third-world immigrants, then ICE is an enemy to be discredited and violently resisted.

As Saul Alinsky advises in his book Rules for Radicals, the Left must "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." In the present context that means focusing on law enforcement and making it an object of personal derision and contempt. If that doesn't work, as it hasn't against the Trump administration, then violence is necessary and there are plenty of people on the Left eager to employ it.

For the Left, after all, the revolution must be accomplished by any means necessary.