Legal Retribution: The Plan to Address Progressive Overreach
Regrettable But Necessary
Retribution is a subject being discussed among Conservatives right now. There is a feeling, perhaps premature, that Donald Trump will likely win in the coming election and that Republicans will generally control at least one house of Congress. There is also a growing consensus that a strong counterattack to Democrat lawfare is the only way to get them to stop.
We say it is premature because, well, it is. Much can happen between now and election day. However, Republicans don’t want to be caught flat-footed as in Trump’s first term. They were unprepared to govern, did not have good candidates to fill the Federal bureaucracy, were not prepared for the “resistance”, did not understand democracy killing “lawfare”, the change in election laws, and did not fully appreciate the rise of the Deep State.
Today, however, these new factors are better understood.
So, while we do not wish to diminish election efforts to win, we should have plans in place should we win. That is reasonable.
What is somewhat amusing is that those who dished it out are now growing frightened that Trump might win as well. Let’s call it PTVA. That stands for Premature Trump Victory Anxiety.
What is meant by retribution in this context? Retribution is punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for wrong or criminal acts. Note the definition says criminal acts, not political views.
In Progressive circles, the word retribution is also circulating, and some have visions ranging from concentration camps to having their TV shows canceled.
Some Republicans feel the blowback coming and are just trying to distance themselves from the concept because it is believed distasteful.
Remember, retribution means punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for wrongful or criminal acts.
Thus, if restricted to lawbreakers, it would leave Left-wing TV shows alone. However, market forces and boycotts can be applied. Turnaround is fair play. Those who pushed the “cancel culture” on Conservatives might be more understanding when they get a taste of their own medicine.
Concerning lawfare, Conservatives need to recognize the danger of tit-for-tat retaliation. We certainly don’t want to cement these bad practices by accepting the bad precedent Progressives have set.
However, there is nothing wrong with going after those who committed “wrongful or criminal acts”, using the standard procedures of the law as they existed before the recent age of lawfare.
That is not called vengeance, it is called justice.
Not only is the pursuit of justice praiseworthy, but it may also be necessary today as a deterrent.
If Conservatives don’t respond, then the Progressive Left will just keep using lawsuits and prosecutions as a substitute for the ballot box. And if they are allowed to keep this up, they will ruin the country and achieve one-party rule.
It must be appreciated that the Democrat Party of John Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, and Sam Nunn, died about 20 years ago and has been supplanted by Obama and Bernie Sanders radicals. This is now a radical, revolutionary party that wants to upend political institutions, the economy, and the family, and “transform America.”
So, the only way to stop them from doing this is to hit back legally, preferably without adopting their methods.
Now admittedly, some conservatives think we should use their methods, and that is the only way to stop the radicals from using them again. They reason that if Conservatives counterattack using the same methods, like mutually assured destruction among nuclear powers, both sides will learn the hard way not to use the legal system for political ends.
However, there is a danger in doing this. As stated earlier, it now sets a precedent that is bad for the law and our politics. Moreover, the abuse of power is not limited to radicals from the Left. The potential for the abuse of power resides in all men, not just people from the Left side of the political spectrum. The great wisdom of the Founders was to assume power corrupts all men of all political hues. We should make the same assumption.
However, the excesses of the Democrats have been so flagrant and so extreme, that standard legal procedures existent before the age of lawfare, should be sufficient to hold them accountable and obtain justice. We don’t need to copy their dastardly innovations to strike back.
This means rigorously holding accountable those who broke the law and who are not being prosecuted by the current DOJ and Administration. True, some alteration of the statute of limitations might be necessary because the DOJ has deliberately run out the clock on selective cases. It means being relentless in exposing, prosecuting, and firing those who have abused their office or failed under their watch to enforce the law as written.
As one of our recent contributors put it, we have a road map back to sanity and it is called the Constitution. Strict adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution will do much to shore up institutions of government and ensure the proper functioning of Federalism.
Cutting off the money is another perfectly legal but non-judicial methodology. For example, those universities that receive money in any form from the Federal Government will have their funding off if they practice racial discrimination against white people, Asians, males, or any other citizens based on race or sex.
This should also be true of any primary and secondary school system that received Federal money.
Ideally, eliminating the Department of Education should be the goal, but in the interim, the structure can be used to stop DEI and CRT in the schools.
Congressional investigations, hearings, Presidential Commissions, and tribunals may also be valid non-judicial ways of exposing and punishing those who have abused their power.
However, the days when a Senator can be shamed on the floor of the Senate with “Sir, do you have no sense of decency” are long gone. The irony is, despite the condemnation of his fellow Senators, McCarthy was largely correct even if his methods were not always kosher.
That said, we do live in a different era today. The sort of rhetorical condemnation suggested above was once sufficient but today would hardly dissuade them from continuing lawfare. Our political opponents are radicals and revolutionaries, and we cannot just stand by and be abused without striking back.
They will try to paint it as vengeance and maybe there will be some truth in that. However, strong counterpunching within the law should be a successful deterrent. Vengeance might be a worthwhile side effect of pursuing justice but justice should be the main goal.
We wish it could be done outside of the courts, but given thin majorities, and a “free press” which largely supports the radicals and legal abusers, and has failed its task of informing the public; justice will likely only be served in court and Congressional hearings.
We can expect the corporate media, corporate board rooms, universities, book publishers, and Hollywood to run cover for the Left. That may change over time, but we cannot realistically think they will turn against the Left anytime soon. The Left still thoroughly dominates the communication hubs within the culture.
A Republican victory is a growing possibility. If so, Conservatives need to examine retribution, its problems, and its consequences. And, we need to start making plans and picking out targets. It is a target-rich environment out there!
We must also guard against those who think these legal abuses should go unanswered because it offends their sensibilities.
How offended were they when these legal atrocities like the use of fabricated foreign intelligence were used to impeach a President twice? Intelligence that was paid for by leading Democrats and pushed by the FBI and the CIA? Did they oppose the abuse of the legal system when five Democrat jurisdictions started prosecuting an ex-president on bogus charges? Did they complain when states attempted to keep him off the ballot? Did they condemn all the lies we were told about Covid and did they apologize for the abuse of our civil liberties and the great inflation they have inflicted upon us? Did they complain when district attorneys fail to prosecute because they believe criminals are just victims of an unjust society and care nothing of the real victims? Did they complain about the one-sided manner the January 6th Committee conducted itself and hid information from the public? Did they complain loudly about the bankrupting of America or did they partake in the boondoggle? Were they offended when the law is used to pursue every attorney who has the temerity to represent a Republican in court or give legal advice?
Those who did not complain loudly and forcibly, have no credibility in talking about the evils of retribution. Their failure to speak out and fight back is what now makes retribution necessary.
