In October 2018, an interesting summary piece appeared in the Federalist, written by its executive editor, Joy Pullmann, entitled “80 percent of Americans think political correctness is a national problem.” The poll Pullmann referenced was conducted by the international initiative More In Common, and was unusually comprehensive: 8,000 survey respondents, 30 one-hour interviews and six focus groups (the full report can be seen here).

The study listed political segments with distinctive sets of characteristics, from left to right on the ideological spectrum:

  • Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry (8 percent of self-identified respondents)
  • Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious (11 percent)
  • Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned (15 percent)
  • Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic, conspiratorial (26 percent)
  • Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant (15 percent)
  • Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic (19 percent)
  • Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising, patriotic (6 percent)

(I fit strongly into the “Traditional Conservative” group, the largest category except the “Politically Disengaged.” My husband, with the exception of “retired,” is more closely aligned with the “Devoted” crowd.)

The report noted “every single demographic studied showed overwhelming objection to political correctness,” and that opposition held across all racial groups, income brackets and educational levels. Contrary to common belief, racial minorities were more opposed to political correctness (82 to 88 percent) than whites (79 percent).

The exception – the only group who “strongly backs” political correctness – is progressive activists (note the description “angry” in the above breakdown). And these activists comprise 8 percent of the American population. Read that again: 8 percent.

Even more interesting, these activists are (to quote the article) “more likely to be rich, highly educated – and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African-American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. [note: that’s 3 percent of 8 percent!] With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.” [Emphasis added.]

Do you understand what this poll means? It means 92 percent of America is being held hostage to the tyranny of 8 percent. Those 8 percent are driving the entire political system. They hold the Democratic Party, the big-government Republicans, the media and the education system in the palms of their greedy little hands, where they can bully and sue and intimidate the remaining 92 percent into silence. Talk about the ultimate in white privilege!

What does this mean in practice? It means shoving politically correct but highly offensive stuff in 92 percent of America’s faces. It means girls and women must lose in sports because they can’t compete against biological boys or men who “identify” as female. It means bathrooms and dressing rooms are no longer safe or respected. It means huge national corporations think it’s a great idea to alienate the vast majority of their customers by featuring a revolting drag-queen actor to peddle their products. It means social media companies can ban conservative subscribers, teachers can get fired, and professors can be disciplined simply for voicing opinions of which progressive activists don’t approve. It means waging war on a perfectly fine restaurant chain because it won’t fund abortions. And if Nancy Pelosi has her way and the so-called “Equality” Act passes, then practicing one’s religion could literally become against the law in America … which, if my mail is any indication, makes progressive activists rub their hands with glee.

In short, it means 92 percent of Americans are being held hostage to a tiny minority of agitators whose impact is disproportionately huge.

Sadly this type of inequity is nothing new. For evidence, let me direct your attention to a column by historian Bill Federer entitled “Today’s deep state crisis was predicted 100 years ago.”

Federer quotes a 1926 speech by President Calvin Coolidge: “”But there is another … recent development … the greatly disproportionate influence of organized minorities. Artificial propaganda, paid agitators, selfish interests, all impinge upon members of legislative bodies to force them to represent special elements rather than the great body of their constituency. When they are successful, minority rule is established. … The result is an extravagance on the part of the government which is ruinous to the people and a multiplicity of regulations and restrictions for the conduct of all kinds of necessary business, which becomes little less than oppressive. …”

Minority rule is established. The government creates oppressive and restrictive rules and regulations. Sound familiar?

Worse, this kind of agitation is actually part of a classic technique seized by tyrants and dictators through history, from Stalin to Hitler to Mao. Quoting Federer, power is concentrated by first creating an artificial crisis:

Described as a triangle, one corner is the thesis, the opposite corner is the antithesis, and the top corner is the synthesis. In other words, create a problem that is real bad and people will readily surrender their freedoms to settle for an answer that is half as bad. Each synthesis then becomes the new thesis, and the process is repeated until all power is voluntarily relinquished by the people into the hands of a dictator.

To create an antithesis, there needs to be division in society. To seize control of a country, citizens must be made to stop thinking of themselves as citizens. Instead, they must identify and be divided into social, ethnic or economic groups, which can then be pitted against one another. The manufactured, successive incidents of violence between these groups destabilize the country, persuading the people to quickly surrender their freedoms to someone promising to restore order.

The practical implementation of this process is “to identify tension ‘fault lines’ in a society, fan these perceived injustices into flames causing public emotions reach the boiling point. Once crisis breaks out, everyone is desperate to have the anarchy stopped so they willing relinquish their rights and freedoms to the state and dictator.”

So what we’re hearing is the screaming tantrums of 8 percent of the population, determined to convince the other 92 percent that they speak for the majority. And as long as they dominate the media, the school system, big-government Republicans and the entire Democratic Party, they’re well on their way to convincing the rest.

But they’re lying.

For these reasons, I firmly believe the future of our nation will involve a civil war, a conflict in which the majority stand up against the activists and take back the press, the schools and the government. I can see no other future.

Can you?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.