The author contends that key agendas of the radical left, such as defunding police, altering border policy, and expanding racial essentialism, have consistently failed to secure majority public support. Instead of re-evaluating these policies, the argument suggests, proponents aim to change the underlying systems that have rejected them.
This dynamic is described as a pattern where, when failing to achieve objectives through established means, the left seeks to modify rules, laws, and conventions. The notes cite examples such as calls to expand the Supreme Court, alter the Electoral College, and influence government agencies. The author links this approach to the emergence of democratic socialists within the broader Democratic Party, suggesting a shared inclination to blame the "system" when outcomes are unfavorable.
The analysis posits that the left has shifted its focus from demanding equality of opportunity to mandating equality of outcome. When societal changes led to a large middle class, the focus allegedly pivoted from class oppression to racial victimization. In cases where a minority constituency was insufficient to form a majority, the definition of "victimization" was broadened to include those outside of traditional marginalized groups. Furthermore, when public fatigue with "totalitarian social engineering" emerged, the left's strategy shifted to fundamentally altering voting mechanisms, governmental structures, and demographic compositions.
The author asserts that agendas like open borders, mass amnesty for undocumented immigrants, and substantial subsidies for renewable energy have not garnered widespread public approval. The proposed response by the left, according to the notes, is not self-reflection or policy adjustment, but rather the subversion of the systems that have denied them power. This approach is characterized as "moving the goalposts."
Historically, the left's pursuit of statism, socialism, and communism has been met with public resistance due to what is described as human nature's aversion to coercive redistribution and mandated outcomes in favor of liberty and freedom. Consequently, the notes suggest, the left has historically resorted to altering rules and demographics, either through changes in election laws, bureaucratic actions, court rulings, or ultimately, through violence, to achieve its aims when popular support is lacking.