On November 15th, Attorney General William Barr gave a speech at the Federalist Society in Washington DC. The text of the speech is posted on the Department of Justice website. The speech lasted about an hour but the quote that caught my attention was when he said, “‘resistance’ is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the ‘loyal opposition,’ as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.”

Since I’m interested in having a civil discourse on issues I asked a friend, a self-described “progressive”, what she thought of the above statement. Her initial reaction was to dismiss it out of hand because of the person saying it. This is a standard response from those who refuse to engage on the issues. Pardon the expression, but when they don’t like the message, they shoot the messenger.

However, since she is a self-described member of the “resistance” I asked her what that means to her. Her response was telling. She told me that it adds an “aura” to the movement. Some mystique and romance. Kind of like the resistance as described in the movie Casablanca or Star Wars (I’m more of a Casablanca fan myself). “So it’s a branding exercise?” I asked. “Well, I suppose you could put it that way, although I wouldn’t”.

But I would. Branding is an essential part of marketing and marketing is an essential part of what capitalism is all about. So perhaps when Donna Brazile proclaims that Democrats are capitalists she is being sincere. Although this might make some heads explode.

But let’s have some more fun with this. “Progressivism” comes from the word “progress”. At Thesaurus.com two of the synonyms listed for “progress” are “movement” and “motion”. At freedictionary.com, one of the definitions of the word “resistance” is: “a force that tends to oppose or retard motion”. Since the “resistance” movement is made up of “progressives”, I guess what we have here is a case of irresistible force meets immovable object. I can feel more heads exploding.

The free dictionary has two other secondary definitions for the word “resistance”. In biology it is the “Lack of normal response to a biologically active compound such as a hormone” and in psychology it is: “A process in which the ego opposes the conscious recall of anxiety-producing experiences.” Welcome to the “resistance movement”.

Getting back to Attorney General Barr and his speech. I encourage you to read it or listen to it on line. I don’t agree with everything he says in it. In particular, I disagree with some of his views regarding executive authority. Teddy Roosevelt, the first “progressive” to occupy the White House, kicked into a higher gear what has come to be known as the “imperial presidency”. But that’s a discussion for another day.

However, regarding “the resistance”, AG Barr’s quote is right on. The resistance movement is a rejection of the rule of law and a rejection of the election process. Because, those who are not prepared to accept the results, are not sincere participants in the process and are therefore not part of the solution. Then we all might be on perilous parallel paths that could make civil discourse seem like a quaint notion of days gone by.