There are two glaring issues at the core of far-leftism, revealing a deeper flaw in the ideology. The first problem is that far-leftists tend to form a protective bubble, supporting one another unreservedly, regardless of their individual actions or beliefs. This behavior creates a group dynamic reminiscent of “a murder of judgmental, hypocritical crows,” as their collective mindset often leads to overlooking serious moral failings.
The second problem, perhaps more troubling, is the inevitability that far-leftists frequently align themselves with individuals whose actions and values are genuinely concerning. A prime example is EMILY’s List, a staunchly pro-abortion organization, which recently endorsed Katie Porter for the gubernatorial race in California. In their announcement, EMILY’s List proclaimed, “Today, we’re proud to endorse Katie Porter for the first woman governor of California!” They touted her as a champion “holding the powerful accountable” and fighting for lower costs.
However, a cursory examination reveals a stark contradiction. Can Porter truly hold the powerful accountable when she struggles with accountability herself? This critical question emerged vividly during an interview with KPIX-TV. In a now-viral clip, Porter was visibly perturbed when asked routine questions that other candidates also faced. Instead of engaging with the press, she attempted to sidestep the interview altogether, displaying a degree of frustration that many interpreted as petulance.
This incident signals a lack of leadership qualities. Leadership entails facing challenges head-on, not retreating when confronted with even basic inquiries. Porter’s reaction speaks volumes about her readiness for higher office and raises doubts about her qualifications.
Moreover, the situation is exacerbated by Porter’s history of negative behavior; reports indicate that she has been abusive toward her staff and has alarmingly filled her own daughter’s head with fears that are adult concerns. Such actions suggest a marked disconnect between her public persona and private behavior, showcasing a troubling lack of judgment. The comparison to notorious figures like Kim Jong Un underscores the severity of this disconnect, albeit with an added touch of irony regarding personal grooming.
EMILY’s List, in its enthusiastic endorsement, seems blinded by its ideological commitment, failing to critically assess the implications of supporting someone like Porter. Their focus appears to remain on issues such as abortion rather than on a candidate’s broader character and capabilities. The endorsement serves as a ridiculous union of two entities, both disassociated from traditional notions of leadership and accountability. The far-left’s approach here is not just a political miscalculation; it reflects a concerning trend of prioritizing ideology over integrity and competence.
"*" indicates required fields
