The Harris-Walz Woke Vision to Police Through Coercion and Fear

Richard Gale & Gary Null PhD

Progressive Radio Network, August 13, 2024

For a moment imagine a society where the rules of the nation are capable of guiding every aspect of daily life that assures order, harmony and progress. Central to this nation is a firm belief in the wisdom of its leadership and courts that are perceived as supporting every citizen’s best interests, even if the average person has no idea what those interests actually are. In this society, education has been customized and tailored to reflect the government’s idyllic goals, and the curriculum is deeply rooted in these principles. The system may be criticized for advancing an agenda of indoctrination, however, this is absolutely essential for maintaining a social order where every child, adolescent and young adult can feel safe and find their rightful place in the culture. 

Public life, including individual behavior in the private sector and all public institutions are governed by a set of rules that are morally enforced if violated. These rules oversee everything from individual behavior and speech in public to business practices. Even entertainment and social interactions are expected to abide by these standards and deviations from this norm are fiercely ridiculed or even banned or punished. Yet all of this is done for the sole benefit of community cohesion. By adhering to a unified code of conduct, society can progress towards a universal harmony and avoid the disruptions and conflicts that, in this system’s view, are caused by contrary beliefs and worldviews. It is the collective responsibility of the citizenry to maintain these values and these values should be held as sacred. It is not simply a matter of individual discipline alone but a collective effort to build a society that will be prosperous and peaceful under the judicial guidance of a wise government in service to the country. On the surface, this doesn’t sound too bad, does it? Compared to the multitude of crises currently ravaging America today, its a pretty good vision. 

Now we can take this utterly bland and non-descript nation and by filling in some blanks accurately describe the goals and ideals of a woke nation that has been codified by the standards of critical race theory, the rules of diversity, inclusion and equity (DIE), and social justice policing. It would accurately describe the evolution of our Democratic Party’s fundamental social goals during the past decade and now being more fully realized in the presidential campaign embodied by the legacies of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. And for those who lack critical thought and find comfort in being scared participants in the collective beehive, isn’t this utopic woke society so very appealing?

However, there is a caveat. The template used to define this non-descript nation is not the Democrat’s America but rather the Taliban in Afghanistan. By simply removing references to Islam, the Hanafi interpretation of shariah, social conformity by coercion and capital punishment, the ideals of woke ideology are exposed as being no different. In short, a nation built and ruled on woke principles would simply be a secularized Taliban based upon a similar underlying psychology, albeit one traditionally religious and the other thoroughly secular and anti-religious. But we also mustn’t let the Republicans off the hook either. As Chris Hedges has so eloquently described, the Christian nationalist right behind Trump is every bit as fundamentalist, backwards and authoritarian as the most rabid mullahs in the Afghani madrassas in Kandahar. 

The past three and a half years of the Joe Biden administration have marked the continuation of profound shifts in the Democrat Party, steering it further towards a comprehensive, ideological embrace of “woke culture” and an increased reliance on social censorship. This shift has not only manifested within the political sphere but now permeates various sectors of power and influence, including the financial industry, Silicon Valley, the private military complex and social justice activist organizations. We are no longer capable of seeing clearly behind the veneer of a woke authoritarianism that shields the party’s control. For many Americans, it is obvious that President Biden was simply a figurehead; Kamala Harris, if elected, will be more so. The Democrat National Committee has been so thoroughly hijacked and compromised by the billionaire class that the presidency is no longer a vitally important institution.  We see it in every corner of our lives. In this environment, Vice President Kamala Harris has played a significant role as the embodiment of the party’s commitment to woke culture. She repeatedly says people need to become more woke and embrace the controversial gender spectrum and DIE policies despite her checkered resume showing any noteworthy accomplishments.

This ideological woke alignment, however, extends beyond the confines of the political arena. For instance, the financial industry has seen a surge in initiatives aimed at promoting DIE within corporate structures, often under the guise of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria. A prominent example is BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, which has made DIE a central tenet of its investment strategy. BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, has openly advocated for corporate America to embrace these values, tying the company’s investment decisions to the adherence of ESG principles. This alignment between the Democrat Party’s ideological stance and the financial sector’s operations demonstrates the deep intertwining of political and economic power under the Biden administration.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ career trajectory from California’s Attorney General to a U.S. Senator, and ultimately to the Vice Presidency has been riddled with controversies. Despite her rapid rise to political prominence, Harris’ record is underwhelming and marred by inconsistencies.

As Attorney General of California, she faced backlash for her handling of several high-profile legal cases. She was criticized for her refusal to support statewide reforms to reduce prison overcrowding and for her stance on the death penalty, where she declined to support a federal judge’s ruling that declared California’s death penalty system unconstitutional. She was accused of neglecting to prosecute cases of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, further tarnishing her record as the state’s top prosecutor.

Harris’ tenure as a U.S. Senator was similarly an example of extreme mediocrity. She praised the disgraced co-founder of Black Lives Matter, Alicia Garza, as a “powerful voice against police injustice; Garza was indicted for misappropriating $6 million of the organization’s funds for her personal use. While she co-sponsored several bills, her name is not associated with any significant legislative victories. Her ineffectiveness has carried over into her role as Vice President, where her portfolio, which includes overseeing the immigration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, has been inept at best.

Despite her poor professional record, Kamala has been an unwavering advocate for woke social justice initiatives and the DIE agenda. As Vice President, she championed policies aimed at increasing representation and opportunities for marginalized communities. However, her commitment to this agenda is more symbolic than substantive. For example, she has been vocal in her support for the administration’s efforts to ensure that the federal workforce reflects the diversity of the American populace. This included initiatives aimed at increasing the number of women and people of color in senior government positions. However, critics argue that these efforts have focused more on optics than on addressing the systemic issues that contribute to inequality. The administration’s emphasis on diversity hiring practices, while important, has overshadowed the need for broader economic and social reforms that could more effectively address the root causes of inequality.

The Biden administration’s policies, particularly those related to censorship and surveillance, have raised significant concerns that these measures are antithetical to the principles of freedom and democracy that the administration claims to uphold. Under the banner of combating misinformation and protecting national security, the administration implemented policies that have led to increased surveillance and censorship, particularly in online spaces.

For instance, the administration has pressured social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook to monitor and censor content that is deemed to be misinformation or harmful to public discourse. This has had a chilling effect on free speech; many individuals and organizations found themselves demonetized, de-platformed or silenced for expressing dissenting opinions that criticized Democrats’ draconian domestic and foreign policies. Consequently, the line between protecting public safety and infringing on civil liberties became increasingly blurred with the long-term implications of threatening democracy.

At the same time, the administration has employed a Hollywood-like veneer of emotive and often empty rhetoric to justify its draconian measures and radical woke ideologies. Phrases like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “American values” are now invoked to defend policies that, in practice, curtail the very freedoms they claim to protect. This rhetorical strategy has become ubiquitous and has succeeded in masking the administration’s authoritarian disdain towards the nation’s electorate. It presents a polished image of governance that rewrites history and belies the reality of increased control and surveillance. 

If Kamala’s woke agenda is disturbing, her running mate Tim Walz, the current Governor of Minnesota, is outrageous. If there is any expectation that the Democratic party’s complete embrace of woke culture and faux promises of freedom have a chance to reside due to a public backlash, the selection of Tim Walz as the party’s Vice Presidential candidate should railroad those hopes. 

Walz is well-known in his state for his ardent embrace of a woke agenda, particularly those centered around DIE. Throughout his tenure as governor, he has championed a series of policies that align closely with woke culture, which has made Minnesota a focal point for some of the most radical social and political reforms in the nation. Similarly he is a vocal advocate for cancel culture and blatantly ignorant about the First Amendment. In an interview, he stated there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” Of course, the First Amendment guarantees free speech to both misinformation and hate speech. Besides there is no universal agreement on what defines either of the two. 

Minnesota has long been recognized as a welcoming state for refugees, which according to the America First Policy Institute boasts the highest rate of refugees per capita in the United States. This tradition of openness has been a point of pride for many Minnesotans, reflecting the state’s commitment to humanitarian values. However, under Walz’s leadership, this openness has been coupled with a series of policies that has pushed the state toward the extreme end of the woke spectrum. His commitment to woke ideologies is perhaps most evident in his efforts to turn Minnesota into a medical sanctuary for children seeking gender transition services. In a move that has sparked national debate, Walz supported legislation that allows the state to take custody of minors if their parents refuse to provide them with gender-affirming care. This policy, seen by many as a direct attack on parental rights, has been hailed by the most radical wing of the LGBTQ+ movement as necessary for protecting transgender youth. But for most it is a dangerous overreach of governmental authority.

To further his woke ideology, Walz also backed one of the nation’s most radical education reforms by mandating ethnic studies based on woke principles in grades K-12. This curriculum aims to center the experiences of marginalized communities in the education system by prioritizing ideological indoctrination over traditional educational goals. 

Tim Walz’s governorship in Minnesota during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 is widely regarded as one of the most catastrophic failures of leadership by any American governor in recent history. The protests, which were sparked by the tragic death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer, quickly escalated into some of the most destructive riots the state had ever witnessed. According to Newsweek, “Minnesota became a war zone.” The failure of Walz to adequately respond to the chaotic riots not only led to massive destruction of property and businesses but also left the state and the city of Minneapolis grappling with an immense financial burden. Over 1,500 buildings were damaged, looted, or completely destroyed, including small businesses that were the lifeblood of local communities. The cost of the damage was staggering, with estimates exceeding $500 million, making it the second-most costly civil disturbance in U.S. history and surpassed only by the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The city of Minneapolis and the state of Minnesota were left with the enormous burden of rebuilding, both physically and economically, with many businesses and property owners unable to recover from the losses. The economic impact was devastating, with many businesses permanently shuttered and neighborhoods left in ruins.

Instead of taking decisive action to quell the violence and protect citizens and property, Walz was paralyzed by the political implications of using force to restore order. His administration was slow to deploy the National Guard by which time much of the damage had already been done. This delay can be seen as a clear indication that Walz prioritized the political optics of aligning with the BLM movement protestors over the immediate need to protect the lives and livelihoods of Minnesotans.

Furthermore, Walz appeared to side more with the rioters than with law enforcement. He failed dismally to give the police the necessary support to manage the chaos. His rhetoric often empathized more with the protestors’ anger rather than to condemn the random violence and destruction that was occurring. Walz’s bias further demoralized law enforcement and emboldened the rioters and contributed directly to the prolonged unrest.

Another example is Walz’s support for the controversial Minnesota Freedom Fund, a non-profit organization that has provided bail for individuals accused of violent crimes, including a child rapist. The fund, which received national attention after being promoted by Vice President Kamala Harris during the George Floyd protests, has been criticized for its role in releasing dangerous individuals back into the community without regard for public safety. This scandal is indicative of Walz’s broader disregard for the rule of law and constitutional protections in favor of promoting a radical social agenda.

In addition, Tim Walz’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic represents a textbook case study of what not to do during a pandemic. His administration’s heavy-handed policies were a gross overreach of executive power. His unilateral decision to shut down schools, businesses, and houses of worship drew widespread criticism as these measures were implemented with little regard for the economic and social impacts on Minnesota’s communities. The shutdowns led to significant disruptions in education, with Minnesota’s school rankings plummeting from 7th to 19th nationally under Walz’s watch. This decline in educational standards was accompanied by a growing achievement gap between black and white students, with only 31% of black students in Minnesota achieving reading proficiency compared to 59% of white students. These statistics highlight the failures of Walz’s policies in addressing the deep-rooted educational inequalities in the state.

Even more alarming was Walz’s decision to set up a hotline encouraging citizens to report their neighbors to law enforcement if they were suspected of violating pandemic lockdown rules. This move was widely condemned as unconstitutional and antithetical to the principles of individual freedom that form the bedrock of American society. The idea of turning citizens against one another in the name of public health led to the erosion of trust between the government and the people it serves, which has increasingly plagued the both parties in the Covid-19 aftermath.

The Harris-Walz tandem may be defined by their zealous embrace of woke culture and a commitment to policies that many see as extreme and divisive. People will not be voting only for a woman of color, but a radical undemocratic secular Taliban-like ideology promoted by a woman and her vice president. In its pursuit of an ordered, compliant and faux harmonious society, these efforts come at the expense of constitutional protections, individual freedoms, and preservation of the pillars of democracy. The push for CRT and DIE in schools and workplaces marginalizes differing viewpoints mirroring the Taliban’s enforcement of its own version of religious and social conformity. Just as the Taliban imposes its interpretation of Islamic law to maintain societal order, the woke agenda implements policies that demand adherence to its own beliefs about race, gender and personal identity. The consequences for those who resist or question wokeism can be severe, including social ostracism, loss of employment and other kinds of punishment similar to policing through coercion and fear. 

Finally, the fierce political standoff between Harris and Trump leading to the November election is an indication that the US has reached a critical point with the potential to inflame riots across the country. As the polarization deepens, scholars and social commentators from across the political spectrum—Democrat, Republican, and Independent—have raised alarms about the rising hatred between the two major parties and the possible consequences of such intense discord.

Some political scholars argue that the current level of animosity between Democrats and Republicans is unprecedented in modern American history. Lilliana Mason, a Johns Hopkins University political scientist and author of Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, notes, “The hatred that people feel for the other party is not just about policy differences anymore. It’s become deeply personal, and that’s where the danger lies.” Mason warns that the current climate could lead to an escalation in violence, as people increasingly view political opponents not just as rivals but as existential threats.

Similarly, Barbara Walter, a professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego, and author of How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them, has expressed concerns about the possibility of civil unrest. She states, “We are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe. The conditions that precipitated civil wars in other countries—such as entrenched polarization, a breakdown in democratic norms, and the rise of paramilitary groups—are all present in the United States today.”

Social commentators across the political spectrum, from Ben Shapiro on the far right to Van Jones on the far left, have echoed these concerns. Independent scholars, who often occupy a middle ground, are equally concerned. Yascha Mounk, a scholar at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, has warned that the combination of extreme polarization and the erosion of democratic norms could lead to a dangerous tipping point. He writes, “If the two major parties continue to see each other as enemies of democracy, rather than as competitors within a shared system, we could be heading toward a period of sustained political violence.”

This potential for violence is real and growing. The combination of intense polarization, the erosion of trust in institutions, and the increasing acceptance of violence as a political tool has created a volatile environment. The recent riots in the UK following the Tory defeat could very easily be witnessed here. As the 2024 election approaches, the stakes are high, and the potential for unrest is a serious concern for those who study the dynamics of political conflict.

The warnings upon us should serve as a sobering reminder of the fragility of democracy in the face of deep division. Without concerted efforts to bridge the gap between the two sides and restore faith in democratic processes, the U.S. could be heading toward a period of significant turmoil as political solutions seem increasingly out of reach.