The Left has repeated its pattern of attack against conservatives so many times that it has become formulaic. Its tactics include, but are not limited to, using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, logical fallacies, complicit judges, stenographers in the legacy media, and figures in the entertainment and education industries. I believe these tactics are ultimately aimed at implementing the Cloward-Piven Strategy to dismantle our representative constitutional republic and replace it with some form of socialism.
Activists on the left use psychological and rhetorical tactics to reshape public perception. Taken together, these tactics form a predictable pattern that transforms ordinary disagreements into moral condemnation. This pattern facilitates ridicule, leads to social exclusion, and, in extreme cases, provides justification for harm.
The sequence dehumanizes and invalidates honest emotions and responses, making harm feel deserved and even rendering violence conceivable. It starts subtly but then escalates. It bypasses rational debate by attacking the target’s humanity rather than the target’s arguments.
How many times have we seen the left repeat baseless allegations that quickly devolve into name-calling? They’re the primary arrows in its rhetorical quiver. Leftists repeat unfounded accusations, such as the Russian Collusion hoax and the “Very Fine People” lie.
Then they employ caricatured labels to accuse Republicans and conservatives—not the same thing—of being racists, xenophobes, homophobes, “literally Hitler,” pedophiles, fascists, and, as Dan Bongino so eloquently put it, “istaphobic phobic phobophobes.” They use these terms to evoke revulsion, reframing a person as an archetype of evil. This makes balanced discussion impossible.
Activists on the left reduced Erika Kirk from a mourning spouse to a “pageant girl”—a superficial glory hound. They erased the authenticity of her loss so that she was no longer viewed as a grieving human being but as a symbol to be mocked or opposed. Saul Alinsky told his adherents to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
This isolates the person and sends the signal that normal social protections no longer apply. Pick any prominent figure on the right and look for this pattern. They do it to anyone who disagrees with them.
Once they have dehumanized their target, those on the left will then undermine the target’s emotional responses. Any emotion the target expresses, such as grief, anger, fear, or even joy, becomes suspect and is seen as manufactured or manipulative. They ridiculed Erika Kirk when she grieved and criticized her when they saw her smiling.
They view any emotional response as illegitimate, invalidating personal experience and framing their target as insincere or mentally unstable. They called Mrs. Kirk an “emotional asset,” and Jimmy Kimmel once said that Melania Trump had “the glow of an expectant widow.” Public sympathy is eroded when a person’s vulnerability is mocked.
The public begins to distrust the target’s feelings, rendering any platform or position the target holds, or any sympathy the target receives, illegitimate. Not only is the person bad, but the person’s very humanity is seen as fraudulent.
Once this happens, the left shifts its narrative to imply that the target deserves negative consequences. The target is portrayed as a threat whose removal or punishment benefits society. The target “had it coming” because of the target’s alleged crimes.
We’ve seen this used against ICE officers enforcing immigration laws and against conservative or Republican political figures. Aging pop star Madonna once said she dreamed of blowing up the White House. Johnny Depp asked about the last time an actor assassinated a president. Joe Biden said he wanted to punch Donald Trump.
At some point, the mere presence of the targeted individual is interpreted as a trigger. Before long, some members of the public begin to feel that opposing the target warrants more direct action.
This is the fourth and final point at which things shift from a generalized taboo to direct action. Assaults against ICE officers who are carrying out their lawful duties have skyrocketed. UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk were assassinated, and President Trump has survived three, possibly four, assassination attempts.
A disturbingly high percentage of leftists view these as reasonable responses. They’re actually developing an assassination culture.
It is rare to see explicit calls for violence, although they do occur. The “8647” message that James Comey (and others) spread is one example. The message bearers always preserve deniability, claiming variations of “I never called for violence” and “This is not who we are.”
However, by this point, the targeted individuals have been so thoroughly demonized that some listeners interpret it as permission. Extremists on the left absorb the subtext—that certain people represent such severe threats that violence is necessary and justified. We’ve seen the results: public harassment, doxing, and even physical confrontations.
The pattern works because we are wired to reject evil and protect our group. Extremists hijack these instincts by casting their targets as existential threats. Social media, legacy news organizations, and celebrities all parrot the message and perpetuate the cycle.
What starts as mere pejoratives evolves, step by predictable step, into the normalization of violence. The targets are isolated, their emotions are invalidated, and their existence is framed as an existential threat so that some on the left begin to see their fellow citizens as obstacles to be removed. We’ve seen where this road leads when left unchecked.
Countering these tactics requires that we re-embrace the principles of classical liberalism, “the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade.” The more we fail to interrupt this pattern, the more likely it is that we will descend from debate into tribal conflict.
We must be able to engage in reasoned debates and argue against principles, not people. Unfortunately, there are very few, if any, on the left who appear willing to do so.
We can’t wait around and hope they return to sanity. We must break this pattern at multiple points, responding with principles and evidence, not counter-personal attacks.
Here are some suggestions:
• Ask questions to force the conversation back to policy outcomes: “How has this policy affected crime rates, inflation, or education outcomes?”
• Continue to support and create alternatives to legacy media, businesses, and content creators that don’t self-censor.
• We must aggressively pursue legal accountability for violence, doxing, threats, and clear lawfare abuse. This can be achieved through strategic litigation and state-level action.
• Call out specific journalists, celebrities, academics, or officials who amplify dehumanizing rhetoric. This makes it harder for them to continue using the “this is not who we are” defense.
• Frame issues around universal principles, such as fairness and color-blindness, which undercut moral-monopoly claims.
• Humor and targeted ridicule weaponize mockery effectively. We can use them without descending into the same dehumanization.
• Engage the undecided and persuadable, especially among the working class and minorities, with results-focused arguments. People respect competence and character at scale: delivering objectively better results on crime, the economy, borders, education, and family stability.
• The strongest interrupter is raising people who value evidence and logic over tribal signaling. School choice, homeschooling, and classical education models are already showing results.
When enough people experience the gap between rhetoric and reality, the pattern loses its hold.
