Part 3. The Leftist Too Pure For Those Who Consider Themselves Left-Wing.

Here we see a special kind of leftist: the kind who exemplifies all typical parts of leftism – lack of self-awareness, moral relativism unapplicable with reality, a complete lack of a sense of humor, unapologetic in their nature – but one for whom those who the far right consider the most extreme leftist – in this case, Hollywood - is not leftist enough for their tastes.

This demonstrates two very separate but equally horrid tropes of behavior. First it involves the academic version of morality that the left does – which as I have illustrated is implausible in a real-world setting – and then chooses to castigate for not being carried out in a fictional setting. That they choose to do so in the world of diplomacy is also telling, especially in this show which is a thriller and political drama, not a leftist documentary explaining how foreign relations should work. In her comparison to The West Wing hailed at the time by Fox News as the prime example of the liberal Hollywood, they demonstrate the constantly moving world of the leftist Overton window window, exemplified by Adam McKay who in an interview said that his conservative equivalent in Hollywood as of 2021 was Aaron Sorkin

. In both cases the argument is that anyone who doesn’t use their platform to tireless and pedantically educate the public on the flaws of the system rather than do anything else – as in the case of both The Diplomat and The West Wing, concentrated on providing an entertainment to the general public – they are guilty of continuing to portray the flaws of American and Western exceptionalism. How this would work in an entertainment can be seen in McKay’s films such as Vice and The Big Short in which he spends several hours berating the audience and lecturing rather than providing an entertainment for them. In his opinion, as is the writer’s, it is more important to instruct the audience rather than provide a counter argument for their point of view.

We also see the use of the term ‘neoliberal’, yet another code word used by the left to argue that they are the only true represents of the left and the rest of the world has moved away from it, rather than the other way around. Used in the case of Democrats far more than Republicans, it takes paradoxically the neoconservative view towards the last half-century: Government is not the solution to problems, government is the problem. In the left definition of the term, government involvement when used is always used in a morally wrong method rather than the correct way, which they never choose to define. In this article, it is arguing for an anarchic solution to global events rather than preserving the world order, even though the author does not state it directly. In this article what is clearly a sign of a bad actor in the political system – the nature of a thriller – is used instead to argue that the entire system has bad actors and that no one is acting in anyone’s best interest. Once again the author chooses to interpret the story to this version of events rather than bother to give an explanation as to what she would do.

Nor in her response does she answer the original question: in her mind the righteousness of her positions trumps any attempt to argue or reason with it. Dissent is met with name calling and self-righteousness as if the burden is to prove a negative.

Finally this article is not criticism in the sense of the word but rather a leftist argument that any show is ‘perpetuating a narrative’ that the author chooses to see into it. There is no difference here from the traditional deconstructionist, but in this case the author disguises herself as a critic. But it is no different from the kind of moral relativism that exists in political or historical commentary; only more extreme because it argues that those the world considers liberals are not liberal themselves. This is very akin to the kind of ‘art criticism’ one sees in publications like Jacobin in which they constantly criticized awards shows for not being political enough.