admin
John Doyle’s argument is simple and unvarnished: the Left radicalized first, and Donald Trump’s rise was an evolutionary corrective by millions of ordinary Americans who finally said “enough.” Doyle lays out that story with data and historical context, showing how cultural and institutional left-wing overreach provoked a backlash that manifested politically as Trumpism. His take is blunt, unapologetic, and exactly the kind of commonsense diagnosis conservative readers have been waiting to hear.
The empirical backdrop Doyle leans on is unmistakable: American politics has been drifting toward a new era of raw polarization, with party lines hardening into ideological chasms. Gallup’s long-term trends show record party gaps in presidential approval and widening divides on policy tradeoffs — not a temporary flare-up but a structural shift in how Americans sort themselves politically. This isn’t rumor or hyperbole; it’s polling evidence that the political center is fraying and emotional animus between parties is at historic highs.
Look closer and you see the story Doyle describes: the Democratic Party increasingly embraced a liberal orthodoxy over the last two decades, while Republicans consolidated around conservatism, leaving moderates squeezed out. Pew research and other national surveys documented the Democrats’ leftward drift on social and cultural issues, a trend that hardened over multiple election cycles and activist movements. That trend helps explain why the Left’s priorities — from identity politics to expansive regulatory visions — became politically toxic to many working-class and middle-American voters.
That context matters because it rebuts the caricature that Trump “caused” polarization. The raw data show views are overwhelmingly party-driven: Republicans and Democrats view the same president in polar-opposite terms, and subgroup approval rates line up almost entirely with party affiliation. Trump, far from inventing polarization, simply became the vessel for a popular counter-revolution against elites who had lost touch with everyday Americans. Doyle’s point is not an apology for every Trump tactic; it’s an explanation of political cause and effect that the mainstream media refuses to discuss honestly.
Conservatives ought to be blunt about what radical leftism looks like in practice: a university system that rewards orthodoxy over inquiry, corporate and governmental DEI machines that punish dissent, and cultural institutions that mock traditional American values. These are not abstract grievances — they are the daily reality for millions who see jobs, communities, and their faith under attack. We should be proud rather than apologetic about pushing back, because defending free speech, merit, and national identity is the patriotic work of saving our republic.
The remedy Doyle proposes — and what every patriot should embrace — is political clarity and relentless engagement. Vote, organize, speak plainly, and hold institutions to account; don’t cede the ground to radicals who fine-tune outrage into policy. If America is to survive as a free, prosperous nation, conservatives must match the Left’s organizing fervor with courage, common sense, and the firm conviction that the people, not the institutions of status, should decide our future.
