Attorney General Bill Barr isn’t mincing words anymore.
During a Sunday interview with conservative radio and television host Mark Levin, Barr laid into the political left, which he said has abandoned classical liberalism and become a “revolutionary party that believes in tearing down the system.”
Barr: Leftism is “a substitute for religion”
When Levin brought up Black Lives Matter and its Antifa allies, Barr called the movement “a revolutionary group that is interested in some form of socialism, communism.”
Barr characterized its members as being “essentially Bolsheviks,” and the attorney general went on to denounce their “fascistic” strategies and tactics. “They go into the demonstrations, which are exercising First Amendment activity, and they insinuate themselves in there to shield themselves,” he explained.
“That’s where they swim,” Barr noted, drawing on imagery used by Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong to illustrate guerrilla activity. “And what they do is they hijack these demonstrations and they provoke violence.”
“They are interested in complete political victory,” Barr continued. “They’re not interested in compromise. They’re not interested in dialectic exchange of views.”
“They are interested in total victory, and that’s — it’s a secular religion,” the attorney general went on. “It’s a substitute for religion. They view their political opponents as evil because we stand in the way of their progressive utopia that they’re trying to reach.” Watch below:
Scarry: Barr is right
While the left was quick to condemn Barr’s comments, Washington Examiner columnist Eddie Scarry had another view. As far as he’s concerned, Barr’s fiery statement “wasn’t a critique. It was a diagnosis.”
Scarry acknowledges that those remarks didn’t go over well with The Washington Post, but he insists that Barr’s words are more than accurate.
“By ‘fascistic,’ Barr could have been referring to the arson and the street violence still going on in some cities,” the columnist wrote. “But he was certainly also referring to the horrific intimidation methods of hard-left liberals.”
In Scarry’s view, “That’s what accusations of ‘white privilege’ are — they’re meant to intimidate dissidents into submission. Leftists pretend to hold the moral high ground purely by virtue of their claim to be victims.”
“That way,” he concludes, “anyone with a contradictory view is automatically an oppressive bigot. It’s actually very clever and also entirely sinister.”