Modern liberals have a reflexive disdain for everything that ordinary Americans have traditionally regarded as good about the American experiment. That disdain infects nearly all that modern liberals say and do.
Moreover, in their mindless repetitions of anti-American narratives, liberals — consciously or otherwise — advance the cause of Marxism.
Wednesday on CNN’s “News Night with Abby Phillip,” several liberal panelists, joined by co-host Phillip, repeatedly misrepresented the arguments of fitness legend Jillian Michaels, who came prepared with specific details in defense of President Donald Trump’s decision to order a review of ideologically-driven exhibitions at various Smithsonian museums, including those pertaining to slavery and American history in general.
The panel included Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky and Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York. Together with Phillip, the two Democrats appeared to willfully misunderstand Michaels’ point about the current exhibitions.
In fact, we might have to consider the possibility that those Democrats — their ideas so thoroughly and perhaps unconsciously infused with Marxism-adjacent hatred of traditional America — actually lack the ability to understand what Michaels said. More on this in a moment.
To grasp the context of the panel discussion, recall that in March, Trump issued a Smithsonian-related executive order.
According to the president, the Smithsonian has “come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology.” Thus, Trump pledged to restore “truth and sanity” to that once-venerable institution.
On Tuesday, therefore, in a letter to Lonnie G. Bunch, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, the White House announced that it would lead a “comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions.”
“This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President’s directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,” the letter read.
Is there any chance those panelists heard a single thing Michaels actually said?
During the CNN panel discussion, Roginsky complained about Trump’s Smithsonian review.
“So we’re now literally reviewing parts of American history and parts of American culture to make sure it comports with ‘dear leader’ and what the MAGA orientation wants,” Roginsky said in a clip posted to the social media platform X.
“Can we address some of those things?” Michaels replied.
In other words, the fitness guru wanted to discuss problems with specific exhibits.
Roginsky, however, deflected Michaels’ argument by bringing up slavery.
That is, of course, a tried-and-true liberal tactic. When challenged, invoke the ultimate straw man. After all, no sane person seeks to defend slavery or diminish its horrors. But, from the liberal perspective, if you can force a speaker to repeatedly disavow such intentions, then you can delay confronting a sensible argument about liberal biases in American history.
“OK. He’s not whitewashing slavery,” Michaels said of Trump, looking down at her notes and eager to get to her point.
Finally, Roginsky remained quiet long enough for the fitness guru to do that.
“You cannot tie imperialism, and racism, and slavery to just one race, which is pretty much what every single exhibit does,” Michaels said.
Roginsky and Ritchie immediately objected. Phillip used her role as host to lend weight to the objections.
“Jillian,” Phillip said, “I’m surprised that you’re trying to litigate who was the beneficiary of slavery and who was not.”
Faced with yet another straw man, Michaels calmly corrected the host.
“Every single thing,” the fitness guru said, referring to the exhibits, “is like, ‘oh, no, no, no, this is all because white people bad.’”
Michaels then proceeded to give multiple examples of the Smithsonian as “completely captured” and “totally partisan.”
One exhibit, for instance, attributed the 20th-century migration from Cuba not to Fidel Castro’s Communist dictatorship, but because “white people bad,” presumably a reference to imperialism.
Another Smithsonian exhibit referred to gender testing in sports as “complex.”
Incredibly, having heard Michaels’ specific examples of “totally partisan” exhibits, Phillip pretended that the panelists had better things to discuss.
“First of all,” the host said, “we don’t have time to litigate all of this.”
“Of course we don’t” Michaels replied, “because then you’re gonna lose the argument.”
Then came the real fireworks.
“Everything is racialized,” Michaels added, “just like you’re trying to do to me now.”
“Excuse me,” Phillip said.
The host then accused Michaels of having introduced race and slavery to the discussion.
“You brought up slavery,” Phillip insisted, when in truth, Roginsky brought up that subject. “And you brought up the question of whether or not slavery, in the United States, is about race; the answer is ‘yes.’”
“No, I didn’t,” Michaels correctly replied. “I did not say that. No, don’t straw-man my argument, because that’s not what I said.”
“She brought up slavery,” the fitness guru continued, referring to Roginsky. “And what I was talking about is that this isn’t really about that.”
Indeed. None of this has anything to do with slavery as a historical phenomenon.
“When you make every single exhibit about white imperialism, when it isn’t relevant at all,” Michaels added, “that is a problem.”
Watch Jillian Michaels talk circles around Julie Roginsky, Abby Phillip, and Congressman Richie Torres.
“First of all, we don’t have time to litigate this”
“Of course we don’t, because then you’d lose the argument.” pic.twitter.com/2YMnF46cCk
— Thomas Hern (@ThomasMHern) August 14, 2025
In sum, Michaels gave a sensible and spirited defense of Trump’s “comprehensive” Smithsonian review.
First, the fitness guru came prepared with specific objections to specific Smithsonian exhibits.
Second, Michaels had it absolutely correct when she referred to those exhibits as “totally partisan” and not “really about” slavery.
So what should we make of Michaels’ exchange with Roginsky, Torres, and Phillip?
In short, the perplexed look on the liberal panelists’ faces suggested that they do not recognize something important about themselves. Namely, they have enlisted in the Marxist cause, almost certainly without knowing it.
Marxism exists to destroy God and nationhood, to de-sanctify the individual and elevate the collective. At its core, every political dispute between conservatives and liberals involves one or more of these elements.
Furthermore, the most formidable enemy of Marxism is not capitalism, but Christianity.
At its founding, of course, the United States qualified as a Christian nation committed to the ideals (though certainly not the consistent practice) of individual liberty and equality.
Therefore, from the Marxist perspective, it is essential to de-legitimize the American founding. Denounce its leading figures as slaveholding racists. Teach American schoolchildren to view the past with condescension rather than appreciation or even humility.
One way to do this, of course, is to equate all of history’s evils with “whiteness” and then place “white supremacy” at the center of America’s story.
Many liberals, including those who run the Smithsonian, have internalized all of this.
Thus, liberals such as Roginsky, Torres, and Phillip probably lack conscious awareness of the ideological source of their objections. Nor do they likely understand that their hostile reactions to Michaels stemmed from their reflexive disdain for the traditional views of ordinary Americans, who demand nothing more than a nuanced-yet-unapologetic presentation of their country’s history.
At least, one hopes those liberals lack such awareness and understanding. Otherwise, their alignment with Marxism portends something far more sinister.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
