What Makes the Left Tick
The “deep ideology” of the left, rooted in the triple assumption that the ideal of earthly perfection is realizable, that human nature is a social construct which can be remade or transformed, and that radical change is preferable to gradual amelioration in the evolution of human societies, is the bane of the modern era. This verdict has been proven many times over, from the reverberating failure of the malignant Soviet experiment to the faltering economies of socialist and welfare states across the world. Even Communist China has moved toward a capitalist-oriented market system. Yet the infirmity persists, each new generation containing its insurrectionary or “progressive” cohort convinced that the reason for dereliction resides only in the misguided application of fundamental principles. So they try again and meet inexorably with the same miserable consequences.
The program that envisages the flattening out of differences between people, the sharing equally in the total wealth of a nation regardless of individual input to the whole, and state control of the “means of production” ostensibly for the benefit of the masses never seems to work and only creates entrenched systems of mediocrity, stagnation, apathy, and enervation. The question is: what accounts for the dogged and pernicious investment in so obviously defective a formula for human improvement, despite the harsh lessons of that most severe of pedagogues, Reality? Apart from state inculcation and the ruthless exercise of power to impose blanket assent, some factors accounting for the leftist and liberal-left worldview would seem to be the following:
—The formative: upbringing and education. As William Wordsworth wrote, “The Child is father of the Man.” We are familiar with the concept of the “red diaper baby” — Naomi Klein is a good example — and with the practice of socialist indoctrination in the humanities departments, including the social sciences syllabi, of our universities.
—The aleatory: chance (generally negative) experiences on the road of life. Some people turn toward communist ideology and the dictatorship of the proletariat as a result of economic suffering and humiliation, and invariably find ways to spackle the holes in their gospel. After his father had endured a crushing bankruptcy and descended into poverty, a colleague of mine in his youth arrived at the conviction that capitalism was an unmitigated evil and that East Germany was a model state whose example should be followed by all thinking people. The wall presented no problem. It was obviously erected to keep out the West Germans who would otherwise have inundated the GDR with asylum seekers and immigrants hungry for the good life.
—The theoretical: a reading of the philosophical and political literature — Hegel, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Fourier, Althusser, Gramsci — sparking interest and assent in minds hospitable to dialectical subtleties. Many of us experience a passion for the beauty of the philosophical instrument, the way people like complicated tools and equipment and children are seduced by the gleam of a new toy. (Full disclosure: I, too, experienced this infatuation when I first read Marx’s The German Ideology, Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man and Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks.)
—The fiscal: the shrewd manipulation and exploitation of markets, associated with leftist attitudes and preoccupations such as the drive toward renewable energy projects, many of which are, for practical purposes, a generation or more away from standard efficiency levels. Al Gore and the chair of the UN’s IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, come immediately to mind. The rationale is social betterment; the truth is personal enrichment.
—The psychological: the unconscious or semi-conscious attempt to justify one’s reprobate or otherwise problematic, ambiguous, or disgraceful behavior, which is really a form of pandering to a pestering conscience with sanctimonious deceptions. This is one reason, no doubt, that so many impenitent plutocrats who draw their wealth from family fortune, lucrative businesses, or currency speculation steer to the port side of the ship of state — one thinks of the Clintons, of Nancy Pelosi, of Ségolène Royal in France, of George Soros, and of innumerable others.
One or another, or several, of these explanatory factors may be necessary to account for the ideological shift toward a leftist worldview, but none of them is sufficient in itself. With the obvious exception of the schemers and defalcators who cash in on the political fads of the day and who are “socialists” in nothing but name, the predisposition to the left derives from a tropism of the mind rooted in what we might call the “utopian temperament” — which is to say, in a condition of prolonged infantilism. The belief that human nature can be either transformed or superseded by social and political legerdemain is a function of arrested development, of the child’s conviction that make-believe can somehow alter the structure of the world he or she inhabits. Adults who feel and act the same way would appear to be differentially retarded, despite their ability to spin ideas, practice oratory and compose intricate texts and ringing manifestos. Leftists, writes Bernard Paul Chapin, author of Escape from Gangsta Island, “are addicted to emotion. … In the old days we used to call such persons … children”
A related element that seems to be at work is the leftist penchant for submission to authority, the callow need for assurance, for the embrace of the family or the presence of the “strongman” acting in loco parentis. The despot represents the power of the father which the child or adolescent secretly craves, surrendering his will to the commanding figure of the leader and becoming part of the intimacy of the sanctuary group. In those cases where he is not pre-trained, as it were, he is coddled in the select and festive community that operates as the family-in-waiting for the feral child who has repudiated the nest — yet cannot do without it. Whether the revered figure is Stalin or Mao or Ho Chi Minh or Castro or Che or Nasrallah or Chavez, the moral pubescent and emotional nursling cannot flourish without the consoling and explanatory self-confidence of the ostensibly enlightened tyrant. The same applies to a nonviolent and lower caliber messiah like Obama in whose personal charisma million of Americans (and Europeans) willingly submerged their identities.
Hollywood actors and directors are especially given to such professional naivety and furnish an exemplary illustration of almost complete mental vacancy and thwarted affective development — Oliver Stone, Sean Penn, James Cameron, Jane Fonda, etc. They are like children who have been absorbed into the world of illusion and can no longer discriminate between play-acting and reality, between celluloid and brass tacks. But Hollywood is only a petri dish signifying a far more pervasive phenomenon. Broadly speaking, the aspiring leftist lapses into a species of idolatry and reifies what is nothing less than a political apparition, namely, the apotheosis of the “suffering masses” with which, for the most part, he or she has nothing in common, and the global community as the “end” — i.e., both the purpose and the consummation — of history.
Fortunately, those of a conservative temperament tend to grow out of the longing for anointment and the hunger for group vetting. But the left is rhizomed in the pathos of abandonment. It is actuated by the fear of independence and by an almost feudal yearning for emotional refuge and moral security in the assembly of the elect or, as all too often happens, in the incendiary kinship. But at bottom, its hypothetically noble vision of human redemption is founded in the child’s need for reinforcement and protection, propelling the fledgling spirit into the orbit of the magistral savage or mentoring autocrat and their faux-therapeutic nightmares.
Magnificent, David. And so very true.
Excellent article. This one is bookmarked.
Bohemond, I up your magnificent to transcendent and transformational.
I hereby (once again)salute David’s mastery of language AND thought.He wields a ‘magnificent’ pen.
Kudos!
As you note David, there are many more or less proximate causes of leftism. And a lot of them are about a desire to escape, defeat, or transcend certain hard realities. But it would be a mistake not to recognize that some seeds of leftism must be rightly a part of our shared human nature. The pervasive intuition of a fundamental moral equality of people (e.g. the right to life, liberty, etc. as something given to us by Creation itself, and not bestowed by any worldly power), the recognition of human inter-dependence (such as our dependence on human models for all ideas, good or bad), the need for shared religion (an ethical basis for exchange and reciprocity) are realities for which we must seek fundamental anthropological explanations and not dismiss because of the ways these realities are misread by leftist pathologies. The hyper-individualist or libertarian worldview can be equally at odds with reality.
Human nature is not exactly a social construct. But it is not all biology either, and the break from the animal to the human must have occured as an event of Creation, either human or divine. In any case, it is true that all of human history and culture is constructed whatever its biological underpinnings. The left today sees this simple reality as a great revelation of their own deconstructive thinking that gives them license to engage in conspiracy theories regarding the historical process – amazingly, today, there seem to be no legitimate “constructions” in the minds of leftists, for in every construction there is a victim-oppressor relationship to expose and denounce.
What people who find this outrageous need to be able to do is provide accounts of how society or the human does generate itself in a historical process that is neither a conspiracy of one against all or all against one. The left, maybe, is what desires a scapegoat and conspiracy to explain why our social constructions do not simply rest easy in some fundamental or originary equality, inter-dependence, and shared religiosity – all real elements of human nature that, however, put nothing to quiet rest but just help guarantee the conflict and open-ended dynamism of history.
The powerful right-wingers who run the Republican party and orchestrated the Tea Party movement have mo morality, they have only greed. Their desire for profit makes them do everything they can to pillage the American working class and the thirld world poor in order to buy more mansions, yachts, and limos and line their trust funds with ever more ill-gotten billions.
Since these corporate kingpins control the media they continually present images of Muslims flying planes into buildings, Blacks raping, killing, and robbing Whites and Hispanics running across the border to get welfare. This makes ordinary working class Whites define loyalty and authority with respect to race and hence they overlook the evil machinations of the greedy corporate overlords like the Koch brothers because they share their skin color.
Mr Haidt’s study is clearly another corporate propaganda ploy to discredit those who care about social justice and see through the corporate charade. Compassionate liberals do not reject the concept of loyaly, but understand it in terms of class and not race. We progressives stand with oppressed Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims, and working Whites alike against the clique of greedy billionaires in the boardrooms. I bet Haidt’s inquiries regard to in-group, out-group loyalty focused exclusively on race and ignored class which is why his results showed progressives do not recognize group loyalties.
What a funny and very emotional outburst as response to a detailed editorial. Stand with the oppressed against the oppressors who are all billionaires? How silly. How devoid of fact. If the nation’s electorate rejects Democrats in this poll as it rejected RINOs in the last, there could be two conclusions. 1) There must be a lot of billionaires out there ready to oppress people, or 2) perhaps the Left is the oppressor, and Leftists refuse to see their “correcting” other people as simple, interpersonal fascism. Being an individualist, I need no “social justice” advocate telling me what to buy, what to eat, with whom to associate. Yobbin must be throbbin from too much slobbin….
Yobbin, you’re exactly the kind of delusional leftest the author describes, lost in a fantasy world of evil conservatives oppressing the good and pure. If you’d spend any time around those “greedy” Republicans and Tea Partiers that you so love to vilify, you’ll find some of the nicest, most generous and caring people on earth.
What baffles me is your insistence on your moral superiority, when you’ve obviously spent so little time in the real world. Facts are facts, and simple rhetoric cannot change that. Grow up and leave the hate behind.
For another view of this topic, see Robin of Berkley’s “Looking for Racism (in All the Wrong Places)” at American Thinker.
But yet, when Benjamin returned to his own world and wrote his book Searching for Whitopia it turned out to be a rant against white racism, saying that “his white neighbors were welcoming only because he’s an affable black man.” (As if any group of any race would welcome a hostile, threatening punk?)
Liberals simply cannot believe that any views other than their own are possibly valid, that they could possibly be wrong, or that the other side simply is not as hostile as they fear.
The average Tea Party member lived in a matrix of corporate propaganda. He is not particularly greedy but he is a toadie of the rapacious corporate plutocrats who control all of the information he receives via websites like this one. He thinks his enemies are Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims fighting for their rights and not the greedy overlords in their mansions over the hilltops
The greedy overlords have D’s after their names. They prefer to keep the poor man poor so they can feel good about themselves by “helping” them with other peoples money. Oprah comes to mind.
You obviously have never met any Tea Partiers. Please write from experience. Now go on, go out and actually interact with real Tea Partiers and then come back and talk to us.
I must warn you however, interacting with the real world can lead to painful reanalysis of your world view. You have been warned.
Wrong. You know who is my enemy? White liberals like you. Most useless gasbags to ever walk the planet.
And let me guess: these “rapacious corporate plutocrats” use cigarette holders to smoke, and look/dress just like Rich Uncle Pennybags from the Monopoly game–maybe with an astrakhan coat setting the whole ensemble off. Sigh.
This is a factless rebuttal of a very well thought provoking work and this person is the personification of the leftist who wants desperately to be back in his mother’s womb.
The problem with a utopian construct is that human beings are invoved. We are not capable of perfection. Why is this major idea very rarely written about. Within the human condition power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The system of checks and balances within our government speaks to that irrefuteable problem. I’d love to hear rebutals
A lot of leftists don’t want to hear that we can’t become “perfect” or even more evolved than we are. How often have you heard them refer to themselves as more ‘evolved’? They think that this is only a religious idea – that we will remain imperfect. But if you think about it even from a secular viewpoint, we’re just a bunch of semi-smart talkin’ apes and we’re very bound by our limited biology. We can never become more than we are – if we did, we’d evolve into a new species.
I went to a Canadian University where “sociology” was a required liberal arts course. I’m still not sure what sociology actually is, but at my school (and I suspect many others), it’s simply a front for Marxism-Leninism. From minute one, day one to the end of the year, it was Marxist indoctrination and nothing but. Parrot Marxist ideology in a paper/test, get an A, manifest understanding of the concepts but raise questions, get a C at best. Lesson One was “There is NO SUCH THING as human nature” (if you think about it, non-sensical…you can argue our understanding of human nature is wrong but it’s self-evident that there is human nature). But their entire towering ideological (and political) construct is contingent on this idea, and they spent several weeks trying to hammer it home. Until you accepted that notion (or were cowed into pretending to buy it), they could not proceed with the illumination… er… indoctrination.
This is why there is no point in debating leftists. They come at reality with the wrong set of assumptions, starting from the premise that collectivism can work.
I’d rather have my eyes gouged out with a rusty spoon by an escaped mental patient than listen to some Leftist spout off on how “if we all just cooperate…”
That can be arranged.
Hey Alice Wigglebottom, et. al. Throbbing Yobbin is really bland but I as well as other know you quit changing your handle.
Have you noticed that most that post here always use the same handle or in my case their real name, you are a yuk a puk I hope you keep the stupid handle, I or we here that are real Americans will always post with real handles or names and not try to fool others as an accidental idiot that came by here somhow by accident and just had to post a really stupid left left wing post.
Sorry I won’t feed you anymore but if I meet you or some one like you might just take action you might not like.
Even under Obama, America is still controlled by a corporate power structure. The CIA infastructure built under Bush still exists. Those who advocate social justice can not be too careful lest we disappear into one of their secret death camps.
“We progressives stand with oppressed Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims, and working Whites alike against the clique of greedy billionaires in the boardrooms.”
Two words: George Soros. Two more: Warren Buffett. Another two: Ted Turner. Still more: Wall Street. What do they have in common besides their billions? Cozying up to your hero, Obama, and the other Democrats on their payrolls (when they aren’t calling up their accountants to find loopholes so they never pay as little “progressive” taxes as possible.)
Stand up to them lately, Throbster? Because the rest of the progressives are far too busy kissing their butts to keep the money comin’.
“…and that radical change is preferable to gradual amelioration in the evolution of human societies” “Human nature is not exactly a social construct.” LOL!
You guys do not have a degree in anything.
Give me a break with this arm chair deconstructionist bull.
Do you even know your own party? US Chamber of Commerce, Carl Rove, war ducker Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby. They don’t care about society or any of the norms, yours or mine.
The was a self indulgent, fact-less waste of web space.
One symptom of the leftist mindset is that scholastic degrees are always superior to experience. Liberal presidents always surround themselves with highly degreed advisers – who tend to know very little about how the real world operates; LBJ and the handling of the Vietnam War come to mind. This is also why Harvard, Yale, and the other Ivy League universities – despite the fact that they are very expensive and hard to get in to – actually turn out mediocre graduates. The name is everything, actual performance counts for little.
“The [article, I presume] was a self indulgent, fact-less waste of web space” . . . just like your empty assertion here. FYI, Dennis, mere assertion is what little kids do: “That’s mine ’cause I say. So there!” Adults are supposed to make their case.
I’ve been in schools for nearly four decades. About ten years ago, I began to notice a disturbing change in the behaviour of many of the kids I taught: they were entitled ten year olds—Canada’s Charter of Rights (sic) has a lot to do with the change—who behaved like spoiled two year olds. Then, even more disturbing—the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree—I noticed that their parents were also lacking in the maturity department: more and more of them acted like angry, altogether self-referential adolescents, rather than the thoughtful, responsible adults I’d been used to dealing with. These parents blamed all their kids’ problems on anyone but their kids or them: typical toddler/adolescent behaviour.
From painful, personal experience, I can attest that David Solway’s article is right on. Magic thinking is harmful, and as long as a critical mass of the adult population fails to mature, we’re in for a really rough ride. (Some good news from Canada: in up-until-now-thoroughly left-voting Toronto, the conservative, cut-taxes-and-stop-the-gravy-train candidate, reviled and despised by the leftie elites, who isolated and ridiculed him mercilessly, actually WON—and by a huge margin, that, somehow, the leftie polls had failed to notice. What babies the arrogant, entitled lefties are: schadenfreude! I hope the change in the voters’ hearts of Canada’s biggest and, until now, pretty much leftist city is a harbinger of things to come on November 2.)
Whoops: I forgot to mention that the despised, conservative candidate I mention above is now the Mayor of Toronto!
Well put, and thank you Mr Solway for another elegant dissertation, also for the warning …
“of the adolescent world in which there are no shades of grey, in which the appeal to ridicule and blamestorming is irresistible and substitutes for rational debate, and in which the tendency to jejune self-righteousness and collective behavior is paramount.”
…in which you prepared us for the likes of Dennis and Yobbin, and thanks to them – - for furnishing such excellent examples.
I believe it was Will Rogers who said, “College is the place you go to learn more and more about less and less. When you come out you know everything about nothing.” Degrees are over rated just ask Bill Gates.
Don’t sweat this Dennis, but you can’t tell which commentors have a full set of academic gongs and which don’t. That’s because they are commenting as individuals, not as representatives of any credentialed group and its approved jargon.
Sorry Dennis – I forgot to fill out the little boxes and turned into Anonymous.
I think you’re on to something, David. It used to be a given that all leftists hated their fathers-a manifestation of internal struggle on a subliminal level. The radical Left advocates freedom of thought but practices a brutal discipline of ideological conformity. They preach solidarity but will throw any group under the bus(gays come to mind most readily), if necessary. Socialist/communist thought provides a symbiotic environment wherein the victim and victimizer, oppressed and oppresser, satisfy each other. Santa with a whip.
“But the liberal-left is mainly enamored of abstractions and high-sounding proclamations, of taxing and redistributing other people’s money, of lowest- common-denominator equality to the detriment of individual liberty, of oracular temptations, and of administrative parasitism at the expense of entrepreneurial productivity and personal ambition.”
Which is Socialism. Listen to the liberal code words of “Level the playing field,” “Redistributing wealth,” and, the worst one of all, “Social Justice.” All of it comes down to Socialism in the worst way, taking away from people who have worked hard all their lives and giving it to others. The word “stealing” comes to mind as well. So many countries tried this and it’s always failed. Whether it was Russia on one extreme, or the Social-welfare states in Europe on the other extreme, it always fails. You always end up running out of other people’s money, as Margaret Thatcher once said.
This is why the Social-Democrats in Washington need to be stopped. On November 2nd, there really will be a new burst of freedom, one that will finally stop the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda that has bankrupted this nation. Vote.
I thought the author did a really good job with the article in stating the basic difference in thinking between liberal and conservative, and in outlining how things proceed from the mindsets.
The mind can’t be a vacuum. It gravitates through volition to thoughts. Thoughts that drive actions are the issue. Emotions are wonderful, but they don’t need to be in charge.
Some things are a given if you want to have stability as a person and nation–like don’t steal, don’t bear false witness, don’t murder, etc. If most people in the nation follow them there can be an atmosphere for freedom and prosperity. (I don’t mean that anyone should be forced to believe in God.)
I think man is depraved but feel far from hopeless about it. As a much wiser-than-me commenter said once, ‘…recognizing the tragic human condition is not synonymous with despair’ (on the one hand) vs. ‘…the controlling pessimism’.
The terms “left” and “right” for political positions stems from the French Revolution, where the Jacobins, led by Maximillian Robespierre, sat on the far left in the semicircular seating arrangement of the National Assembly and the monarchists and clericals sat on the far right. Revolution became fashionable in the nineteenth century, revolutionaries following the Jacobin tradition. They called themselves “left,” and anyone who disagreed with them “right.” As political theory, describing political positions in terms of “left” and “right,” is poor, and certainly the Plato, Aristotle, Montesquieu, David Hume have much better accounts. (“Left”, according to the accounts of Plato and Aristotle, is the rule of the one without law, and in Plato’s Republic, Robespierre and his followers are tyrants, claiming to be for the common people.) David Hume, in his Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, in the chapter on justice, predicted what became communist tyranny, using the principle of justice that everyone should have equal goods. The self-designated “left” are actual or would-be tyrants, convinced of their own virtue, although the history of communism shows that their policies violate what are supposed to be their principles.
See also “The Pournelle Political Axes” http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm (noting that in the graph, Mr. Pournelle reversed the convention for the horizontal axis – the “left” is on the right).
Not sure the Author hit’s the mark, this long winded story can be surmised in a few short but blunt words as to what makes the left Tic. The simple facts are those who were raised as Liberals/Progressives and those who were converted to this enthatic disease simply lack common sense, respect for mankind and understanding the difference between reality and whimsical Wonderland and how to stand up for themselves without the help of Gov’t or by robbing Peter to give to Paul. There’s also the difference between a Liberal who thinks every idea will work so long as we have unlimited funds of other people’s money where they themselves are not relegated to using there own money or not having to take the risk associated incase of failure, and when failure happens they make sure there’s a scapegoat to blame for there own faults cause nothing could ever point to there own wreck less behavior for reason on why they failed.
Then you have those of use who know the difference between reality and make believe, and who understand that when you take risk there’s always the chance of failure more so then there’s a chance for prosperity, and we know that unless you try one can never fail. Such as the old saying goes, show me someone whose never made a mistake and I’ll show you someone whose never done a thing in there life can IMO be the one saying that describes Liberals to a ” T ” cause we all know they never do know wrong and there always right !!
Very good indeed.
I find it very interesting that the two ideals that leap out from the Liberal side are “Fairness” and “harm” – two entirely subjective areas in which defining what the terms mean is anybody’s guess. Naturally, Liberals ascribe to themselves doing the defining.
Whereas on the Conservative side, the ideals are those that are very hard to fake.
Also it’s interesting that while Conservatives also possess a fairly well developed sense of “harm” and “fairness,” Liberals do NOT possess a good sense of the rest – with any semblance of “purity” dead last.
Progressives certainly believe in purity, but not in the same way. Instead of condemning sexuality, we condemn the defilement and despoilation of our precious Mother Earth. Even the corporate propagandist Haidt admitted progressives care about purity with respect to food. We despise the corporate poisoning of our food and want pure, clean, organic, locally grown, healthy food for all.
“We despise the corporate poisoning of our food and want pure, clean, organic, locally grown, healthy food for all.”
If that was the only way we could grow food you and most of the world’s population would starve to death. Large scale, highly efficient, mechanized food production is the only way we can produce enough food to feed humanity.
But that’s a leftist agenda item, John. Don’t expect them to back away from it now!
Utopia is unachievable. Why would you be so egotistical as to think that this generation has any more answers than all the previous generations. If a progressive construct was achievable ,man would already have done it.– Why now– why not 100 or 200 or 2000 years ago. What makes us so special?
Typical ignorance, and a perfect example of the point that Mr. Solway was trying to make. Aside from the fact that conservatives do not worship (or even acknowledge) “Mother Earth/Gaia” (since that constitutes idol worship), holding instead that we are the caretakers of the Earth with responsibility for using it wisely, no conservatives “condemns sexuality”. It is simply that sexuality, like firearms, alcohol, or trans-fat cooking oil can be dangerous if misused and should be treated with respect. Yobbin is obviously far on the left side of the graph: high on “fairness” and very low on “authority”.
Aren’t you aware Liberals ARE THE AUTHORITY! So shut up and pay up!
LOL, you almost had me, for future reference you need to dial back the boilerplate. Sounding so close minded and spouting such nonsense gives you away. Copy and past from the loony left is a dead giveaway, if you will put in just a smidgen of common sense you can string along the farce much longer.
Lots of words to define one simple concept: liberals believe they can spend your money to benefit society. They’re proud of this and don’t understand why ANYONE could disagree. Us greedy dogs! Republicans canNOT see a way to deal with this other than offering cuts to programs which have supporters. Be fair. Be clear. Having the working people accept W-2′s and 1099-MISC for their attempts to make money could be easily matched with forcing 1099-GOV forms on those that are recipients of redistributed income. Too simple. Are we going to have to live through all the disasters like the U.K. until we realize that people are actually getting more in aid than a working couple?
The author nails it on the head. Great article. Too bad lefties disdain conservatives blogs.
Great article!
I’ve pondered one aspect of the left, given that the ‘group think’ institutions of media and school promote atheism. When a person has no belief in a Supreme Being with right and wrong clearly defined, he is adrift in moral relativism, always seeking a compass, a hero, an idol, a cause….Hence, the pagan worship of earth and non-human animals, which has swept Europe and the West…Perhaps a human being has an innate need for God. Perhaps we do all possess a soul, after all….
The reverence for the divinity of our precious Mother Earth is *not* atheism. Most true progressives are not atheists. The so-called new atheist movement was something set up by the corporate power structure to tempt progressive-leaning people to the dark side of Islamophobia.
Like Star Wars Chancellor Palpatine, the corporate power structure set up the antagonism between the Christian right and the Atheist “left” in order to distract the people from its greed by manufacturing sham issues like abortion and school prayer, and more importantly, to fan the flames of genocidal racism against Muslims in order to line the coffers of oil companies and defense contractors. Notice how both Christopher Hitchens and John Hagee both cheered the Bush regime’s genocidal blood bath in Iraq. Both men and the “sides” they speak for really serve the dark god of K-Street!
Yes, of course we have souls. The question is, is your soul filled with compassion and love (progressive), or hate and greed (conservative).
Whew…That’s the kind of writing that makes a man think. My head hurts. All that thinking to disguise the true meaning of the current occupant’s ideology. He is a racist first and foremost. Thats it. Plain and simple. Oh it’s dressed in Black Liberation Theology or dreams of a waste of a father. Blah Blah Blah….Spend 5 minutes on Sunday morning in the kind Rev. Wright’s church. They hate white people. It really is that simple. This is the sacking of the U.S. Treasury in the name of re-distribution. That tape of Ms Obama railing at “church”. That is the worst kept secret in the world here in Chicago. She isn’t ranting about various socialist pathways , it’s a pure racist spew against whites. Go drive way out E. Roosevelt Road some Saturday night and get out of your car and walk. At best you will be beaten nearly dead if your white. No one will ask your politics. This president will incite a race war in order to finish his job. That is a 100%, no brainer bet. The thin veneer of civility here in Chicago wears off once in awhile. This is a town where race is king and racists rule.
Hollywood actors and directors are especially given to such professional naivety and furnish an exemplary illustration of almost complete mental vacancy and thwarted affective development — Oliver Stone, James Campbell, Sean Penn, Jane Fonda, etc.
Can I assume that the “James Campbell” mentioned in this sentence is actually James Cameron? Otherwise, who the heck is James Campbell?
Aside from that one nit, I think this article is an excellent discussion of the differences between the left and the right.
The ‘Left’, which is so aptly applied to the liberals/progressives in America today, are definitely engaged in what they call ‘fairness’.
And ‘fairness’ to them, means ‘apportionment’. Apportionment is taking place in countries the world over, and not creating any outstanding economic model to exemplify. Rather the opposite; Apportionment/fairness is creating third world economies.
I believe China is the most vivid example of ‘fairness/apportionment’. And China is a monochrome society. I don’t think the ‘Left’ is actually striving for that.
Basically, the ‘Left’ likes turmoil. They cannot get through a single day of their lives without some mayhem. Just as juveniles need adult supervision. Starting with ‘The Juvenile in Chief’.
Leftists, especially post-modern leftists have devolved into a cult of Quixotic Narcissists.
That is, it no longer suffices to tilt at windmills, they have to invent windmill farms to ensure that there exists more and more in this world at which to tilt.
No longer merely just “mini-me’s” of Marx, they adopt an untethered to reality self-image of “mini-messiah”.
The “but for” argument goes…”but for me, the poor would starve”, “but for me barbarians would war with each other”, “but for me workers would be taken advantage of by large corporate greed merchants”, “but for me, people of a certain color of skin would be picked on and cheated out of life’s bounty”, “but for me the whole planet would disintegrate” “but for me, religion and its followers would force morality and steal free choice”.
The Quixotic Narcissist is superhero of legendary goodness, charging off to tilt at the new windmill he has farmed. Ever vigilant, ever pure…and when the harsh facts of reality impose an obstacle, he changes them in his story. His narrative has little use for such facts, they are edited out of his existence.
This explains why it appears to the eye of normal folks that there exists a blatant disregard for the truth. There is, of course. But, it is out of necessity. For if the “global warming” windmill is a hoax, for instance, then how can the superhero fencing with it play out the “good vs. evil” fantasy in their mind. The cognitive dissonance would shatter their comic book narrative.
Hollywood and academia are fertile grounds for the Peter Pandemic, where those in adult bodies wish to remain in an arrested adolescent state of mind. High hedonism (see, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan) rules the day. Sex, drugs, binge drinking are all part of indulgences that serve as field trips to permanent adolescence.
Peter Pan was a little boy who didn’t grow up, but the Peter Pandemic is a disease in which anyone who does grow up…is the enemy. And must take on the attributes of the villainous foil…to the Quixotic superhero.
This also explains and describes the need to not merely adopt, but to own anti-racism, anti-corporate greed, anti-pollution values. If one “owns” anti-racism, for example, then any person or group that doesn’t wear the “uniform” of leftism not only may never also be anti-racist, it must be racists…merely disguising themselves.
Take the Tea Party for example. There is absolutely not one dust mite’s worth of evidence that it harbors any racial animus whatsoever. But, it does fervently dislike the fiscal insanity that passes for leftist economic argument. For the Quixotic Narcissist mind, it is impossible to parcel out arguments. They are forever bundled.
Ergo, the ever present need to “find” racism, hidden somewhere, anywhere in the windmill farm that sprouts all the “evils” that the Quixotic superhero must fence, foil and parry, thrust and slay…in the Tea Party.
Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly….even Juan Williams or Joe Lieberman. Once you are seen as “not one of us”, the Quixotic Narcissists must windmill farm the justification to slay you.
And the charge of being a bigot, is “owned”. You can be Juan Williams or even Bill Clinton…if you cross the line on ANY issue…the QN’s will come after you.
Again, to the normal eye, this is bizarre behavior. Unhinged, deranged, untethered to reality. It explains why the pudgy Rob Reiner sees Hitler in the Tea Party. Or why Ward Churchill sees “little Eichmans” in the innocent victims of the Twin Towers.
In post modern society, the overwhelming majority of people do not engage in racist, greedy, homophobic behaviors. But the examples of the past are necessary for QN’s to cling to, because without them, reality and fiction are too disparate. If reality proved to difficult to overcome, the pretend world where the superhero resides to constantly ward off “evil”, would shatter.
The constant, incessant, daily rants about class warfare “enemies”, racial “enemies”, “big business” enemies…is the manifestation of Quixotic Narcissists tilting at all the windmills they have farmed.
And the discovery of a “liberal gene” at USD, a dopamine receptor amplifier.
It adds scientific evidence of retardation to Solway’s “moral adolescence”.
You give them too much credit.
They are simply con artists incessantly searching for the next big scam.
Yes. Crusader arrogance, you might say. Knightly tilting at some identified imperfection in a completely imperfect world.
I get labeled “leftist” every time I stand up for separation of church and state, or oppose torture. I’m glad to see my interlocutors are just confused. Now, if only I could find some leftists of the sort you describe….
or oppose torture.
Do you really oppose torture?
I like this article overall.
My comment is not really on topic, but I feel strongly about your implication that sending a child to bed without supper is a reasonable punishment. I vehemently disagree.
Very few children in the U.S. will starve to death by missing one meal. It is far more important that the children – looking at the post’s graph again – learn to respect authority and “purity”.
Something else from the chart is that it shows conservatives neither rejects nor downplays any values, while the left does so to at least three.
With regard to authority, recognition of an absolute and universal moral standard (i.e. God) is implicit rejection of an earthly strongman. If one believes that all are equal before God, one will obviously not tolerate such a person. If one rejects God one will soon come to require a strongman to maintain order and provide guidance.
So condescending and unnecessary. David – you say the same thing seven different times (Liberals are underdeveloped) but I’m not convinced. I’ve always believed that those on the right – especially the Libertarian types, live in a cloud thinking life would be perfect if all the (poor people, dumb people, gay people etc.) would just followed the rules!!!! Who takes into account the complexities of life when alighting on a political philosophy? Liberals and Conservatives alike both are guilty of preferring a simple answer to life’s complex problems. Don’t group us like that, it’s Sophomoric.
Civil discourse is not about name calling. And that’s why your essay isn’t very civil.
Probably not going for that here in PJM land.
We underdeveloped Liberals are childish because we don’t base our morality on the spiritual orders. The orders not to kill, lie, covet thy neighbor’s wife etc. would not be followed absent the fear of punishment from God correct?
I don’t buy it and never will. I also think Haidt is lost. He defines the five pillars himself. Do you see the problem with that? I guess not if you agree with his overall assumptions. He can define them any way he wants. Haidt’s concept of community can be engulfed within the “Liberals” concept of harm. His definitions of harm and fairness are too vague to be of much use. His Community, Authority and Purity must be evaluated within the context of the group’s hatred of the other. The group couldn’t exist without the foundation of hatred for the other groups. I question the assumed morality. I just don’t buy it.
What we are really talking about here is the idea of religion. Community, Authority and Purity could be seen as a morally supporting many things no? How about the honor killing of unchaste daughters? How about flying planes into buildings? Insert a million examples here…
I’ll align with Christopher Hitchens – “Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
I’m bothered by the idea that Conservatives are morally superior because they form groups – or group morality. Let’s put down the homosexuals, let’s put down the Hispanics, let’s put down the poor. But we will go out on weekends and help our neighbors. Great. But they don’t help out their neighbors who happen to be in the other group – do they?
The overused bromide that America is a Center-Right country (if demonstrably true) could never be so, based on the notion that “conservative republicanism” equates somehow with fully developed morality. Please. You left out the selfishness, the greed, the resentment and fear evident in many of your fully developed kinsman.
I really think you need to get out more. Conservative church groups were the first to show up in NOLA after Katrina to help the various neighborhoods clean up and fix up and get things back in working order. It was the conservatives who donated so heavily to the various places that suffered tsunamis or hurricanes or earthquakes. Even the very liberal George Clooney has mentioned that his latest cause, Darfur, the conservatives donate and help out at twice the rate as liberals do.
I think David has come close to hitting the nail right on the head. Look around at what the left does. They essentially bribe the government to do all the things that they think need doing in order to get votes while the right gets in and does something about it or at least works without the government forcing.
“Conservative church groups were the first to show up in NOLA after Katrina to help the various neighborhoods clean up and fix up and get things back in working order.”
I do get out; I’m actively involved with Habitat for Humanity. I’m sure this is one of the “conservative church groups” you mention. Many of the people I work with are of a socially-progressive/liberal political stance and don’t need to wear it on their sleeve.
I wish more people got involved with volunteering and giving. Volunteering especially. Please don’t fall into the trap of assuming all people who are involved with charity are conservative politically. Church groups are useful for social networking and organizing. I don’t mind the God part as long as no one asks me to pray.
I don’t believe the statistics that claim Republicans help the needy more.
As if it was a contest.
The reason I don’t believe the statistics (granted) has to do with anecdotal observation but your blanket statements about church groups is a bandied-about and common assumption that seems wrong.
Some Republicans do have more money to spend. Maybe it is contrition for a life of chasing the dollar at the expense of their humanity?
Nate,
You are quite mistaken that conservatives are not more generous givers to charity than liberals. See the actual state-by-state data here http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004. What these data show is that the wealthier, and bluer states, give to charity at a far lower per capita rate than the less wealthy and reder states. When you look at the data, click on the column heading for “Having Rank” to see the ranking by wealth; click on the column heading for “Giving Rank” to see the ranking by per capita giving; and click on the column heading for “Generosity Index” to see the states ranked by giving adjusted for ability to give. Mississippi has the most generous population.
2004 was the last year that the data were tabulated. Makes me wonder whether the rankings reflect so very unfavorably on liberals that Soros has spent some money to prevent their being updated.
No. Again, Mr. Solways’s point is made. Liberals put such a high emphasis on degrees and titles, but dismiss actual education. Rather humorous, actually. First of all, those “orders” aren’t arbitrary, they’re given by a God (whom, yes, we really acknowledge as existing) who knows the needs and requirements of a human society better than we ourselves do. Can you really imagine a society in which these rules are not followed? I can, and it doesn’t sound pleasant at all. Nobody claims that life would be perfect if everybody followed the rules, but it would certainly be better. Yes, those rules are inconvenient for some – too bad. It is possible for you to be wrong, you know.
Secondly: upon what do you base your morality? Morality isn’t simply “whatever you wish to do”, it’s a set of internal guidelines that lead you to do the “right” thing, despite what you actually want to do. Amoral individuals lead hedonistic lives; moral individuals exhibit self control.
Liberals put such a high emphasis on degrees and titles, but dismiss actual education.
Just so. It’s a well-isulated bubble where mere ‘credentials’ trump real-world experience, common sense, reason and facts.
“To anger a conservative tell him a lie. to anger a liberal, tell him the truth.”
Self-control is innate. It comes from within. I don’t need rules made up by some make-believe super-controller in the sky. My internal guidance actually leads me to do the “right thing”. That may seem strange to you.
Religion is made by man. These rules of yours are man-made. That cannot be proven otherwise and you know it. You refuse to see what any 5 year-old can tell you. You claim a moral superiority because of Purity and Traditional Authority but the very rules you follow were made as much to control men in favor of the rich and powerful Church (and the King’s bidding) as they ever were to calm the evils of man. Now you scorn those who truly advocate for the poor and downtrodden. For shame.
Now the Social Conservatives are buying into the idea that the Ideology of the Right will bring them some rugged individuality – oh, “God” how they yearn for it – “I’m my own man!” (And upward social mobility someday), talk about myths…
But this time it’s not the Church or the King. It is the Corporate Oligarchy of America. The puppet masters. The “rules” will keep you placid, calm; to be an opiate saturated sod.
Well, I’m glad that you are so all knowing and wise, Nate. If you don’t believe in God’s existence, then perhaps you should simply consider the “rules” to be the distilled wisdom of 10,000 years of human experience in what does and does not work in human civilization. They are not and never have been arbitrary – only in Terry Pratchet’s DiskWorld does a god ban broccoli simply because he feels like it. BTW, one of the things that we Christians have found is that a person’s internal knowledge and self-control is usually quite insufficient to the task.
Marxists, on the other hand, firmly believe in the sufficiency of internal self control and knowledge. Of course they are usually quite surprised when things don’t work out as they plan, too.
Typical liberal thinking – vilify and attack, regardless of the actual facts. Nobody’s putting down any of the above; as usual the actual arguments have nuance and secondary/tertiary considerations that escape the likes of Nate.
Who’s putting down Hispanics? Or do you see no difference between a Hispanic who entered the country legally and one who crossed the border illegally? Or does the whole idea of legal, controlled entry into a country escape you? Who’s putting down the poor? Interestingly enough, liberals are the worst givers to charity, where conservatives give to charities naturally (and without expecting recognition). It’s just that conservatives recognize that government programs to “help the poor” usually end up doing the exact opposite. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that only the government can accomplish anything (Gee, see Mr. Solway’s article, again.) As for homosexuality, see the point titled “The psychological” above. A very complex issue, about which much has been written (which, obviously, Nate hasn’t read). Suffice to say that one needs to separate the issues of individual, private, behavior; public behavior, and public endorsement of behavior (which is what marriage essentially is), as well as historical knowledge of what constitutes and best maintains a family. See, for instance, The Ruth Institute
I’m bothered by the idea that Conservatives are morally superior because they form groups – or group morality. Let’s put down the homosexuals, let’s put down the Hispanics, let’s put down the poor. But we will go out on weekends and help our neighbors. Great. But they don’t help out their neighbors who happen to be in the other group – do they?
The overused bromide that America is a Center-Right country (if demonstrably true) could never be so, based on the notion that “conservative republicanism” equates somehow with fully developed morality. Please. You left out the selfishness, the greed, the resentment and fear evident in many of your fully developed kinsman.
I swear I did not post this comment under another name just to prove my point.
Another windmill plucked straight from the farm.
LOL.
Such nonsense, David. If you need to advertise your erudition, why not just post your no doubt stellar academic transcript? Why impose such high flown headscratching on your readers and force them to search in their dictionaries?
How many socialists do you imagine have ever read Marx or Engels or any of the other craphangers of the left you wasted your time on? How many faithful, Mass attending soldiers of the Church can quote three consecutive verses from the Roman Canon, New Testament or Old? People don’t hold political or religious positions for rational reasons.
Individual freedom–the courage to make individual choices and take individual responsibility is what distinguishes the right from the left. Communism found a home in Russia because feudalism and serfdom had survived there right into the Twentieth Century. Soviet emigres on their first exposure to an American supermarket were not only shocked by the staggering abundance. They were paralyzed by the available choices. And this is merely in lowest material realm.
African Americans, like Russians are in the habit of servitude and dependence. In their majority they have gone from dependency on an exploitive slave masters to dependency on benevolent government. The percentage of Black Americans employed by government or otherwise on the dole is huge–far higher than the percentage of whites similarly dependent. Without great intellectual fanfare and erudite treatises on the subject, African Americans have quietly concluded that they can’t compete in a merit based economy. The would hardly admit it, but in large number they have tragically succumbed to the myth of their own inferiority. Big, paternal government is inevitably their political preference.
Cowardice, laziness, lack of personal confidence–these are the hallmarks of the left. Reason on the left is limited to the parasitical political exploiters at the top and the government funded intellectual wankers in the universities. The rest are grass-cropping, cud-chewing cattle.
As for human perfectibility, that is purely a religious notion currently evident in the Pope’s canonizing of new saints by the cartload. Nothing to do with the left outside, perhaps, of theories in books.
People don’t hold political or religious positions for rational reasons.
Actually, most of us do. It’s mostly those on the left that depend on emotion for such things.
@Anon… respectfully disagree with the observation you and a couple of others here about David’s post being overblown, wordy, etc. Totally agree with the rest of your post, but it is a short-hand that would only resonate with and convince somebody who already agrees with you. David sallies forth in detail and thoroughly deconstructs the foundations not only of leftist ideology, but also their moral and intellectual smugness and sense of superiority. He is heavily-armed and ready to engage on the battlefield of ideas and erudition. Pseudo-erudition if you prefer…doesn’t matter. If we conservatives are going to move the needle, we can’t just huddle together muttering our mantras to ourselves.
When I read David’s post, I wanted to print copies and give to everyone I know…especially liberals. Might make some of them think…most of course would respond with some empty rhetorical put-down like a couple of commenters here (btw, has anyone noticed the quality of discourse on PJM boards vs. liberal sites? It’s immediately obvious to anyone). I also am considering posting to my Facebook page, knowing full-well that I’ll probably be “de-friended” by about half of my followers if I do. I usually just toss in an occasional little conservative jab here and there to keep them off balance… this would be an absolute roundhouse.
Lefists probably love this obtuse article. Nothing thrills them like pseudo-intellectual bs.
There are basically only 4 types of leftists:
Ruling Class (.01%) – eager to return to the days of the devine rights of kings…with them on the throne.
Serfs (99%) – aka, prostitutes, liberals, democrats. Their hands are perpetually in somebody else’s pocket.
“Intellectuals” (.1%) – serfs who declare each other to be smart
Money Changers (1%) – lawyers, union bosses, politicians, and other societal remora fish who are capable of more lucrative crimes than picking pockets
That pretty much explains leftism.
Interesting opinion, however your math is rather liberal. 100.11%?
It’s called a rounding error.
That’s how conservatives estimate crowd size.
There’s a related idea/theory I have that I’d love somebody with the time an inclination to explore: That the average liberal is smarter (IQ) than the average conservative, but the amongst the smartest 1% of the population (IQ), there are more conservatives than liberals. My hypothesis is that the reason for this is that relatively uneducated people are not exposed to/indoctrinated into liberal ideology but do have the right ie; conservative instincts. Amongst the educated classes (4-year degrees – the “elite”), moderately intelligent minds are seduced essentially by appeals to their “inner child”, dressed up as so eloquently described by Solway)…these are people who absorb thoughts as opposed to thinking for themselves. Truly smart people, and those who put in the energy and effort to really analyze ideas, empirical reality as they’ve experienced it, and formulate their own points-of-view, will inevitably gravitate towards the conservative end of the spectrum (conservative youth – no heart; liberal adult – no brain).
The reason to correlate IQ with ideology and segment along bottom/middle-upper and top (something like top 1 or 2..maybe 5%), is to undermine what is currently absolutely taken for granted by almost everyone – that “smart people are liberal”. This article of faith is one of the main obstacles to intelligent debate… those of us with conservative views are assumed to be neanderthals, and therefore it is fine to dismiss anything we say without really engaging the ideas.
Anyone else have thoughts on this? Has any research along these lines perhaps already been done? David, if you read these posts, what are your thoughts?
So because Liberals don’t have the raw intelligence to really understand the Conservative view, we can never really take that last step. Hmmmm..
Maybe it would be better if we go the other way – burn our degrees, buy a pick-up, attend NASCAR, go hunting (while drinking), start up a power-wash business and put on a Toby Keith CD? Then we would all agree with you. Not for the same reasons, but that’s just as well.
@Nate and other liberal posters here: Thank you for so readily and amply illustrating David’s point. Note, your response basically says you disagree because you don’t want/can’t believe it to be true. I put forth a hypothesis with a request for empirical data. BTW, I’m not saying no liberals have the native intelligence…it’s probably more a lack of intellectual ambition and ability to think analytically/independantly.
Actually, if you really want to help, just jump off the nearest building tall enough to ensure that the fall will kill you, you useless piece of Leftist trash.
Thanks.
I don’t agree with him, but you might just be violating the terms of posting here. As a conservative, I object to the use of such ‘recommendations’ to counter another’s post. And I think the censors here are not doing their jobs that well – I’ll say that even if I get retribution or something.
It would be nice if it were true but no study is required to prove it false, just casual observation and a little logic.
One, there are far more points on the political (and cultural) compass than conservatives and liberals.
More importantly, even if you want to very broadly characterize people into Left and Right, the fact is that most highly successful businessmen are center-left, as are most physicists, chemists, and mathematicians.
People accept a philosophy for a whole host of reasons, many of them poorly understood, but IQ has very little to do with.
Here’s a short taxonomy of those inhabiting the intellectual shanty towns and ethical swamplands of modern American liberalism / progressivism:
1. Wishful thinkers – don’t these people just wish that the world was a nicer place? If only everyone were just as smart, just as clever, just as enlightened as they think they are, it surely would be, wouldn’t it? But that takes work. Wishful thinkers and those like them aren’t really up to doing the heavy lifting to achieve their utopia, but they surely do vote and applaud into power those whom they believe will usher in the New Age. The trouble is, those they empower typically have an agenda that doesn’t quite match that of our dreamers. And no one is more surprised than they are when it all goes bad and the body count mounts up. Or is more given to the pretzel logic and denial necessary excuse the mass murder and atrocity that invariably follows the implementation of those very bad ideas.
2. Coercive utopians – they have a lot in common with our wishful thinkers, but they just know that no one is going to do what it takes to usher in the new millennium, the New Man or that immanent eschaton. We’re all just not bright enough to see the progressive light, are we? And isn’t that the argument advanced by today’s crop of greasy-toothed liberal pundits? But there’s a problem: put the sort of totalitarian regime necessary to achieve those goals – that is, socialism / communism and its imperatives and consequences – right out on the table in front of everyone, and no sane individual would buy it. After all, who in their right mind would actively and openly cheer for the impoverishment and enslavement of humankind and mass murder of those who won’t go along with it? The hard Left, that’s who, and they’ve said as much.
Hence, Antonio Gramsci’s doctrine of the ‘long march through the intuitions.’ The hallmark of coercive types is that they tend to be fairly bloody-minded. For example, Billy Ayers and his wrecking crew thought that once they achieved power would have to slaughter over 25 million Americans too stubborn to toe their utopian socialist line – that was back in the 1970’s so we’re actually giving him a bit of a discount on that 25 million figure. But what’s a few million here and there? Eric Hobsbawm, Marxist historian (now there’s an oxymoron) has also said as much in a BBC interview where he allowed as to how the ’sacrifice’ of millions would have been worth it in order to achieve socialism. So – is a little slaughter and a ‘re-education camp’ or two not too much a price to pay for heaven on Earth? Not for the coercive utopians. Not by half.
3. Lord of the flies– now we’re at the top of the pyramid of power, and those driven by that insatiable and unappeasable will to power. These are the ones who, once they achieve their goal of absolute power, really make things happen. And we’ve got over 260 million dead in this century and the last one to prove it. Now, let’s say that again – that’s 260 million unarmed civilian non-combatants killed by their own governments. They were murdered by those exercising the power of the state and on behalf of the state. They were starved, gassed, tortured, shot, impaled, burned alive, drowned, frozen to death, hacked apart with hoes, axes and machetes – a litany of brutality and atrocity beyond human imagination. Hundreds of millions more lived their lives enslaved, impoverished and in despair.
Communism, socialism, the immanent eschaton – who cares? Ideology is only the particular horse these monsters ride in pursuit of absolute control of mankind.
Those who are driven by the will to power typically disguise their intentions under the guise of ‘achieving the greatest good for the greatest number’ or under the rubrics of social or economic justice. They may claim that they are ‘doing the business of the people’ or that they are acting according to ‘the will of the people’. The statement, ‘It’s for the children,’ should inspire instant disbelief and skepticism. When it has come to creating the ‘New Socialist Man,’ or immanentizing that eschaton or ushering in that New Age,, those who advance such arguments remain untroubled by the oceans of blood they would have to spill and the mountains of corpses they would have to pile up in order to realize their dreams. They are all animated by the unrestrained and unappeasable ‘will to power’. The Will to Power plays itself out at all levels. From the malice or indifference of the petty bureaucrat to the most savage and demonic mass murderers of recent times. As we have seen, power and the exercise of that power is more addictive than any drug.
The need is insatiable and unappeasable. The result is horror.
So – where are our modern so-called ‘progressives’ in all of this? Here’s my question for a proud ‘progressive’: If you’re a follower or apologist for today’s political and social multiculturalism, an adherent of liberal democracy, or believe that our culture can continue without a basis in moral absolutes, which camp do you suppose you belong in? Are you a cynical but clever elitist intoxicated by the will to power? Are you on to the deception but support it out of pathological spite? Or are you simply ignorant of your role in the intentional destruction of your culture, even if you think you stand in the relative right?
Finally, here’s a purely practical consideration for those of you on the Left: you may want to re-think your premises, because you are not likely to survive the consequences of the ones you’re advocating. History is my witness.
Superb article. Thought provoking – reminds me of discussions with my liberal friends. Facts be damned, they are always right. Confront them with the inarguable truth and personal attacks start. Racist! Homophobe! I took a college course on utopian societies which was a real eye opener. We studied dozens of incredibly diverse utopian experiments, all inevitably leading to the same result – abject failure. Man isn’t perfect. Deal with it.
I have to disagree a bit with this article. The government’s Imprimatur goes a long way towards changing societal values. Or, at least the dialogue which arises from trying to change the laws changes the culture, as people are forced to consider things that they otherwise wouldn’t.
Many of our Founders wanted to end slavery, but they knew the young nation would never survive the fight. Almost a hundred years later, the more-developed nation still almost did not survive it. But society’s outlook on slavery had changed. Another hundred years later, the civil rights movement also brought about a cultural shift.
Nation-building as part of foreign policy DOES work, because it effects cultural change. Look at the changes in Iraq, as an example.
Leftist domination of our government-funded school system changes people. Indoctrination works.
Religion changes people, too. People can be influenced to improve.
The problem is that, eventually, reality intrudes. If the cultural change you wrought does not work practically, if it cannot stand up to the rigors of reality, then it is a false consciousness.
Capitalism suffers from this, as there are so many people who fail at it. It is easy to focus on its few failures, and ignore its overall tremendous successes. It is so successful, that folks in America do not really know what poor is. Those who seek power via Socialism, however, will attempt to capitalize on the losers in the Capitalist game. They portray them as the hard reality against which Capitalism crashes. Most folks, being somewhat ignorant of our own system of economics buy into it.
Anti-capitalists see these failures as a bug, while Capitalists see them as a feature. For us, the freedom to succeed also means the freedom to fail. You cannot have one without the other.
There are other bugs. Pure Capitalism gets distorted. There are the crony capitalists. They are the capitalists who invest in government rather than in the economy. They seek to skim the wealth rather than create it, because it gives a far greater return on their investment. In the long run, it is totally destructive to their own capitalist system, but as long as they get theirs, they do not care. As long as there are government types who will take their money and change the laws accordingly, they will do this. Basically, the government types get involved and distort the Capitalist system, causing it to fail. Thus, the financial bubble, the Real Estate bubble, and the S&L scandals of ’86.
People sabotage Capitalism, then proclaim that it doesn’t work. Then the power-seeking Socialists move in. They proceed to fail magnificently, and ’round and ’round we go.
Well, David you are right so far as it goes, but you are mostly describing the “exterior layers” of the Left: useful idiots, lower members of the Leftist/Democrat Nomenklatura, and lower level apparatchiks. You have missed the most salient point about the hard core “professional Left”: Power is what makes then tick.
That is what drives them, the raw lust for absolute power. I am surprise that you did not give this vice the frontmost place.
Throbbin Yobbin translated:
The powerful left-wingers who run the Democratic party and orchestrated the “yes we can believe we are the change we have been waiting for” movement have no morality, they have only lust for control. Their desire for power makes them do everything they can to pillage the American middle class to buy more mansions, yachts, and limos and line their camouflage organizations with ever more ill-gotten billions.
Since these socialist kingpins control the media they continually present images of Islam as the religion of peace, successful Blacks and poor and sweet Hispanics running across the border to live the american dream and rescue our economy. This makes Whites brainwashed by political correctness and define loyalty and authority with respect to a multicultural utopia and hence they overlook the evil machinations of the greedy for power socialist overlords like Soros, Bill Ayers and Harry Reid.
Progressives certainly believe in so called precious Mother Earth and are looking forward to manure her soil with the remains of around 100 million useful idiots who did not pass their exams in the reeducation camps. For the chosen few there will be pure, clean, organic, locally grown, healthy food.
Dear Rocker (25)
This is a fascinating suggestion of yours, though I suspect you would have far more expertise than I could muster to work it out. (Herrnstein’s and Murray’s The Bell Curve might be a good place to start.)I do try to keep up with the comments to articles when I can–some of these postings are truly splendid and argue for a collective erudition one doesn’t find in many other places. I sometimes wonder why some of the commenters aren’t writing articles of their own, since they seem more than capable and have much to offer. I don’t want to appear invidious by singling out certain names and neglecting others, but they are demonstrably there.
David
Sorry, but when I turn on my TV and see you tea baggers all dressed up in costumes screaming “SOSHULIZZUM!! FASHIZZUM!! and COMMANIZZUM!! as if they were interchangeable words, handcuffing reporters and physically attacking young women who disagree with you, I think it becomes abundantly clear who the children are.
Yuo must be watching that alternate reality TV channel. You know – the one that constantly plays inside your head. Especially when your meds begin to wear off.
Guess again.
Spank me with the TRUTH, honey!
Truth Time,
How very shallow, on the surface, knee-jerk type of response you espoused regarding Tea Party attendees in costume.
Lemme guess.. Liberal? hahaha
I believe you FAIL to understand the true meaning of ‘Liberal’ and what it supposedly encourages. Though only if you’re ‘Liberal’ right?
sot.
Now that is a thoughtful article Mr Solway. My version used to be that in primitive societies, adolescence was abruptly terminated by scary rituals. For boys, they were ritually “killed” or otherwise removed from the maternal bond (eg circumcision) and then reborn as a man. For girls, the onset of menstrual blood triggered ritual seclusion and eventual passage from child to a woman. In earlier western society the hard fact of having to earn one’s keep beyond an early age had the same effect as the primitive rituals.
In our modern societies we no longer do this so adolescence is never terminated. Military conscription was a substitute and divorce may serve as a way of becoming an adult, but we have lost the rites of passage from childhood to adulthood. The consequence is an extended, or perpetual adolescence in western societies and an corresponding increase in the number of lefty progressives.
Having read your article, I like your version better than mine.
David Solway’s article starts with some pop psychology to “explain” why the Left keeps trying to force statism on America. It pauses mid-stream to quote some stuff called “five moral values intrinsic to the human mind,” which neglects to mention that man is born tabula rasa and therefore he does not have intrinsic ideas. Mr. Solway also neglects to mention that actions such as “harm or care” are not moral values but consequences of premises that may or may not be praiseworthy.
Mr. Solway has clearly picked up ideas from arguments for individual rights, limited government and free-markets. He then mixes these ideas together in a mish-mash of untenable assertions derived from premises that contradict them. The most telling evidence for this is his proclamation that “Human nature simply cannot be re-engineered. The “human stain” is with us to stay.”
In other words, he gives validity to viciously evil notion of Original Sin which declares infants are evil upon birth. This is a view of the far religious right, which also seeks to deny individual rights in the name of “the common good” or some mystical revelation. So, reader be warned. Solway is not for a representative Republic. He is an authoritarian.
The kind of Republicans we need today would easily recognize that Leftists continue to shove their socialist programs at us because they want producers—all those who earn their own way, i.e. men of ability—to be enslaved. The goal is obvious: they want to destroy America. We see this most clearly in Mr. Obama’s steadfast adherence to nihilism. So Mr. Solway’s conclusion that Leftists are nothing other than emotionally retarded and/or poorly raised children is truly vacuous.
The kind of Republicans we need today would easily recognize that the vast majority of children are far better than any Leftist adult. And Leftists are far worse than a poorly raised child.
Evidently you have never heard of the three year old who killed his one year old brother with a milk bottle. Ever raise any kids? They come out of the chute capable of selfishness and must be taught morality. It ain’t in them. Good people are made not born. This is simple common sense. But then the left does not believe in that either.
The Original Sin is the Darwinian imperative. Read some evolutionary psychology before you embrace the Tabula Rasa. Try this to ease yourself into some knowledge http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851683569/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288309577&sr=1-2
I suggest that you learn about what Tabula Rasa actually means before citing that secularized Original Sin premise which dominates evo-psych.
What I find interesting is this entire essay attacking the Left which ultimately concludes that they are just bratty children — while ignoring the implicit conservatives’ self-conception of themselves as the parents who must discipline the children (whether they like it or not).
The notion that people should be treated as morally sovereign adults — moral individualism, in other words, upon which Americanism is based, where adults leave each other alone — makes no appearance in such a worldview.
This is the sort of thing that reminds me that in many ways, conservatives and Leftists deserve each other. Too bad we can’t get either one to leave the adults alone.
man is born tabula rasa and therefore he does not have intrinsic ideas.
-that’s not true. Human brains have evolved from their animal forebears in tandem, or in co-evolution, with language. This means we are all born to discover ideas that are intrinsic to a language-mediated consciousness of any human scene. The scenic, public nature of language, the fact that we are all born as both speakers and listeners, and not just one or the other, lead to various universal ideas, such as our intuition of some kind of inherent (if not always realized) moral equality of all who must exchange signs on a scene in order for there to be a human order, a shared understanding. Hierarchical societies (a late development in human history) that may seem to deny some aspects of equality nonetheless also incorporate this basic human intuition in various ways, e.g. the need for mutual recognition of shared signs among higher and lower.
-it’s also obviously the case that men and women are not blank slates in as much as we are born with all kinds of biological drives and instincts.
In other words, he gives validity to viciously evil notion of Original Sin which declares infants are evil upon birth.
-no way; it is clearly the case that human conflict, rooted in the nature of our mimetic desire (see the anthropology of Rene Girard), is a universal fact of life and that it leads to all kinds of evil. It’s not so much that the individual organism is born evil but that society is; and no one can escape being socialized in a society that is never simply good, but only more or less bad. The anthropology of any society entails a need for shared trust or faith in the group’s capacity to defer its potential violence, a shared sense of what is sacred, or untouchable, that is eroded by the operation of our competing desires to appropriate and consume for ourselves. This means we all have, given the nature of our desires, a tendency to do harm to each other, to do evil. This is somthing we must learn about in order to become better persons. THere is nothing particularly nice or innocent about the way young people treat each other. Notions of original sin, or similar ideas, are so common in various cultures but you can come along and denounce millennia of evolved human wisdom? And you call it all evil to boot (not seeing the apparent logical contradiction)? Come on.
This is a view of the far religious right, which also seeks to deny individual rights in the name of “the common good” or some mystical revelation. So, reader be warned. Solway is not for a representative Republic. He is an authoritarian.
-and now you engage in a form of scapegoating, by forcing a simple-minded and untenable dichotomy onto Solway (who is hardly an authoritarian and in my impression not one particularly enamored of the religious life), i.e. you stereotype and hence do something universally human and socially corrosive, but you don’t even have the self-awareness, apparently, to recognize this? What’s scapegoating, sacrificial violence (yes, even you are evidencing religious thinking which is inescapably human, even for atheists), if not original sin?
So Mr. Solway’s conclusion that Leftists are nothing other than emotionally retarded and/or poorly raised children is truly vacuous.
-here I think you have half a point, the beginnings of a counter-argument, but it’s not well developed because you were in such a hurry to denounce.
First, Jesus came to save sinners- one by one is how people are saved. Each man and woman must give an account of his life to God, and no one can stand in his/her place except Jesus.
Second, hating reality doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. You dismiss the doctrine of Original Sin, but you provide no legitimate argument against it, instead electing to call it loathsome. Well guess what, death is loathsome, but very real. Equally real is Original Sin.
The Left is not a new thing. It’s name just changes all the time. Early on it was once called ‘the mystery of iniquity’. Jesus spoke of the Left as those who love darkness and hate the light. You can always recognize them because they say things like “What IS truth?”
Do not think you are even going to slow them down much with this mid-term election. They will come roaring back even stronger when the shadow people find out about austerity measures. All that remains for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. The good men have been doing mostly nothing for fifty years and the tide has turned. Your own children will turn against you.
I usually like your pieces, David, but I found this one a bit hard to take. A few initial observations – members of one group in competition or conflict with another group are never quite objective about the other. Second, defining one’s own group – the conservatives – as morally superior to the liberal group based on a claim that conservatives are all rabid individualists (more or less) is a pretty solid contradiction. Beyond these observations, there is a fairly obvious one – but one rarely made here: all of these articles about Obama, conservative hopefuls, corruption (or at least the Talkbacks) generalize quite a lot. That is, they seem to posit these two groups and two ways of thinking; in fact, we can throw in a few more groups that are rarely mentioned (true libertarians, independents), then admit that no one individual conforms perfectly to some stereotype of this or that group.
Behind that, I was bemused by Rocker’s comment and your response to it. I’ll preface my remark by saying I’ve had a piece published here and essays and fiction published in a number of publications. So when I say that the bit about IQ and essentially pointing to the superior intellectual capacity of conservatives is beside the point. People who think their ideas are better (and that’s most people) will naturally assume that those who agree with them are smarter than those that disagree. Yes, there are some very good writers in these sections and I too would like to see them write pieces. Several have, but please let’s not go to this (adolescent) competition of intellectuality. There are lots of ‘smart’ liberals – IQ is not the problem.
But, yes, I agree that many more liberals than conservatives have arrested political development. Then again, I too have a bias against liberalism so…
As a former leftist who toted Chomsky’s turgid volumes along the Charles River, I agree with everything here, and celebrate David Solway as my favorite apostate. I’ve read and refer constantly to his “The Big Lie.” Thanks again.
Now it makes sense. The other day I was thinking about how so many of Obama’s male advisors don’t look manly. Most are milquetoasts and/or metrosexual: very soft and inoffensive looking (save for the likes of Rahm who was sent packing). Yet this only masks their malign intent to impose a dictatorship on the US and totally remake it in its mirror image, that of a socialist Utopia.
Now I get it. The Left loves this kind of man because they look like a doting father or grandfather who never critisizes, never says no and is always there to hand out money on demand no questions asked and will let the kids crash on the sofa as long as they want. That’s more or less what these same Obama men are selling. “Free” health care, more welfare, jobs and great pay and a lovely green world to save the dirt. Most of all, they are saying, like a doting father, we’ll beat up those nasty men who want to say you are wrong for partying all the time, to make you get a real education, who run for profit corporation that ruin the earth while making the things the kiddies howl and scream to have.
It also makes sense about the polarization and the destruction of the individual. Being an individual implies beind responsible for oneself. Being part of a group, like in a riot, means its the group doing it, no individual responsibility anymore, or so the logic goes. But the group is highly selective and if you don’t believe just so, you are evil and have to go. Thus the dehumanization of the opponent. There is a video on Youtube about the 8 stages of genocide. If you watch that, this particular point will be clear.
Very enlightening article and it makes the antics of the rank and file of the other side make sense. They just need to grow up so they can stop being exploited by the handful of evil ones at the top, the ones hiding behind benevolent faces.
The “human stain” is with us to stay.
The answer to this primitive sophistry, ultimate and always shall remain the same:
Speak for yourself, buster.
Mr. Solway, so eloquently put.
I read ‘The Big Lie..’ recently. Fascinating.
I too am bookmarking this article. Thank you.
November 2nd.. http://www.ontheissues.org
Thanks for joining in on this topic (and for the links), David.
The more Americans who understand the dynamic behind this phenomenon, the better the chances we can get our Republic – and Western Civilization – back onto a rational footing.
BTW, I’m not ‘anonymous’. Through hard experience I’ve simply learned to be very careful to whom I reveal my identity. And yes, adolescent behavior (i.e., vandalism of my home) was a factor there.
Carry on!!
Best way to determine if the ideas presented are valid, let’s look to history. There are many fine illustrations.
I honestly think this is the best article i’ve ever read…….seriously!
So, what is YOUR “realistic” agenda really all about?? Betterment of the planets environment is seemingly put into the left wing agenda, and automatically suspect of ulterior selfish economic motives?? When we label ideas, we automatically create a chasm between people, and cast them into groups, and ultimately postpone much needed solutions. The clock is ticking on global warming and the poisoning of this planet, while those who deny its’ existance, and remedy, selfishly stick to their own narrow minded, short term sefl-interests!!! Left wing ideas may seem unrealistic, but so did walking on the moon before 1960!!! Be careful what you dream, you just might get it!!!