Get PJ Media on your Apple

Spengler

Why Liberals Don’t Care About Consequences

April 29th, 2014 - 12:35 pm

Liberals don’t see failed liberal policies as “failed,” any more than people of faith think that unanswered prayers are “failed” prayers. The difference is that people of faith abnegate themselves in prayer to a wholly-other divine person, while liberal poster-children subject the world to the narcissistic demands of their own spiritual needs. Jody isn’t the first to make the point. “Remember the war against Franco/That’s the kind where each of us belongs,” sang Tom Lehrer. “He may have won all the battles/But we had all the good songs.” But he makes it in a theologically-informed way that exposes the phenomenology of liberal self-worship.

The slaughter in Syria is a minor annoyance to the poster children, whereas peace and prosperity in Israel are cataclysmic disasters. That sounds funny, but it isn’t to the liberals: bringing a liberally-conceived peace to the Middle East is one of those Great Opportunities for Redemption, and to miss it is a tragedy of unimaginable proportions. Darwin forbid that Israel might carry on as a pocket superpower in science, business, and the arts, educating and empowering a new Arab middle class, without submitting to the demands of liberal theology. It’s not only John Kerry who stands to lose his last shot at a Nobel Prize. Liberals of all stripes stand to lose the chance, to demonstrate that particularity (for example, Zionism) is inherently wrong and that liberal universality is right.

You can’t argue with liberals. Prove to them their policy has made things worse, and they will say in effect, “Worse for whom? It sure made me feel better!” Tell them that they have foredained their own extinction because their metrosexuality doesn’t leave time for children, and they will gaze heavenward and contemplate martyrdom on behalf of the earth-goddess Gaia. There are too many people polluting the earth anyway.

Dr. Frankenstein didn’t care that he had created a monster. You can’t argue with the man; the only thing to do is to persuade the villagers to march on his castle.

A postscript on neo-conservatives: Irving Kristol liked to say that a neoconservative was a liberal who was mugged by reality. The neocons were liberals who actually cared about the consequences of their actions, and ipso facto stopped being liberals. After the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the failed Bush Freedom Initiative, the abortive Arab Spring, and the Libyan disaster, there appear to be diminishing returns to the marginal mugging.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Whenever someone talks of supporting Israel “because it's the right thing to do”, I cringe. There are many excellent reasons to support Israel, and helping the State of Israel is a rational act.

Idolaters have a way of turning against their idol once their idol fails to measure up to what the idolater imagines it ought to be. Those who idolize Israel all too often turn into Israel's worst enemies. As opposed to regarding Israel itself as an idol, arguments for supporting Israel must be made in terms of rational – and national – self interest.

Israel is many things, but most importantly it is real. There is much in the real Israel to admire. There are many different visions of what Israel ought to be, but the only Israel that exists within reality is the real Israel.

The real Jerusalem is not the Jerusalem of my imagination, and that's a good thing.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
A liberal would care....that's why those who do not, are not liberal.

A radical leftist only wishes to impose radical leftism. He does not care about collateral damage. Two million Cambodians, starving children because of dwindling food supplies, eagles chopped up by windmills....you were expecting compassion, remorse, regret, a weeping Sally Struthers perhaps?

Sorry, a conscience is necessary...and completely unavailable.

By any means necessary and by every means available. The lapdog media will not hold them accountable and frankly, they don't care either.

Radical leftism is a cult. As John The Bupkis bellowed..."we will not be questioned". Indeed.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
My usual correction: The so-called 'Liberals' are not liberals. They're Leftists. To call them 'Liberal' is Orwellian double-speak. About the only thing they're liberal about is the liberal use of government power to deprive us of our freedoms. That so many Americans vote for these Leftists does not bode well for our republic.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (92)
All Comments   (92)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Obviously, liberals prefer to effortlessly exploit others, rather than honestly work for a living. The common thief also profits at the uncompensated expense of others, however the common thief risks retribution, and liberals prefer to enjoy the profits of risk free exploitation with neither retribution nor disruption.

To avoid persecution for theft, and to remain close to their prey, liberals conceived the scam of the do-gooder welfare state, (previously called socialism, fascism or communism.) Redefining as “charity for the poor” not to mention “liberty, equality and justice for all,” as well as “national and global well being,” their welfare state political process, which is actually the political exploitation of a nation’s entire working class, liberals are able to use the tax and regulatory proceeds to enrich tax sucking thieves in all walks of life, from the largest of big business to the smallest of welfare supported gangs, liberals all. Not only does the scam provide risk free, work free, nearly unlimited funds but liberals can also bask in the admiration of the many fooled by their propaganda.

And that’s why liberals don’t analyze for errors when the consequences of their politics are exactly opposite of their stated goal of widespread peaceful prosperity… because that’s not their goal and they’ve made no errors. They’ve successfully achieved their goal and the consequences are exactly what they intended… a political system in which liberals can take whatever they want, from whoever has it.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
The other side of liberalism's secular faith is that just as they cast themselves as righteous and their dogma as good, this necessitates an evil that they oppose. Lacking an external focus such as Satan, they project this role on their political opponents, Republicans and conservatives. As such, since racism is evil and Republicans are evil, all Republicans must be racists, etc.

On the personal level this is wearing. I have family members who will one moment say "I love you" and the next believe whole heart that conservatives (like me) are mean, heartless people who want poor people to starve and babies to die. What we are seeing now, however, with the IRS scandal and other indications in this administration, is the beginnings of what happens when this faith is given the full power and might of the State.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Conservative party platform Puritanism is creating an internal battle of Republicans against the Tea Party in opposition to it. The Drug War is wholly idealistic and its red tape has shut down generations of scientific research into both higher consciousness and addiction treatment. Bans on stem cell research funding and attacks on evolutionary theory too, and treating women like secondary citizens unworthy of making their *own* reproductive decisions, all these things being old school very well known tendencies, they don't get enough votes, whereas this new fangled secular religiosity does get votes due to mere opposition to old school Puritanism since so few everyday mostly urban voters who dominate national elections are even aware of leftism as itself being a form of zealous fanatacism, so far. But when the Tea Party adopts religion so closely, as it indeed has, it merely becomes pigeonholed as an extremist version of Puritanism, which it is not. Appearances are all that matter though in voting cycles. So shut up about abortion you fools, since singing to the old school choir loses you elections due to single urban women in a post Sex In The City era who romantically police single urban men too. If you do that, the foibles of Obamacare lies and the backlash against Gore's doomsday climate religion will carry you far.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ah, another "the only morality that counts is secular morality" troll. Isn't there a group of anarchists you need to rally?
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ah, the close relative of the concern troll - the false-choice troll.

Beyond the disinformation present in your post about the connection between bible thumping and the Tea Party, you present the reader with an either/or that makes no sense on any level. The reality on the ground is that some modicum of behavior management in the realm of vices like drug abuse and sexual license is synergistic with economic conservatism. There is no such thing as "socially liberal" conservatives. The accurate term is "leftist who wants a balanced government budget", perhaps, or "leftist who doesn't like paying taxes".

On a more practical level, the increased number of out of wedlock births that inevitably result from the sexual chaos you would ignore, and the government dependency they always incur, provide the most fertile ground possible for things like multigenerational welfare, Obamacare or casual abortion. This combination of government funding and court enforced license to behave without any restrictions is the tag team that keeps amoral, evilly self-interested women on the Democrat plantation. The Dems promise them that they can engage in sexual behavior that is as impractical and illogical as it is immoral, and there will never be any negative consequences for a pregnancy from that behavior because they can either get an abortion or be funded to raise a child that results.

In order to get those urban women to go for anyone but the Dems you would have to become the Dems on social issues AND the welfare state. It isn't an either/or proposition, and to imply that it is one is to put forth a false choice. In fact, the women you mention have already decided, by their behavior and voting record, that it is a false choice. Drop the objections to the moral issues, Nik, but keep the pressure on to get rid of welfare state and Obamacare and the jobs program known as global warming, and the women you mention will still vote for Democrats. That's the truth of it. As long as conservatives remain conservative in any way (fiscal OR social) urban single women will never vote for them anyways, no matter how badly Obamacare screws up or how ridiculous the global warming become, because if the Dems will continue to indemnify women from the financial consequences of an out of wedlock birth through the welfare system, single women will vote for Dems, period.

Better to stay true to your principles and win amongst those who have them, regardless of the economics of the situation, which, as I pointed out, will not sway people who do not benefit by conservative principles in the economic realm anyways. In order for conservatives to truly win, they have to get together, and not snipe at each other about "social cons" vs "econ cons". Both things are necessary to have a functioning society. Both things are necessary to be a true conservative. Both things are necessary to get together a coalition for victory.

No more false choices.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Very well put!
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm responding to no mo uro that is!
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
You know that you just proved his point for him. Right?
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm not sure how asking him to consider not throwing anyone who is socially conservative under the bus proves his point. Convince me.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
" liberals look for salvation in a set of right opinions–on race, the environment, income distribution, gender, or whatever"

Most important thing you wrote here David. How else could the left approve of smoking marijuana in public and expose others to toxic carcinogens but seek to outlaw tobacco and even e-cigs on the basis that the later two are a public health menace. The ignorance and hypocrisy is stunning.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
...as is the inconsistency of their logic/policy. That's because it's an attempt at patronage leading to expanded power.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
When we wingnuts say talk about consequences (e.g., that capitalists will hire fewer workers as a result of minimum wage laws), that is interpreted as blackmail being announced by the mouthpieces of the board of directors of Capitalism Incorporated. Never mind that capitalism doesn't actually have a board of directors. The apparent belief is that if the minimum wage is reduced or eliminated, Capitalism Inc. will make more demands. "Let's insist that consumers be forced to buy things and that defaulting debtors have their foreheads branded O for Overdrawn!"
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
But Capitalism Incorporated DOES have a board of directors in the leftist mind. I believe Dr. Clare Spark, who often comments here and on this topic, would suggest this ideology has its roots in anti-semitism among the Left and its belief in a worldwide cadre of Jews in capital finance that control worldwide commerce. (see: http://clarespark.com/2014/04/05/standing-up-to-bullying-social-democrats/)

Forgive me Dr. Spark if I have misunderstood your writing on this subject.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Lefties also have their own apocalypse mythos. In Christianity it's the arrival of the AntiChrist; in liberalism it's Global Warming, in which there will be a secular punishment for all the non-believers.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, I envision the CAGW "Armageddon" scenario of rising seas and mega-hurricanes and tornadoes as more of an "anamist" punishment. The Earth goddess is angry with us and requires a few human sacrifices to assuage her anger before she destroys us all in a fit of rage.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
So true. Though I would focus more on the domestic policy stuff. I have said for a long time that liberals are not liberal about anything these days, except with other peoples' money.
And when they are liberal with other peoples' money, the have this self righteous attitude about how morally superior they are and how compassionate they are. And it doesn't matter one bit if the aid achieves its goal, because they can smugly say that it's their intentions that matter.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
"...the only thing to do is to persuade the villagers to march on his castle"
Indeed. I've thought that for a long time now. Hard to argue with somebody who has a different set of rules that are constantly changing to...blah blah blah. Saul Alinsky at least knew who he was working for.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Don't forget that there has only been one instance of a radical smaller country negotiating away their nuke and WMD programs, and that was Libya soon after 9/11. One would think that the move should be held up as an example for others, and that the regime, no matter how crazy it's leadership, should be protected. Instead, Obama's people took out Ghadafi, because he was too secular and not religiously fundamental enough. How stupid is that, and what other country will ever acquiesce to give up their arms in the future? Good one, liberals.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Another one was Ukraine.
And taking Ghaddaffi out was not stupid. It was calculated move to spread chaos. To what goal I do not know. My guess it is similar to goals prompting Yugoslavia invasion.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All