A self defense that sacrifices the protected self.
After a turbulent life, you will surmise that nothing that could surprise you could happen. A piece of stunning information that the writer picked up lately proves that, the theory of having seen it all, is wrong.
The reader is likely to have two meanings for the term “Liberal”. In the USA, the term’s usual definition is that, the liberal is left-of-center but claims that he is the center. Most liberals will resent the leftist tag. In their view, their education, intelligence and the sensitivity derived from their philosophy, puts them above party politics. Due to their cerebral qualities and ethics, liberals claim to be able to see merits in any position. This enables them to discover a value in what the left advocates. Therefore, they support these against the reactionaries located on their right of the political spectrum.
European liberals see themselves as dedicated to reasoned fairness. That being so, their place on the left-right spectrum is to be assigned according to the tradition that goes back to John Locke, the Enlightenment, J.S. Mill and the like. Nowadays, this intellectual inheritance is used to legitimize Liberalism’s current positions. The argument cited in behalf of the correctness of liberal politics also draws ammunition from having opposed absolute monarchy, dictatorships and the likes of Nazism.
Extremisms from the right remained a favorite foe after the world war. However, the wartime need for a tactical alliance on the state level with the totalitarian left has muted into a new force. It deescalated the inclination to confront the remaining tyrannies once the Nazis were defeated. Because of that, the distinction that separated the proponents of radical collectivism from the individualistic libertarian core of classical Liberalism lost its contours. The lip service of Socialists to freedom and justice through equality made an impression. The goals of improving mankind appeared to be compatible. Thus, the contradictions implied by the validity of equality as a goal could be overlooked. In this process, the ideological open mindedness of Liberalism tended to slip down on the slope of relativism. At the end of the incline stood the danger that, by concentrating on the grey areas, the movement will ignore the picture’s blacks and whites. In college, the writer –then a liberal in the process of recovery- reacted to this in a meeting. He opined that there are situations in which even a Liberal is obligated is to take a stand and to risk not only his fortune but also his life. Revealingly, no one liked the idea that went over like a lead balloon.
Lately, Liberalism – the American and the traditional European version – has lost much of its attraction. A disenchanted electorate is asserting its independence as the traditional parties fail to address its perceived problems. Inadequacy begins with a refusal to admit that those problems that do not fit the liberal “Weltanschauung” still exist and demand attention. This revolt of the hitherto leadable masses has led to a notable reaction.
To implement its projects in the face of growing skepticism and resistance, Liberalism has developed an affinity to statism. The process underlines the spreading perception of Liberalism’s leftward drift. This convergence is not the result of the left becoming liberal in the classical sense. Even the overtly, covertly or ignorance fed Marxist-inspired Left is discovering that, the control of institutions give it instruments to implement its program. Remember the times when Liberals and Socialists faced the state with suspicion? For freeedom’s sake Liberals wanted to limit the state, Socialists craved to “abolish” it.
Accordingly, Liberalism as practiced, is suffering from the charge of having become a legitimizer of collectivist policies. Liberals are inclined to protest the allegation. A recent experience –the reason for this commentary- can be told now.
The discretion promised demands that the context in which the matter is embedded be presented as an opaque wrapping. Therefore, the guesses to identify that context will miss their target. However, this “air brushing” has no impact on the central issue presented.
Conjure up a scene. The participants are a leading figure of an important and once, in the classical sense, liberal publication. His partner in the private talk represents a state. The latter bemoans that the line of coverage of his country copies the attack of the global Left. Consterned, he recalled the traditional commitment of the paper to ideas mow espoused by his government. Thereupon the media man responded, “Today’s Liberals need to be Leftists”.
While we interpret it, we should appreciate the honesty of the answer. Notably, the quote does not question the allegation of leftist bias. Nor is here any trace of the excuse that the facts are libelously interpreted. Neither is it doubted that convergence is morally valid. Consequently, we have an admission to a consciously implemented leftist line. It issues from a perceived threat to the entire political class. As such, we discover a self-defense twitch that sacrifices a movement’s self in order to preserve the public positions of its leaders. This leaves us with two further conclusions. One: The core values of genuine Liberalism have been relocated. Do not look for them where they used to be. Two: While information regarding the rats is lacking, the captains have fled the ship.
"Captians have fled the ship"
I like that, but the crew is still aboard and we can right the ship.
The author makes some salient observations. His first; IMHO is; “Today’s Liberals need to be Leftists”. After liberalisms utter failure to turn America to their point-of-view in the late 60.s, they realized that in order to beat the Man they had to become the man. Crashing the system was impossible from the outside. First they had to co-opt the process. Only then could they dismantle capitalism in favor of redistributive social justice..
POTUS’ tenure is proof positive. Liberals made a ’deal with the Devil’ by forming alliances with a plethora of committed leftists such as Van Jones & Bill Ayers. They also disguised their true aspirations with platitudes of .positive change’ and post-partisan political cooperation. They then used their legislative majorities to shove their version of change down the throats of the American people. When they lost their majorities in the mid-terms, they fell back on the liberal definition of ’compromise’ which is always for their ideological opponents to eschew their own principles and agree with them. Just look at the current payroll tax extension. We can’t find that money in budget savings; it’s absolutely impossible according to them. It HAS to come in the form of forcibly confiscating personal wealth and redistributing it to others.
The author‘s second salient point; “While information regarding the rats is lacking, the captains have fled the ship.” Actually the captains (the thinking people) have abandoned the party and it is now being guided solely by the rats. The OWS crowd was just the latest manifestation of this; demanding the present system be immediately scrapped because of their own perceptions of what they need. “Kill the rich and give us their cash! Or we‘ll hold our breath till we turn blue!” was the battle cry. Yet; if you wanted a view into their brave new world you had to look no further than the squalid, criminal conditions of their own ‘camps’. They weren’t even capable of forming a work party to remove their own excrement. I guess all the infrastructure and public services in their New World will just appear, as if by magic. All these intelligent minds and no one smart enough to rig a camper’s toilet?
Now focus on the vacuous liberal leadership in the Congress that embraced these morons! Their comments equalizing the OWS crowd with middle American values speaks volumes as to how they view us as people absolutely incapable of anything other than begging for scraps from the table of the state. How disgusting!
People need to understand that the relationship between liberalism and eventual totalitarianism is inseparable. All such redistributive systems, once enacted, always demand sacrifices in liberty in return for the veneer of some kind of perceived ’security’.
The path of social democracy and redistributive social justice leads to no other place other than to eventual totalitarianism. A more direct observation that may be applied to our current situation is that even with all the advances in technology our society enjoys; ideological command-and-control economies are still impossible: Too many Black Swans.
""The path of social democracy and redistributive social justice leads to no other place other than to eventual totalitarianism"
And totalitarianism leads to poverty for not only those "so called" poor with their flat screen TVs and iPhones, but for all working people. Just recently my wife told me about waiting in a long queue, 35 years ago in Russia, to buy blood sausage mixed with large amounts of rice. To all the OWSers “Be careful what you wish for”
Black Swans? Certainly you are not speaking about Obama, are you? The theory specifies surprise, fallacy, and unpredictability. Maybe to the 53%, but surely not to me. In fact I'll make a prediction that I will amend my assessment of the USA next November. After Nixon’s resignation I said “What a wonderful country that we can survive a crook”. In one year it will be a crook and a commie. God bless the USA!